meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_12232019_19-1330
|
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 19 dash 1330 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you Councilman Hines, your motion to amend it.
Speaker 3: Thank you Mr. President. I move that council don't 19 dash 1330 be amended with the following particulars one on page one line 21 strike 20190104 and replace with December 20, 2019 and two on line 22, strike 20190104 and replace with 20190108.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Right now, elevator mechanics have no required timeframe in which they need to respond to people trapped in elevators here in Denver. Denver, excuse me, Denver fire reports responding to an average of eight elevator entrapments daily, which means about 3000 a year. Also in 2017, in Denver, a man died while trapped in an elevator despite pressing the emergency call button twice. Although elevator companies are supposed to monitor elevators, no one responded to this man's calls. Inoperable emergency phones are a common issue per Denver fire. Having a timely response from the elevator mechanic has become increasingly important. Public safety is at risk with so many entrapments each day, and safety is also at risk when fire teams are unavailable to respond to other calls. While at these entrapments, the building code does allow for Denver fire to issue fines for noncompliance. However, Denver Fire stated in committee that they have never issued a citation for an entity acting in good faith. Thank you for that. I would understand and support their decision. Should Denver Fire want to consider the maintenance record of elevators when considering good feet? A properly maintained elevator does not fail as often is a poorly maintained one, and I would encourage building owners and elevator companies to maintain their elevators. We use elevators as a means to an end and no one enters an elevator expecting to get trapped in it. Finally, I want to thank Denver Fire for their commitment to public safety and for all you do for our city, they are here and available. Should you have questions? Otherwise, I ask for an I vote to the amendment and to the bill. And I'm sorry. One other thing, Mr. President, your comment about this bill was spot on. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. See no other comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, as you work on the amendment.
Speaker 1: I black i. CdeBaca I.
Speaker 3: Flynn I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Cashman, i.
Speaker 1: Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting announced the results. 1339 is comfortable. 1330 has been amended. So now we're going to vote on the bill as amended? Yes, Madam Secretary, do we need that that one on the floor as amended or we just need to go on to the vote?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we can just go ahead and vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. Unless there are comments by members of council, then we're going to vote on the bill as amended, seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call on 1330 as amended.
Speaker 1: Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an eye. Gilmore I heard it. I had Eye Cashman.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 1: Kenny Ortega, i. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please go to the voting announce announced results.
Speaker 1: 1339.
Speaker 0: As Gainesville 1330 has passed and I did fail to mention back on 1313 for the Botanic Gardens that we will have a courtesy public hearing on final consideration of Council Bill 19 1313 on Monday, January 6th. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilwoman said, if you please put Council
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver.
Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to adopt the 2018 International Code Council (ICC) construction codes and Denver amendments to those codes as the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code and adds an optional Denver Green Code. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-6-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-3-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12232019_19-1341
|
Speaker 0: As Gainesville 1330 has passed and I did fail to mention back on 1313 for the Botanic Gardens that we will have a courtesy public hearing on final consideration of Council Bill 19 1313 on Monday, January 6th. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilwoman said, if you please put Council Bill 1341 on the floor.
Speaker 4: I move that council bill 19 Dash 1341 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. And Councilwoman, I take it, did you want this is the other one that was tied. Did you want to make another comment or. Okay. All right, then. Seeing no comments on this one. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Ortega. No black. I said Abarca, i. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Hi. Kinney Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. Torres, I.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. One name, 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: When they count, about 1341 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. 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 an item out for a separate vote. Councilman Taylor Barker, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. Vote for the following items. 19 Dash 1303 19 Dash 13 1019 Dash 1302 19 Dash 1340 219. Dash 1340 419. Dash 1340 519. Dash 1340 619. Dash 1315 5019. Dash 1350 120. Dash 1619. Dash 12 8919. Dash 1320 119. Dash 11 7619. Dash 13 1519. Dash 13, 28, 19, Dash 13, 29. And that is it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black. Hi, said Ibaka, I. Flynn Hi, Gilmore. I turned.
Speaker 3: In. Hi. Hi. Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no hearings, this evening's scheduled council will not take a recess.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from General Fund Contingency, and making a cash transfer to and an appropriation in the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Fund.
Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,300,000 from 2019 General Fund Contingency to transfer cash to the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Project Fund to purchase property located at 4280 Kearney Street, known as Tooley Hall Residential Reentry Center, a community corrections facility. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1291
|
Speaker 4: Eight. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And I actually apologize. I wasn't here during public comment, actually got the answers to some of my questions. I do want to make a quick comment, though. Constituents of Denver's have said trees are the top issue facing in the survey responses for the central area plan. And we were excited. We still are. We we were then and we still are excited about the planting of additional trees because downtown central business district has 4%, urban canopy uptown has 14% urban carry canopy, which a lot of uptown is part of this plan. And and so we have heard from public works that they're going to make even more clear in their documents that any 5G provider, as they as they install fiber in the city, that they have to put it at least three feet deep. And as we understand it, and forestry and parts are here if if necessary. But as we understand it, three foot depth is a minimum depth to make sure that we can have urban canopy with a proper root system. So I want to thank public works for for making sure that that is clear in our documents as we as we continue to evolve our standards for for 5G installation. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I wanted.
Speaker 2: To I'm glad you called this out, because I wanted to call it out.
Speaker 10: Because I think it deserves a separate vote and a separate, separate conversation. It's very important that we're addressing our tree canopy in this city, specifically in the areas that we know have been identified as the most deficient areas. I'm concerned about how this came about without a public process or without open access for other neighborhoods to be able to access this $3 million. And so with the Downtown Denver Partnership being able to drive a process without it being open to others, especially when we know there's great inequity in this city, I think it's an inappropriate way for us to allocate those taxpayer dollars and not having a community process, not having an open up. Open process is going to lead me to not support this tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines had just called this up for questions, but you would like to call it up for a separate vote. All right. So, Madam Secretary, we'll need a motion to put it on the floor. Yes. All right. Councilman Rogers, will you put 1291 on the floor to be adopted.
Speaker 2: And move the council resolution 1291 be placed on the floor for a vote?
Speaker 0: All right. For adoption has been moved and seconded. Any other comments on this item before we vote? See none. I will just add that I said this in committee so I won't go too much into it. But when we put to a in front of the voters to increase funding for our parks, one of the key tenants of that was that that funding would be spent on our urban canopy and on trees through our forestry department. And one of the other things that we talked about in our conversation with voters when it came to $2 was that they were approving a tax increase and it was about $40 million. I think it ended up being more like 35 this year because of how sales tax goes up and down by $35 million a year. But that we were going to work hard to leverage those dollars to get matching dollars to make that go even further so that we could make an even bigger investment in our greenspaces and all the value that trees and parks and open space bring to our city. And so I was very excited to see this move forward because it is an area where for every dollar we spend, it's being matched with $2. And so we're taking that investment and we're growing it and leveraging it as we're building this urban canopy and trees in our urban core. So I was excited to see this coming forward and I will be happy to support it today. Councilwoman CdeBaca, did you have something else that I.
Speaker 7: Just want to also.
Speaker 10: Point out that this is in a bid where I think that the expectation is that these entities will figure out how to leverage dollars among themselves and use the taxes that they're levying upon themselves to do this kind of work. So just wanted to also point that out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca no black eye.
Speaker 0: When I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, I.
Speaker 6: Herndon, I. Hines, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman Kenny Ortega, I swear I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please. Because Voting Notes Results.
Speaker 2: One ni 11 ais.
Speaker 0: One nay 11 AIS Resolution 1291 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Hines, you had to comment on this one on 1330.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Civic Ventures, Inc. to fund the Urban Forest Initiative grant program.
Approves an agreement with Denver Civic Ventures for $3 million and through 12-31-24 to fund the Urban Forest Initiative grant program to expand and enhance downtown’s urban tree canopy by planting new trees and improving existing planting areas in Council Districts 9 and 10 (201952681). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-6-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-3-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1330
|
Speaker 0: One nay 11 AIS Resolution 1291 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Hines, you had to comment on this one on 1330.
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. And this is a comment in the in the. But the purpose is full transparency. So just for what it's worth, next week, unless I hear good reason. Otherwise, I will propose an amendment to 19 Dash 1330. Specifically, I intend to propose a narrow amendment requiring a one hour response time for elevator companies when someone has become trapped in an elevator due to a power or mechanical failure. This is a result of multiple complaints by constituents in districts nine and ten. And I did touch base with Councilman CdeBaca in advance to verify that this is the case. And these two districts of the two districts with the most elevators in the city. As we continue to grow, as the city will continue to need additional elevators that function correctly. And in case you already know, in case excuse me in case you don't already know, Denver fire reports needing to rescue eight people each day in Denver from trapped elevators. Denver Fire also reports that a common report is that the phones in those elevators that are stuck also do not work. Denver excuse me? Denver Airport reports that their minutes contract has a ten minute response time. And and certainly they pay for that response time. But the point is that elevator companies can respond. And, of course, you know, there's a there's a financial component there. But but there's a financial component in any maintenance contract, particularly, or as an example, the maintenance contract that that my HRA has with our elevator company is there's a financial component. So Denver Fire reports that this response time is in line with other industries. So this is not out of out of purpose. And and just part of the reason why I'm making this public today is because we reached out multiple times to the elevator companies. And after this went through Ludy, we reached out and the response was, quote, Due to vacation and travel schedule, I will not be available until January ten. Quote, It is impossible for us to have a dialog with an industry that that cannot be available until after this is passed. So so I'm putting it out here that I'm soliciting input from anyone who thinks that this this amendment is not prudent. The last thing I'd say is that I just I won't go back over this because I already mentioned it in Ludie and committee, but I shared several concerns about. Elevators. Elevator maintenance and the relationship between proper elevator maintenance and having to rescue people from broken elevators. So if you have any concerns or comments or input about elevators or elevator maintenance or any reason why we should not have a one hour response time in line with every other industry, please reach out to the District ten office. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Since you called this out, I'm just going to quickly say outside of elevators, there is a lot to be excited about in this code, especially when it comes to the environment and how our buildings are built and what kind of energy they use and what kind of emissions they release. And in addition to that, for the first time ever in Denver, we will have the Denver Green Code, which gets us even closer to where we need to be to be addressing climate change and meeting the science based standards that have been set forward that we need to be meeting as a city lot to be excited about in here, even if we have a few kinks to work out before we get it fully approved. But looking forward to that. All right. Next up, Madam Secretary, I believe we're now on to 1341. And Councilman Ortega, I am correct in remembering that you are the one called out for a vote.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver.
Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to adopt the 2018 International Code Council (ICC) construction codes and Denver amendments to those codes as the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code and adds an optional Denver Green Code. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-6-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-3-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1341
|
Speaker 0: in here, even if we have a few kinks to work out before we get it fully approved. But looking forward to that. All right. Next up, Madam Secretary, I believe we're now on to 1341. And Councilman Ortega, I am correct in remembering that you are the one called out for a vote. That is correct. All right, Councilwoman Torres, will you please put 1341 on the floor to be ordered published.
Speaker 2: And move that Resolution 1341 be adopted?
Speaker 0: I think it's a bill, not a resolution. Madam Secretary, in that ordered, published, not adopted. Correct. Thank you. All right. So okay. 1341, Bill, 1341 to be ordered published. All right. We have the motion and the second comments from members of the council, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to explain my no vote on this. This is for acquisition of a property that has historically been used as a community correction facility in the city of Denver. As you know, we had a vote that changed the contracts, and I was in agreement with the policy issue of divesting from the two companies that run ICE facilities around the country. However, this is putting more money back into the same pockets of those companies, one of those companies that we are divesting from. I know we are working aggressively to try to solve long term solutions for through zoning and through the work of a work group trying to figure out what are those solutions. And I know this is part of one of those steps, but I'm not in agreement that we should be. There was no RFP process on this, and just because this one property became available, then we just automatically moved to acquire it. And so I'm not in agreement with the procedural steps that we've gone through. So I'm going to be voting no on this tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, call.
Speaker 2: Sorry. I'm waiting for my system here.
Speaker 0: Technology. But Channel eight has some pretty groovy music on right now though. Sorry for everybody was here.
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry. It froze. Okay. Sorry. Ortega. No black eye seat. Abarca. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I Hinds. Cashman. I can eat.
Speaker 7: Sawyer, i.
Speaker 2: Torres, i. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please. Because voting announce the results.
Speaker 2: One May, 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: One day, 11 days. 1341 has been ordered published. All right. That concludes the item is called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published except for 1176 and 1289, as council will hold a hearing and vote on each bill separately after recess.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from General Fund Contingency, and making a cash transfer to and an appropriation in the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Fund.
Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,300,000 from 2019 General Fund Contingency to transfer cash to the Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance Project Fund to purchase property located at 4280 Kearney Street, known as Tooley Hall Residential Reentry Center, a community corrections facility. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1158
|
Speaker 0: But. All right. Welcome back. Council is reconvened. We have four public hearings this evening. Speaker should begin their remarks by telling the counsel of their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium. State your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time on the presentation mind or on the wall. You will see your time counting down. 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 structure your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. All right, Councilwoman Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1158 on the floor.
Speaker 2: And move that council Bill 19 dash 1158 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1158 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Good evening. Teresa Lucero with community planning and Development. This is a rezoning application for 1369. Queen Street is in Council District five in the East Colfax neighborhood. The request is to rezone from urban edge single unit D1 to Urban Edge single unit d1x that would allow that would in effect allow the construction of an accessory dwelling unit . So the property is about 6500 square feet. It is currently a single family residence. As I said, it's zoning is urban edge, single unit. And the request is to go to urban edge, single unit, one that allows accessory dwelling units. So the existing zoning is ESU directs and surrounding zoning on all sides is yes, udc's existing land use is a single family residence, as is the surrounding land use. This is a block off of East Colfax Avenue where there is a mixture of uses commercial, industrial and mixed use. And a block east of Quebec Avenue. Quebec Street. Sorry. So existing building form and scale. Mostly all single family homes. 1 to 2 stories, as you can see in the photos here. Information notice on this of a complete application went out in September of 2019. Planning board hearing was October of this year and there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. And then we were at Liberty on November 5th of this year. And this council hearing has been properly noticed for the public hearing tonight. So public comment, there is one R.A. letter of support for this application, one email and opposition and one another private individual wrote in a letter of support. So review criteria. The relevant plans are a plan 2040 Blueprint 2019, the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan of 1994 and Housing and Inclusive Denver of 2018. All of these strategies from current Plan 2000 apply as detailed in your staff report, but basically discuss increasing housing, increasing affordable housing, encouraging private development where infrastructure's already in place and that's in character with the existing neighborhood, as I said detailed in your staff report, The Blueprint Denver This is in the urban edge context, which is predominantly residential and tends to act as the transition between urban and suburban areas and is generally single and two unit residential with some low scale multi-unit throughout Blueprint Denver The place type is low residential, which is predominantly single unit and two unit with some accessory dwelling units. The street type for Quinn Street is an designated local street and 14th Avenue is a residential collector street. Quebec a block over is a residential arterial growth area. Strategy is all other areas of the city. So this area is projected to absorb 10% of jobs by 2040 and 20% of housing by that time. Easement Montclair Plan of 1994 talks about protecting the residential character of the neighborhood sound management and a mix of income levels in rental and single family homes and apartments, encouraging homeowners to add on additions and modernize their single family homes, housing and inclusive. Denver speaks to in increasing our regulations and expanding the development of accessory dwelling units and promoting the development of these units as a wealth building tool for low and moderate income homeowners. With that staff believes that the adopted plans are met with this proposal. By using a standard zoned district, we're furthering the uniform application of zone districts and by implementing our plans and facilitating an increase in housing density and a mix of uses near transit. We're furthering public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances is changed. Conditions. New development in the area has resulted in additional services and retail nearby. These changes have created an additional need for housing in the area and we've got two new adopted plans in Blueprint Denver and Housing and Inclusive Denver. All of these are changed conditions that justify this rezoning. As far as consistency with the urban edge neighborhood context, this zone district is for single unit, which the context is single unit and two unit mainly. And the E-1 de zone district is single family with on the appropriate size lot with set back standards and everything consistent with the ESU directs and staff believes this is consistent with the intent statement for ESU. D1 X with that staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you signed up to speak on this item, I would ask that you come up to this front bench that's now empty so that you can be ready to step up to the microphone when I call your name. First up, chairman and COO.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. My name is Chairman Sekou. Represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. President of. Denver for. 37 years. We? Support this. For all the above stated reasons and. We've had this conversation before. Where. When new folks look at this and you talk in code like. E as you dare to do do do do do do do do understand non. You talking about nothing. Not a thing. And we had this conversation before you used to even on the. Agendas. Explain in writing what that means so people aren't lost with this esoteric language and code that you use that doesn't allow them to make a conscious decision or even understand anything you're talking about. No. No. All your intelligent people. And you've got degrees up the gang. Well, there was a man named Malcolm X who said, tell the truth, make it plain. It looked like you had things down here. That the people are paying for. They don't get an opportunity. To understand what you are really doing, what you're really saying. So. Not to be redundant. There was a city council person here. Her name was Lehman schoolteacher. And she changed all of this while she was here. And as soon as she leave here, y'all come back with this mess. Why? What? What? See. So. Because I've been down here for a decade plus. Kind of slow to understand what you're talking about. But other folks looking at TV, we want to enroll people in the democratic process to participate. The least you can do is make the language plain. So people can understand what you are doing. In their name with their tax money. Even if I can't get a pillow. You can do this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Leslie Talkhouse.
Speaker 10: Hi. Thank you. My name is.
Speaker 2: Leslie to where gal schema resident at 1754 Olive Street in Denver.
Speaker 10: I'm a neighbor.
Speaker 2: Of Jerry Saltsman, and I'm here to speak on behalf of his.
Speaker 10: Rezoning. Our greatest hope is that we can get accessory dwelling.
Speaker 2: Units as a use by right in the East Area plan. And I will keep my comments.
Speaker 7: Just that brief.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I hope you vote.
Speaker 7: To support Jerry's rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Caroline Clarke.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is Caroline Clarke, and I fully support Gerri's plan to build an Adu. Since Denver is struggling to provide affordable housing, building an ADA, you would add one additional dwelling and unit to Denver's rapidly declining housing stock. Here's an anecdotal example from another city having similar housing struggles. Los Angeles a quote from the mayor. Go ahead and build one in your backyard. About 2500 new Adu homes were created in two years within the city limits, according to Mayor Eric Garcetti. Accessory dwelling units are a relatively low cost way for homeowners to play a big part in expanding our city's housing stock and make extra money while they're at it. We want to make it as easy as possible for people to build in their backyards, which is why we're cutting red tape adus create opportunities for flexible, long term multi-generational housing arrangements. And Adu is a great place to offer up to a family member, friend, live in housekeeper or pair, open to a few if any to use fulfill the same function forever as their owners needs change most. Change their uses accordingly at various times. One's Adu could be an art studio office or spare living space for family or friends. Adu use can simultaneously reduce local development pressure and preserve neighborhood character. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jerry Saltzman.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Jerry Saltzman. I have owned and lived at 1369 Quint Street for 21 years, since all the city's growth plans now permit some homeowners to build a small second unit in their backyard, I would like to do so. My main house will remain exactly the same. The only change will be a small, detached second unit in my large backyard. For my mom, who will be turning 83 on Friday, I will also reduce the size of my backyard to make room for three additional off street parking spots. I'm glad to report that my R.A., the East Colfax Neighborhood Association, voted unanimously in favor of my rezoning. Both the planning board, as well as the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also voted unanimously in my rezoning. I have also contacted all 29 of my immediate neighbors and they are either very positive or neutral about my rezoning . I spoke to City Council in July to support my neighbors plan to build an ADU at 1245, Quincy Street City Council also voted unanimously to support that project. 80 views are great for our neighborhood because they allow homeowners to care for older family members like my mom while creating independent housing so they can age in place. Adus also provide affordable housing, flexible housing options for families and improve neighborhood security by having more eyes on the street. Our neighborhood already has several adus in it. Both the carriage house, as well as a duplex across the street from my house have been there for over 100 years without any negative effects. Since City Council has already passed several policies that specifically identify 80 youths as being the solution to our affordable housing crisis. Let's move forward and enact those policies. Our neighborhood, as well as our city, is struggling to provide affordable housing. What more can we as a community do to help solve the affordable housing crisis? Then build an ADU? I thank you very much for letting me speak here tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Danielle Anderson.
Speaker 7: Hi, I'm Danielle Anderson and I am a Colorado native and a proponent of the 80 youth. I believe in affordable housing. And as a Colorado native, I can see the changes that have come over not only our city but our state in the last few years. And so to keep affordable housing an ADU is a great way to do that. So that is my stand. I'd like to read just a little excerpt from a neighbor of Jerry's that wrote a letter. Good afternoon. I would like to comment on Mr. Altman's application. I submit my comments as a citizen of Denver and a property owner in the to 1200 block of Quincy Street, the block immediately south of Mr. Sultan's property. My comments do not reflect the thoughts or opinions of my employer, and I'm just speaking in my official capacity. I hold. I would like to offer my strong support for this application. I believe the application meets the review criteria and specifically meets the blueprint. Denver 2019 Goals of breaking down barriers to increase accessibility to 80 youth in a city wide basis. But in making the rezoning process more accessible to the average citizen in Denver, I've been active in my neighborhood as well as pursued a similar rezoning for my own property, which was approved by City Council in early July. The East Colfax neighborhood faces tremendous pressure from gentrification and displacement to grow and change, and that has been well documented in the city studies and my own observations. I witnessed the strong support and the concept for its use in the East Colfax neighborhood. In the East Colfax R.A. Support. This application validates.
Speaker 2: My own observations.
Speaker 7: Of support for its use in the neighborhood. It is my sincere hope that the city follows the recommendations of Blueprint, Denver and housing and inclusive Denver as soon as possible to make it easier to build and available to all neighborhoods. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 13: Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse. Listen, Paris, I ran for city council by large, had almost 15,000 votes. And I'll be running again to be your next mayor, 2023. And I'm representing Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Movie for Self-defense. Positive action come in for social change as well as the universal African People's Organization Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High knows we are in favor of this rezoning. As has already been previously stated, we have a housing crisis in the city and I would love to see 80 youths all over this city, just like I would love to see tiny home villages all over this city. My question is which one of the council members is going to actually have one in their own backyard so that we can do better and we keep hearing that we can do better, but I don't see any action. So this is one step in the right direction, allowing these ideas to be put in various places throughout the city because, you know, we can't have any concentrated areas of poverty. So and when you stop trying to change the terminology from affordable to actual attainable because the affordable standard is not affordable, you have to make $65,000 a year to afford a one or two bedroom in Denver, Colorado, based off the current market. Am I? So I would like to see in the near future the city pass more rezonings like this is going to pass. It meets all the criteria so there's nothing that is going to keep this from passing. My only question was what was the letter, opposition or email and what was it about? I would like to know that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there any questions from members of Council? Councilman Heights.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. One question for staff. The question is as you make your way up. The only change for this rezoning is that it allows in to you. There's no other change.
Speaker 12: That's correct.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council 1158 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, this is in my district, so I'm just want to speak briefly to thank Mr. Saltzman for doing a fantastic job of community outreach. We spoke briefly before he ever filed his application and talked about kind of what went into this whole process and what it looked like. And, you know, I really appreciate you putting all of the time and energy and hard work into doing this the right way, into doing the right outreach to your neighborhood organization and to your neighbors. I think that the fact that everyone here spoke in favor of it, that there is only one letter of opposition and that, you know, everyone is really positive about what this looks like is a reflection of the work that you have done in the community to do good outreach. So thank you very much for doing that. I'm very appreciative and I personally am very excited to be supporting this tonight. I think it's a fantastic plan. You know, I talk a lot about and we live a low in the east area plan right now and talk a lot about the value of our neighborhoods and the big lots that we have and how incredible they are. And they're they're very special and very unique to the city of Denver. There's something that not very many other cities on this planet and certainly not in the U.S. have. And they if we let them go, then we'll never get them back again. But they also have a dark side. That means that they are not as attainable as they should be. They're not affordable to everyone. And 80 EUs are the reasonable compromise here. They are the way that we can keep the character of the community, but also allow for a way to bring affordability attainability to these communities and to bring options for other people to be able to come into these communities and live there and enjoy all of these amazing amenities. So I'm very grateful that you are leading the charge in this. I think this is only the second one in the entire year is in the second one in District five. So this is absolutely fantastic. And my only sort of other comment that I really want to make as we discuss this is that, you know, the cost of 80 years, it's they're expensive to build. And so this is a real investment. And I know that you want this for your mom. And I think that that is amazing. And we do know that their use changes over time and that's okay. Right. But my concern is that this will not 80 years will not be the answer to our affordability and attainability crisis if they are only used as short term rentals and. So that is something that our city needs to consider as we continue to look at 80 years moving forward. Because if people are building them and only using them solely as short term rentals and not as something that can be a place for a home, a long term home for people, they are actually going to create a larger, attainable affordability crisis than we have right now. And so that is just you know, I think it's it's absolutely fantastic that people are able to use their properties in ways to help them earn extra money in in an economy that we have in a city where we have clearly shown that our wages have not kept up with the cost of living, where it is incredibly expensive to live here. And so that is another important part of the conversation that we have to have as well. So this is this is not an easy discussion by any means, but it is something that we need to discuss because ideas are a real solution to adding gentle density and keeping the character of our community and helping to solve our affordability and attainability crisis. But they it could also go very, very wrong if people are only using them as short term rentals. So thank you. I am really looking forward to approving this tonight. Thank you for all of your hard work. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you also for all your hard work. I'm not in District five, but but I'm very supportive of ideas. As Mr. Gorski said, I. I look forward to the day when an applicant doesn't have to do a lot of hard work to put in an idea. And frankly, I think they should be legalized citywide. I've said that before and I'm saying it again. I think that it is a way for us to solve the missing middle. You know, the conversation between single family homes and large scale apartment high rises we should, in our affordable housing crisis, consider. Part of the missing middle in an area is one of those one of those tools in a toolbox if they are used responsibly. So thank you for all your all your work. Hopefully you are blazing a trail. So that will make it easier for people behind you to put in auxiliary dwelling units. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other comments, I'll just add thank you to staff for putting together our awesome staff report and walking us through it. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I'll be supporting it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I'm black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, i. Herndon. Hines.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Torres. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. 12 provides counsel about 1158 has passed. Councilwoman Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1259 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1369 Quince Street in East Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 1369 Quince Street from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit) in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-5-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1259
|
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. 12 provides counsel about 1158 has passed. Councilwoman Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1259 on the floor?
Speaker 7: I move that.
Speaker 2: Council bill 1259 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1259 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Good evening. I'm Karen with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development. And we are here for the Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District, which is located in District one. It is just north northwest of the school, and it is comprised of three different buildings that were used as a holistic treatment facility. The designation application was submitted by a former former council member, Rafael Espinosa, when he was still in office. It was the application was researched and written by members of the community and residents. It has gone through a variety of public outreach before it came to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And we are here at the public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed this. They reviewed it under the previous set of criteria because it was submitted prior to October 31st. This is the second to the last application that will be coming forward to you guys. That is under the old criteria. It is required to meet two out of three categories of history, architecture and geography to maintain its historic and physical integrity. And the LPC was to consider how it relates to a historic context or theme in Denver's history. This particular application meets two criteria under history, three under architecture, and two under geography. The does the designation application talks about the history of this property. It is associated with the development of the city, state or nation. So the development of Denver and is associated with the development of sanatoriums in Denver. At the turn of the century, physicians around the country believed that Denver's climate was beneficial for health purposes, oftentimes for people treating two per kilo cis. And so Denver became an area for treatment facilities for a variety of different types of ailments. This particular school was started as a teaching school for teaching people to have better health. It was developed by Dr. Tilden and established in 1915. In 1916. It started in the administration building, which is the Basler house, if any of you are familiar with that. And then it was built. A couple of other buildings were built along with it. The patients building in 1816 and then the main building, which is the Fairview Lofts, which is currently a condominium, was built in 1919, in 1921. Dr. Tilden taught nontraditional teaching health methods. He felt that patients need to know how to cure themselves. He protested that doctors cannot cure disease. The disease is caused by wrong life, and the doctor's prerogative is to teach the patients how to get well. So patients would come here and they would stay for a long term period of time in order to learn how to heal themselves through better living. It is also significant for its association with Dr. Tilden himself. He developed and extensively wrote about his treatment theories. These nontraditional theories or holistic treatments became well known for those who are seeking alternative methods to to surgeries or medications. And so he has he became well-known within the nontraditional treatment facilities, are nontraditional treatment theories. And so it is the building or the district is significant for his affiliation. And he was affiliated with the facility from 1915 to 1924. The school went from 1915 to about 1931. And so it's significant for its association with its founding medical professional. The property is are the district is also significant under architecture for a couple of different architectural styles. One, the Italianate style, which is seen in the Basler house, which is the building on the top. It's its asymmetrical design. The third story tower, which has been reconstructed according to preservation standards. The narrow windows, the segmental arches, and then the front and side porches are all character defining features of the Italianate style. It's also significant for its colonial revival style, which is the building on the bottom. It is. You can see its symmetrical features. It's a dominant two story central portico entry on the hipped tile roof and then the coining on the sides of each of the building in the front as well as the door surrounds in the taillight . Windows are the character defining features of the colonial or classical revival styles. And so the district contains two architectural styles that it's significant for. The district is also significant for the work of a recognized architect or master builder. It is a significant work of Harry W.J. Ed Ashbrook. He worked for his uncle, who was a well-known architect, Frank Frank at Brook, and he began his career in Denver working for him. When his uncle retired, Harry at Brook started his own practice and he designed the buildings other than the Basler house was already constructed, but he designed the other buildings in the historic district. It was early on in the life of his firm and it shows a strong collection of his work. Historian Wilber Fiske Stone felt that the patients building was one of Harriet Brooks most notable designs. So this property is a significant work of the recognized architect of Frank at Brook. Harry at Brooklyn. Apologize. It is also significant under architecture for portraying the environment of a group of people. The district is significant for portraying the environment of the patients at the school. This was a large scale institutional building that was intentionally designed to be in a residential area. It was designed to fit in with the with the community because the patients were going to be staying there for a significant period of time. So the district portrays the environment of the patients who had to stay there long term. It is an intact campus of early 20th century sanatoriums, and the buildings were designed to sort of feel like home for the patients. It also represents early 20th century thought for how patients and medical treatments for people, especially for people who came to these, whether it was the sanatoriums for tuberculosis or other other ailments. It has raised porches, bright sun rooms and a large number of windows, which were the leading theories of medical practice at the time. It reflected the importance of having ventilation and late into into into patients rooms and spaces and to provide fresh air and sunshine as a way of helping patients heal themselves. The property is also significant under geography for a couple of different criteria. The first is having a prominent location that is an established, familiar and orienting visual feature of the Committee of the Contemporary City. This is a series of large buildings in a in a residential area. They're large scale buildings. They stand out to the community, stand out in the community. And so they sort of they visually dominate the blocks around it, especially with the park that is really low scale. So it is a familiar and orienting visual feature of the neighborhood. And then finally, it is significant under geography for promoting the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. This this area was intentionally designed. If you note on the maps, the top is an 1887 survey and the bottom is the 1905 based real estate map. And if you note that the streets around it are designed in the north, south and east west grid, this was intentionally designed to take advantage of the contours of the land and to be more residential and pastoral in its design. It was intentionally developed and followed by a layout of the Riverside neighborhood in Chicago. And so this is distinctive for it's characteristic of the layout of the blocks in the lots. It is also rare, as one of the remaining examples of sanatorium sanatorium health campuses in Denver. That is a combination of buildings and larger scale. We don't have that many sanatoriums that are remaining and retain integrity. In order for a building to be designated, it also has to retain its historic and physical integrity. The building that is the most changed is the primary building, which is the main building or the Fairview Lofts. When it was converted into condominiums in the 1990s, there were alterations. The roof tiles were changed. There were some dormers that were added in. The windows were replaced. However, however, the overall massing has been retained. The proportions the bulk of the original building is still readily available, readily obvious. And so the building overall retains its integrity. And then as a district, the other two buildings have been minorly changed and they retained very good integrity. So overall, the district conveys the significance of an early 20th century medical facility. The LPC considered the context of this particular building that the operation of medical sanatoriums had become a major component of Denver's economy, that doctors from around the country were sending patients here. And so this reflected the growth of Denver at that particular time and is an important part of Denver's economy at the turn of the century. Because this is a historic district, it also goes to a planning board for their review, planning, planning boards. Review is really narrow. They look at a historic district's relationship to Denver's comprehensive plan and any plans that we might have, and then the effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood. This property is related to comprehensive plan 2040. It relates to several different goals or strategies. The strongest one that it relates to is the strong and authentic neighborhoods. The proposed district reinforces the vision of comprehensive plan 2040 by preserving a historic cultural asset in the West Highland neighborhood. It is also supports environmental resiliency and that the buildings will remain standing and they will not be demolished in adding waste to our landfills. So it relates to two different vision elements within the comprehensive plan. It also relates to Denver's blueprint. It is currently the neighborhood context is urban, which is primarily characterized by single unit and two unit residential uses with some multi family residential. And it is has some mixed use throughout. So with its relationship to blueprint Denver this would meet the future places low residential. The designation would help ensure that the future growth is of residential character. It would also meet the strategy of to a under land use and built forms that recommends historic designation to ensure that the neighborhoods retain their historic character. That designation is consistent with Blueprint Denver's vision to improve the quality of design, and that preserves and creates authentic places. Planning Board also looked at its effect upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District would help preserve the character of this particular block, but it would have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The intent of designations is only to preserve what was in the actual boundary of designations and not for anything that is outside of the historic district. And so it would have little impact on any of the surrounding neighborhood. We have received public comment from 26 individuals, 23 with 23 were written comments in support. Four were from neighborhood groups were organizations. 19 were for individuals. At the Landmark Preservation Commission Public Hearing, there are three members who spoke in support. There were no public comments at Planning Board. The Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously recommended approval and forwarded it for your review and the Denver Planning Board also unanimously recommended approval and forwarded it for your review. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. So first up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 5: Yes. My name is German Sake who likes to action movement for self-defense. In order representing poor, working, poor and homeless people are most vulnerable folks in the neighborhood. As a resident of this town. This is what we told. We support this 100%. This represents who we are and who we should stay. Like, not this mess we got being thrown up now out of clapboard and cheap construction material that won't even last that long, maybe 30 years. But we had to redo all of that. And what this represents also is the quality of how we felt about ourselves. You can't buy that today. You can't buy it. You can't buy it. And most remarkable thing about it is you had wholesome medical practices going on. Well, here's a doctor that said, if you want to be disease free, stay away from me and fix yourself before you reconcile. That is the everyday common stuff. All right. And he was well received by that and the medical community. So he's my kind of guy that will go against the grain. Take the risk of not being popular and then do the right thing. It wouldn't be great public officials acting like that and not get scared because somebody might not like the principles and values that you hold dear that you're willing to compromise.
Speaker 0: Chairman, if you could stay on the topic of this hearing, please.
Speaker 5: I was waiting for you to say so. Help me appreciate it. So not to belabor the point, and I'm sure that we're going to continue this on. Thank you very much for allowing me this time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Arianna Stettner.
Speaker 7: Good evening, council members. And there's not going to be a test on all the history of the children teaching school for health. But now you know a lot about it. I am one of the owners in the condominium complex that Fairview Lofts building is celebrating its centennial this year. And we, as owners and neighbors have been working together to celebrate its history and work with our neighbors to create this historic district designation. We're very pleased that we have gotten unanimous support from the neighborhood and from our colleagues and from the owners in the property. And so I thank you very much for your consideration of this particular designation and the time it's taking you to review all of this. And I also want to express my appreciation to Paul Cloyd, who did considerable, incredible work on the application with me. So thank you for your time and thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Would you mind stating your name for the record?
Speaker 7: Yes, it's a Greek name. Ari on the Stettner.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Next up, Paul Cloyd.
Speaker 5: Thank you, counsel. My name is Paul Cloyd. My wife and I have owned our home in the West Highlands for the last 35 years. I'm a registered architect and a licensed professional engineer, and I serve as chair.
Speaker 6: Of the West Highland Neighborhood Association Design and Preservation.
Speaker 5: Committee. I just quickly would state that I believe the application clearly shows the Tilden School for Teaching Health exhibits the significance and integrity to warrant designation as a Denver landmark. And as you may know from the application, these buildings are already on the National Register. I'm grateful to have had a small part in uncovering the story of the Tilden School and further sharing that story with the people of Denver. A historic district designation is the very best tool to ensure.
Speaker 6: That the buildings that perform the historic, historic character of our West Highland neighborhood are not lost.
Speaker 5: Please protect this historic part of Denver by voting yes on this designation. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Preuss.
Speaker 13: Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse Paris of the City Council, where large, almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor. And I'll represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star action movie for self defense positive actually committed for social change. Unity Party of Colorado and Universal African People's Organization Denver Branch in Mile High knows we are in favor of this. As has previously been stated, this is something that Denver needs to preserve this this history needs to be preserved. And seeing that the community was all in support of this and you reached out to the community, I have no qualms against this. So good job, Espinosa. And now Amanda Sandoval, this pass. No problem. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? Councilman Flint.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Took a while to click in there, as I had a couple of questions. Carol, maybe you could answer or maybe help. Excuse me. The way the lines for the district are drawn. It excludes a little portion of some property parcels. And I'm wondering, is that an unusual or is that something we've done on other occasions? And what's on the parcels that are not included within a district but are on the parcel, like with the main, with the patients building right behind it, there's a a rectangle that's excluded.
Speaker 10: Yes. It's it's the garage of the patients. Building garages have been basically considered non contributing buildings because we want people to have the ability to change them or alter them. This particular property owner asked that their garage be excluded and so it's somewhat unusual to do that. But because the block was a little not uniform anyways, that that boundary was going to be a little bit changed. And because the garage would be considered non contributing, whether it was in or out was something that we, we felt in order for the building to get designated.
Speaker 3: And then the other excuse me, the other question I have is the building is on Highland, is it a highland place on the north side, three buildings that are part of the parcel that has the the the apartments, condos. Now what are they. Tell me a little bit more about those. Are those because they're not on the original maps.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 10: Right. So so so they're they're recent infill garages. So they're they're part of the boundary. But changes could be made to that through design review. But they're modern garages and they're non contributors.
Speaker 3: So they were recently built.
Speaker 10: Yes. They're like within now. I'd have to. Yeah. 26.
Speaker 3: 26. So we're including them in the historic district but they're non contributing.
Speaker 7: Right there at the.
Speaker 2: Rear of the property.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's enough clarification. That's all I have, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. I've seen no other questions. The public hearing from Council 1259 is closed. Comments by members of council and the councilwoman for this district is not here this evening. Councilman Clinic.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just want to share my appreciation as one of the At-Large council members for all of the work that everyone put into it. And I think that, you know, I used to go by these buildings all the time when I lived in the neighborhood. And so knowing the story, I think enriches the experience. So thank you for the awareness that this brings and just thank you to the staff for the thorough work in presenting it and exciting to see our historic dedications continue to grow in the city. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, so no other comments. I will just add my thanks to staff and everyone who put in all the hard work and to the Honorable Councilman Espinosa for your continued passion and work on behalf of our city. Thank you. I will be happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye CdeBaca I.
Speaker 5: Flynt I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor High.
Speaker 4: Herndon High.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 2: Commission. Ortega, I. Sawyer, I. Torres. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please go to the voting notes.
Speaker 2: Results 1212.
Speaker 0: Hours counts. Bill 1259 has passed. Councilwoman Torres, will you please put council bill 1289 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of Tilden School for Teaching Health as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, located at the intersection of Grove Street and Fairview Place in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-19-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1289
|
Speaker 0: Hours counts. Bill 1259 has passed. Councilwoman Torres, will you please put council bill 1289 on the floor?
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 19, does 1289 be ordered published?
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman CdeBaca, do you want to put forward your motion to amend?
Speaker 10: Yes, I move that council bill 19, dash 1259, be amended.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. We have a typo in there. 89 is 89. Great massacre. Where? 89. This one.
Speaker 10: 1289. This be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 21, strike July 1st and replace with April 1st on line 24, strike July 1st and replace.
Speaker 7: With April 1st.
Speaker 10: And online 27 straight July 1st and.
Speaker 7: Replace with April 1st.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. Can I get a stand seconded on the amendment comments. Councilwoman Watkins, do you want to make comments on your amendment?
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment changes the extension date of the ordinances concerning the three Division of Small Business Opportunity programs from six.
Speaker 2: Months to.
Speaker 10: Three months. So factor in the many conversations I've had with ditto other council colleagues, disadvantaged.
Speaker 2: Businesses.
Speaker 10: And current contractors with the city. I'm proposing that we meet in the middle somewhere. I have an amendment in front of you all that would extend the current ordinance until April 1st and have a Second Amendment prepared for a sunset of May 1st ready to vote on if the three month of amendment is not satisfactory with the three month amendment on the.
Speaker 7: Floor first and the.
Speaker 10: Scheduled. In testimony, I'd like to let my colleagues comment and debate the three months first. The three month extension is not only meeting literally in the middle of the six months, but is also based on the projected timeline shared with us from Dito. This timeline clearly states that a final draft will be ready in January or February and that the final ordinance will be absolutely ready by April 1st. The DITO timeline goes beyond April 1st to include the rulemaking and promulgation process, which does not typically happen prior to passing an ordinance. This open, public, participatory rulemaking window is not only expected and standard, it typically does not happen prior to passing the ordinance because that would then presume that council was passing the ordinance before we actually vote on it. So my thoughts are that the bill could be filed in March and voted on in April. If the timeline they provided is accurate, if a compelling reason tonight is provided to explain why the final draft slated to be done in February could not be filed in March, I'm willing to put the May 1st extension on the floor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilwoman. And you, we are going to keep this amendment open so that members of the public can also speak to this during the hearing. All right. So I think with that, we're going to open up the hearing with the amendment open. So if you're here to speak on this item, we'd love to hear your thoughts on the extension. And the amendments are the courtesy public hearing for Council 1289 is now open and we're going to jump right in to our individuals. We have nine, I believe, signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to call the first five, if you wouldn't mind, coming up to this front bench so that we can get through everybody. When I call your name, you can step right up to the microphone. But the first five, if you want to come up to the front bench are Veronica Barela, Heather Noise chairman, say coo Helga Grund or sorry if I got that wrong and Adrian Sanford, if you want to come up to the front and Veronica barela, you are up first.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Veronica Barela and I reside at 151 South Stuart Street. I'm here representing the Committee for City and Airport Fairness concerning the Division of Small Business Opportunity Ordinance. We are supporting Councilwoman C.D. Baucus amendment to extend the Dispo Ordinance programs to three months instead of the proposed six months. The council woman's rationale is the ordinance is 95% complete, but the rules and regs is the part that is taking a little bit longer. I want to point out that some of the responsibilities of the division of small business opportunities, and I quote, is to provide technical assistance and outreach that focuses on educating small businesses and capacity building to establish and monitor small business participation mechanisms to remove barriers to contracting opportunities with the sister city, fosters successful partnerships and whole comprehensive compliance programs. And I want to thank Audrina Gibson, who's done an excellent job, done a really good job at Dana, and it given a new life to dispel. In my opinion, there are important aspects of the new ordinance that need implementing sooner rather than later, such as lowering procurement procurement thresholds as to increase mwb participation, improved prompt payments plan to increase and formalize monitoring, compliance, reporting and oversight of the procurement process. Increasing outreach and communication efforts to increase program parties participation better define define good faith efforts plus many new significant features of the ordinance. The current status quo does not fully benefit minority businesses, and I encourage you all to support Councilwoman C.D. Baucus amendment to shorten the time frame to three months. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Heather Noyes.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Heather Noyes and I am majority owner of studios TPG. We're a WB certified business located in Northwest Denver on Tennyson Street, and we provide landscape architecture services to the city and county of Denver, both as a prime and as a sub to several different city agencies. I'm immensely proud of my firm's contribution to the evolution of this city. It's really important to me personally and professionally. My firm has consistently struggled for since I've been in business, which is 15 years, with the impacts of delayed payment under city contracts. And I will say two current examples, and I am going to call these flagship projects because I believe that they are positively contributing to the daily health and welfare of every resident of the city and visitors. A flagship project number one. We are sub consultant to a national firm. Our last payment on this project was July 22nd for work performed between April 1st, 2018 and April 30th, 2019. That's one year's worth of work without pay. Our contract is still active. We continue to provide services for this project and we remain unpaid for six months of work. And there has been no information forthcoming from the Prime regarding when I can expect payment. Flagship Project Number two I'm a sub consultant to a huge international engineering firm. As of December 11th, 100% of fees for project initiated in April and completed in October were unpaid. The amount owed to me equates to two of my firm's payrolls. DeLay in payment means this to me. In order for me to meet payroll and pay my bills, I have to dip into my line of credit. And when payment is delayed past 120 days, four months on current concurrent excuse me, concurrent projects. My line of credit often gets maxed out in this cost me money, I'm paying interest. And when my line of credit gets maxed out, I've got to turn over. I've got to turn to my credit cards. And that also costs me a ton of money. And the bottom line, I believe, with respect to delayed payment, is this when my invoices go unpaid by my primes and these are huge firms, these are huge, huge firms that I'm referring to. I'm bankrolling them and I'm bankrolling you. And I'm bankrolling the city's projects. And my profits, which are not big to begin with, are eaten up by interest payments.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Next up, Chairman Scoop.
Speaker 5: Yes. Chairman Sekou. Oh. Lecturer Action Movement for Self-defense. And you're next United States senator in 2020. I would be remiss if. This party did not acknowledge one of the most trusted and humble servants in this room. Sister Stephanie O'Malley. And you'll know who she is. So we need to at least acknowledge her like we've done other books. Great service. Thank you. What the previous speaker was expressing is one of the caveats to what we experience. As small business folks. And it's really a shame. Because what has to be done is more than just extend this. Particular bill would also put some teeth in it. That requires women, small businesses, especially, quote unquote, minority businesses. And I don't like that term because that assumes there's a majority of business partners up with these bigger companies who seek to not help them grow, but to seek to eliminate them. So. A City Council's responsibility is not to set up small businesses for failure by not putting things in the ordinance that allows them to grow and thrive so that one day maybe they may not be so small, maybe they might join the majority. And if we're talking about equity, which is one of the fundamental principles behind coming up with these bills, then we should make it a responsibility that the folks who ain't got it have to subsidize everybody that do got say. And so I salute you for your integrity and your willingness to go through this, because I know he's right. But you got to keep on pushing, all right? And you got to keep on pushing them and tell them the truth, because I'm looking at the faces now and they listen. They heard you. They heard you. All right. So that's the importance of everyday folks participating in this kind of thing. Democracy requires us to speak on behalf of the things that impact us so that we don't die silently as they eliminate what it is they say they do.
Speaker 0: Sorry. Time's up. Thank you. Next up, Helga Grund, the rude.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Helga Grunwald.
Speaker 7: I am the retired executive director of the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado, where I served for 17 years. I probably have more hours of but in the chair time working on.
Speaker 6: The Mwb ordinance than most.
Speaker 7: Of the people in this room. First appointed by then Mayor Hickenlooper to work on the first ordinance in 2004, which was implemented in 2007. So for years, the city has struggled with trying.
Speaker 6: To make this program work.
Speaker 7: And I can tell you, after working with many.
Speaker 6: Small businesses, you.
Speaker 7: Have not succeeded, but you finally, finally have a young woman in the chair to guide this program. And she comes from RTD, which most small businesses will point to as the model for the city to utilize for your programs and the ordinance. And what it needs to do.
Speaker 6: Is very, very complicated.
Speaker 7: And I would urge you to give Adrina.
Speaker 6: The six months that.
Speaker 7: She would like to have, to make sure that all.
Speaker 6: Of the.
Speaker 7: Dots are aligned, that everything points together, and that finally, after 12 years, you can maybe have a program that.
Speaker 6: Really, really.
Speaker 7: Develops your small businesses. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Adrian Sanford and I called the next five up if you want to make your way to the front bench. James W Jensen, Jr, Jesse Paris, Andrea Mosby, Mina McCollum and Lacy Getz. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members, and thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening concerning this most important issue. My name is Adrian Sanford and I am a small business disadvantage owner, principal of the Sanford Group LLC. I want to first thank Eric Maraga and his extraordinary team for the awesome job they are doing and most importantly, for their commitment to the small and minority business community. I have worked in the design and construction industry for 25 years and have been part of the Construction Empowerment Initiative Committee for a long time. And this fairly new leadership team, Adrina and Stephanie Smiley, has been very engaging and committed to the small business community. And this is the first time I have seen this team really engage the Small Business Committee. We are requesting that the city council supports a four month extension following the submission of the ordinance to include a 30 day prom pay. I feel like if we can get the ordinance submitted in February with a four month extension in order to write the processes, this option will be an appropriate period of time for coordination and development of policies and procedures and IT system revisions to support the ordinance. Revisions to be completed by July 2020. As Helga has said, I have been part of the ordinance subcommittee for an awful long time and I don't believe people really understand how difficult it is to write an ordinance to be involved in it and to quickly just go through it. Not only will it provide the ability for Desmond not to be successful, but if they're not successful, they will not make the small business community successful. In addition, in order for Desmond to do their job well, we are requesting that the City Council support and commit to meeting the challenges by ensuring that dismal has all is required to be successful with this effort. Again, if dismal is successful, then the small business community is successful. I want to keep reiterating that this is the first team that I have seen in a long time that is helping small businesses. But if we don't give them the resources to continue writing these processes and procedures correctly, then it won't help us as small businesses to ensure the success of the program. It must be agreed that the MWB program be considered to be one of the highest priority by the relevant stakeholders inclusive of the Mayor's Office, City Council Belt Team, Denver Economic Development Opportunity and a set equal commitments by all of the stakeholders will ensure the required collaboration necessary for the success of the MWB program. Again, our current Mwb departure excuse me again our current Mwb ordinance revisions ensure that all of the small minority business have an equal opportunity for the economic growth and benefit of our tax dollars. So I ask the City Council to please take into consideration the difficulties a lot of us small business leaders have dealt with over a long period of time to get this. Orton is right. Time is up and to remove the barriers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, James W Jenson Jr. Good evening. My name is James W Jensen. My firm is James W Jensen Photography.
Speaker 6: I'm a Colorado native. I would like to thank City Council for allowing me to speak.
Speaker 0: I am in.
Speaker 3: Total agreement with the previous.
Speaker 6: Speakers regarding the good work that Adrina has.
Speaker 3: Done and also Stephanie O'Malley. I would like to request that City Council considers the.
Speaker 0: Four month extension as far.
Speaker 3: As getting everything with.
Speaker 6: The ordinance written up.
Speaker 0: And including.
Speaker 3: The prompt.
Speaker 6: Payment clause, that is very important as a small business, I wrote down a few things.
Speaker 0: Regarding payment.
Speaker 6: That would help me as a one man operation. It would allow me to have more consistent cash flow if a prompt payment is done within 30 days.
Speaker 5: It would also make the primes.
Speaker 0: More.
Speaker 6: Accountable to the city and.
Speaker 3: Also committed to the small businesses.
Speaker 5: And it would also.
Speaker 0: Give the small.
Speaker 3: Businesses the opportunity to.
Speaker 6: Grow and prosper. Thank you very much for letting me speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 13: Good evening. Members of council members, our audience, those watching at home. My name is Jessie Paris or Bradford City Council where a large got almost 15,000 votes with no money this past May election. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor and I reside in county seat of Baucus District District nine and I'm representing for Denver homeless low black star. I am all for self defense positive action in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and the Universal African People's Organization. In Mile High News. We are in favor of this sunset extension. I just had a few questions in regards to this because I keep hearing all this stuff about minority business contracts. We need to stop using this minority term because you're lumpiness in other groups, meaning black people are being lumped in with other groups that have just arrived here or have not been systematically disenfranchized and locked out of such businesses and contracts. So I want to know exactly how many black owned small businesses will benefit from this sunset extension, and also exactly how many black owned small businesses we have in the city because they are dwindling. I see fewer and fewer each and every year. I am a Denver native. I was born and raised here when I was coming up. There was a lot of black small businesses. Now there's very little to any mom and pop shops. They are being literally bought up such as like Downy Superstore is now going to be a King Soopers and their Scotts Market is closed down and we're literally in a food desert and the city's priority is not on black minority owned businesses. So I would like to know exactly what businesses this is going to benefit. And thank you, Stephanie, for putting this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andrea Mosby.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Andrea Mosby. My company is Urine Fresh, and it's a janitorial supply company. And just this past week, I was in New York visiting my son, and he came up with something. He said, there's no compression algorithm for experience. So I said, okay, then I'll give you my experience. And as a small business is interesting because I recently got a contract with the city to do their air fresheners. But when I got.
Speaker 10: The contract, I had to come up.
Speaker 7: Initially with some money quite a bit for me, for a small business. And once I came up with the money, I found myself calling them on a regular basis, like, look like the job, cut the check, you know what's going on. And I realized that with the ordinance and everything that we're talking about, sometimes understanding that our electric bills and everything like that come every 30 days, that not only do we need to get paid, but also I think was important. That's also a part of the ordinance is for cars because I was at a CII meeting and one of the gentleman there made the comment that he didn't think that a company, a small company, could handle $100,000. And and what would they do with all that money? And I thought it was interesting because he was the liaison for Prime. And I said, isn't that interesting? Because he's probably going to go and give his time sheet to somebody else and he's probably going to go and get two weeks vacation. Not to mention, he's probably going to have health care. But when I went home, I got to do my own H.R.. I have to figure out how I'm going to pay my own medical bills. See, I don't have a liaison to come because I have to come to meetings like this. All right. So what I'm saying is, not only do we need you guys to support this ordinance with the vote, we need you to support it with the money. The disparity study made it very clear that we are not in alignment with small businesses, specifically black businesses, but we're not in alignment. And I have set through four disparity studies. So what I'm asking you to do is not only to vote for this the way we need it, not the way you want to give it, but the way the small businesses is asking you to do it. But I'm asking you to vote for it. I'm asking you to also put the money in that needs to be in place to make sure that this bill can make sure the small businesses have an opportunity to be able to grow into larger businesses so that we don't have the tale of two cities in this particular city . But we all get the opportunity to participate in the growth and the opportunity that everything that comes with being a part of Denver. After all, over 50% of jobs are are given by small businesses. So take it serious. I've been here a long time and we desperately need you guys to move forward. But you're taking what we need. And I appreciate it. And I know my time is up a really quick, a very, very important.
Speaker 0: First person I do have to move on can either do what's next to me and then McCollum.
Speaker 7: Or you can do.
Speaker 6: It so you.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Hello, council members.
Speaker 7: My name is Mina McCollam and I am the President and CEO of San Energy, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Firm. I am requesting the Council to allow the extension of the ordinance by four months to incorporate a 30 day, 30 day prompt payment clause. I know this is sound like a broken record, but payment is absolutely imperative to ensure that we are able to grow our companies via paying our employees and continuing to contribute to the city and county of Denver's economy. Unfortunately, the current ordinance does not have the language dictating this necessity. As a result, many companies, including my own, have been subjected to financing city projects at a sunken costs. In this scenario, the best case is taking an unnecessary loss. So a cut to our profit margin in the worst case is mortgaging our homes and or laying off staff. These small business pitfalls will be and can be prevented and mitigated with the prompt payment 30 day clause. Therefore, again, I am requesting for a four month extension. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Lacy gets.
Speaker 7: Thank you and thank you for saying my name correctly. First of all, I want to thank each and every one of you here for listening to the situation, for listening to the small businesses, and for considering this important. There's nothing, in my opinion, that can build a city like supporting the small businesses, because when you do that, the money stays local. We hire local people. That money then gets spent here. When you hire larger firms, the money goes to their headquarters and their profits. And to pay for those salaries and vacations that we heard about. I own and run an mwb structural engineering firm, and I am here to ask that you support the division of Small Business Opportunity in particular. Stephanie O'Malley and Adrina Gibson in whatever it is they need to get this done and get it done correctly the first time because we've already done it wrong a number of times. I think that this is absolutely critical. And again, I'm going to stress the prompt pay portion of it. I want to give you a little bit of my story. I want a huge project with the city absolutely excited to be a flagship project. We started work in January. We submitted our invoices every 30 days, just like we were supposed to. Eight months went by. We still have not been paid. I found out that our prime had not submitted a single invoice to the city, and because I had a pay win paid clause, as is normal, they had no obligation whatsoever to pay us. I had no recourse. I took out a mortgage on my home. Now my house is in danger. If there's something wrong with any of the invoices which there turned out, there was. This is my first big city project. Then it got delayed in the city's process. So now I'm another 60 to 90 days. I have a project that I haven't been paid for since January, and I recognize that it's not necessarily your fault you're not it. But the policies and the processes, the rules, regulations, the I.T. support that are behind that to make this payment happen. And more importantly, the huge shift that we're working toward in the culture of each and every department is a monumental task. Right. Getting people to recognize that small businesses are important. Paying them promptly is important. And that's something that I know that Adrina has really picked up on and has really tried to pull the city and all of its various departments together to work as a unit. And I would I would really ask that you support that. Quick check of my notes to see if there's anything else I wanted to say. And I think that's it. So thank you for listening and thank you for supporting Denver and small businesses.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. We're going to get into questions from members of council and I will ask members of council to attempt to keep your questions focused on the item that we have in front of us, which was which is the extension of the sunset. We could spend a lot of time digging into the future ordinance, and we will have that time in committee and on the floor when it comes forward. I understand that certain things will overlap, but as much as possible. If you could try to stay on topic of what we're considering because we do have another hearing and people waiting for that one as well. All right. First up, Councilman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, all of you who attended the public hearing. I have a couple of questions for either Adrina or for Stephanie or both. So just to reiterate what President Clark just said, right now, we're just contemplating to vote on your six month extension, and Councilwoman CdeBaca is proposing that we shorten that. Can you explain to us why you need the full six months? Some of these speakers describe some issues that they're having. Will you have with the extended time? Will you be able to address some of the issues that they're concerned with and make sure that we quote Lacy gets that we get it right this time.
Speaker 14: Yes. Good evening, council members, president. And I first want to thank all of the small businesses. They came out this evening and taking time away from your business to be here on such an important matter. And I wish I could invite Lacey back up to do that presentation again, because you spoke right on everything. But thank you for asking that question. Council in Black with regards to.
Speaker 0: So could you quickly introduce yourself, everybody watching on TV every time?
Speaker 14: Adrina Gibson I'm the director of the Division of Small Business Opportunity. So thank you again for the question. Councilwoman Black, with regards to the extension that we're proposing for six months, I just want to reiterate that that six months is truly intentional, necessary and well thought out. And we spent only being at the city of. For a small amount of time. We've spent a concerted amount of time just writing the ordinance. That was just one phase of it. The second phase is with regards to the rules and regs. If we don't have and I understand with regards to the rules and regs coming typically afterwards, if we don't have time to push the rules and regs forward and to provide considerable time to looking at our technology systems, being able to coordinate with the many city agencies that we're going to need to coordinate and bringing many of these changes in the ordinance through. There's going to be inconsistencies and even larger than that, it will make it extremely difficult for dispo and our partner agencies to actually implement the changes and the concerns that have been brought forward by our small businesses. Things as simple as well, not as simple things as difficult as prompt payment, which I'm very, very excited about. If we can't implement that, we're going to find ourselves in the exact same situation that we're in right now. Yes, it will be law. But being able to implement it without a technology system, without process and procedures that we've been agreed upon among city agencies and being able to write that into all of our contract boilerplate will put us at a deficit and will be helter skelter. So those six months are detrimental to being able to ensure that everything is thoroughly aligned, not just the ordinance which is law, but our policies and procedures, our coordination efforts, our involvement of small businesses and training.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Adrina and Stephanie. Whoever needs to answer these for full disclosure, Adrina and I were colleagues at RTD and very happy to see you here running this office. Now, explain for us the difference it would make to your agency and other city agencies if the six months were shortened to four. And then also if the six months were shortened to three. Yes. How how would that impact you?
Speaker 14: So essentially, if and I'll speak to the three months first and I don't know the exact dates of how that would be broken down, but if if we originally, which was intended for the six months, would be bringing the rules and regs, the ordinance process procedures and systems all aligned and everything essentially ready to flip the switch on July 1st. Keeping in mind that we've already started putting many of these key themes into procurements, it would just allow for everything to be lined up perfectly so that we could implement these changes and begin enforcing them as an agency if we saw them two, three months. Essentially what we're doing is we're tying up the ordinance at right at this point right now where we are still under legal review with the ordinance and submitting that without having any process and procedures in place and having the ability to coordinate with the many city agencies like DPW Goods and services I'm General Services, I'm sorry, ten arts and venues, etc.. So we're pushing an ordinance through where we haven't had the time to do final review to bring that back out to the community, to let them read through it and let city council read through it as well with four months. So three months assurance our time to really do anything except for just submit the ordinance with the four months we are still submitting the ordinance without any policies and procedures and without the understanding of what's going to happen with our tax systems. However, with it being relatively close to our six month timeline of submitting April 1st, again, we are cutting off any time to write the policies and procedures and to train our staff. And it's not just disposed staff, but we're also training all of our project managers to undo culture. We're training all of our prime contractors to understand what these clauses in their contract means now and additionally cutting off that time to train our Mwb ees on what their rights are at this point in time. And I would say again, I just want to reiterate the most important and impactful component of this six months. It's not only the roles in reds, but attack systems. And I just have to keep reiterating that because every individual brought a prompt payment and that prompt payment mechanism will need to be accomplished in our tech systems. And as we all know, that takes time.
Speaker 3: Adrina, I, I suspect that I what I hear you saying as well is that if you if if the current ordinance were extended only for three months and you were compelled to institute the new ordinance on April 1st, or we would go through all this again and do another extension, which I would hope to avoid. It could be disastrous rollout. You wouldn't have the training in place. You wouldn't have the technical technological system in place.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 3: That would be less true at four months than at three months.
Speaker 14: It's curvy. It's just shy of a little bit of time. But typically, I mean, relatively speaking, three, three months or four months is about the same. Now, here's regards to the lack of.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Now, here's a crucial issue to many folks up here, and that is during this six month extension, there's a lot of business that's going to go through the city. Are you doing anything to include in contracts and slips, solicitations that are going out? Are we able to include some of the updated procedures in some of these contracts, even without the new ordinance in place and under the authority of the old ordinance?
Speaker 14: Yes. And I'm happy that you asked me that question even prior to springing or thinking that we were going to need this extension for the ordinance disposal in partnership with the city agencies and Stephanie O'Malley. We've already begun putting this language with regards to Mwb compliance plans, good faith efforts, termination for a good cause, and so on and so forth in many of our megaprojects as it stands today. That language is actually in our and RFP is for great hall amendments for the convention center for the National Residents and I'm sorry for the Elevate Bond Central Library. And as of most recently on Friday when the RFP went out for the NWC Triangle P three. All of that language is is in that RFP as well. And then we have additional procurements that will be coming out soon. With respect to livestock, the din janitorial that I'm sorry, the din janitorial services contract and many others. So they're not getting through our shop without this language being in there because again, this is just as important to me as it is to these small businesses. We have to be able to ensure that we're doing right by our small businesses. So we've been very, very diligent in our efforts in coming through the procurements that are coming out to make sure that that language is there.
Speaker 5: Last question, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: If you were to receive a six month extension of the curtain ordinance, but things went well enough that we could pass the new ordinance in March, April, and you could implement it sooner. That could come to this body and the old system could be thrown out sooner than July 1st, assuming you're ready. You're asking for the six months so that you're sure you have adequate time.
Speaker 14: Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. So, Gina, the one thing that you didn't mention there when you were listing all the things that were going into projects that come before this now was Trump pay. Mm hmm. How is how how is that approached?
Speaker 14: So that is the one clause that we have not included. And that, again, comes back to the tax systems. And so that you guys have a little bit of background on the payment clause that we're pushing forward it we're moving away this bill with regards to Mwb certified businesses working on city contract activities. We're moving away from paid when paid to regardless of pay. So that mwb is ones that once their work is accepted and completed and their invoices are submitted, prime contractors have a certain number of days to then make payment to their subs in order for dispo to actually enforce that requirement. We have to be able to add that into our tech modules. We don't use paper as we did at RTD and actually missed the paper, but we don't use paper because we have thousands of contracts. So whatever invoices are being submitted, we have to be able to track that in one of our tech systems, whether it be work de, texture, BTG, those are just three of the three of the different tech systems that we have, just three. And so of those we have to figure out how we can track that, how we can flag it and how we can enforce it. I don't want to make any empty promises to the small business community again because I'm fighting for them. So if I'm putting something in an ordinance, I want to be able to ensure that my team is standing by that.
Speaker 5: Sure. I guess what I'm wondering, though, is would it make sense to put the wording in now and show that when the tracking system is up and running, then you're legally authorized and however you need to be. And I may be missing something, so please explain.
Speaker 14: Now, so we are keeping the payment mechanism and provisions in the ordinance. And as the procurements, again, as the procurements are coming up now, we are leaving space to allow for payment requirements. But the procedure is not there for us to quite literally specify that out in the contract.
Speaker 5: I see. Thank you. The other thing I just wanted to clarify, there were, I think, three people, Mr. Jansen as and one I remember your name. Woman sitting to your right and.
Speaker 14: Adrian.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And the woman to your right. All She seemed to be asking for whatever time Desmond needs to get it right, but asked for four months rather than six months. I just want to be clear whether you meant to give them the six months they're asking for or whether you do want the shorter four months. Six months.
Speaker 0: I was. Yeah. I'm sorry. You have to come up to the microphone so that everybody watching on TV can also hear your answer.
Speaker 5: If all three of you wouldn't mind. Just so I'm clear, ma'am. Thank you so much.
Speaker 6: If we're able to submit the ordinance in February so that the 30 day prop pay is in is in, then allow dismal additional four months to write the procedures, the processes and the rules and wrecks. This will allow the 30 day prompt pay to be law, but it would give dismal four months to get it right so that they can implement the process and the procedures along with all the other aspects of it and etc.. That's what I was speaking to.
Speaker 5: She was saying four months after February. Correct. Thank you. And you, sir. I'm saying the same thing. Okay, so six months is what you're saying, sir? That's correct. That would allow dispo to get all the systems and everything in place and working. Thank you. And you, ma'am. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman, for asking because we weren't clear. So, yes, I am requesting for the time that's needed in order for Katrina and Mrs. O'Malley to incorporate the prompt payment clause. That would be six months.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you so much. I must get you if you have something.
Speaker 7: Again, my name is Lacy and I would like to say that I'm not happy about the delay at all. And we've brought up a number of things about how to protect small businesses with these huge projects coming out. And I really feel like a drain in particular has accepted those challenges and stepped up to the plate. So I'm truly comfortable with the six months that she needs.
Speaker 5: Sure. Yeah. I mean I mean, I share the frustration that that has been expressed by some people that wanting this done sooner. And I was pleased to work with Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman New on and I think a lot of the beginning of where you are now, what I'm hearing. Well, I'll say that. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification and to the witnesses who spoke.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Of some of the questions already had had have been answered. I do want I as I understand it, we should pass laws, then make the.
Speaker 6: Rules.
Speaker 4: And I guess I'm I'm a little unclear as to are we waiting to pass the law until June or are we passing a law sooner than making the rules? Or is there a reason why we should wait till June to do all of it? I mean, I think that in the past we or at best practice in general is to pass a law and then do rulemaking. So can you help me work through that? Thank you.
Speaker 14: Yes, for clarification. Our proposal is to wait to pass the law until the rules and regs can be aligned with the ordinance. So April 1st, we would submit the ordinance, file it, and then at that same point in time, we'd have the rules and regs draft ready to go as well. So thereafter that time period would be for training. We would be working on our tech systems as well as working back with the community for public input and comment.
Speaker 4: So you say submit the law in April. Does that mean that April, the first council meeting in April, it would be in for introduction and then the second council meeting in April would be there for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 14: So I don't have the dates broken down as such. I just know with regards to wanting to ensure that the ordinance is done, we blocked out the timeline for that to be April 1st.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then the next quick question I have is you mentioned that you're already incorporating language into contracts like the Great Hall and Convention Center and Central Library and National Western. Thank you for doing that. I think that's important that the people who live here can continue to live here. And not everyone looks like me, a middle aged white male. And I'm glad that I and I'm glad that we're protecting the diversity here in our city. So that but what language are you including in the contracts? Are you including and I don't mean let's read all of the contract, but I mean, just, I guess to to give better nature to the to my question, are you saying you're including in the Great Hall contract that the the legislation and rulemaking that you're considering now will will be in the see the Great Hall contract in your and in the contract it says once this passes into law that you have to know now.
Speaker 14: So but thank you for asking that question so that I can clarify that as well. So now we're putting quite literally in those blanket provisions. So rather than saying once the ordinance goes through X, Y and Z and giving the Chapter 28 articles to the today, we're trying to make it a lot clearer for contractors and small businesses to understand expectations. So many of the themes that you'll see in the new ordinance are called out in the RFP is the RFQ and the contract, for example, like a compliance plan. This is something that's new that now contractors are required to design, create work with liaisons and coordinators, small businesses to explain to us how they're going to meet their commitments to small businesses. So that's something that we're actually calling out in the contract language as well. It's being laid out in the ordinance.
Speaker 4: And prompt pay. Is that also something that certainly that appears to be a topic of of concern and and based on testimony, I would agree is is prompt pay also something that you're incorporated into the RFP for Great Hall, Convention Center, Central Library, etc.?
Speaker 14: Right. So because the prompt payment tax system hasn't been finalized, we did not include that in the RFP in our Qs. However, we are going to include it in the contracts so that it's still obligated thereafter because we would have a better sense then as to how we are going to enforce it.
Speaker 4: Does that create a gap between the responses from the RFP and then the contract itself like, well, we'll see a vendor who gets selected based on an RFP. Will they say, well, we weren't told that we had to pay promptly. We're not going to do that.
Speaker 14: Now because at that point in time, once it's in the contract and it's in the ordinance, it's law abiding by then.
Speaker 4: Okay. And the last thing that I, I think we've covered this, I just want to ask it anyway. So the the prompt pay, I totally understand. I mean, people mortgaging their homes, maxing out their credit cards. Why wouldn't we pass the bill ASAP so that let's say we were to pass it today, which obviously is not possible , but we just pass it today and then these vendors are on the hook. These large multinational corporations are on the hook. And, you know, if we wait until June of of 2020 to pass it, then they're not on the hook until June 2020. And then they can hem and haw for the bill that comes through May 31st of 2020.
Speaker 14: So well, because technically it would be in the contract, so they would still be obligated to to abide by those requirements. The difference being that putting it in the ordinance versus keeping it out of the ah, can I keep you out in other words. But rather than putting in the audience and then setting it and not being able to implement it versus having the process and procedures for us to therefore enforce it. Those are two different things and that's what we're trying to get to, is being able to enforce it now because we have the systems and the procedures whereby to do such a thing. If we put it in the ordinance without any systems governing it or any procedures and different agencies understanding how to assess dispo and making sure that they're meeting those payments. That's where that inconsistency and inefficiency comes. And then we could get phone calls from small businesses saying, you're not enforcing the payment, but we don't have the system in place to do so yet.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 14: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Adrina, first, I want to thank you and other folks from the city for meeting with me to walk through some of these provisions under general services, because the ordinance currently does not speak to them. Do we have any idea how many big contracts they have that are expected to come through during this window of time between now and the time that the ordinance actually gets adopted?
Speaker 14: Yes. So I don't have that actual number on hand now, but I did send an email to all of the council members, which we can send again with the listing of all of the procurements that we have slated for the first quarter of 2020. And General Service is also included in that. We've got quite a lengthy list here, and this is just a touching on some of the procurements that are going to be coming out. So I don't have that that solid number, but we can resend it and we can resend the list. So.
Speaker 9: If the if they come out in the first quarter and the ordinance does not speak to goods and services because we're extending the current ordinance, we're not adopting the new ordinance yet. Correct. Those are contracts that will not get covered. Correct.
Speaker 14: So we've actually been in conversation with regards to goods and services with our city attorney's office. And obviously we have a city attorney's office here now. And so what you're asking is, under the current ordinance, where some contracting opportunities wouldn't be quote unquote, covered goods are covered services, would we have the ability to still recognize them for a goal or an SB defined pool? We've been combing through that legally to see if that's something that we can do. That's like probably the only caveat with the exception being quite honest, that we're looking to see if we can do okay.
Speaker 9: One of the contracts I'm aware of is a big parking contract. And when we have small businesses that want to partner, you know, with with larger premiums on some of those, these are some that go by the wayside that otherwise would could have a minority partner. But because the current ordinance doesn't cover goods and services, that's part of the concern about the urgency in time. Right. And we talked about that when we met. So help me understand how we're able to put language in current contracts. Under the current ordnance contracts that will come through. You talked about a number of the big ones. It's not in. It's not covered in this ordinance. But you're trying to cover it in the contracts. How can we realistically do that if it's not spelled out in the ordinance?
Speaker 14: So there's a couple of different questions that you ask there. The first one I believe, that you're speaking about is the parking management procurement. And because that has already gone out for solicitation and is already currently pending contract award. What we're doing doesn't retract any of that. So unfortunately, that was not a covered good or service contract and whereby we couldn't include that language because it was already out for solicitation at that time. And I believe that was back in August and it's pending award now.
Speaker 9: And that's something like a $50 million contract. It's a pretty big one.
Speaker 14: I don't know the dollar value on that, but I know which one you're speaking about because it was after the fact many, many, many months ago that we were going to put language in that.
Speaker 9: All right. So process and procedures are anticipated to be in place by the time those contracts come forward.
Speaker 14: So the contract language is already in the upcoming. So as stated, we started putting that contract language in many of the megaprojects. Unfortunately, the parking management was much earlier on, so we did not have the opportunity to work with the team to get that language in. But now all of those procurements are being flagged for us to review internally. We actually have a subcommittee with many of the city agency, project managers and executive directors that we're going through in coming up procurements for opportunities for mwb safeguards.
Speaker 9: And does that include some of the general services upcoming contracts?
Speaker 14: Yes. So as stated, the DIN janitorial services that's coming out, that was previously with ISIS, this one is coming out again. And we're working with PBMs to ensure that that language is in the actual solicitation for the RFP.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then just lastly, the new ordinance will have the 30 day prompt pay language.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 9: All right. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Do we need a clarification here?
Speaker 7: When?
Speaker 14: Already out for.
Speaker 2: Solicitation prior to us.
Speaker 9: Oh, we need some additional clarification.
Speaker 14: We were just clarifying if the parking was a covered good or service and I was explaining that we didn't apply a goal because it wasn't covered at that time and we didn't get the language in there.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, that's a little concerning because we've, we've extended this contract already, a couple I mean, this ordinance a couple of times as we, you know, went back and added goods and services to the disparity study. And by the time we get this adopted, we'll we'll already start get close to starting the disparity study for the next five year round, right?
Speaker 14: Yeah. In two years. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So that's an evolving process.
Speaker 9: A little frustrating, but thank you.
Speaker 14: I share your frustrations. And again, I want to see this happen as soon as possible. I just want to make sure that we do it right.
Speaker 0: Thank you to Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for our city attorneys, our city council attorney. This is so I want to in in general, it's best practice for us to pass a law, then make the rules. I guess that's question one. And the question to is, is, as I understand it, what we are doing right now is we are passing the law before, but making the rule first or making before we pass the laws. I guess. I guess is that your understanding of this as well?
Speaker 7: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I have been asked this question a number of times in the past few days. It is not uncommon for us to proposed draft rules prior to the adoption of an ordinance. I think we did it in in the situation with green roofs, if I'm not mistaken. And also we've done it at times with marijuana. And I think some of the reason behind that is to let stakeholder groups understand how the ordinance and the rules might function together. Specifically as to the timeline for dispo in this particular situation, I might bump that question to Jason more. If you have more specifics, it it is, I think, more conventional to draft an ordinance adopted and then have the rules come behind. But we've done this a number of times in the city and in other jurisdictions. I know it's done. That was that way as well.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then I just want to give Ms.. Stewart, do you have any anything that you want to add? You don't have to. I just want to give you the opportunity to. Should you want to.
Speaker 2: STEWART.
Speaker 6: Sky. Sky.
Speaker 14: I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: North Sky. Stewart Mayor's office. No, I think Adrina and Stephanie O'Malley have covered this.
Speaker 10: And Kirsten said what I would have said about we have on occasion sort of gone down a parallel track with rules and regs and ordinance to make sure we're offering clarity to.
Speaker 7: Particularly newer, complicated things to.
Speaker 2: Stakeholders so they'll know exactly how it will work.
Speaker 10: And so that we have staff trained up on how enforcement and implementation will work together.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, all of you, for your input. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Set of questions.
Speaker 10: Just a quick point of clarification.
Speaker 7: The examples you brought up were actually citizen.
Speaker 2: Led ballot initiatives.
Speaker 7: Up. Green roofs, some marijuana. So green roofs, yes.
Speaker 10: Was a citizen's initiative when we put together a stakeholder group to make changes to that.
Speaker 7: It was a city led.
Speaker 10: Process and that included development of some of the rules and regs in a parallel.
Speaker 2: Track. Short term rentals is another place.
Speaker 10: We talked about some additional rules and regs. At the same time, we are moving forward with an ordinance.
Speaker 7: They weren't adopted at the same.
Speaker 10: Time, but the development of them was somewhat.
Speaker 7: Concurrent to give people a.
Speaker 10: Better sense of what happened.
Speaker 7: So the you are correct, green roofs.
Speaker 10: Was a citizen's initiative. But not every example we have of talking about concurrent rules.
Speaker 7: And regs.
Speaker 2: Is a citizen's initiative. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Seeing no other questions, I just want to follow up because I'm not sure if I just missed it or if Councilman Ortega asked a bunch of questions all at once. And I was waiting for the answer to one of the later ones, and I'm not sure if I missed it, but can you talk a little bit to so we don't have the ordnance, but you are building a lot of what will become the ordinance into existing contracts. And so you don't have the ordnance to do that with, but you're doing it. So one, I think the councilman's question was, how are you doing that? That I was waiting for an answer and might have just missed it. And then second, why not pass those things if we're doing it anyway? You know, often I think we get this ordinance done. It's set in stone, but it's not. We can come back and amend it along the way, so why not put into ordinance those things that we are already doing with other contracts, even if not everything is ready instead of wait all the way until everything's ready. Can you speak a little bit to that?
Speaker 14: Thank you for that. So as it is right now, it's pretty much a la carte. So the projects that we see coming down that have mwb opportunities where on one hand rushing, getting all of the necessary mwb safeguards in those specific procurements, as well as trying to restructure and revise all of our boilerplate language. So we're working we're frantically working on two things at two different times. This additional time that we would have with the six month extension allows us to put this language in all of our contracts so that it's consistent rather than working on them as we find out a procurement is coming down the pipeline. The language is more consistent. We ensure that it's boilerplate for all procurements and solicitations coming out, and it's not a grab bucket of what to put in this procurement versus where to put in this one. So that six months allows us the time to work with the various city agencies to revise all of their libraries of boilerplate language. And you asked how we're doing that at this point in time in terms of process, like sitting down with the PMS and.
Speaker 0: Which is without the ordinance as that guide, who's making those decisions about what gets in which one?
Speaker 14: So we've already we've already been working on and finalizing a lot of these themes in the ordinance. But as the procurements come down the pipeline, it really comes down to what kind of opportunities are available. How can we safeguard mwb ees with whatever goal or sub defined pool we're laying out? It's really a caveat of what fits best for this procurement as a PO, and that's because we're again trying to get things in. In the meantime of this ordinance being out versus having the time to create a boilerplate language for all mwb is regardless of procurement.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 14: So answer your question, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So just to piggyback on this a little bit. So any of the contracts that are moving through. Will they have the 30 day prompt pay language in them? Just to be clear.
Speaker 14: So as it is right now, we don't have the systems in place for the prompt payment. So the payment is the one item that we have not been putting into the RFP is our Qs. But we're hoping to amend the contracts to ensure the prompt payment is there once we have the systems in place.
Speaker 9: Okay. And that's being communicated with anybody that's getting awarded these contracts. Correct. So they know that's.
Speaker 14: Yes. So as an example, with regards to the compliance plans that we're asking for, for many of these megaprojects, there are having to explain to us how they are going to promptly pay their mwb is what mechanisms they are going to use to ensure payment and speak to their commitment towards ensuring that small businesses are there, that they are contributing to the success and growth of small businesses. So we're doing a play on words by getting their commitment rather than putting that provision in there, because we don't have the systems yet.
Speaker 9: And then just one very last question, if I may, on the general services. Is there a threshold level that's been identified in terms of how we determine which ones? I mean, obviously, the disparity study is is used to determine, you know, how many people are in those various categories. But are we setting a threshold level or is it just for every contract.
Speaker 14: At threshold level four with regards to if it's going to have a goal or be in speed? If I'm. Paul Yes. And I'm very excited to bring that back to all of the council members to lay that out. But yes, we've actually increased the thresholds so that we have the ability to apply a goal versus and speed. If I am Paul and on in the current ordinance, those programs live separate from one another and the future ordinance they're in concert with one another. So on the parking management, we would go back and look at the number of available firms that can do that type of project and say, Hey, we have a large pool of firms, let's make this an sbe defined pool or there's not a lot of prime opportunities for IMW BS on this. So let's make this let's put a goal on this so that there's subcontract able opportunities for small businesses. So yes, we've changed the threshold and we've also removed the covered term and we'll be bringing that all back to you once we begin the reauthorization process.
Speaker 9: So as we have contracts moving through the process, has there been a concerted effort to look at shorter time frames so that we're ensuring that we're capturing the opportunity for in the DWP participation as opposed to like the parking contract doing a five year contract with the five year extension, but yet no opportunity for minority or, you know, women participation in in those.
Speaker 14: And yes, and that's the main reason why we need time for rules and regs, because we have to be abled. So we've actually been working with our city agencies on citywide language and saying why it is one agency do it this way and why does another do it this way? Why are the timeframes different? We've been having those conversations, but that right there is a perfect example as to why we need that additional time so that we can shore up the processes and in many instances streamline them.
Speaker 9: Okay. Because, you know, with with the contracts, we either vote them up or we vote them down. We don't get to amend them. So, you know, I'm going to be looking at a lot of these contracts with a a much more careful eye as they're coming through, especially if they're high dollar contracts.
Speaker 14: I would encourage you to. Please.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Captain Kels. Behind you of something?
Speaker 4: Yes. Apologies. One more question. Why can't we pass the today and delay the effective date to July 1st?
Speaker 14: I don't.
Speaker 2: That's a city attorney's office.
Speaker 14: Can you ask the question one more time, please?
Speaker 4: Why can't we pass this today and delay the start until July 1st, 2020?
Speaker 5: Good evening, guys. Jason Moore, City Attorney's Office. The ordinance is largely administrative. This is for you know does about authorizes disabled to operate. So at least as far as the agency, we kind of got it up to a certain point until we confer with the rest of the administration. And then that's when we got our recommendation to delay it to get the payment issues put into the ordinance. So as of right now, the ordinance is not ready to roll out. We're going to get it get it ready to roll out as quickly as possible, the reauthorization rather than the extension. So we got to a stopping point before before we could proceed with it.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 6: Seeing no one can hear you.
Speaker 9: Ortega have we procured the system that we're going to be using to do the prompt pay and to be tracking?
Speaker 14: We we have not procured them yet. We are looking to utilize an existing system rather than bring in a whole new one. We want to obviously advance what we currently have in place and we've already begun our convening with tech systems, the data, the data analysts from each of their agencies, as well as our PMS and our financial app folks to look at how we can add these modules to our existing systems.
Speaker 9: Which system is that?
Speaker 14: So we are deliberating between right now Workday and B to G and texture. But we're most we're we're hopeful that we can proceed with work day being the system that allows us to do this compliance.
Speaker 9: And do we have a consultant working with us to help us try to figure all that out?
Speaker 14: So there are two. So we've we've brought in tech services as well as the data analyst that each of the agencies have done, in particular has two consultants that will also be a part of that process.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Now seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 1289 is now closed. Comments by members of council and I will because we have the amendment on the floor, comments about the ordinance and about the amendment and the timeframe. I think we can do all the comments together and then we can get through the voting without doing a comment section for each time. So, Councilman Flint.
Speaker 3: Thank you. But I would defer to Councilman CdeBaca to go first.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 3: I was just faster on the trigger.
Speaker 0: You're a fast trigger figure there.
Speaker 7: I assumed. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 10: First, thank you so much, Adrina, for the work that's gone into this process. We've been in the process of reviewing and updating this ordinance for quite a while, and you've been here for less than a year and have really done an excellent job making sure that we get the new ordinance we need. After over a decade of stumbling through the status quo, we've heard a lot of testimony about how small businesses suffer because of our delays and processes. The current ordinance, which is sunsetting at the end of this month as a result of an extension that Dito asked for in February of this year that my colleagues approved, is is a it asked for a lot of time to begin with. The original extension was to allow more time to discuss community recommendations and to identify needed changes to the ordinance, rules and regulations and internal policies and procedures. A lot of what look what looks like we're doing again later on in this six month proposal, I'm well aware of the need for time to carefully implement such an important ordinance. We have indeed foregone significant opportunities during the height of our growth to build to build up our disadvantaged businesses. Through this ordinance, we've watched our disadvantaged businesses shrink and disappear while systematically being excluded from competing for our largest contracts paid with taxpayer dollars, simply because of the way our current ordinance was written. Goods and services are.
Speaker 7: One area.
Speaker 10: That we are most deficient in and is still one of the areas that will continue to suffer, especially during this delay. In the last decade, we've watched our policy businesses decline along with our policy populations. Every single day and month matters to our disadvantaged communities. We have a 2018 disparity study that very clearly indicated we have significant disparities that we need to address immediately. The disparity was very the disparity study. Study was very thorough in its recommendations and with a generous eight month extension from the previous council. I do not understand why, in good conscience we continue to further disadvantage our disadvantaged businesses, knowing that another extension is costing them dollars, contracts and interventions we should have began implementing eight months ago without the immediate unbundling. Wherever possible, minorities in this city are still relegated to second class contractors or what we call subcontractors rather than primes . In many cases, they cannot even compete, and we end up with teams that have no disadvantaged representation until they're forced to. I'm looking forward to seeing the new ordinance codified and the implementation of the recommendations in the DISPARITY study from 2018. And I speak for many in the city when I request that my colleagues make the disadvantaged businesses their priority tonight rather than our own convenience, and cut this extension down to the minimal amount necessary. Based on the testimony, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the three month amendment and allow me to put the four month proposal on the floor where I'm requesting that you vote yes again. Adrina stated that April 1st is when this ordinance will be completed. There is a separation of powers and branches of government for a reason. Our branch of government, the legislative branch, should be passing the ordinance or law prior to the executive branch, allowing the agencies to promulgate rules and regulations. I encourage you all to vote yes on a four month extension, no on the three month extension and no on a six month extension. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: I think, Mr. President, I would speak in favor of of allowing a six month extension and acknowledge that, as Councilwoman CdeBaca had just said, this is needed as soon as possible. But to implement a new ordinance before all the processes and especially the tech process, the the the systems by which we're going to enforce it, are able to handle the mandates of the new ordinance. That's a recipe for disaster. We've seen enough things in this city. That have been implemented before they were ready to be administered and enforced. And that is not good for our small businesses. However. The six months, what we were told in our committee, the six month extension is the maximum amount of time that the agency believes it needs. It could be ready before that. And if it is, we can supplant the existing ordinance as early as May or June and not wait until July. But in the interest of not having to come back here and have this debate again on well, not on April 1st now, but on May 1st, if they're not still not ready, I believe that we should trust the Dispo Office and Ms.. Gibson and her in her professional judgment and give her the time she believes and many of the small businesses believe is is needed to do that. If this were an agency, if dispo is that dispo, it's just sounds weird. If if the dispo office were an agency that were fighting this. If we were dealing with an agency that was fighting this reform tooth and nail and was reluctant, if it was if it was the sheriff's department, it was the public works department pushing back on on some reform we wanted to do. I could see holding their feet to the fire. But here we have an agency that's the principal advocate for these changes. That's not the situation where we need to hold their feet to the fire. They're already holding their feet to the fire. The biggest question mark that I see here and what I've heard in the testimony is the technological and the administrative processes that need to be in place. And I think we should vote in favor of granting the dismissal office the time it believes it needs to get those. The worst thing that we could do would be to force the passage of the new ordinance before that office can get administered. So I ask that we pass the pass the bill on first reading or order it published as as it is presented and not amended. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Clark. I appreciate the dialog and the questions from my colleagues and Adrina and Stephanie, thank you for your work on this. I, you know, came from a place of compromise and wanting to allow additional time for disabled to do their work, but then also honoring the work of our minority and women owned businesses and small businesses in Denver. I've heard from many of them that do business out at the airport, that do business throughout the city. And I understand the six month extension is for you all to get through this process. We could do the ordinance ordinance earlier, followed by the rules and regs. And small businesses have been floating loans to the city of Denver for years. And I want to honor and in good faith hear from them and look at a four month extension so that we can get the ordinance in place and that there's. A line because to order new technology, to order, you know, applications, to make sure that we're able to track and the prompt payment piece is huge. I cringe to think about how many possible maybe we be. Businesses have gone out of business trying to do work with the city and county of Denver because they were never, ever paid by their prime and we didn't have the systems in place to track that. And so I would ask my colleagues to not only support dispo and the important work that has happened, but to also support the small businesses. And we had a few of them here tonight. There's no way that we're going to hear from a majority of them because they are there at home trying to do their payroll, do their end your books right now, you know, legal, everything else. And so I want to honor them and hear what they're telling me and that I am in support of the four month extension to May 1st so that we have a definitive time because we can't float this anymore. And I want to honor the small businesses that are keeping, frankly, the city afloat and keeping us diverse and inclusive. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I passed the president a note a moment ago saying how proud I was that I caught myself during questioning as I was slipping into comments. That doesn't happen all the time. So I'll make my comments now. What I started to say was I was pleased to work with Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman New. I think we started a couple of years ago on on the, you know, issues like prompt payment and strengthening the the goals from minority and women owned businesses and and heard many small business owners come in and talk about, as we heard tonight, the obscene amount of time it takes to get paid for for work that's been completed. And so I, I understand the frustration, but what it feels to me is, is that the frustration is about what's happened in the past. And what we've got now is is the the team in place to correct that finally. And for me, the additional two months, the way I'm interpreting the testimony that I'm hearing tonight, is there there's minimal risk to small businesses in granting the six month extension so that we get it done right and and completely. So I'm I'm in favor of the six month extension. I ache for the businesses that have been injured along the line. And but I think we've got things in hand at this point. So. That's my words tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Katrina for the incredible work that you've done in the short amount of time that you've been with the city. You really get this stuff. And I'm excited about your your role in helping move this along as far as we've gotten. So I want to say thank you for that. Stephanie, I know you've been playing a huge role in, you know, the disparity study process and in helping to draft the current ordinance as well as Jason. This is not new to the city. We have had an mwb ordinance since the pioneer days. In the last two administrations, we have had seen part of our Gillespie office fall down in terms of strong enforcement, strong outreach and training. And I'm excited about the fact that we've really staffed up and are working to address all of those kinds of issues, because that is critical to making sure that we are not seeing small businesses put out of business. You and I have worked on one of those out at the airport, and I think when we have agency folks that take a hands off, like, well, that's between the prime and the sub, and we're not holding that prime accountable for not doing their job and making damn sure that the people they brought to their team, which is part of why they got the contract in the first place, are I mean. This is where it's broken. It's why we need the ordinance. It's why we need to. To make these changes. But our agency people have a responsibility in this as well. They can't just keep taking the hands off and and still allow these contracts to move forward without accountability to those people who got selected to follow our ordinances and to make sure that their premiums are getting paid. Given the fact that the ordinance is about 95% done, I am in support of the four month delay because the changes that were made that Councilman Cashman just talked about, the councilman knew brought forward, were supposed to help address part of these issues. Right. By making sure that the information was being submitted at the time of payment to the DSB office so that there was transparency in the payments. And to realize that we have businesses still waiting eight months. You know, I dealt with one that was $5 million outstanding at the airport for almost a whole year. And you know, what ends up happening in a lot of cases is they have to settle for pennies on the dollar, which is absurd, because that is not why this this ordinance exists. It's to make sure that we create these opportunities where people get to participate in city jobs and make a little bit of money and support their businesses and grow their businesses. But just the opposite is what we see happen with some folks, like the one at the airport that, you know, basically not only had been there for 27 years, but lost everything. And that's not what we want to see happen. And so I'm I'm excited about the changes, but I am anxious for us to move these things along. We we have a tracking system today. I mean, we we have to track how all of this gets reported. And and, you know, but what I hear is we're shoring that up to handle the new volume. And I know when Eric Maraga took over as our OMB director before the name was changed, I said, this is one of the things you need to step in and deal with because we have over $6 billion worth of work that's going to be coming through this city. And and, you know, it really was when you came on that we started beefing up the staffing and all of that. So I know I'm sort of getting into part of the ordinance and we have another public hearing. So I will stop. But I'm in support of the four months because we need to get this done as soon as possible. And I appreciate the all the work that's that's been done not only by you guys, but all of the BWB partners who have sat through many, many meetings with reviewing the disparity data and the drafting of the the ordinance that is yet to come forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. In committee, I mentioned measure twice, cut once. Turns out our predecessors already gave you that second measuring opportunity when we we as in the previous we not me, but gave you the an an extra eight month extension. And so here I, I want to, uh, we in the legislative branch, we make the laws and, you know, so I am totally supportive of allowing a delayed start so that you can make rules. I'm also in support of the four month extension so that you can take the laws from 95% to 100%. So I am in support of the four month extension. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. All right. Seeing no other comments. And then again, we're going to race through some voting. So if you have something to say on.
Speaker 9: The point of order, just a quick point of order. You can, as the introducer of the original, can you just withdraw that and resubmit the second one?
Speaker 0: Sorry to do that, but first, I have a few comments to make before we get to that. But yes, excellent. Okay. So I will just add my thanks to everyone. You know, Stephanie, Adrina, Susan, whole team, this is exciting and I think that you're really onto something when city council sits around fighting over how fast can we have it, right? We want it. We want it now and we don't want to wait. Anymore. That's a success. That means that you are headed in the absolute right direction. And so I don't want that to get lost in the middle of this. Three months, four months, six months. Right. We were excited. And this is important work and we want this now. And I think that that's a good thing. On the city council, you know, sitting up here, we don't have a lot of levers that we control. Right. And I know that also gets frustrating when we're not in the weeds like you are. And then all of a sudden we are up here saying, but wait a second, we we think you can do it faster or we think you can do it better. And I know that's not easy on that side. It's not easy on the side, not having a lot of levers when there's something that we believe in and we want to move forward. And one of the levers that we do have is how long do we make this extension? And, you know, I, for one, absolutely do not want anyone to take any reduction in this time as we want less than perfect and everything. Right. I still want all of that. But one of the levers that we can pull is to put that fire on a little bit more. And, you know, I do think that sometimes when you get a goldfish that grows to the size of its container, and if we gave this a year, then we probably wouldn't get it eight months early in committee or four months early or two months early or a day early. Right. And I think if we set it as six, then that's probably where we'll get it. I appreciate Councilman Flynn's, you know, hope that we will get it earlier, but I think we definitely don't get it earlier if we set the date out there just because that's how we all work. And we work towards those deadlines. And I think setting a deadline that's more aggressive maybe helps us actually get it there earlier. And if it doesn't, then we continue to have a conversation. And this is another touch point for council to have in this work. And so for those reasons I am excited. I want this now. I can't have it right now. And so I am in support of shortening that time frame and continuing to push and light that fire and and hoping that we can get it sooner and continue that conversation and continue the touch points that Council has as we go on to make sure that we can get this fully enacted as soon as possible. So I am supportive of the shortening of the delay as well. So all right. With that and thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We are going to we don't need to vote down the amendment. But Councilman said, like, if you want to propose a withdrawal of your original amendment.
Speaker 10: I would like to propose a withdrawal.
Speaker 7: Of my original amendment.
Speaker 0: Can we get a second on that?
Speaker 9: As the second, I agree to withdraw.
Speaker 0: All right. And so we have that moved and seconded. So, Madam Secretary, that one's cleared out now. Good. Okay. Now, Councilman said, what do you want to make your motion to amend?
Speaker 10: Yes, I move that council bill 19 Dash 1289 be amended in the following particulars on page one, lines 21, 24 and 27. Please strike July one and replace with May one.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Are we all set? Madam Secretary. Yep. All right. Excellent. So that has now been moved and seconded. And unless someone really has a burning comment, we're just going to go through to the vote. Looks like it. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca.
Speaker 8: I black.
Speaker 6: Flynn. No.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I.
Speaker 6: Herndon. No.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Hey. Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer. I. Tories. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: Five nays, seven ice.
Speaker 0: Five nays, seven ays Council Bill 1289 has been amended. And now, Madam Secretary, if you would, roll call on 1289 as amended. And again, unless there's a burning. Oh, nevermind, we're already going into roll call. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmer. I. Herndon High. Haines High Cashman. I can eat i. Ortega, i. Sandoval. Sorry. Sawyer. Guy toys i. Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 1212 Eyes Accountable. 1289 has been published. All right. That brings us set last to our final courtesy hearing of the evening. Councilwoman Torres, will you please vote count about 1176 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending portions of Chapter 28, Article III, Article V and Article VII to extend sunset dates.
Amends Chapter 28 Articles III, V, VII of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to nondiscrimination in city contracts for construction, professional design services and covered goods and services, to extend the sunset date of this ordinance from December 31, 2019 to May 1, 2020. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-4-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1176
|
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 1212 Eyes Accountable. 1289 has been published. All right. That brings us set last to our final courtesy hearing of the evening. Councilwoman Torres, will you please vote count about 1176 on the floor.
Speaker 2: I move that council bill 19 dash 1176 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for council bill 1176 is open. We have one, two, three, four, five, six people signed up to speak on this item. So if you have come to speak on this, this is the bill on the fee on disposable bags. If you have signed up to speak for this, I will ask you to come up to this empty front bench right by the microphone. And then when I call your name, step up to the podium. First up is Nolan Gaul.
Speaker 2: We? Hi. My name is known call. I a third grader, a student at Ashley Elementary. I want to be. I want plastic bags not to be a part of America. My sisters also sea turtles. And now they're dying from plastic bags. Sea turtles eat plastic bags thinking they are jellyfish. Plastic bag from Colorado travel to the oceans with big storms and winds. Please ban plastic bags in Denver to show the world we care about our sea life and oceans. We want sea turtles to exist for a long, long time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Randy Moorman.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. President, and members of Denver City Council. My name is Randy Moorman and I am the community campaigns director at Echo Cycle and the vice president of Recycle Colorado. I'm here to speak in favor of Bill 19, Dash 1176 on establishing fees for disposable plastic and paper bags. We have a plastics pollution problem and virtually all the plastic ever created. About 8.3 billion tons still exists on planet Earth today. 315 million tons are produced annually, and that amount is projected to quadruple within 30 years. Only 9% of plastic ever produced is recycled. The rest persists somewhere in landfills or as litter in our environment. The problem is that plastic never completely goes away. Plastics always break down when exposed to the elements, but they never completely go away. They simply get smaller and smaller. And the toxic chemical additives used to give them their desirable characteristics are released into the environment. Getting into our water, soil and ultimately in the food we eat. Both paper and plastic bags have negative environmental impacts. Plastic bags are made from nonrenewable. Natural gas, are more easily littered, will not biodegrade and pose a threat to wildlife and ecosystems. Americans currently throw away 100 billion plastic bags every year or 300 bags per person. We use these bags for just an average of 12 minutes, but they continue to persist in our environment. Paper bags, however, also have negative impacts. They require more water to produce, consume more energy during transport and contribute to deforestation. Reusable bags help us reduce these environmental impacts throughout the life of the bag. Denver residents pay for the litter and pollution caused by disposal bags to their tax dollars, paying for litter, cleanup on our streets, at our parks and open space and along our rivers. Disposable bags, clog sorting equipment and contaminate materials at recycling centers and local composting facilities, adding to processing costs and reducing the value of outputs. Placing a fee on the use of any disposable bag, paper or plastic sends a clear message that one type of bag is not better than the other, and that the larger problem is the use of single use disposable packaging. Bag fees are a proven strategy to significantly reduce the use of all disposable bags in other cities. 300 cities across the country have some sort of ordinance regulating disposable bags. A dozen of those cities are now here in Colorado. Disposable bag use in the city of Boulder decreased by 68% within the first year of its disposable bag fee. Similarly, Washington, D.C., salary reduction of over 60%. The bag fee is an important and impactful first step toward reducing plastic pollution and climate change. And therefore, I encourage you to support this bill. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Duane Gal.
Speaker 5: My name is Dwayne Gall. I've been a resident of Denver for 50 years, and plastic bags have always been one of my concerns. You've heard previously testimony from my grandson. His generation is going to be impacted by plastic and the use of plastic more than my generation. I would like to share an experience I recently had. I just returned from India a few weeks ago and in India they have been planning plastic bags in some of their states for over 20 years. There is a huge push now within India and legislation is being passed to ban single use plastic in the entire country. We saw many posters and other promotions advocating this. We had many purchases we bought in India from various sources of the smallest vendor to the bigger stores. We never received a plastic bag. We received some very creative cloth bags, other kinds of materials. So it's very inspiring to me to say that of a country like India, with all the struggles they have in their economy and their society can ban plastic bags, that certainly Denver ought to be able to come up with a plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mohammad Khan.
Speaker 7: Good evening, counsel. My name is Muhammad Khan, I I'm president of Council nine and I work downtown as a Denver resident and a workforce member of Denver. I think we have a plastic problem. You. The problem with plastic is it never goes away. It will break down to smaller and smaller elements and exist as microplastics which exist in our water and our food and even in our body. Plastic impacts wildlife and ecosystems. Plastic bags are made from nonrenewable natural gas, and they cause a litter problem which a city residents pay for. On my way here from Capitol Hill, I saw four plastic bags flying in the air. Paper bags are not a good solution either. They are also meant for single use. And as Brandy said already, we average you each person use on average one bag every day. Having a fee is important and impactful for a step towards reducing plastic pollution and climate change. And Boulder is an example for us. Some people might believe that having this fee would not be a good suggestion. I can assure you at my company we started a program where we where we went to zero waste in two years just by providing activities where people were rewarded for good behaviors like reusing their bags. Please support Councilwoman Black's back fee ordinance as a key first step towards climate change that we have talked about a lot. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 5: James the Ku Klux Klan movement. Self-defense. Come on. Yo. Are you kidding me? I expect more creativity than charging people for plastic bags so they can get them. I'm gonna give you a living example. In the last election. What we did as candidates who were poor is that we went to our constituency and told them, give me, give us all your plastic bags sitting in your house. They said, What are you going to do if we put our campaign material in the bags tied to their door and used it? It had no value. We got the bags for free. The poor people had to be creative in what we do. Yeah. That requires creativity. Not sitting up here trying to figure out another way how to pass on taxes to poor people. Now, we had to charge for the bags. We can't afford to buy no bed. Well, we take the bad guys, bus it, and then we put it inside another bag. So that other bag is used to carry the groceries home. Especially now those who can't be walking around with these heavy bags on the books trying to get home. So this is definitely an act for the privilege and not the poor. And that's what we need to be up there.
Speaker 1: To think about other folks other than your own class interests.
Speaker 5: So I suggest you think about this. So you think about it and be creative. Learn how to take a lemon and turn it into lemonade. Because even if you pass this.
Speaker 1: What you gonna do with the bags? It's already here that you get out of town.
Speaker 5: And the corporations who give you the money to run to do this mess. No, no, no. The platter is us, is the people. And what we do with the resources that we're getting and the technology that we got because it is about the bags. And we need to put a fee on the bags that we need to put up big on city council so that we can eliminate government so we don't have them and then will pay you not to get up there. Because this is straight up bullshit.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 13: Jesse Pierce represented for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action, more for self defense, positive action to Movement for Social Change as well as the Universal African People's Organization and Unity Party. Colorado. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. We are in favor of this, despite the fact that it is going to affect so-called minorities and poor people of color and marginalized and poor communities. We have a crisis, as we already know about the housing, but we're being told we have a crisis with this climate change. Now, my question is, the planet goes under, we're still on the bottom. So how is this benefiting poor people, how this is benefiting black people, houses benefiting so-called people of color, minorities in the city? We are going to we already have enough taxes. We're paying we're paying for sales tax. We're paying for other taxes. We are not seeing any kind of benefit from these sales tax. We are and I can't even afford to live in the city. So you want to taxes some more, maha some plastic bags. My question is, is this going to pertain to oh, shoot, this is going to pertain to all grocery stores, all food chains, all places where you get plastic bags. This is Wal Mart. This is Target such as Walgreens, such as all Safeway, King Soopers, all these places. Is this going to be applied to every single development department store where you get these plastic bags and then are you going to replace these plastic bags with the green sustainable bags which are for reuse? You can use them multiple times. Those are the questions I had. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flint.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: I have I have some questions for our city attorney and. I already set her up for them. So this will be a sort of a back and forth colloquy. I know that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the bag fee in the Aspen case was a fee and not a tax in the city of Chicago. They just went out and went ahead and called it a tax. Knowing going into this that it is already been decided that it's a fee. I'm not going to argue that it's a tax, but I am still troubled by my own thought process. He's saying that this really is a tax because it's unlike any other fee tabor exempt that we have. And so I just had some questions for Christian Crawford, our counsel, to maybe walk me through the reasoning behind the Aspen decision, because when we charge every person in the checkout line, whether they're poor or rich, they charge they pay the same $0.10 we're paying that. The customer is not paying that to us. So it's not our fee. They're paying it to the store and then the store remits 60% of it to us. That's exactly how they do sales tax. That's exactly how the gas tax works. I. So why why what was the court's reasoning for saying this is not a tax? I guess what I was working up to and I didn't I didn't get to the committee and and and so but my thinking was that if we put this on the ballot, if we made a referral and said, can we charge a ten cent tax per bag in the city or county of Denver that would be overwhelmingly approved. And and almost all of my thoughts that this is a tax would be would be addressed. Kirsten, could you walk us through the court's reasoning in Aspen?
Speaker 7: Sure. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative counsel, I think backing up one step for everyone's benefit. As you know, in 1992, when Tabor passed, it became really important to understand the distinction between a fee and a tax, because taxes under TABOR require voter approval and fees do not. There is not only the case that Councilman Flynn is referring to that comes from the Supreme Court out of the city of Aspen. But there's also just a plethora of cases that talk about the difference between a regulatory charge and a tax. And taxes are imposed to defray the ordinary expenses of businesses, of business, of the government versus a regulatory fee has to be relate reasonably related to the to the program, not specifically limited to services that the government provides, but a regulatory program. So the cost of administering the program and here the predominant purpose and that's the language out of the city of Aspen case. The predominant purpose of this fee is to alter the behavior in the nature of sustainability and protecting the environment. And so in the case that you're referring to, the city of Aspen adopted a 20% waste reduction fee that was imposed by grocers charge to the customer. And the purpose there, when the Supreme Court analyzed it, was to change the behavior of how race reduction occurred in the city of Aspen. If you compare the case to our proposed ordinance, there are some similarities and we have limited and enumerated the purposes for what our portion of the fee can be used for, which is as a general proposition to reduce the use of single use plastics.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Do we require the retailers to account for because the ordinance sets up rules and a structure for the retailers. They may only use their 40% of the fee for certain things, and they must be related to the reusable bag program and customer education and setting up their systems for collecting in order. Do we have systems in place to ensure that Walgreen's and King Soopers and Safeway and Target and all the other entities that were mentioned are using this fee for that purpose and not for their bottom line profit.
Speaker 7: And since that's a little bit more policy oriented, I didn't.
Speaker 3: Warn you about that one, but.
Speaker 7: That's okay. That's okay. I'm happy to take a stab at it, but I wonder if that would be maybe better suited for the sponsors or even solid ways to answer how.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Black We have met with the Department of Finance and so solid waste will be managing the program and they'll work with the Department of Finance to establish the rules and determine how we enforce that. Randy Moorman, who is here from Ego Cycle, talked about the BOULDERS program, which has been very, very effective and we'll learn a lot from how they've been managing it for six years now. Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: Okay. Charlotte. Do you have anything to add? I'm just curious how the retailers who retain 40% of this revenue will be held accountable for how they use it?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Charlotte Pit Solid Waste Management. My understanding is once the bill passed, will have the ability to do some rulemaking and put in some processes to look at how we audit that. I don't have an answer for you today, though, but.
Speaker 6: Will we'll learn.
Speaker 7: From some of the other communities and put something in place. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman Black for bringing this forward. This is really important. I think it's critical for our habitability and.
Speaker 0: We're still in questions. We will have time for comments. And maybe that was a fancy dressed question, but just to make sure.
Speaker 4: I apologize. I am getting ahead of myself.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. We'll get back to you. Thank you, Gotham. And. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1176 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I I'm not sure if I supposed to give my, like, real comments tonight because we're actually voting on it next week. Tonight, we're just moving it forward. We're publishing it. So I'll have some abbreviated comments. But I had a couple of things I wanted to share with you. This is from a report from the United Nations. It says it's estimated that between 1 to 5 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year. 5 trillion is almost 10 million plastic bags per minute. If tied together, all these plastic bags could be wrapped around the world seven times every hour. So while I love it that people repurpose their bags and reuse their bags, we are not repurposing 1 trillion or 5 trillion bags. And so the goal is to reduce the use of the bags. Another fun fact I wanted to share with you is that in 2018, the term single use was Collier's dictionary word of the year. Because worldwide we're starting to recognize the dangers of all the single use packaging and plastics in our planet. And Randy had some great statistics there. They don't go away. Everything that was ever produced is still here on our planet, and much of it is getting smaller and smaller, and it actually becomes more and more dangerous the smaller it gets. To answer some of the questions asked by some of our speakers. It does apply to all retailers. In fact, they are supporting the bill. So it applies to your 7-Eleven, your convenience store target, J.C. Penney's. It does not apply to restaurants. They are all in support of it. It's been a very collaborative effort. Randy, thank you again. He helped me a lot and I drove him crazy. Debbie Ortega had a bill similar in 2013 and she's really kept the flame alive. And a lot of us here are supporting this tonight. I call it a bring your own bag ordinance. Some cities like Chicago or now Washington, D.C., called Skip the Bag Ordinance. Either one is okay, but the goal is to reduce the use. In Denver alone, about 200 million bags are used each year, and that's just in Denver. But based on what we've learned from other cities, we expect that that will decline by 70%, which is just a really big victory. And we will have fewer bags contaminating our compost, contaminating our recycling facilities where they jam machinery and cause costly delays and break the machinery. And we'll have less litter in our world and we will have less of those microparticles that are now being found everywhere. There was just a story on the news that they are have been found in icebergs in the Arctic and they're not sure how they got there. If they came in the air, they're not sure how they got there. But it's a it's a dangerous problem for our world. And the only way we're going to solve it is to reduce the use of single use plastics. And so this is just a first step. Thank you for everyone who supported it. I really, really appreciate it. And I'm excited to see how it turns out in Charlotte. I'm really excited to be working with you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, did you have some comment?
Speaker 4: I have a couple of questions. Is now the right time? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I do want to again thank Councilwoman Black this time in the in the appropriate period. There's a lot of work that you've done on this on this bill. I think there's you know, it's one thing to accomplish something that is difficult. There is something even harder. The next step beyond that is to make it look easy. And I want to quote the Westword, who's actually quoting us. And and in the Westword, they said that in committee, the biggest argument that was there was a disagreement, a kerfuffle, so to speak, between president, clerk and I about whether dog poop bags are compostable. If we get to committee and the biggest issue is whether dog all dog poop bags are compostable, then Councilwoman Black, you've done a lot of work to make it easy. Easy for us to vote. So the vote is quite easy for me. So thank you for all your hard work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank Councilwoman Black for her work in helping to bring this forward. Lots of meetings with people across the city have taken place. But the one thing I want to mention that has not been said, and I think it's important to mention, is that the money that will be collected by the city of Denver will be used not only for education, but to buy reusable bags and to get them distributed across the city so that people who don't already have them and most people already have multiple reusable bags because we pick them up everywhere at various events and in functions that are held where they're given away for free. But these will be free reusable bags that will be distributed more, make sure they're distributed through the schools and to our senior centers and to places where people may not have already picked them up. And so there should be no reason. And since 2013, one of the things we have done in my office is use part of my budget to purchase reusable bags. We distribute them at the mayor's cabinet, in the city meetings and other community meetings that I attend on a regular basis. So we have been doing that, making sure that there's no reason for people not to have more than one, you know, of their own reusable bag that they can take to the grocery store.
Speaker 12: Or other places.
Speaker 9: So thank you, Councilwoman Black, for all of your efforts in moving the needle on this. I know Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilman Clark have been part of the the meetings that we have had with different industry stakeholders and community leaders. And so I'm excited that we really have unanimous support across the board to move this forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Dog poop.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilman Clark, I want to thank Councilwoman BLOCK and Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Clark for your partnership. Councilwoman Black and I started this journey early this year on going on tours to A-1 Organics, to the Denver and Arapahoe Facility as well. And really, this is just the beginning for us as a city. There's a big push for us to reduce our use of single use plastics throughout the entire city and county of Denver. And so this is one step. And the other thing that I think is important to know is that this goes into effect July 1st, 2020. So there is going to be an outreach and engagement and a media campaign along with it so that we make sure that all of our constituents know that this is coming and can prepare and maybe start to make some of those behavior changes right now. So thank you. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. See no other comments I will just end with and because I know we have this on final reading next week, so I have some more to say then. But I just want to also say thank you to Councilman Black for your awesome leadership on this. Councilman Ortega for spearheading this and keep your eyes on the prize comes from Gilmore for letting me come on as a co-sponsor with all of you for those very excited about it. And I want to thank all our speakers for coming, but Nolan is still back there. I just want to say you're awesome. You're rock star. We need more third graders showing up and telling us what to do. And your voice is changing the world tonight. And I know you're going to continue to change the world with that voice. Some things are worth staying up past your bedtime for, and this is one of them. So thank you very much. And I just want to thank I heard multiple people say, including Councilwoman Gilmore just said it again, this is just the beginning and I'm excited for everything that's to come. So with that, we are. Madam Secretary, I think we're ready to vote. Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye CdeBaca I think I go more I Herndon.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Hands.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashmere. All right. Kenny Ortega. Hi. Sawyer Torres. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce results. 1212 hours comes Bill 1176 has been published. Seen no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding Article IX entitled Fee on Disposable Bags.
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding Article IX entitled Fee on Disposable Plastic or Paper Bags and amending Chapter 24 by adding conforming amendments. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-6-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-3-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12092019_19-1155
|
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. Councilwoman swear. Will you please put Council Bill 1155 on the floor?
Speaker 1: I move that council building council bill 19 dash 1155 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Well, I think we're out of order here. So this is the first one. This is Mississippi. I'm sorry. So I forgot. We had two. This one comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon, I'll let you explain what we're doing. Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Further request of the applicant. I am asking my colleagues to vote no to defeat this bill. The application is being withdrawn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Are there any other comments on this one? All right, Madam Secretary, council members, this reminder to please vote no. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. CdeBaca No. Flynn Gillmor Nick Herndon, no. Hines No. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Sawyer No.
Speaker 3: Torres Mr. President. No.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please go to the voting, announce results. It looks like we're still missing.
Speaker 3: One more. Missing one.
Speaker 0: We re missing.
Speaker 1: It was me. She closed it and.
Speaker 0: Okay. So Sandoval was also a no. So, Madam Secretary, you are close to voting in those results. 11 is 11 nay is constable. 1155 has been defeated. All right, Councilman Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 1156 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10353 East Mississippi Avenue in Windsor.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 10353 East Mississippi Avenue from B-1 with Condition to S-MX-3 (business district in the former chapter 59 zoning to suburban, mixed-use) in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-29-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12092019_19-1156
|
Speaker 0: Okay. So Sandoval was also a no. So, Madam Secretary, you are close to voting in those results. 11 is 11 nay is constable. 1155 has been defeated. All right, Councilman Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 1156 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I move that council bill 19, dash 1156 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council bill 1156 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Certainly. Good evening, council. I'm Brandon Shaver presenting official map amendment application four 2220 Blake Street rezoning from r m 30 with waivers and conditions to see him x five The subject property is located in Council District nine within the five points neighborhood. The request is for CMCs five, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use five storeys maximum height. The subject property is currently a restaurant with just over 9300 square feet and land area and is requesting the rezoning to allow for more flexibility in signage. Existing zoning on the site is AMI 30 with waivers and conditions. I'll get to that in the next slide. This is surrounded by more AMI 30 with waivers and conditions as well as x five ncm x eight, both with billboard use overlays. So AMI 30 is a primarily residential district which allows for higher density multi-unit as well as consumer retail and service uses. The waivers on the site are for uses that require special review, open space, setbacks in height. There is also a condition that requires two affordable housing units. But this has been satisfied with the construction of the multi-unit building which was constructed in 2005. There is also a party wall agreement with the neighboring property, which requires a ten foot setback for solar access if the subject property is ever redeveloped. As to not block views from the condo building, which has windows built to the side interior property line, current land use of the subject property is commercial retail in the form of a restaurant adjacent land uses include more commercial retail, office, parking, multi-unit, residential and entertainment cultural uses that cause field. The subject. Property is also a contributing structure within the Ball Park Historic District. Therefore, any additions or alterations to the structure would require special review by the Landmark Preservation Commission. It is highly unlikely that the Commission would ever approve demolition of the structure and any additions will require consent from the registered neighborhood organizations. One here is the Reno Arts District. The photos to the right give you a sense of the building foreman's skill in the area. There are a number of single and two story historic warehouses and commercial structures interspersed with multi-unit residential buildings of up to six stories in height. This table is side by side comparison of the existing zoned district versus the proposed, and you can see they're fairly similar. So speaking to the process, informational notice of this application was sent out in early May and CPD received a revised submittal in July. Planning Board Notice was sent out on October 1st and the board voted unanimously to move the application forward at their October 16th meeting. It was again moved forward unanimously at the Luti committee on October 29th. The property was properly noticed and as a present, three letters of opposition have been received from residents in the condo development south of the subject property. These letters are concerns that the proposed zoning could result in a five storey building that would block sunlight access. And as I said previously, the current zoning already allows for 65 feet and the party wall agreement is in place to provide a side interior setback should the subject property ever undergo redevelopment or have an addition. And also to that point, I think a couple of these letters spoke to why CPD didn't want to pursue a waiver at this site. And the reason that we did not go forward with a waiver is because a waiver is essentially a rezoning and we do not rezone to districts that are former Chapter 59, which this is now under the criteria, starting with consistency with adopted plans. These four plans impact the subject property. This rezoning is consistent with a number of strategies and Plan 2040, including using urban design to contribute to economic viability and supporting the creation and expansion and economic viability of Denver food businesses and encouraging mixed use communities. More detail and discussion of consistency with these goals can be found in the staff report. Moving to Blueprint Denver The subject property is mapped as a downtown context. It is important to note that the boundaries of context have limited flexibility as long as it furthers blueprint. Denver's strategies and the intent of the context map. The plan states that neighborhood context should be consistent across an area and not very at the parcel level. Therefore, as a number of surrounding properties have an urban center neighborhood context, this request is consistent with the blueprint context map. The future place for the subject property is a high residential area. These places have a high mix of uses throughout contained buildings with high lot coverage and give high priority to pedestrians and then future street types. Both 22nd and Blake Streets are downtown arterials. The subject property is part of the growth strategy as it is within a high residential area in a downtown or urban center neighborhood context. These areas are expected to take on 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment by 2040. Moving to the northeast downtown neighborhood. The plan, which was adopted in 2011, recommendations from this plan include creating mixed use areas that place high importance on pedestrian access and promoting the use of design elements that link buildings to the street environment. The request for a mixed five is consistent with these recommendations and the future land use and maximum building heights identified in this plan. Lastly, the downtown area plan recommends that this area transform into a dense, vibrant, mixed use district that is highly activated by pedestrians. So the requested zone district is consistent with these goals as well. Staff also finds that the requested rezoning meets to the next two criteria, as it will result in the uniformity of district regulations and will further public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans and fostering the creation of a pedestrian friendly mixed use area. Near high capacity transit. This rezoning is justified. As the city adopted the Denver zoning code in 2010 and the property retained old code zoning. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and the CMC's purpose and intent statements. So at that, CPD recommends approval based on planning. All review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Lee Driscoll. Good evening and thank you very much for your time. I am Lee Driscoll, the applicant. I want to thank the both city council and the City Planning Department for helping me through this process, which is very interesting and complex and helped me learned a lot about the comprehensive plans. Anyway, I really just wanted to be available for any questions and if there are any to answer them. Thank you. Thank you very much. And next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is just LaShawn Paris. And I ran for city council where a large almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running to be the next mayor in 2023. And I'll represent for Denver homeless out loud black stars and more self defense positive actually commit for social change, universal African People's Organization as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High. No, I was against this initially because I thought it was going to be another rezoning for more property that people cannot afford to live in. But if it's just an expansion to a restaurant, I think I'm willing to work with that. I just want to know what's going to be here exactly and how high of stories it is going to be, because I heard something about it could build up to five stories. I would like some clarification about that. And then also, if there was a traffic study done in this area, because the traffic is already bad enough in this area and this area is pretty trashed at night and it gets blamed on the on house neighbor. So I would like to know what exactly is going to be expanded with this restaurant. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item?
Speaker 1: Councilman CdeBaca Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. DRISCOLL Would you mind answering that question of what is the plan for this area? It seems like it's just for signage, but I would.
Speaker 0: Certainly. Would you like me to face council? No. First question.
Speaker 2: Our application is purely.
Speaker 0: Submitted for the purpose of being able to be more flexible on the signage. Maybe there are variances to this signage in all the surrounding blocks except for ours, which has the perverse effect of making the block look dark and scary at night and and defeats many of the purposes of all the floor plans that are cited here to make the neighborhood safer, more vibrant, more mixed use to to help connect Rhino and LoDo and all of those things. We the. The irony is that we have we did on the property. We sold it in 2015. We took back a 40 year lease. We believe strongly that having a better signage will attract more people to the block. And I've been supported by all the other neighborhood, all the other businesses who would like to do the same, but they don't have the time and energy to invest in doing this. I am lucky to have. I was also encouraged by the city planners to take the zoning approach so that we could set a precedent that would make it possible for other businesses on our block. We are very lucky. We have a very strong brand, which is the Cherry Cricket, but two businesses, the restaurant directly across the street from us has failed three times. There's a of excellent pizza location just to the south of us that does well but could do much better in my view, if they had signage that was consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. So that's really our goal. The. The irony of the whole thing is that the more successful we are, the less likely that the properties ever to be developed because we will keep our lease for the next 35 years. So it will stay exactly as it is. If we have our way.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. For CPD plan. Thank you. So you said if something were to get built there in the future, it has a ten foot setback. Correct? What? How close to the property line is the nearest I is an apartment building or a condo building close?
Speaker 9: It's a condo building. And they're both buildings are built to the property lines.
Speaker 0: Okay. So there they have no setback strength. A new building would be ten, ten feet away.
Speaker 9: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I just have trouble with giving an entitlement that's not being asked for. I mean, as opposed to making an exception in the other direction and just giving the sign waiver. Even though it violates an internal policy of CPD, it just doesn't make sense to me. Well, here you go. Here's. Here's three extra stories that you haven't asked for.
Speaker 9: Well, I wouldn't see it as quite entitlement change. The current zoning allows for 65 feet.
Speaker 0: Is that right?
Speaker 9: And the proposed zoning is 70 feet in maximum height.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. Can you talk to me about the ballpark? Historic district. So what are the design guidelines and standards for that? I'm not familiar with that one as much.
Speaker 9: I'm not quite as familiar either, other than any project that goes through that in that district has to go through a design review from the Preservation Commission.
Speaker 1: Do you buy time to know if this is a contributing structure?
Speaker 9: That is a contributing structure.
Speaker 1: Demolition is impossible.
Speaker 9: Probably wouldn't happen. Correct.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for councilmen 1156 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. When I first heard that this was regarding the cricket, I thought I was asleep at the wheel. I'm glad to know that the Cherry Cricket not in Cherry Creek is is the particular property in question and that the Cherry Creek Cherry Cricket will continue as a. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Any other comments? Right. Seeing no other comments. I'll just add my thank you to staff for all your hard work in putting this all together. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I will be voting yes. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your patience. Black CdeBaca I Gilmore I Herndon High Hines I. Cashman can each. Sandoval, I. Sawyer Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Did we get Torres?
Speaker 3: Torres. I'm sorry, I. Sorry.
Speaker 0: And I'm an I. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting and not the results.
Speaker 2: And then.
Speaker 3: You have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes counterpart. 1156 has passed. On Monday, December 16, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1259, designating the Tilden School for Teaching Health Historic District as a district for preservation. A 30 minute courtesy public hearing on Council 1176 amending Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding Article nine entitled Fee
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2220 Blake Street in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone a portion of the property located at 2220 Blake Street from R-MU-30 with waivers and conditions to C-MX-5 (residential, multi-unit in the former chapter 59 zoning code to urban center, mixed use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-29-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12022019_19-1220
|
Speaker 0: Under pending, no items have been called out. Miss anything? All right, Madam Secretary, if you'll please put the first item on our screens. And, Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Resolution 1220 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council removing council resolution 19, dash 12 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Questions and comments by members of Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to apologize to two members of the committee. We actually are. Excuse me. Members of the body. This actually came through committee, as you may know. There was an article in the Denver Post late last week. And and that that article has created a flurry of communication between constituents in District ten and the office. So these are questions that I would have preferred to have mentioned in committee. But I think that some people have some reasonable questions. And so I hope you'll allow me to ask that of either access or arts and venues if anyone is here from either of those entities.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Brian Kitts. I'm director of marketing and business development with Arts and Venues.
Speaker 4: I thank you for coming. And again, I apologize that I didn't ask this in committee. So we've heard probably just that. Well, certainly the second most commented issue that we heard from constituents over the Thanksgiving holiday and the end today, but first being the lack of snow removal was about the access contract. And by the way, you were not even near the same league as all the concerns about snow removal. But I didn't realize that that the perspective venue or excuse me, a prospective vendor is currently under. What does they have? The House Energy and Commerce Committee has a probe into AEG. And I'm just curious to hear and also the European let's see what is the European group, the Competition and Markets Authority in the U.K. has also launched an investigation. And so I'd like to hear what your thoughts are, what your comments are about the investigations and how that may have affected the decision making process.
Speaker 9: I'll answer the second question first. The decision making process was not affected by by this quote unquote, probe. Our work with the purchasing department started several months ago. I had quite a back and forth with the reporter from the Denver Post today. I would I would not characterize what's happening right now as a probe. What has happened and I've actually got a copy of the letter from the congressional committee that is investigating what they've done is they have sent a letter to dozens of ticketing platforms around the country asking for information. It is not a criminal investigation in any way. They are looking at five specific areas of concern to ticket buyers in general in an effort to reintroduce the boss act. The Boss Act. This is where I get all ticketing and nerdy on you. The Boss Act is named after Bruce Springsteen. It's been kicking around since 2009. What it does, it stands for better oversight of secondaries, sales. It's exactly what it sounds like. It is intended to protect consumers from predatory ticket sales, especially on the secondary market. So, you know, this is not something that access is afraid of. This was not directed only at access. It was directed at, like I said, Ticketmaster, Eventbrite tickets. Now, almost everybody that's running a ticketing platform right now got one of these letters asking for information. It's not something that they were afraid of. We would welcome four of the five. We would welcome real work in the form of four of the five categories that are being looked into. So, you know, again, I, I want to be clear that what the congressional committee is doing is not look into criminal activity of any kind . It's asking for information to reintroduce the bias act.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. So you mentioned secondhand sales. Does this the proposed contract, does it control secondhand sales in the chosen city venues?
Speaker 9: To the extent that we can. Yes. I think that what what you've seen with the advance of technology over the past several years is that we have now gone from, you know, literally selling tickets, card tickets across the street from Coors Field or standing outside of Red Rocks with a hard ticket to being able to transfer some of those electric lights, transfer almost all of those electronically. To the extent that we can, we are trying to control that secondary market. We want to do that. It is to the benefit of Red Rocks and the performing arts complex. And everybody who looks at those venues that we're able to do that as opposed to, you know, somebody randomly selling those tickets on Craigslist where we actually can't see who's buying or selling those those tickets.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So I recognize that that often the people who comment are directly affected. And and so I thank you for your comments because it's important for me to better understand, you know, all sides of the story. The secondhand market, I think, in the contract is 22 point something percent for the secondary market. And the city gets half and access gets half. Is that right?
Speaker 9: That's correct.
Speaker 4: Some of the some of the concerns that we had received, the emails, some even today, were that it was really difficult to purchase from the primary market. And an effective access to tickets in some of these venues are entirely through the secondary market. Do you have any thoughts or comments about that?
Speaker 9: Sure. I'm going to generalize and I'm going to use Red Rocks. But this applies to Pepsi Center or any sports or entertainment venue in the city where, you know, bluntly tickets are limited. I'm going to say that by the time a fan club gets its hands on tickets, by the time a team pre sells its tickets, by the time season tickets come off of the system, there are a limited number of tickets. We worked with Westword and Channel Nine a couple of years ago on a story, you know, talking about Red Rock specifically. By the time a show goes on sale where there are 9000 tickets available, even if every single ticket was available with a ticket limit of four per household, that's that's almost 1000 buyers that get those tickets. So, you know, this is a matter of supply and demand. It is it frankly doesn't have much to do with the primary or secondary market. It has to do with limited, limited availability in in any of those venues. There are plenty of shows at Red Rocks where, you know, bluntly the night of the show, you are going to be able to buy buy that ticket.
Speaker 4: And and, Mr. President, I've one other question, and I noticed there are other people with questions, so I'll yield after this. How do other promoters like Ticketmaster? How do they both have the sorry, the other ticketing agencies and promoters? How do they interact with access? So to to be a little more specific about the question. Well, artists be unable to participate in the markets that we are in some of our city venues because they have an exclusive arrangement with Ticketmaster or vice versa.
Speaker 9: No. I think one of the interesting things when we first partnered with Access is that and I think some of you have heard this in presentations, the city of Denver had a specific set of venues that was the only set of venues that wasn't under some sort of exclusive agreement. Pepsi Center is ticketed by Ticketmaster. Coors Field has its own. The Broncos are ticketed specifically by Ticketmaster. It doesn't matter who plays at Red Rocks, it's going to be on the access system. That's the way that that the industry is working right now. So there is no artist that is shut out.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Can you just explain to me a little bit? This is a this is a we're just re-upping this contract, correct?
Speaker 9: Yes. So it was a five year initial contract that is expiring. And so this is a renewal of or a rework of the initial contract.
Speaker 5: So this rework of the initial contract then is anything changing materially about the way people in the city and county of Denver are purchasing tickets? When this contract starts in January versus the way they have done tickets or purchase tickets are experienced. Our venues for the last five years.
Speaker 9: Not because of the contracts. I think that you are experiencing different things as a fan, but it's based on technology and it would be the same whether you were with Ticketmaster or any other system. You know, 95% of our tickets are now sold electronically. So you show up at the venue with your phone. You may have borrowed it on your phone. The days of the hard ticket are gone. That's really the only change. This is really a fairly seamless process. There hasn't been an increase in fees. As a matter of fact, in a couple of cases, you're going to see lower fees with the renewed contract that's based on volume. You know that the industry is really reliant. The music industry is reliant on touring right now. And so that makes all of our venues incredibly healthy. So that's that's allowed us to, you know, basically work a volume discount on some of those fees.
Speaker 5: So in terms of the people of the city of Denver and the experience that they're getting at our venues and the basis of this contract, the. The article that was in the post the other day that sort of brought all of this up. It felt a little clickbait to me because it didn't really. It's sort of targeted access.
Speaker 10: But it wasn't really talking about access. Right.
Speaker 5: Is that is that accurate? Can you can you explain like is that is my experience with that, correct?
Speaker 9: Sure. You know, like I said in response to Councilman Hines question the the article, I wish the headline certainly matched what was in the article and what's in our contract a little bit better. You know, there are there are lots of good things that have come out of this contract. You can get a ticket from any of the platforms that had replied. But I think that what we have done with access is, you know, taking a deeper look at who's coming to our venue. So when we got ready to look at redeveloping the arts complex, we weren't sure. We had no demographic information at all. By by working with this system, we're able to see that, you know, three of the top ten markets that buy tickets at Red Rocks are from outside of the metro area. When it came to settling the lawsuit against Red Rocks in the city last year over accessibility and access to Row one at Red Rocks. It was actually written into the consent decree that the flash heat system which Access owns and operates, become part of the solution. It allowed for us to restrict who bought tickets and actually who transferred those tickets. And so that was something that was helpful for patrons who needed access to two row one. So, you know, I think that there are lots of things that technology has has been good for when it comes to the ticketing system. That continues with with with this contract.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so in your opinion, this is a good deal. This is a good value for the people of the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 9: Not only is it a good value, but it's one of the you know, it's one of the vital systems that we use in our venues. You know, we're talking about two contracts with arts and venues tonight. The other one is with Aramark. You know, both of these contracts are the workhorses that get the trains running on time at Red Rocks. One of them provides food and beverage service along with the the workforce that handles the concessions. You know, the access contract actually gets the tickets from the promoter into the hands of into the hands of the fans and, you know, staff. So every box office that we've got so, you know, these are it's not just a good deal. It's it's vital to what arts and venues does.
Speaker 5: You, Mr..
Speaker 0: President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Brian, thank you also for being here. I think you addressed with Councilman Hines most of the the things I wanted to raise, but I was interviewed also by John at The Post about this. And I just wanted to point out to the audience and to my colleagues that, first of all, this is this was a competitive re procurement of this process. This isn't just an automatic renewal of access, a contract that it's had for the past five years. So we had, I think, six proposers, three of whom were shortlisted.
Speaker 9: Two actually were deemed viable by purchasers.
Speaker 3: And what's going what's going on in the House committee is basically a not a probe or investigation into, like you said, criminal activity. That's not the issue at all. What's actually going on is the House is looking at some common some practices that are common in the industry and not particular to the access. This would have been an issue no matter which proposer we chose to proceed. Correct. So I want to point that out to colleagues. This is not peculiar to access. That's right. And the last thing I wanted to bring up was that this contract in the last five years, if I recall correctly, has meant a huge improvement in accountability and transparency, particularly when it comes to our seat tax revenue. Right. Prior to this, we relied on the promoters. To basically tell us how many people were there. Right. And remit the 10% seed tax based on their word. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: That's correct.
Speaker 3: So, in fact, I was put in mind of one of the final scenes in the Blues Brothers when Jake and Elwood went backstage and they ran into the guy from Clarion Records who handed him a an envelope of cash. And that's kind of kind of how it used to be. Correct. They don't have suitcases.
Speaker 9: Full of cash because the revenue at Red Rocks is so big. But yes.
Speaker 3: They do. And so I guess what I want to emphasize is that with the digital platform and the records, the documentation that's kept on ticket sales, now we not only get for seat tax remission. Of what we were owed, the 10% surtax not just at Red Rocks, but Coliseum and the arts complex. And maybe in the future, the Lorenzo Heights Theater, if we're successful. But we also know such things as demographically, where do these customers come from so we can target market and things like that. So so overall, that's what this contract has meant to us.
Speaker 9: That's a huge part of it. And, you know, again, the technology here can't be overstated. You could have gone to, you know, before this contract, before the city opted in, you could have gone to a show at the convention center and they would have taken your cash and given you a red paper ticket. Mm hmm. By using an electronic system like this, we collect the money first. And I think this is important, though, too. We collect the money first through the access system, and then it is paid out to live nation and AEG or the symphony or whoever is is booking the venue that night. So not only do we get the arts and venues portion, including the seat tax, which is important, we are we're able to see where the money comes in and where it goes. We don't have to rely on an individual promoter and it's immediate. You know, part of the contract says that we have to pay out within ten days. You know, that's a huge improvement over the weeks and weeks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And just to cap this, we we, in fact, as a city or as an agency, arts and venues might even be supportive of the House committee looking into some of these practices, because that could make it much better for some of our customers to be able to be engaged in the secondary market if they had to.
Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely. You know, Red Rocks is known as being a leader in lots of areas. And I think this is one where I think we'd be proud to cooperate with the House committee in this type of work. And like I said before, this isn't something that we're afraid of. It's not something that I access is afraid of. It's a natural progression in terms of ticketing and protecting consumers.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Councilman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I was not at the committee meeting, but I also got a lot of questions and I have a couple of constituents who have been unhappy with ticketing. For as long as I've been a councilperson. And so I'm going to follow up with you tomorrow for it with some very specific questions. But generally speaking, what would the difference be if you would have worded it to a different vendor? First question. And then related to that, would it be possible for the city to do this without a vendor?
Speaker 9: The answer to the second question is. Not without hiring lots and lots and lots of people. And at some point you're going to have to bring on the software system anyway. So my I guess my answer would be no, we we couldn't do it without a vendor. The difference, you know, frankly, between Ticketmaster and Access when it came to this procurement wasn't wasn't a lot and you know I think that part of it has to do with what I think the panel saw as flexibility and the ability to kind of pivot when you need new product or, you know, access was just a little bit more nimble based on our experience.
Speaker 5: So there's not some other model out there that wouldn't have all these fees. No. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of quick questions. So I know there are a lot of performers now in an effort to beat, scalpers will use systems like lotteries. You send in your name, you get a number, and if you're picked, you get tickets. That's not available at Red Rocks, is that correct?
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 6: Pardon me, of places with the access system.
Speaker 9: The short answer is yes. It is a little bit more complex. Answer is that's kind of the way that the system works now where you go in and you are put into a random order. But access and this is not at our venues right now. AEG is doing this at the Mission Ballroom and some of its other venues. You can sign up as part of a preferred fan program that lets you have early access to those tickets and be in a lottery to actually get those tickets. So Access could do that at Red Rocks if the promoter wanted that.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Just a comment. The thing that drives me crazy is that the $75 ticket ends up being 97 or 102. And I'd love to see the advertising be the final price. And I believe a lot of the promoters and companies are working in that direction. And the last thing that I wanted to say, I was really interested to hear what you said, that out of town purchasing is is so large. With all the mistakes I have made in my life as a parent, I get the most forgiveness for the fact that I slept outside of King Bee Records, which is now Spanx Roadhouse on East Evans, and slept overnight and got my kids for two throw center seats for Michael Jackson's victory tour. And and while I'd be willing to do that still, it's not available anymore.
Speaker 9: It's a hell of a dad.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, there you go. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Kels, behind you. Back up.
Speaker 4: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. And think. Thank you. Councilwoman Black reminded me you had mentioned what would happen if we used a different vendor or another. I think that's an interesting point, because another concern that we had was the perception of monopolistic practices. But. That's a that's not really an issue with the city of Denver. That's more an issue, the potential issue with the industry like. So regardless of which which vendor arts and venues chose or the city of Denver chose, would kind of be in the same boat. Is that a fair statement?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's fair.
Speaker 4: So and parts and venues of the city of Denver has. But what is what authority or power would we have to break up monopolistic practices?
Speaker 9: That's a big question. You know, I don't know that there's an easy answer to that. You know, this is an industry. You know the industry. I think when you start again, going back to, you know, the boss act, I think that what you see is that ticketing artist management, venue management, promoters. They are all so intertwined that, you know, these things are tough to unwind something. And again, I think this is important that I didn't say earlier, the boss act isn't looking just at. Ticketing companies. You know these are practices like Councilman Cashman said that that affect. That are affected by artists that are affected by promoters. So you know in this particular case, since we own and operate our own venues, you know, I think we're sort of free of some of that monopoly. We get to choose who we want based, you know, not based on, you know, who our parent company is.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And is this that you were talking about data of my visit or from the visitors that public record? It's something that an open records request could.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think so. Um, I'm not sure, but it's cool stuff, so I want to share it.
Speaker 4: I'm assuming not at the individual level.
Speaker 9: No, that's. That is not horrible.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Miss President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Brian, I just have one question for you. For people who don't want to pay the fees or don't want to order online. Can you just tell the listening audience how they can still purchase a ticket?
Speaker 9: Sure. That's an important question, because the last time that this this contract came through city council, it was actually a request of council that we and access or whoever the contractor was, provide a little more face friendly service and a way to purchase tickets for no fees. And so as a result of that, you can go to any of the city box offices. And I want to be clear that those are our own venues. So if you want to go to Red Rocks and buy a ticket to a show at the Coliseum, you can do that. And if you're at the Coliseum, you can buy that ticket with no fees at all. If you are if you're paying with a credit card at the Coliseum, you're going to pay that, I think 3% credit card fee. But if you walk up with cash, which plenty of people do, you can buy those tickets for for no fees at all.
Speaker 7: And will you just clarify if Pavilion is one of those venues?
Speaker 9: Love it. Pavilion is not one of the city owned and operated venues, so. No.
Speaker 7: Okay. That was the one I had issues with related to that.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions or comments on this issue. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: I. CdeBaca I Flynn I Gillmor I. Herndon Hines. High Cashman. Kenny Ortega Sandoval, I. Sawyer Torres. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Right, Madam Secretary, please close voting and note the results.
Speaker 2: 39.
Speaker 0: 39 Council Resolution 1220 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman Herndon, if you'd please put Council Bill 1236 on the floor.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and AXS Group, LLC to add compensation and five years to provide ticketing services, box office operation, information and call center functions, and marketing support for City venues.
Approves a contract with AXS Group, LLC for $5,010,613 and for five years to provide ticketing services, box office operation, information and call center functions, and marketing support for City venues (THTRS-201952501). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-23-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-20-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12022019_19-1246
|
Speaker 0: And Councilman Herndon, if you could please put Council Bill 1246 on the floor.
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 19, dash one, two, four, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black, your motion to postpone on this item.
Speaker 3: Michael.
Speaker 5: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 19, does 1246 be postponed to the end of tonight's public hearing on council built 19 Dash 1245.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. And we're waiting for technology to catch up on your motion here. It's been moved. Can I get a second? It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Since Council Bill 1245 and 1246 are companion bills related to the East Arkansas redevelopment, I ask that my colleagues postpone consideration of Bill 1246 until after the public hearing on 1245 this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Thing. No other comments on this item, Madam Secretary. Roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 5: Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Gillmor. Herndon High. Haynes. High Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Torres.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Final Consideration of Cats. Bill 1246 has been postponed to after the public hearing on Council Bill 1245. That concludes the items to be called out this evening or 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 an item out for a separate vote. Councilman Herndon, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and the bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass and then block for the following items. All Series 2019 unless stated 1238 1268 1252, 1261 1267, 1275 1230 1253, 12, 7011, 16, 11, 89.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye. CDEBACA Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon, I. Hines Hi. Cashman. Kenny. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting 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. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1057 changing the zoning classification of 2975 Huron Street and five points a required public hearing on Council Bill 1058 Changing the zoning classification for 2100 South Colorado Boulevard 4040 East Evans Avenue 2140. South Albion Street 2132 2150 South Corridor Boulevard and 4102 two 4108 East Evans Avenue and required public hearing on Council Bill 1245 approving the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area, and that 4201 East Arkansas sales and property tax increment areas.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Cooperation Agreement between the City and County of Denver and 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area, to establish, among other matters, the parameters for tax increment financing with incremental sales and property taxes.
Approves a cooperation agreement with Denver Urban Renewal Authority for the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area to establish the parameters for tax increment financing with incremental sales and property taxes in Council District 6. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-16-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-12-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12022019_19-1057
|
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 0: And it looks like we have motion in second. Thank you. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 1057 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. And this is a map amendment application is located at 2975 Huron Street in the five point statistical neighborhood in Council District nine on the western edge of the five Points neighborhood, just a half mile from Union Station in the CPV Prospect and neighborhood area, the request is to rezone the southern two thirds portion of the property, which is about an acre and a half to Cemex 12 to match the existing zoning on the northern third of the property. There's an existing five story multi-unit building that was constructed recently about in 2013. The applicant is not proposing to demolish the existing building or redevelop in connection with this requested rezoning. The objective, as stated in their application, is simply to unify the zoning on the property. So in terms of existing zoning and the portion of the property that is the subject of the rezoning is currently zoned r m you 30 with waivers and that's outlined in red. You can easily see here from this map that the existing split zoning is asking to rectify with a single existing multi-unit building spanning both the C-Max 12 and the RMU 30 zoning on that site. The waivers from 26 for that arm, you throw the old code zoning, those waived all open space and setbacks. You can see from this the surrounding zoning that there's a lot of CMCs 12 already in the area and AMI 30 is interspersed in there, but primarily it is Cmax 12. So a portion of the subject property is within the cause field view plane. The View Plane was enacted in 2009 to maintain and protect mountain views from the upper deck seats. Of course the view plane limits, building height, then a portion of that subject property. So that little bottom piece right there to a maximum of 73 feet in height. So that's about six storeys. In terms of existing land use. The property containing the subject site currently has a multi-unit residential building, as I previously mentioned. The properties in north is vacant land to the east. There's more multi-unit, residential and some office industrial uses and directly to the south as a restaurant and to the west is a multi-unit residential. So that gives you a flavor of what's going on in that area. The tap photos is of the existing building to which the southern portion of that existing building is the subject of this rezoning. The bottom of the photo is that restaurant that's to the south. Next, there are some photos of properties to the east. The yellow arrows shows where it is in relation to the subject site. And here are some photos of the properties to the West. In terms of process. The Map amendment application was noticed according to code requirements. A staff has not received any comments related to this application. The applicant has reported to reach out to the surrounding Arnaud's and the tenants in the area as well as the Union Station Arno. Union Station, North Arno. No concerns were expressed. In terms of public comment that I received, a few questions were asked and they were mostly clarifying in nature and they stated that they didn't want to submit a formal comment because they just had questions about what is the rezoning if the building was going away. So the code provides five review criteria for evaluating map amendments will step through how the application meets each one of those. There are four plans that apply to this rezoning plan 2040 Blueprint Denver, the downtown area plan and the CPV Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That's from 1991. So the application is consistent, consistent with many goals and strategies outlined in comprehensive plan 2040. More detail can be found on page 13 of the staff report. More specifically highlighted is how this request is for rolling policy under the equitable, affordable, inclusive vision element of the comprehensive plan. By allowing the existing residential development to remain in, that's near transit, and that helps those residents have access to transit relatively nearby. Secondly, the request furthers environmental goals by enabling existing building remain and preventing additional demolition waste. Furthering our climate and environmental goals. Next, move on to how the request is consistent with Blueprint. Denver Blueprint identifies the subject site as being part of the urban center neighborhood context and Blueprint. Future neighborhood contexts are used to understand differences across land use in built form and mobility options at a higher scale. And the urban center context is generally described as a higher intensity. Context has a mix of residential and employment, uses the sense the site promote proposed is being asked to be zoned to see x 12 and that allows for all those things and is within the urban center context. Hence the see it's consistent with that plan guidance. The future places map shows the subject property as part of the high median residential area. Blueprint describes those aspirational characteristics of the urban center. Context is a mix of uses, including multi-unit residential with heights generally up to eight storeys. It's important to note that blueprint also caveats. Height guidance provided in the plan is simply to provide a general sense of scale and is not intended to send exact minimums or maximums. So may be instances like these where building heights taller than what specified are appropriate. Taking into the surrounding context of all the CMCs 12 zoning around that, that entire entitlement and the close proximity to Union Station, which is the mobility hub. Additionally, the site is primarily served by 20th, which is a mixed use arterial. Moreover, blueprint's growth strategy. That's one of the criteria and blueprint we looked for consistency with. This is a version of the future places map showing aspirational just distributing future grocer in across Denver. The subject site is part of the high median residential area and citywide these areas are anticipated to see around 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. Again, this is not proposing a new building on this site at all. It's just asking for the existing building to remain with unified zoning. So we're going to move on to the downtown area plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2007 and applies the subject property. The plan shows the subject as part of the Central Valley District and part of the Prospect Subdistrict of the plan. There's no specific discussion of the plan related to future land use or building heights, however, does generally describe the area as mixed use with residential general commercial retail. So the proposed zoning is consistent with the plan as it will allow for the mixed use as recommended in the final small area plan that applies. This MAP amendment is the Central Platte Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted way back in 1991. The plan identified the area as general, mixed use and recommended low rise heights. But those low rise heights was not specifically defined in the plan. The proposed TMX 12 zone district, as with all other existing zoning in this sub area, allows for more mid-rise heights rather than the low rise as recommended by the plan. And also that kind of the higher zoning that's requested is mitigated by the view plan and more recent planning guidance in the area. That said, on balance defines the application to be generally consistent with this adopted plan. So all in all, Sefton's requested zoning also meets next three criteria. The rezoning will result in a uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans and by supporting the existing housing density in mixed uses that are already in place and the application meets the justifying circumstance criteria. As the city adopted the new code in 2010 and the portion of the subject site, which is the what we're talking about to be re zoned retained former chapter 59. So that justifies the rezoning. And so the final review criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent statements. The requested zone district is within the urban center neighborhood context, which only consists of multi-unit, residential and mixed use commercial areas with high levels of bike and pedestrian access to transit. That said, CMCs 12 would support the existing multi-unit residential with convenient bike and PED access to Union Station. Consider with consistent with the urban center context, description, description and mixed use intent. Purpose X 12 is also intended to apply to areas in intersections primarily served by major arterial streets and building scale. 3 to 12 storeys site is generally served by 20th, which is a mixed use arterial, and the proximity to Union Station makes this zone district requested appropriate. So finally, we recommend approval of the application based on finding all review criteria have been met. The applicant's representative is here if you have any more specific questions for them. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have four individuals signed up to speak on this item this evening, so I'm going to call you up. First up is James dear. And so. Darren. So I apologize. I think I got that one wrong.
Speaker 6: It's Italian. Good evening. Thank you for the time. James dear Enzo.
Speaker 0: Proud resident.
Speaker 3: Of the Baker neighborhood.
Speaker 6: And Lucky District seven. Thank you for the good work, Councilman. Council President. Clerk. I am a representative for Griffiths Residential, the owner and manager of.
Speaker 3: The subject community. We are a locally based apartment owner.
Speaker 6: Operator. We are not a developer.
Speaker 3: We hold our properties long term.
Speaker 0: And try to focus heavily on the.
Speaker 6: Resident experience. We'd like to say thank you to Courtney for.
Speaker 0: The hard work and diligence.
Speaker 3: On this process. It's been great to work with her.
Speaker 6: We when we acquired this property in 2017, we noticed.
Speaker 0: In kind of.
Speaker 6: Diligence that it had two.
Speaker 0: Different zoning. So that was confusing and difficult.
Speaker 4: For us.
Speaker 6: To understand, especially given that the.
Speaker 0: Southern two thirds was zoned.
Speaker 6: Under the old code, which was revised in 2010.
Speaker 4: So this is.
Speaker 0: Just a clean up for us. It's really more about just making sure it's consistent and within the new zoning code.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 0: You know, no absolutely no plans to.
Speaker 6: You know, disrupt or the buildings actually was built in 2013 I think last year was 2015. So very.
Speaker 3: New.
Speaker 6: Nice building that we're not changing anything about.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. Next up, Caitlin Quander.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Council President Members of Council Caitlin Quadrillion, Youth Counsel to the applicant. I'm a resident of Denver in District six, so this application meets each of the criteria in the code for rezoning approval as a staff report and ah, submit a letter walk through. And as Jim described, this was an interesting zoning analysis. When Griff Griffiths first looked to acquire the property in 2017, there was a kind of question of, well, it has two different zoning laws and one's old code and one's new code and do we comply? We were able to determine that the property does comply. But when the opportunity arose to clean this up and provide that clarity and uniformity across the building and property, we wanted to pursue that. I think after reviewing the property and discussing with staff.
Speaker 2: It's clear to us that if the waiver.
Speaker 5: Is on the review 30 had not been in place in 2010, this portion of the property would have been zoned along with the northern portion that was resolved in 2010. So hopefully tonight we're hoping to clarify that and and come away with one uniform zoned district across the property. So if that were available, if there's any questions. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Seiko.
Speaker 3: Yes. My name is TerraCycle, founder. Organizer. That's action movement for self-defense. Born and raised 5.67 years old. To celebrate my birthday on Thanksgiving, 1952. It was on a Thursday. Okay, here we go. Here we go. Zoning changes. Protect the existing owners for future appreciation of value of property. Out of money made on the zoning changes? No. Nobody asked for zoning change without a plan. But now is the time to tell folks what the plan is. This area has been totally gentrified. No. Well, very few black folks exist. So this is really a zoning change to make it appear as if it's okay to do this by city council approval to approve the gentrification process and make it appear as if it's okay. Kind of like how the West was won when you killed all the Indians and then you declared the changed names and they're like five points. We're museum relics. We no longer exist other than pictures on the wall. About where black folks used to be. And the diversity that exists and the privilege is very clear. Look at who's the owners. All white people with white women as a front. Taking advantage of the civil rights movement where we died for legislation to make it there, and then we're systematically excluded. Yeah. Yeah. But nobody surprised. Because this is what you've been doing ever since. I've been down here for almost 20 years. So we go basis. I. I can't go because you said you were different than the ones that you replaced. And now, again, we have profit over the people because who can't be there in that area. Are you going to come back and repatriate people who was ethnically cleansed? No. That's not part of the plan. And you ain't got to, because that's not part of the requirements with the zoning.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse first.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse LaShawn Pearce. I ran for city council by a large, almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor. And I'm represented for Denver. Homeless out loud, Black Star. It's a moment for self defense, positive action coming for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and a universal African People's Organization. The Denver Chapter and Mile High knows. In regards to this rezoning change. As Temasek, who has already alluded to this, is full blown gentrification. I know firsthand who is residing in this property right now because I've moved people into this. White supremacy on clave because that's what it is. When I was moving people into this property, they were constantly calling the police on our on house neighbors who just so happened to be in the alley. I asked them to leave them alone, but they consistently called the police on them because they don't want undesirables in the area. This area is prime real estate. It is nothing but rich white millennials living here. I did not feel safe in this area. I did not feel at home. I felt like I was in a completely different area of town. And yet this is still the five points. So I have a few questions that I would like the property owners to answer. I want to know what is the current AMI level for this property? Because the person that I move said they were paying at least $2,000 a month for a one bedroom. And then what businesses are you going to put here because you're rezoning this for commercial use? I want to know exactly what businesses are going to be here is going to be another restaurant like it is like across the streets where there was no people of color, so-called in the vicinity. It was all whites from beginning to end, like I said. So I want to know those questions and I don't know how you can get away with calling us affordable because this place was nowhere close to affordable. It looks like you have to have big money to even attempt to walk down the street over here, let alone the rent there. So I want to sue to answer those questions, especially since we can do better and we have a housing crisis in this town. But get your rezoning properties that are at, I'm guessing, anywhere between 60 to 100% at my level. What I would like the occupant to answer those questions for me. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flint.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Courtney, could you. I'm having a little trouble understanding what is gained by the rezoning versus what is is what is lost by not rezoning. If it were to remain as it is, what harm is done? Any?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 3: So the change is being sought. It's an existing building. In fact, it's all part of a single structure, is it not? Yep. Okay. And it just straddles two different zones, and it met all the requirements of both. Let me rephrase that as a question. Did it meet all the requirements of both zone districts when it was built?
Speaker 10: Yes, it did. And the applicant provided a very thorough analysis of the site plan and how it is a compliant structure in both zone districts.
Speaker 3: Okay. I did read through the staff report, but I didn't. I must not. Is it in the staff?
Speaker 10: No, it's in the application that's in attachment.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Are there different rules? Governing the structure depending on which side of the building you're on.
Speaker 10: No. You see him? Cinemax 12 and Army's 30 are pretty similar. Kind of like they translate over pretty well, you know, in Army 30. But that is the uses that are not okay and Army 30, but they're allowed in. CMCs 12 are very sporadic, like a car wash or car sales. Right. So there's a few uses that are not okay in one, but okay and the other. And they're they're not really applicable because this site is is not.
Speaker 3: Proposing.
Speaker 10: Any change.
Speaker 3: Right. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other questions. The public hearing for Connersville 1057 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Um. Councilman CdeBaca, did you want to go first? This one is in your district? Yes.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have no comment.
Speaker 0: No comment. All right. And Councilman Flynn, your name is still hanging from questions or you back up for now.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, my. That's just there. I have no idea why it's there. Right there. I took it off.
Speaker 0: All right. All right. So no comments. I will just think staff for the staff report and for all the hard work in putting that all together for us. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I will be voting to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: I. Blank. I.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 2: Hines. I. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1339, his council Bill 1057 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1058 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill of 19 dash 1058 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2975 Huron Street in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2975 Huron Street from R-MU-30 with waivers to C-MX-12 (residential, mixed-use to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-15-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12022019_19-1058
|
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill of 19 dash 1058 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council 1058 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 2120 132, 21, 50 South Colorado.
Speaker 4: Boulevard, 4040 and.
Speaker 6: 4102 to 40.
Speaker 4: 1 to 8 Evans Avenue.
Speaker 6: And 2140 South Albion Street from see Amex five and select 501022c Annex 12 property is located in Council District four in the University Hills neighborhood at the southeast corner of Evans Avenue and Colorado.
Speaker 3: Boulevard.
Speaker 6: Just south of the Colorado station. Light Rail Stop. The property is just.
Speaker 4: Under two acres.
Speaker 6: Currently has a single storey retail structure on it and a parking lot. As I said, the request is to go from six, five and six five, you zero one, you go to. Most of the property is 650102.
Speaker 4: Which is.
Speaker 6: Urban center mixed use, five storey maximum.
Speaker 4: Height with the adult use.
Speaker 6: And billboard overlays. And then a small.
Speaker 4: Sliver of select site does.
Speaker 6: Not have the.
Speaker 4: Adult use and billboard overlays. The request is to go to see an x 12, which is urban center mixed use 12 story maximum.
Speaker 6: Height in order to redevelop the property. So you can see the existing zoning there with the surrounding CSX five to the south and east s and X five to the west across Colorado Boulevard and see an x 20, which is 20 straight zoning to the north across to Evans Avenue. The property is also part.
Speaker 4: Of the Corridor Station General Development Plan, which was adopted in 2008.
Speaker 6: It's in the secondary GDP area development area, too, which generally calls for office and retail uses with.
Speaker 4: Heights up to six stories. However, the GDP does not specifically allocate use height or density, and those things.
Speaker 6: Can be changed without any amendment whatsoever to the general development plan.
Speaker 4: As I.
Speaker 6: Mentioned, the property currently has a.
Speaker 3: A.
Speaker 6: Retail structure on it and parking lots. And then you can see surrounding uses a new residential structure immediately to the south.
Speaker 4: Commercial uses up and down.
Speaker 6: Evans and Colorado Boulevards. And here you can see the subject site and some of the surrounding properties. This application went to the planning board on October 2nd or received a recommendation of approval by a 7 to 1 vote. Three members of the public spoke in favor of the application at that hearing. I went to Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on October 22nd. In your packet you have public comment, including 35 letters of support from members of the community and two letters of support.
Speaker 4: From registered neighborhood organizations.
Speaker 6: The University Hills North Community and the University Park Community Council, the University Hills North. Community support is based on the.
Speaker 4: Signed Good Neighbor Agreement that is also included.
Speaker 6: In your packet. In order to.
Speaker 4: Approve a rezoning, the city must find that.
Speaker 6: These five criteria have been. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four adopted plans that apply to this property. The first adopted plan is Comprehensive Plan 2040 that was adopted earlier this year as described in the staff report. Staff has found the proposed rezoning is consistent with these seven strategies from Plan 2040, including strategies related to equitable development by concentrating development in areas close to mixed use development and near transit, which this site would be, as I mentioned, just south of the Colorado Station Transit Center, and also served by transit on both Colorado and Adams . The second plan is Blueprint Denver also from 2019. The future context for the.
Speaker 4: Site is Urban Center, which is consistent with the key context of.
Speaker 6: The proposed TMX 12 zoning, calling for high intensity residential and employment areas and.
Speaker 4: Substantial.
Speaker 6: Mixed abuses. The future place for this property is what's called Community Corridor, which calls for a mix of office, commercial.
Speaker 4: And residential.
Speaker 6: Uses and says heights generally up to eight stories. However, that's just a.
Speaker 4: General guideline, and that can be higher or lower.
Speaker 6: Depending on specific factors, which I'll get into in just a minute. Both Colorado.
Speaker 4: Boulevard and Evans.
Speaker 6: Avenue are mixed use arterials, which indicate a.
Speaker 4: Appropriateness for higher.
Speaker 6: Intensity mixed use.
Speaker 4: Development, such as the.
Speaker 6: Proposed TMX 12.
Speaker 3: Zoning.
Speaker 6: It's also within the community corridors and.
Speaker 4: Center's growth area, which calls for 25%.
Speaker 6: Of new housing and 20% of new.
Speaker 4: Jobs over.
Speaker 6: The next 20 years. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with strategies from Blueprint Denver, including general policy one strategy which calls for encouraging higher density mixed use development in transit rich areas, particularly areas community corridors such as this, where transit per priority streets are planned. Both Carr.
Speaker 4: Colorado Boulevard and Evans Avenue.
Speaker 6: Are transit priority streets in Blueprint Denver. So this is an area appropriate for higher density.
Speaker 4: And then as I mentioned, there are factors in.
Speaker 6: Blueprint Denver setting when higher or lower heights should be considered. So I'll run through some of those.
Speaker 4: First is guidance from a.
Speaker 6: Current small area plan. I'll get into the small area plan guidance in just a minute. But the.
Speaker 4: Small area plan that applies to this property is fairly old, so not exactly.
Speaker 6: Current.
Speaker 4: And does not provide clear guidance.
Speaker 6: The second factor is surrounding context, including existing and.
Speaker 4: Planned building heights.
Speaker 6: As I mentioned, there's five story zoning on three sides, three sides of this property and 20 story.
Speaker 4: Zoning across.
Speaker 6: Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 4: To the north.
Speaker 6: With 20 story buildings on the north side of Colorado station. So there are taller buildings in the area and zoning for taller buildings immediately adjacent to this property.
Speaker 4: The third factor is transitions, including transitions from higher intensity to lower intensity areas. So as I mentioned, the 20 story zoning immediately to the north, five story zoning to the.
Speaker 6: South, the 12 story zoning would act as a transition between those.
Speaker 4: Two. The fourth factor is.
Speaker 6: Adjacency to transit, especially mobility hubs. So as I mentioned, this is just south of the Colorado station.
Speaker 4: Light rail stop and also served by busses.
Speaker 6: On both Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 4: And Evans Avenue. And then the last two factors for.
Speaker 6: Achieving planned goals or furthering urban design. This proposal at.
Speaker 4: This time does not specifically address those, but given.
Speaker 6: Are the three factors around context transitions and adjacency to transit staff finds that the proposed request of 1212 story zoning against 12 is appropriate and consistent with.
Speaker 4: The recommendations of Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 6: The third plan is the Colorado Boulevard plan. The small area plan that I mentioned is from 1991.
Speaker 4: So as I said, fairly old.
Speaker 6: It says continue appropriate mix of land uses and new development should be compatible with existing development.
Speaker 4: Also, the.
Speaker 6: Proposed TMX 12 zoning would allow mixed use zoning consistent with what is currently allowed, and the 12 storey zoning would allow appropriate.
Speaker 4: Development heights.
Speaker 6: Consistent as the transition from the taller zoning to the north and the shorter zoning to the south. And then the last.
Speaker 4: Plan is the Colorado Station.
Speaker 6: General Development Plan, which, as I mentioned earlier, calls for.
Speaker 4: Office and retail uses consistent with the.
Speaker 6: Proposed TMX 12 building heights of 1 to 6 storeys.
Speaker 4: Which is less.
Speaker 6: Than the proposed TMX 12.
Speaker 4: However, as I said, the GDPR does not.
Speaker 6: Specifically control height, use or density, and those can be changed without any amendment to the GDP. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with all four plans.
Speaker 4: And the first criterion met.
Speaker 6: The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the Annex 12 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 adopted plans and promoting.
Speaker 4: Walkable mixed use areas.
Speaker 6: Promoting people walking and getting to transit safely and healthily. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances.
Speaker 4: Staff finds the proposed.
Speaker 6: Rezoning is justified by changed and changing conditions in the area. There's been a fair amount of redevelopment.
Speaker 4: As I mentioned, there's a brand.
Speaker 6: New apartment building just to the south. There's been new development around Colorado Center Station. At that higher height, this is turning into more of a transit.
Speaker 4: Oriented development area.
Speaker 6: And so concentrating more.
Speaker 4: Growth here, allowing more height.
Speaker 6: Especially at an intersection of two major.
Speaker 4: Arterials close to transit, is justified by the changes in the area.
Speaker 6: And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context.
Speaker 4: District purpose and intent. Steffens The proposed rezoning would result in.
Speaker 6: Development consistent with the urban center neighborhood context, description and the purpose and intent of the same x 12 zone district, which is intended to apply to areas and intersections served primarily by major arterial.
Speaker 4: Streets.
Speaker 6: Or building scale 3 to 12 storeys if.
Speaker 4: Desired. As I mentioned, both Colorado and Evans are major arterials, so this.
Speaker 6: Is an appropriate location for the next 12 zone.
Speaker 4: District. So staff finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have 21 individuals who signed up to speak on this item this evening. So I do apologize. But I'm going to ask if that front row, if you can just move, there's still front row seating available over here just so that we can bring I'm going to bring the speakers up in sets of five and use that that bench. So I will call you up five at a time as soon as I call your name, if you'd make your way up to this front bench and then I'll call when I call your name, step right up to the podium so that your time can start. I also took a quick look and it looks like of our 21 is overwhelmingly signed up in support of this tonight. You are free to take your full 3 minutes at the microphone. But if we get further down the list and someone has covered the points that you're going to make, you're also welcome to introduce yourself state how you feel on this and reiterate quickly some of the points that were made and you don't need to take up the full 3 minutes if you don't need it. All right. Vincent English. Brit Probst, Sandy. Heck, UNMOVIC Chairman Say Qu and Robert Forster. If you'd come to the front bench and Vincent English, you are up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mr. President, we are currently passing out an information packet for the council here. To the count. To the council clerk. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Vinny English. My address is 3825 Tone Street, Denver, Colorado. 80211. I'm the chief development officer for Q Factor. And for those of you that are not familiar with CU Factor, we are a contemporary development company, most notably recognized for industry, the modern office environments in the Reno neighborhood. We have been working with the property owners here with us tonight, Z portfolio in our team for more than a year on a mixed use concept as well as this associated rezoning process for the site located at Colorado Boulevard and East Seventh Avenue, adjacent to the Colorado Transit Station. We've been involved with leading a long and proactive outreach effort with the city, the University Hills North Community, the Arno, the primary and closest Arno to the site, as well as the University Park Community Council, the neighborhood and R.A. to the West across Colorado Boulevard and the East Evans Business Association, as well as other local organizations. We are honored to have a great deal of community and neighborhood support for the application, which I think is a reflection of the type of outreach and genuine communication that we have sought to provide throughout this process. Furthermore, on page 13 of your packet is a list of the letters of community support received for our application. Since that time, both the project and our community outreach have both evolved significantly, and we are excited to be here in front of you today. We've taken a lot of the concepts and recommendations and blueprint. Denver and the comprehensive plan to heart, such as urban centers, community corridors, design, quality and mobility just to name a few. And we've truly let a number of these concepts drive some of the inspiration for our project and mix of uses. I would like to thank the city planning staff for all the time and hard work they've put in. I also want to thank the community and neighborhood leaders that we have been working with. I'm here to answer any questions you may have, and I thank you again for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brett Probst. Hello. I'm Brett Probst.
Speaker 6: I live at 2255 South Jackson.
Speaker 4: Street.
Speaker 0: In Denver. I'm going to be very brief. The architect who has.
Speaker 6: The honor of working with Q Factor in Z portfolio on the design of this project.
Speaker 4: I'm really excited about it because I know.
Speaker 6: They have such high intentions.
Speaker 4: To create a really.
Speaker 6: Noteworthy development here.
Speaker 4: I'm also excited because I live just a few blocks away from this property, so I feel especially.
Speaker 13: Invested.
Speaker 6: In making sure a great.
Speaker 3: Outcome.
Speaker 6: Occurs.
Speaker 4: And again, I'm here to answer questions that you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sandy Hook, UNMOVIC.
Speaker 5: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Sandy. How of itch? Our family owns the property at the south east corner of Colorado Boulevard and East Evans. My address for the record is three, three, three South Monroe Street. Number 401 Denver. My family has owned and developed real estate in Denver for over 100 years. In fact, my great grandfather was one of the original stonemasons here at City Hall. We have on the land to Colorado Boulevard and Evans for as long as I can remember. And that's a very long time. As you can imagine, we have had a ton of offers over the years for a variety of uses, including fast food chains, automobile dealerships, drive thru Starbucks, and of course, the proverbial five story rep style apartments as many other sites in the area have developed. However, as a tribute and legacy to our family, we have turned down these less than visionary projects and offers and took the time to consult with the city, with the council, with the community to deliver a project that the community desires and can be proud of. We are looking at this property as an iconic long term legacy for Southeast Denver. Our goal has been and continues to be to build a true mixed use development that will provide the community with a gathering place much needed restaurants, shopping, office, residential and a hotel. We actually had an architectural competition and ultimately ended up retaining two very talented architectural teams to help us create our vision. We're excited about the partnerships that have been developed and the conversations we've had with so many along the way to get to this point. I would like also like to thank the community and neighbors who have taken an active role in the development of this project and helping further our quest for rezoning. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chairman Sekou. You got to go in here. Okay, here we go.
Speaker 3: Chairman SEC, who likes our action movement. Also the next United States Senator. 2020. Here we go again. The vote on this one is going to be 13. The two who stop playing games up here. Because this is the way it goes down down here. You scratch my back, I got your back. There is no moral turpitude whatsoever in the game. It corrupt thoroughly.
Speaker 0: Mr. Speaker, I would point to our decorum rules. Please follow them. Do it now. If you could please follow our decorum rules.
Speaker 3: What did I do now?
Speaker 0: You are not to question the motives of the council members. Speak to the issue.
Speaker 3: I did not question the mode of the city council.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 3: Continue is apparent and evident how we have to do that. Your history speaks for you before you even walk in the room. Here we go. Now. Who is this bull? Who spoke. And as you go about doing the development and getting and hiring the subcontractors who don't work, that no black people guarantee. White, brown, maybe. But guaranteed white workers can't be doing this. So once again, as a city develops, they leave us out conveniently under the as someone once said. Unintended consequences. Oh, yeah. Get real slick with the language. So as we go on, we move this thing down the road. You're going to do what you're gonna do. And black people have got to be put in another category call endangered species. Like doo wop, who they are and the world and the tree and the beetle, because they give more consideration than we do as a human.
Speaker 9: Being in this town.
Speaker 3: And that's been going down for 67 year. And the ball keeps bouncing. And the faces keep changing and the song is still the same. So what was the real change go down here? It wasn't a changing of the guard or the regime. No, it wasn't. It was game changing faces. Same rules, same regs. Just different folks doing it.
Speaker 9: Lying about their.
Speaker 3: Intentions and not wanting their end. I didn't. Question How can you sit up there and tell me it's against the rule to question?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up is Robert Forester. And we have I'm going to call the next five up, Jesse Paris, Rita Henry, Matthew Hubbard, Jennifer, New Haven and Brooke Webb. Go ahead. Hi. My name is Robert Forrester. I live at.
Speaker 4: 2461 South Holly Place to Denver mailing address.
Speaker 0: But it is Arapahoe County. I'm about a mile from the project and I wanted to come speak on behalf of this zoning request. It's a beautiful project that I think will enhance the area.
Speaker 3: Its closeness to you.
Speaker 4: And the light rail resonates with what the community needs.
Speaker 0: It's. Really a lot of thought has been put into it. There's been community input. There's been an effort to reach out to people in the area to answer concerns and questions. I think the project is. The best use of the area. I think it will.
Speaker 4: Enhance.
Speaker 0: Values for everyone concerned and I would like to ask the council to approve it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Council President Clark, members of the council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse Larson, Paris. And I ran for city council while large with almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor, Mr. Pierce.
Speaker 0: Do you have something germane to this issue reside?
Speaker 12: And can you see the Backus District Court, District nine? And I am speaking against this proposal tonight. I was at the last meeting when you guys deliberated on what you were going to do in regards to this. And I asked the developer straight up, what was the ammo level for this. I was told that only 10%, ten units out of. 360 were actually going to be affordable? Or was it more like ten units out of 500? Either way. It's a joke to say that this isn't even remotely close to affordable. It's 80% at my level and only ten other units are qualify for the tax credits. So really, who are you building this for is my question, because you keep screaming out, we can do better. We have a housing crisis in this city and this town. But yet you keep building honest luxury housing for who and what community spoke in favor of the still white afloat community. Really? This is honestly a joke. But you're going to do what you're going to do. As has already been stated. You already made your minds up before you come into chambers. So I had a few questions that I want to answer. I wanted to know if there was going to be a traffic study done on this area, because currently the traffic is atrocious in this area. And as a pedestrian walking in this area. You're putting your life in or at risk. You have to play Frogger. I know because I used to work in this area when I was selling direct TV for Amazon Satellite, which is right next door to where this proposed development is going to happen. So I would like somebody to please answer those questions because you keep ignoring my question. So I would like somebody to please answer that traffic question. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rita Henry.
Speaker 5: I am Rita Henry three, three, three, three is Florida Avenue, Denver 80210. And I'm here to say that I really like the design for Colorado and Evans, and I think people hear 12 stories, but that's misleading since it's only a small portion of the project. That's 12 stories. The other parts are open and green available to the community for their use, and that's seven or 8000 square feet on the ground floor that will be open to the sky. And I asked if they had done. The Sun tests. They said they did and it will not be shady any time of the year. So I like the upscale design. That area right now has derelict corner vacant. Nothing there. So and I like the glass restaurant that spans the bridge connecting the two buildings with an outdoor patio. So I think it makes it very desirable. And I like the idea of a boutique hotel with 120 to 130 rooms. And I have heard that. Do you parents coming from out of town have limited options? And the residencies are, I've heard, 125 units. And it's such an improvement of what is in progress being built that's allowed without any questions asked. Five stories, zero light line apartments that if that's what can be done on this property with no questions asked, then I think. Definitely needs to change because that project is pretty bad looking. Everybody's talked about that and that's 350 units and they say that's what you could do on this property without going for a zoning change. So. And I do think parking is a problem and people can't ride their bikes. And I think it's probably right about that busy intersection. And I don't know how that will ever change because it's not going to stay undeveloped. So I think a subway system is really the answer, but that won't happen either. So I feel like people move to Colorado to be outdoors. So I think by limiting parking, you're not going to get people to just. Take the light rail to Broadway and downtown. It's got to be more coming. So I would say that's probably. Something to work on which is difficult.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Next up, Matthew Hubbard.
Speaker 8: Hello. My name is Matthew Hubbard. I'm a resident at 515 Franklin Street in Denver. I'm here to speak in support of the Evans and Colorado Project. I believe the design of the project will bring some much needed architectural interest to this part of the city. My wife and I own a modern bungalow, a custom almost furniture store located just down the street in you hills. We have been there for 15 years. I was impressed that the developers reached out to us directly. They shared their project motivations and design. They asked for honest feedback and before asking us if we'd be willing to speak in favor of the project. That's the first time that's happened in 15 years. Density is good for small business. Innovative design is good for the soul of the city. This project offers both. With that said, I would like to support what Jesse Paris said about pedestrian traffic, and I would add cycling traffic along Colorado. That would be a really nice upgrade to the area. And with that, thank you for your time and thank you for your service to our city, especially Councilman Hines from my home district, District ten, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jennifer, New Haven.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Jennifer New Hoffman. I live in the University Hills Norris neighborhood. Although I'm a co-president of the Hills, Norris Community are an oh who already provided a support statement in support of this rezoning. This statement is mine and should not be interpreted as a statement from the board. I also support this rezoning. He Hills North has been going through some dramatic changes over the last five or so years and it's obvious there will continue to be development in the northern portion near Evans Avenue. Hundreds of new townhomes have either recently filled or will complete construction soon. We're about to see a 350 unit apartment building open to renters in just a couple of weeks ago, another 360 unit apartment building broke ground. Well, I'm not against density there. In fact, I think it's the exact right place for density. I have concerns about how quickly the density was preceding the zoning for this property. The southeast corner of Colorado Boulevard and Evans currently allows for yet another five story apartment building, paying the linkage fee for affordable housing and like the five plus storey building immediately to the south, they would not have to look to the access to the existing businesses or residents to gather feedback and opinions. Although we may ultimately have more of those developments, the neighborhood needs more than just housing. Bringing in a development that consists of a diverse mix of tenants will help activate the community around it. This also gives Denver extra time to provide better infrastructure to support future density. As we know, the Evans corridor struggles to manage its current traffic off traffic levels. When I heard what the owners and developers wanted to do with that property, I became excited. Excited to have an architecturally interesting building at the Northwest entrance to University Hills, excited that someone had vision enough to design something that would provide the same amount of density a use by right build would get, but supplying so much more to the community. Excited at the prospect of having an open outdoor community gathering space, a new desirable restaurant, a new dessert shop to walk to on a hot summer night. I'm excited to think there might be something in our neighborhood that instead of bringing more residents, it would bring a destination for all our existing and incoming residents to go to . I am most excited for there to be a place between the hundreds of single family homes and the transit station. To better activate the transit station, give the residents a reason to head to the station on foot or meet friends coming in from the light rail for a social outing. I'm grateful the owners kept going to the drawing board to find a concept that would benefit everyone. I fully support this rezoning and hope you will too. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Brooke Webb and I call the next five up to the front. Pamela Whitney Walsh, Ryan Morrissey. Lori Bissell, Max Everett and Barry Rosoff. Brooke Webb. Hi.
Speaker 10: I'm Brooke Webb. I live at 5382 East Colorado Avenue in Virginia Village, which is about a mile from the project. I'm involved with Ellis Elementary School as the parent teacher organization president. And one of the reasons I'm speaking in support of the project is because we need to attract and retain families in Virginia Village. I like the many of the points that have already been brought up, so I'll just reiterate the fact that this is a legacy project for the corner of Colorado and Evans, that it's very close to the light rail station, the Colorado station, and we want the Colorado station to become more of a destination station like some of the other light rail stations throughout the city, where right now it's more of just a commuter station. This would help improve the Colorado station tremendously. I really liked when I met with CU Factor, the accessibility that they talked about as well as the wide sidewalks. I think that that's an imperative part of this project for the pedestrian and cycling concerns that have been brought up. I really like the fact that it's a luxury, high quality project that other areas of the city have seen and our little neck of the woods hasn't really benefited from quite yet. And the hotel, the housing. And currently it's just a defunct site with a really old building there that has had no use for us. So from what it is to what it is going to be, I think it's very beneficial for the community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Pamela Whitney Walsh.
Speaker 2: Did he mean? And Pamela Walsh and I.
Speaker 10: Reside at 1316 South Elm Street. And I'm here tonight in support of the redevelopment project. I'm very excited about the opportunity that this represents for our neighborhood. Specifically, if free zoned to be mixed use, we could have a greater mix of amenities like broader choices of restaurants that we see in other thriving neighborhoods like Walsh Park and Platte Park. Currently, that area is dominated by fast food restaurants and chains and would be would rather prefer to have a range of healthy choices from fast casual to more sophisticated dining that you might find in other great cities like San Francisco and New York. And it would give local restaurateurs the opportunity to create something really special in their own communities. It also promises greater access to what is currently a concrete wasteland. By carving out open space for public use. And finally, I was really relieved and furthermore inspired when I heard from the outcome of each family about their desire to build a legacy project on the southeast corner of Denver. I believe that it will bring a level of visceral, visual sophistication and appreciation for design to the neighborhoods so that it really elevates our community rather than having it blend in or worse, diminish the beauty of our neighborhood. So again, as a neighbor within walking distance to this promising new development, I hope you will consider approving the rezoning that will enable the project to create something that maximizes its full potential for our community.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ryan Morsi. Good evening, council members.
Speaker 4: My name is Ryan Morsi. I live at.
Speaker 6: 3434 South Claremont Street in the New University.
Speaker 4: Hills neighborhood. I'm here tonight in support.
Speaker 6: Of CU Factor and Z Portfolios.
Speaker 4: Application to rezone the corner of Colorado and Evans as a nine year resident of University Hills. I've seen a lot of changes.
Speaker 3: In our neighborhood. Not every project allows us.
Speaker 4: The opportunity to discuss.
Speaker 3: The proposed development with the developers or owners.
Speaker 0: Q Factor and Z Portfolio.
Speaker 4: Have taken the time over this past year to meet with our neighborhood.
Speaker 3: We've been able to discuss.
Speaker 4: And view the proposed building and mixed uses of space. It is clear that they have spent a great deal of time wanting to create a building that will bring a unique architectural design.
Speaker 0: To our neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And not just a planned structure that we often see built. Because of this, I believe the building will become a center of gathering that our community has been lacking. By creating a variation in height and density, they will be providing a plaza with open spaces and amenities not seen by any current development. Providing this mix of uses, we will gain shops, restaurants, offices and living spaces all in one location. This will allow both walkability.
Speaker 0: And.
Speaker 4: Vibrancy that the future of our community will need. With easy access and use of Colorado station. This mix of uses will allow the outreach for others to enjoy enjoy. Not just our neighborhood. Please support the growth of.
Speaker 0: Our neighborhood and community by approving this.
Speaker 4: Project to move forward. We will all enjoy the strong precedence this building will make in our community and hopefully will encourage other developers to follow suit. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss my support in this development and rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Laurie Bissell.
Speaker 5: Yes. My name is Lori Bissell. I live at 2167 South Belcher Street and I am probably the closest neighbor to the project and I've lived in the neighborhood for 24 years, so I've seen a lot of changes. I was community president when Light Rail went in and Colorado center development and all that and I think this is a really good project is bringing excitement to the neighborhood because it's kind of been just sitting there for a long time and I thought, How come this isn't being developed like Highlands Ranch? I'm like Highlands or that. And finally the development is coming and I think this is a good development. It's well thought out. The developers were willing to talk to the community. These six blocks are going to be developed and how they develop is really important to the community because I've traveled in, you know, in Europe, like I'm sure some of you have, and you'll see that the train stations are a place where people go, they go to buy their cheese, their wine, pick up their laundry and have a really nice meal or meet people from another that come from another station. And you meet there at the station in Zurich. I remember my friend said meeting where the singles meet and I go, What the hell are you talking about? And she goes, Yeah, we have a place where people come, where singles meet, and then families meet in a different place in the station. So I think as Denver develops as a metropolitan area, it's really a good thing that we get out of our cars and have the option to take light rail to places like I took light rail down here tonight, so I don't know how many of you did that in, but I did. And I think that's a great option to get people out of their cars. Even though I drive for Uber and Lyft, I think that that's going to help us in the future to be able to do that. So I hope that you vote for this. I'm for this project, and I think it's going to be good for standards, set standards for the development of these six blocks that are right there. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Max Everett. Max Everett. All right. Very brassed off. And then I'll call our next group up. If you could make your way to the front bench. Sam Muir of Sharon Pearson. Elizabeth Davis. Kyle Exner, Kimberley Tyson and Paul Leone. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Excellent. Good evening.
Speaker 9: Members of members of council. I'm very proud to preside at 333 South Monroe Street in Denver, Colorado. Although I've only been a member Colorado resident for about 12 years, I've seen an incredible amount of development all through the city. Living in Cherry Creek, I've kind of looked at LoDo, LoDo, the Highlands, Reno, all these areas popping up with incredible, vibrant destiny, areas that have become destinations. Sitting in Cherry Creek, we look at this and say, You know what? Where do we want to go? Where can I go? The University Hills area really has, and it is really just a wasteland of just information of a transportation corridor from I-25 down to Hamden. It's kind of it's a wonder why this area hasn't developed. And I think this this project is an unbelievable way of bringing an incredible amount of diversity and development to the area. And I'm incredibly excited to see this to see this this area develop. I think the project that that that's put forth is really, really an architecturally amazing thing, which is which is also really interesting because I'm tired of driving by another big box of just plain box and irresponsible development. This does a really nice job of combining what the community needs in a very in a visually pleasing way. And I give my unconditional support for the project. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sam Mira.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Sam Europe. I own a business on Monaco and Evans is triple-A.
Speaker 3: Swing and vacuum. I've been there since 1985.
Speaker 6: And I must tell you, I've seen a.
Speaker 3: Lot of changes.
Speaker 0: During the time I've been.
Speaker 13: There.
Speaker 3: And when they approached me.
Speaker 6: With this project on Monaco and Evans, I'm.
Speaker 3: In Colorado and Evans, as of now.
Speaker 0: I do a lot of driving in that area.
Speaker 6: And every time I see that corner.
Speaker 3: I just shake my head because all I.
Speaker 9: See.
Speaker 3: Is people frying in a green chili.
Speaker 6: Some people selling sunglasses on the corner. Uh, and I've seen.
Speaker 3: People, you know, I mean, all kind of stuff, and it would attract gravity.
Speaker 0: And it's really sad to see that corner like that.
Speaker 6: So when they told me about this project, I really felt excited and I really wanted to give my $0.02 worth about this project. And I. I appreciate if you guys will give it consideration to approve it. It's a it's a great thing for the city. And like I said, I've been there.
Speaker 3: For almost 35 years. I'm very excited about it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sharon Pearson.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Sharon Pierce, and I've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. I'm about six blocks southeast of the project. I think the points I'm going to make are with all the development that encroaching on your neighborhood. This is the first group that's really come to us with vision and looked at it as How can we improve your neighborhood instead of just plopping a building down in the middle of it? The project that was just built just south of their building is not anything I think any of us are proud to look at every day. And the idea that someone is bringing something to us that's going to produce some architectural interest and bring new things to our neighborhood is refreshing. And my major point would be I hope they set a precedent for the three other developers that are currently on the north side of our neighborhood going after their projects. So get out there and make your plea to those other guys. So I am strongly in favor of this project. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Elizabeth Davis.
Speaker 5: Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Davis and I live at 2575 South Cherry Street in Denver with Jenny. I'm co-president of the University Hills North Community. R.A. I'm speaking today to represent my personal support for this project. As a resident of this neighborhood for over 20 years, I see this project as an opportunity and an investment in the future of our area. I'm committed to working for smart development in a safe, walkable and vibrant future for University Health North and all along the Evans and Colorado Boulevard corridors, the developers and owner in this project have proactively engaged the community. They've been accessible, they've listened and responded to feedback. Although the increase from five stories to 12 stories sounds steep, they have agreed to design to match the equivalent of five story density and have included open space and retail at this property. They have also agreed to active engagement in an implementation of transportation demand management strategies. These elements are important to me and to our residents and are captured in the Good Neighbor Agreement that people have referenced already. For all of these reasons, I am in full support of this project, and I hope you will, too.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Kyle Exner.
Speaker 13: Evening. My name is Kyle Asner. I live in University Hills. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'll try to keep this short because to keep it from getting too repetitive, a few bullet points. I think it's an exciting mixed use project that isn't your standard five storey apartment building that a lot of people have spoken against tonight. The developer is local and has a history of successful projects in the Denver area. This has been mentioned before, but they've made a significant effort to engage the community and gather feedback and that the project helps increase density near light rail and all the jobs at Colorado station. And those are the main points I want to highlight tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Kimberly tests.
Speaker 5: Yeah. You're not going.
Speaker 0: I apologize.
Speaker 5: How you doing? It's too. I live in University Hills, and I've been there for over a decade. And before that, from 2000 to 2008, I was in five points where I also enjoyed living. But I actually went over to that area because it seemed like I had more yard and.
Speaker 2: There were things that were going.
Speaker 5: To be exciting and happening there. And as I've been watching it grow over the last ten years, I can say that this group has been very good about cooperating with the community. They have scheduled one on one appointments with anyone who asked. They have scheduled tons of meetings where anyone has been able to come. It has been well advertised.
Speaker 2: And I find it, as a resident of University Hills, a little.
Speaker 5: Disturbing that the two people have spoken against it. I had not seen it a single meeting or participated at all. So I believe all the people who have stood up and spoken so far have been at the meetings and they have been very well and engaging.
Speaker 2: And like they've spoken. The architect has just been so thoughtful and they've.
Speaker 5: Answered all of our questions. We brought up the concerns about traffic and pedestrians. They told us how they were looking into that. They did studies. They were opening up that lane for the cars to pull in more. There have been thoughtful in every way and they've answered every question and they've been nothing but cooperative. And as you can see, the support by the people actually live in that area is immense. So I really hope you guys go all the way for it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Paul Leone.
Speaker 13: Good evening. My name is Paul. Excuse me. Good evening. My name is Paul Leone. I live at 4225 east. I live which is the Observatory Heights Development in. It's about a block diagonal southeast of the development we're discussing. I wanted to say that I relocated to the area from North Central Westminster specifically to be near the transit. I haven't lived in the area for over 11 months. I consider myself the unofficial gentry representative to the University Hills North Community as I appear to be the only one living in a slot house development that comes to the meetings. And so I have done so out of a commitment to avoid the conflict that we've seen in other areas like Rhino and Highlands and other parts of the city. Um, sorry. Uh, due to. Do not come out from. I just repeat what some other people say. The applicant's commitment to a legacy building is important and important. The applicant's commitment to vertical density over horizontal density is important. And I wanted to bring up one point that was not brought up by the staff or by any of the commenters that the applicant has committed to permanently remove the billboard and adult use zoning overlays that currently govern the part of the property. I'm a firm believer in First Amendment rights to adult operations, if that's what they want. But I wanted to bring that up for the record that that's part of the deal and that I personally welcome that commitment. Otherwise, I implore the Council and Councilor Black to continue to bring infrastructure improvements to our neighborhood, including sidewalks. Sidewalks is a big issue around the city. It's an issue in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers tonight on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Well, there we go, Councilman Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Mr. President.
Speaker 10: QUESTION You know, the president.
Speaker 5: Of the Auno was here. If I know you spoken on your behalf.
Speaker 10: But I wonder if you could just answer a couple of questions about the Arno Gina. Just for a clarification.
Speaker 5: The DNA is directly with University Hills.
Speaker 10: North Community. Arno. Yes. Were you already in Arno? I'm sorry. If everyone C-3 prior to this agreement or did that.
Speaker 5: Come as kind of seeking.
Speaker 10: Out the DNA?
Speaker 5: I don't think we're. 523 So you're not a 523? No. Sorry. Let me. In Virgina, it states that.
Speaker 10: University Hill's Arts Community, a Colorado nonprofit corporation. That's not accurate.
Speaker 5: No. Okay. I am sorry. There is legal speak in the DNA that I didn't recognize. I was just making sure that the points that the residents in the neighborhood wanted to be met, like the transportation demand management plan and the reduced density for the 12 story max. Those things were being met there. Maybe. Can I have somebody from Z portfolio? Hi. How are you there? Can you introduce.
Speaker 10: Yourself real quick for the record?
Speaker 5: Sandy, how come of it?
Speaker 10: Thank you. Sandy, do you know the answer to that? The DNA that I'm looking at states that UNHCR I'm sorry, you agency.
Speaker 5: Is a right and this is an I.R.A. It's been in existence for quite some time. It did not become an R.A. because of us at all. A nonprofit. Because of this. They're nonprofit. No. Who signed the Good Neighbor agreement then? As far as Z portfolio I did on behalf of the neighborhood who signed now I as the co-presidents of the R.A.. Okay.
Speaker 10: I'm not an attorney, so I don't know if this is even matters, but it states that you're in a5a1c3 nonprofit in here. So I don't know if that.
Speaker 5: So are you. Do you know if you're five or 23, which are okay? All right. You might be because.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. We have lots of folks watching on TV. So if you're responding to the question, if the council would like to pull you up, you have to come to the microphone.
Speaker 5: I think that they might be is that the organization has been there since like the early fifties. So and we vote presidents and as a community and, you know, around Denver, each community has a council, most of them have a council. So that's the way that we can talk to you. And I do believe so there's a it's a nonprofit. Sure.
Speaker 10: I think there's a difference between registering as an R.A. with the city and registering as a.
Speaker 5: Nonprofit entity with the state. Yeah, but I think it's it's more of the community council's that's been there for years and years and years and years. I would just encourage you to be very sure.
Speaker 10: About what that means, because there's also language in here that is a transaction of money for possible.
Speaker 5: Legal fund, legal.
Speaker 10: Legal needs, should the R.A. need them. So just be very sure what you're signing. Right. Yeah. And that's.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 0: I think we have our attorney trying to chime in here.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 5: Figure it out. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel. Apparently this is a similar question that was asked and another evening that I was not here, an unusual time when I was not here. But there are various ways to incorporate. And so, you know, I don't advise the Arnaud's, but you know, it doesn't have to be a nonprofit 501c3 model to qualify as a Colorado nonprofit corporation, if that's the question.
Speaker 10: And that's fine. I'm just stating, I think what I'm reading here in the DNA.
Speaker 5: That you HNC.
Speaker 10: A Colorado nonprofit corporation. And that doesn't sound like familiar.
Speaker 5: Language to the R.A., so just wanting to make sure that you're you're signing something that's sure to stay on that question. Okay. I will definitely look into that. I can't speak for Sandy, but I'm willing to sign a just an identical DNA if we correct that part of the language. We'll find out for sure what their designation is and we'll change that. The good neighbor agreement, if we need to, to reflect that.
Speaker 10: Okay. And I recognize you probably.
Speaker 5: Have more trust than.
Speaker 10: Than I'm aware of, but.
Speaker 5: I think that's a significant thing. Okay.
Speaker 10: No other questions only. Okay. I'll come in later.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flint.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, the University Hills North Community is a Colorado nonprofit corporation. It was articles of incorporation were filed in 1978. And so but it's just simply just as Kirsten Crawford said, it's just not a they never saw 2513 tax exemption, but it is a nonprofit corporation. Okay, Scott, I'm curious if you could run me through again. Or run through for me, not run me through. Holy cow. The reasoning for the exception to the general guidance in blueprint on building heights because community corridor in this location the guidance is up to eight storeys but this zoning allows a 50% increase over that to 12 . And I did see in the staff report the citation to some of the guidance and blueprint that I that I called up to review here as well. And so why why was the exception? Why was it why is it being recommended for approval here? Is it the adjacency to the Colorado station, to Colorado Boulevard, to Evans?
Speaker 6: Yes. So there's the guidance and blueprint is general height guidance. And this has generally updated stories, but it says building heights identified in this plan provide a general sense of scale and are not intended to set exact minimums or maximums. So and then the plan provides further factors to consider in saying should it be higher or lower than the.
Speaker 3: And I see there are six bullet points here in Blueprint that suggest, you know, when we can vary from that. And I'm I guess I'm curious, you might not know the answer to this, but if you do, that would be helpful to me. Are have there been other rezonings or are there other applications you're looking at right now where where these where the general guidelines are are being modified with with these specifics? Or is this sort of our first case at this?
Speaker 6: Well, the one you approved earlier tonight had general guidance up to eight and you approves the next 12. So similar situation. Right. I think these may be the first two.
Speaker 3: But that that was an existing structure that that's already five.
Speaker 6: Correct? Right. Yes. So I think as far as I'm aware, these are the first two that have gone through. Okay, I'm going above the gentleman.
Speaker 3: I'm just wondering about the precedent setting nature of this and how broadly these exceptions might be applied so that the general guidance doesn't really apply anymore. Yeah.
Speaker 6: So to get back to your original question of why we think 12 is appropriate, right. I think it is the things you mentioned, you know, there are six factors, but one of them is proximity to other allowed heights are building existing building heights that are taller than that, which as I mentioned, this has 20 storeys zoning directly across the street to the north with.
Speaker 3: So there's not a 20 storey building there.
Speaker 4: Not immediately to the.
Speaker 6: North, but a little.
Speaker 3: Bit further north on council center, that's 12 storeys.
Speaker 6: It has taller than 12 storeys, I believe.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: But it's also zoned for 20 storeys there. So that whole area north of north of Evans is zoned for 20 storeys.
Speaker 4: Serving as the transitions of that.
Speaker 6: 20 storey zoning to the north, five storey zoning existing to the south, 12 storeys serves as a transition and then yes, proximity to transit. So with the current station light rail stop just across Evans to the north.
Speaker 4: And then bus.
Speaker 6: Service on both Colorado and Evans at the intersection of two major arterials. Right. We felt.
Speaker 4: That this met those factors to go above that general height that say.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That's almost present.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Next up, Councilman Central.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for the developer.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So tonight, several speakers have talked about the architecture, and I'm pretty familiar with good neighbor agreements and I'm pretty familiar with zoning. So tonight, we're only approving the entitlement. And tonight, there's an executed grid neighbor agreement. But within that document, it doesn't talk about the architecture. So talk to me about how you ensure this project to the people, because a lot of times bait and switch happens. I'm not saying that that happens. You're going to do that. But it's reality in development, right? So can you just talk to me? How come you didn't add architectural language to the Good Neighbor Agreement?
Speaker 4: So architecture language is not added to the Good Neighbor Agreement, Councilwoman, because we felt that the design was still in such an infant phase of the process. Right now, first and foremost, however, we did tie the overall design of the project to the Good Neighbor Agreement and really to the overall development through the 8% of private open space that we did commit to, as well as a form of mass reduction. That's a zoning code allowable piece. And even though it wasn't able to factor into any other document here in front of us tonight, we did paper those two with the with the in the good neighbor agreement. And so through what you did here, spoken to by the community, was a representation regarding the amount of density that we're crafting on the site. And even though there is the overall and overarching request for TMX 12 density here or actually sculpting with that amount of density is comparable to that, which is that of a five storey project.
Speaker 5: Because you're taking the massing and moving it around and that's how you're going to address that architecture in more easy language. Is that what I understand?
Speaker 4: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then are you building? I couldn't figure. I couldn't find it. I'm sorry if I missed it. Are you building in your hotel? But are you doing rental or for sale product there as well?
Speaker 4: Currently, we do have residential as a long term residential as a component of the project. However, it's it's a minimal component of the overall project right now. So, yes, in addition to hospitality use that's been discussed here, we do have a a lesser component that will be planned for right now long term rental. So, yes, multi-family rental.
Speaker 5: And so one more question with that. Will you be doing the on site affordable or will you be paying out the linkage fee?
Speaker 0: So as it currently sits right now, we would be.
Speaker 4: Paying the linkage fee for the entire project. And that linkage fee is calculated under the 2019 rates is in excess of $600,000. And so while that's not to be denoted as a significant impact to the to the overall project, it's definitely notable. However, regardless of whether there's the the other components of the project, be it.
Speaker 3: Commercial.
Speaker 4: Office or hospitality, would be required to pay that linkage fee no matter what. So it would be our intent to pay that linkage fee as of today.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I get that. The commercial, there's the three buckets, right, that commercial. And so I just always questioning whether developers are going to build the on site and help our affordability issue crises that we have in Denver or they pay the linkage. So thank you for answering that. Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Vinny, thank you. How many? Thank you for staying there.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 6: How many residential units are you envisioning at this point?
Speaker 4: Currently, at the time at this time, we only have about 86.
Speaker 0: Units.
Speaker 4: Currently planned in the project.
Speaker 6: Okay. And how how big is the open space and square foot? I mean, you said 8%. I don't do math. Afternoon.
Speaker 0: Understood.
Speaker 4: We're currently looking at a total open space of about 15,000 square feet.
Speaker 6: When you say total, is that that one space in the middle that that.
Speaker 4: So the one space in the middle is is actually terraced. So there's multiple levels of this open space. The technical definition of open space per the zoning code requires it to actually have dirt all the way to the center of the earth, essentially. So that is where we come to a smaller square footage number in this 78,000 square feet.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Since you're there, I have a question for you. So in a similar vein to Councilman Sandoval, this I guess this is a little strange for me because, you know, I can't really say that I'm new for much longer. But this is one of the first rezoning applications that doesn't include affordable housing. So I'm. Was that something that you considered or how did. You know, how did you get by with not having an affordable housing requirement? I guess it's part of my question. So that is my question, actually. Yeah. Councilman Hines, thank you. And I appreciate the.
Speaker 8: The question there. And I can totally understand where it's coming from. As as mentioned and as Councilman Cashman asked, we currently only have 86 long term rentals currently planned for the project right now. So over two thirds of the project.
Speaker 4: Is really dedicated to other uses. And at this infant stage of the project, we're really trying to reserve optionality for the project. The needs of.
Speaker 8: The project may need to pivot to additional commercial.
Speaker 4: Office. The hotel user may see the need for additional hotel keys there. So as it stands.
Speaker 8: Today, the residential component, the long term rental component is so minimal that we didn't feel it appropriate to.
Speaker 4: Tie this or this project to an affordable housing commitment. Is there a if you say that in its infancy and, you know, currently you're planning 86 units, if some if you say, you know, this these were great ideas, let's just throw it out and start over, you know, is it would there be another comment period? The I mean, I I've heard from a lot of the people who came here tonight that they were very happy that you engaged the community, that you were very proactive. I really enjoyed that. I'm glad that you as a developer chose to engage the community also. I don't I don't know if the the phrase bait and switch, that's a little I don't think that you would do that necessarily. But people do do that. And so I guess I'm asking a similar question. I, too, feel a little uncomfortable saying we're going to go to 12 storeys and it be open and wonderful and then it be a 12 story box with a million units. None are affordable, you know. So. And is there any other way outside of it? Can you can you help us feel better about the project and that it'll stay? It really will be in the spirit that you are describing to us.
Speaker 8: Absolutely. And so I think, Councilman Hines, I think it's important to remember that.
Speaker 4: We do have an executed good neighbor agreement with the registered neighborhood organization that was discussed.
Speaker 8: As part of that.
Speaker 4: Good neighbor agreement. There is mass reduction, so it's currently not allowable for us to build the entire site out to 12 storeys. There is a commitment that we have to to further the.
Speaker 8: Overall design of the project in.
Speaker 4: Alignment with what we've currently shown. And as.
Speaker 8: We as you heard from the.
Speaker 4: Community, we listened to the feedback that was provided to us. And so pieces of the community's desires for this project, for this location are things such as retail and restaurants and open space. And so those are the pieces.
Speaker 8: Of the project that we're.
Speaker 4: Committing to and that we've executed with the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. Did you have something you want to.
Speaker 5: Get in the good neighbor agreement? It has the owner obligations. So a lot of these questions you have are addressed in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We've committed to not going more than the what the total density would be for the five storey building. So we're putting it at different levels though. Even though we're asking for TMX 12, there's only one of the buildings would actually be 12 storeys. The rest of it would be scaled down.
Speaker 4: Well, as it's currently proposed in its infancy.
Speaker 5: Yes, that's true.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much. And just one comment about Colorado nonprofits versus 501c3. Maybe this has already been addressed, but Colorado nonprofit is in the state of Colorado and 51c3 is a federal IRS designation. So there you can have one and not the other. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Collinsville 1058 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all for being here. It was very, very nice of neighbors to come up on a very cold December night. And I want to thank the development team. When I was first elected in 2015, one of the first people I called was Sandy because I heard a rumor that she wanted to develop that corner. So this was four years ago, and she's right. There were a lot of people coming to them for a drive thru liquor store, drive thru restaurant, all a lot of things that nobody wanted. And I just kept meeting with her and we kept talking about what would be nice for the neighborhood. And so it's mean so much to me. I've lived in that area most of my life and just I know you are also a Denver native and everyone's right. It is not an active part of town. They're just transportation corridors. And it's such an incredible opportunity to have an active light rail station. And there are some new things coming to the actual light rail station that are positive. This is going to be incredibly positive for the area. Everyone is concerned about transportation and safety. I'm so happy to see Stewart in the audience along with Bill James and Chris Nevett. The city also cares about getting people to the station safely and making it more walkable. And so Public Works is trying to get an Evans Corridor study done and Colorado Corridor study done to plan some improvements. I worked with Stewart before the 2017 was it 2017 bond on some improvements around the station, which hopefully those will get started, but there's much more to be done. But everyone knows about it and everyone cares about it is a priority. I really appreciate that you all came together for so many, many meetings and got to a point where you all thought this was a good idea. And I really appreciate you doing the good neighbor agreement, the affordable housing. I would like to address you are doing what the law allows you to do. So you're not getting any special favors. You are paying the linkage fee that was set forth in the ordinance that many of us voted for. But there are other things going in there that are going to be really a benefit to the community. And I hope then that good things spread from there around the station east on Evans, South on Colorado Boulevard and north on Colorado Boulevard. And that we get Colorado Boulevard to be more of an active transportation corridor, getting people move, moving outside of their cars. So a BRT or something. And I think with that, that is all I wanted to say. Jenny and Liz, you guys have been incredible. President of your neighborhood organization. Thank you so much for leading. And thank you all for this. It sounds like I'm going to support it. And I am.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much.
Speaker 10: And thanks for the clarification, everyone, for the R.A. status. That's helpful. The comment I wanted to make, there was a public commenter who remarked about previously on This Lot. There had been Green Chili Roasters.
Speaker 5: And so as this starts to take shape, please come to District three for your green Chile. All along, federal boulevard. We have plenty of options for you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: It's tough to follow up. Green Chile Roasters who will say that? This is really interesting. I hate to see any piece of ground built on without affordable housing. This is a small piece of ground. This is a very small piece of ground. And the $600,000 hopefully will will go towards financing affordability elsewhere and the design. I came into this job while I'm still concerned about height of structures. When you see that five story rectangle immediately to the south of this project, just south of the southeast corner of Evans and Colorado, you realize that that it's about design, I think is what everybody's flipping out about is the crap that we see being built in some areas. You know, and what this does have is, is exceptional design. And I know that's always a matter of taste. And I think to Councilman Hines is quite a line of questioning. I'm from from what I read in the agreements. I'm convinced that the requirements of massing prevent a giant box, that the 12 stories will be minimal. So what does concern me and it's not about this development really is the reality of our city right now. And the reality of the Evans corridor is, as Councilwoman Black said. So we've got to we approved the development of three 500 units down by the highway last week. We'll have a couple hundred more townhouses at Holly and Evans in the next couple of years. We'll talk later about the proposal for 800 more units up at the old see that site and all this to say we're we're acting right now in the way we are about what we give out incentives as if we have a real life mass transit system and we have a skeleton of the mass transit system that we need. We're giving out parking incentives. We're expecting we're we're allowing height, encouraging height, which we should buy by transit stations. But we're all watching the same thing with our our primary transit agency, reducing service and reduced releasing reduced ridership numbers. So all of this to simply say we really need to get extremely serious as a city very quickly about creating a mass transit system that actually gets people out of their cars in the numbers that we need to. I think this council did a great thing in in the voters in approving the Department of Transportation and Mobility. But we need to make use of it. You know, we just we can't leave it up to any outside agency, be it RTD or something else, or we're going to run into real trouble. You know, and I don't know whether the number I don't know what the number is that creates problems for us on our corridors because we've got problems now. We all know it. You know, people people say we have we have too many people in Denver and we don't I don't believe I mean, you can go get your haircut, go buy paint at Home Depot, change the tires on your car. What? You need to do buy groceries and you check out in a few minutes and you're on your way. But when we get in our cars. So I would ask our new director of Community Planning and Development and our director of Public Works to get real serious about how long are we going to go before we take action that matters in Denver. So I will be approving this tonight because I think it. I think it enhances the community. And but as I say, it just brought up all these concerns about moving people around and we need to do better. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I. I want to thank Councilman Cashman for his concerns about RTD and. And our struggle with getting people around the city outside of a car. 73% of Denver employees or Denver workers commute by single argument vehicle. And, you know, as we move from a cow town in a flyover state to a destination that, you know, our airport has, we're either number one or number two in the most direct destinations of any airport in the US. So as we become a destination instead of a flyover state, we really need to to lower that percentage. And on July 15th, when when we were all inaugurated, there was a reporter that brought the five new city council people together. And they asked, what is the biggest issue facing Denver? And I said, in my wonky way, I said, it's the relationship between land use and transit infrastructure. And so I'm obviously we can't rely on a another agency that is reducing service, increasing fares, has a massive rider shortage who's talking about significant reductions. So I would also share Councilman Cashman's thought about, you know, Denver, we can take a leadership role and and and now's the time for us to do that. We're at an inflection point to this particular project. I heard I'm I really like the the widen sidewalks that you have have drawn in your your plan. I think that that's, you know, one of the key components of making sure that people get out of their cars is to make the non car experience a positive one. And and I've seen a lot of recent development that has a curb for foot sidewalk and then, you know, 12 storey building and that's not conducive. Well, no wonder why people want to drive because they don't feel safe, you know, in this little it's like threading the Death Star or something, except that, you know, there's only one wall and then there's cars on the other side. So I like that. I like that. It's right next to a transit station. That's one of my key components. When I campaigned, I talked about the 20 minute neighborhood as and we should have everything within a 20 minute walk, right. A role and and locating density around transit is certainly in accordance with our adopted plans, but it's also very much in accordance with my personal values. As one of my colleagues said, unlike District ten, District four is not perfect. Councilwoman Black, I'm a little jealous about this this project. This is this is something that would easily fit in District ten. And, and I'm really excited that we're doing more placemaking around transit stops because that's how that's how we get that 73% lower is we have people located near places where they can easily take alternatives to cars . I would say one other thing. One of my staff went to New Mexico over the weekend and since green chilies come up Colorado, green chili is better than New Mexico. Green chili. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So I think every neighborhood needs a catalytic project. I remember touring this site as a council aide, working for Councilman Espinosa, and walking around this area and thinking how it was a missed opportunity. And so when we put public information, public dollars, such as transit into areas, I would really like to see catalytic projects take take shape around there and make them destinations. In northwest Denver, we've always had a really robust, eclectic neighborhood, so we didn't really need that. My whole entire life I've spent living there. So but I think as sprawl has happened, we need catalytic projects and just to re-emphasize work, my colleague, Councilman Cashman, said about affordability. I understand that you're paying a large portion into the bucket, and I will just ask you that your future projects. I know that the bottom line everyone has a performa everyone. I come from a small family restaurant. We had a performer and it was really important when health care came to the topic that our place had health care. And so now I think the topic of affordable housing is on the forefront of everyone. And so I just ask you, as a developer in Denver and I'm a resident of North Denver, that next time in your projects that maybe you can pencil them in and not have to meet by law, you are meeting the criteria . Absolutely. And by law, you're meeting the height. Right. And so tonight, we're just approving a rezoning. We don't get to approve projects. That's one of the hard things that I sit up here and feel handcuffed by is that we don't get to approve projects because I like to take deep dives into projects. That's my specialty. But you're getting the density. So just be true to this neighborhood and be true to Denver. So in your next project, just pencil them in, even if it's a couple units paint into it. Yes, you are. You are following the rule of the law. So thank you for doing that. You're not getting any special treatment. You're getting entitlement, but you are. I just want everyone to realize that that you are getting entitlement. So please be good stewards of that land and please make sure that you're thinking about that in the next seven generations . And don't. And I would just also ask that you don't value engineer anything out. I think a lot of times communities are presented projects and then as bids go out, things are value engineered out. And so just do your best to mean true to the integrity of this project, because I really believe it could be a catalytic project for right in that area and that area really deserves it. It's a long time coming. And with that, I will be supporting this project. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So I heard one of the speakers talk about the opportunity for this to be a destination. And hearing her ask for a place where singles can go was, you know, one of those suggestions. And, you know, this is a project that really I think I've been in this area. And to Councilman Cashman's point about the traffic on Colorado Boulevard. We all know what a nightmare it is. Right. So how these projects are done and the fact that, you know, a traffic study will more than likely be needed to address how you move pedestrians across this very busy corridor. We deal with the same problem along the federal boulevard corridor, which is our number one corridor for fatalities. And, you know, the fact that we are seeing so much development in this city, we have to be so thoughtful about how we address these issues on the front end. And we don't get to do that because we don't approve the details that you have to go work on with our folks over at the Community Planning and Development Agency. But I appreciate the fact that you had an opportunity to have this conversation with the community. And the fact that you've got residents pretty unanimous in support of this project is is exciting because I know this particular corner could really use some help and be that anchor project for the neighborhood. So. You know, I support the comments made about affordable housing. I was one of the original co-chairs when we did our inclusionary housing ordinance. Wasn't necessarily that. Favorable to developers in in terms of, you know, having to comply. But it was a tool in our toolbox that gave us the opportunity to ensure that we were incrementally addressing the needs of people in our city. And we're seeing our city change so drastically that people cannot afford to live here. And when we start looking at all the development that is proposed along the I-25 corridor and the potential impact that will have on the neighborhoods to the West, if we are not thoughtful about this, in looking at this at the front end, we lose our city. The the the part about what is so great about this city is its diversity, its diversity of the neighborhoods, its diversity of the people, the economic incomes. And I don't want to see Denver become like our mountain communities, where people have to live so far away that we struggle to find the service workers to support the components of many of these developments that build in restaurants and hotels. And when people have to live so far away and they can find jobs that pay the same wages closer to where they live and where their kids go to school, we as a city will struggle trying to figure out how we get workers to work in this city to support different sectors. So it's it's an important component of how as a city, we need to be a lot more thoughtful. And I know that development is expensive. I sit on the board of a nonprofit housing development group that does housing development for, you know, folks that are struggling financially. And it requires a lot more stacking of resources to make those projects pencil out. But if we're not really focused in addressing this problem, I think we start to lose what is so good about this city. And I think we all have to be very intentional about how we move that needle forward. And I think this project, again, is one that will will make a difference in this neighborhood. I will be supporting it tonight. But we have to keep it keep keep at it. And, you know, I know it's a priority issue for this body of council. We've had many, many conversations in our retreats about this this issue. And I guess, you know, this is my plea to our development community. And we have development partners in this city who are private developers who have stepped up to the plate and said, I'm going to do this. You know, this is important. We're going to incorporate it into our project. And, you know, yes, it takes getting your low income tax credits and some of those things that are an extra process that is added, but it adds value to the project in the long run. So I'll stop with that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Seeing nobody else in the queue, I have a few things I'd like to add. One of the advantages or disadvantages to sitting in this seat is you always get two or have to go last. So Councilman Cashman usually beats me to the punch on talking about conformance with our adopted plans when it comes to climate change. And since he didn't steal the thunder, this time I'm going to read not the entire thing, but just a piece of it as we look. And this is this is in our blueprint. This is in our plan. As we look to our future, we recognize that reversing our contribution to climate change is critical. How we plan our city can help us reduce our drain on resources and reduce Denver's carbon footprint to eliminate our collective contribution to the climate change crisis. That commitment must be our overarching guide. And so as I'm looking at these rezonings, obviously we're all looking at that criteria and do you meet that? And I think that we're not talking enough up here about this. I think, you know, you'll hear us talk a lot about affordable housing, which is critical, and you'll hear us talk a lot about transportation, which certainly has climate implications. But talking directly about climate change and the impact of how we're planning and how we're building our city, I think is also critical that we're talking about and we're talking about every chance we get in a hearing like this. And I think what doesn't get covered a lot right now, because talking about density and redevelopment in Denver is hard right now. We are experiencing a lot of growing pains and a lot of communities are feeling a lot of change. And a lot of us like me who got a driver's license when we're 16 and you could get anywhere in Denver in 10 minutes, are grappling with the fact that that's not the same. City that I live in as the one that I grew up in. And so often that is overshadowed that conversation is overshadowed with some of the things that I think we should be talking about like that a project like this that is talking about having a very small portion that is residential housing is still going to build the equivalent of three or four, depending on where you are, five blocks of single family housing into it. And that's a small part of what we can do when we're building dense. Having conversations about the carbon impact of building places where people can live, but also where they work, where they play, where they stay. Like this has a much smaller carbon footprint than a lot of other kinds of development. And as we're looking and having conversations about density that is right on a transit station, right on major transportation corridors, that is, you know, supported by the community, that this is the exact place we should be talking about. How do we build density and what is that impact for our planet and for our species and our ability to continue inhabiting this planet? And we're not talking about that as a way that this is conforming with our adopted plans and meeting a critical criteria for rezoning. So I just wanted to shine a light on that, and that's not to discourage anyone. I really appreciated the speaker who mentioned and called out Plat Park in Walsh Park, two places in my district as great places to go grab food. I also have the other side of federal and maybe we should have a an east west south federal showdown on green Chile. Bring it on. Or whether you're coming to the Little Saigon district to get Vietnamese food. I mean, we've got it all in District seven and hear other communities say, hey, we want to be able to walk. And here's a development that allows us to walk, not to take away from driving to all the awesome places in my district. But that is those are the conversations that we have to be having about how do we build communities where people can walk and get there and can get out of their car? Because we have to be making those changes and we have to be making those changes yesterday. So I know that we've talked about all our wishes and dreams on affordable housing and transportation. Also throughout that, I hope that you will really consider climate. I hope that you'll choose to opt in to our stretch green building code when you get there and when we've adopted it. I hope that you'll outpace your requirements in our green building ordinance, and I hope that you will not put any natural gas infrastructure in for things like gas stoves, which we will have to transition off of long after that. This infrastructure, we're a long outlive our ability to continue using fossil fuels for those things. So with that and for all those reasons, I think this meets the criteria and thank you for the presentation from staff illustrating all of this. I hope we'll also continue to focus on climate in our presentations on how this meets how things like this meet our criteria. I will be happy to support this this evening. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 5: Black Eye. CdeBaca I.
Speaker 2: When I. Gillmor, I. Herndon High Hinds High Cashman.
Speaker 3: Five.
Speaker 2: Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 as Council Bill 1058 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1245 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2100 South Colorado Boulevard, 4040 East Evans Avenue, 2140 South Albion Street, 2130-2150 South Colorado Boulevard and 4102-4108 East Evans Avenue in University Hills.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at 2100 South Colorado Boulevard, 4040 East Evans Avenue, 2140 South Albion Street, 2130-2150 South Colorado Boulevard, and 4102- 4108 East Evans Avenue from C-MX-5 and C-MX-5 UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-12 (urban center, mixed-use, five-stories to urban center, mixed-use, twelve-stories) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12022019_19-1245
|
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 as Council Bill 1058 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1245 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19 dash one, two, four, five be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Council Bill one, two, four, five is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: You go.
Speaker 14: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins, and I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority here this evening, requesting council's approval of the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan to facilitate development of the 40 2001 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area. The proposed area is an area of 13.2 acres located in the Virginia Village statistical neighborhood. The site includes six parcels, five of which are positioned for redevelopment, and one of which includes a microwave tower which will retain will be retained by Seedat. The area is generally bounded by East Louisiana and East Louisiana. Easy for me to say. East Louisiana Avenue to the North South Byrd Street to the East, East, Arkansas Avenue to the south and the Eastern property line of the private commercial property fronting Colorado Boulevard to the west. One of the parcels included in the area is located east of South Byrd Street at the northeast corner of East Arkansas Avenue and South Birch Street. The area served as the seaboard headquarters for approximately 65 years in 2018, set out, consolidated its operations and relocated to a new building in West Central Denver, Colorado. State law requires properties owned by the state to be offered to a local government entity first before they may be offered for sale to a private purchaser. The city and county of Denver was the successful bidder for this site. After being selected, the city chose a master developer through a competitive selection process to effect catalytic development of the property, ensuring development consistent with the existing neighborhood area plans, economic and job development. In December of 2018, much of the site was resigned from the Campus Zone District to a variety of mixed use and residential zoned districts, with the intention of incentivizing the creation of a pedestrian oriented community asset that transitions appropriately into the existing neighborhood. A Condition study was commissioned in July of 2019 and it was finalized in October of 2019. The study specifically excluded any conditions relating to the buildings as they were to be demolished by CEDAW prior to the consideration of the Urban Redevelopment Plan. The study supported a finding of blight based on the presence of the following conditions. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. Unusual topography or. Inadequate public improvements. Or utilities. Environmental contamination of buildings or property. And the existence of factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements. The finding of blight is a legislative finding by the City Council. Based upon the condition study, which has been filed with the city clerk and other evidence presented at this public hearing. As part of the purchase of the property from the city, the developer was required to commit to certain development outcomes related to the planning and development of the site, including the preparation of a master drainage study to address all drainage issues, including onsite detention and water quality. A traffic study addressing all transportation issues, including offsite and on site intersections, street layout, on site multimodal connections and other elements as determined in coordination with the Public Works Department, a required minimum of 10% of the net developable area to be publicly accessible. Open space or a designated park. A master transportation demand management study is to be provided to the city for review and approval. In addition, each concept site development plan for a parcel of vertical development must submit a letter identifying the team practices to be utilized, a requirement to construct at least 150 housing units with a maximum affordability restriction of 60%, ami a covenant to develop the property in a manner resulting in a minimum of 150,000 square feet of commercial space and the creation of a minimum of 200 permanent new jobs. While the developer is bound by the above noted conditions, they are serving as the horizontal developer initially of the site and will sell finished pads to vertical developers. Accordingly, there are no specific vertical development plans for the site, but this slide provides a proposed conceptual site plan. The expected development includes not more than 690 residential units on the site to be located on blocks one, two and five. The housing may include senior and senior assisted living and a mix of rental and for sale product. All of this will be dependent on the market conditions. The 150 affordable housing units will be located on BLOCK six. It is important that the site respect the density of the area so the maximum number of residential units is capped at 840. The current development plan includes an approximately 130 room hotel to be constructed on block for the remaining required. Commercial development will occur on the ground floors of blocks one, two and five. The goal, again, is to be a vibrant, mixed use development that delivers housing across a spectrum of incomes and ages meets the 100,000 150,000 square foot commercial development requirement and provides the 200 permanent jobs. BLOCK three will be an approximately one acre park to be owned, maintained and programed by the existing metropolitan district. The objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the urban redevelopment area. The proposed Urban Redevelopment Project meets the objectives of the plan, as noted on the screen behind me, including the creation of complete and inclusive neighborhoods. Encourage mixed use redevelopment that is socially and economically inclusive more effectively. Use underdeveloped land within the urban redevelopment area. Improve access to healthy transportation options, healthy foods and open space. And promote a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy, including mixed use and commercial development opportunities within the area. This slide, which I apologize for a challenge in reading any of it is intended to show the key objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver that this plan and project will address the city as part of their sale transaction to the developer identified many of the strategies necessary to allow for the redevelopment of this approximately 13 acre site in a way that maximizes its development potential while balancing the impacts of redevelopment on the surrounding area, the inclusion of 150 units of affordable housing, the requirement of job creation, the open space dedications, the traffic mitigation requirements and the density limitations all work to mitigate the involuntary displacement of residents or businesses, respect the existing character of the neighborhood and provide new access to services and amenities. Any Urban Redevelopment Plan in Progress project must be determined to further the goals and objectives of Plan 2040 and its approved supplements. As this diagram intends to show, not every goal and objective of each plan can be addressed through urban renewal activities. However, we believe this plan and project meet the relevant criteria of the city plans. The Urban Redevelopment Plan was submitted to the Denver Planning Board on November six of this year with a staff recommendation to find the plan to be in conformance with the comp plan. 2040 Planning Board voted 8 to 1 to find the plan to be in conformance with Plan 2040 and its adopted supplements. And a letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the the record of this hearing. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes Doura to finance projects with the in the area by the use of tax increment financing. The tiff will remedy the blighting conditions through financial assistance of costs related to infrastructure, environmental remediation and site work. In addition to the development challenges presented by these blighting conditions, the project is also requesting TIFF to deliver the development plan outcomes already discussed. The TIFF will also be used to help address the costs related to delivering 150 units of affordable housing. The additional parking, open spaces and costs associated with tower improvements. The Dora staff has reviewed the development budgets and proforma submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the project of of approximately $23.6 million. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through property tax and sales tax increment generated from the tax increment area, which is coterminous with the urban redevelopment area for a period not to exceed 25 years. The utilization of tax increment financing invokes the requirement that before City Council can approve a new urban redevelopment plan, they must find that an agreement has been entered into between Dura and the affected taxing district in regards to the allocation of property tax increment to the project. There are three other property taxing districts Denver Public Schools, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and the East Arkansas Metropolitan Districts. All taxing districts were notified of the proposed urban redevelopment plan following that notification. All of these districts evaluated the impact the project would have on their ability to deliver services based on the information provided to urban drainage. They have determined that the project will have limited impact on their ability to deliver services and have agreed to allow all increment derived from their mill levy to be paid to Dura to support the project. Denver Public Schools has also evaluated the impact the residential development will have on their ability to provide services to schools in the Southeast planning region. These schools include Ellis Elementary Merrill Middle School and South High School. While DPS has agreed to allow all increment derived from their mill levy to be paid to direct to support the project, they have requested payment of just over $1.2 million from the tax increment to support the schools in the Southeast planning region per the terms of the DPS Inter-Governmental Agreement. The $1.2 million will be paid prior to any amounts reimbursing the developer for eligible costs. The East Arkansas Metropolitan Districts have requested that all incremental taxes generated by their mill levy be paid to them to support the redevelopment of the site. The cooperation agreement between Dura and the Metropolitan Districts allows for this payment. Lastly, the under the cooperation agreement between the city and borough governs the collection and remittance of both the property and sales tax increment to support the redevelopment project. It also limits the term of the tax increment area to the earlier of repayment of the DURA obligation or 25 years. In considering the approval of the 40 2001 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following additional legislative findings that the boundaries of the area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced, or if any business concerns are displaced as a result of adoption or implementation of the plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those families, businesses and individuals in accordance with the ACT. Due to the vacancy of the project area, it contains no residences or business concerns. Therefore, no individuals, families or businesses will be displaced. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. This written notice was mailed on October 31st of 2019, at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. Not more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And this the city Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the area by private enterprise. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or non residential uses or any agricultural land. And lastly, that the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve this urban redevelopment area. And the Urban Renewal Plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and area to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. I do want to note that this plan does not authorize any acquisition by eminent domain. So Jura is pleased to work with the city and with the control group to bring forward this project. As I noted earlier, the city administration to find a good project when it required the creation of 200 jobs, delivery of commercial space and 150 units of affordable housing. However, the work of Councilman Cashman and the community he represents made it a much better project when they increased the open space requirement from 10% to nearly 20%. With the addition of the one acre park, when they cap the total number of residential units to serve to respect the surrounding area and required traffic mitigation not only immediate to the site but also to other parts of the neighborhood that will be impacted by the project. These are all very important elements of the project that cannot be delivered without the assistance of urban renewal and tax increment financing. That concludes my staff report, and we respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of this plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. We have 13 individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I will call first five up to the bench and then when your name is called to step up to the microphone. Our first five tonight are Curtis Roe, Chris Faskari, Jimmy Bull, Office Chairman Sekou and Jesse Paris. You'd come on up. And Curtis Rowe, you're.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Curtis Rowe with Kimberly Artist Associates. I'm a traffic engineer, prepared the traffic impact study that was.
Speaker 0: Referenced for this project. And I'm.
Speaker 3: Available to answer any.
Speaker 0: Questions that you may.
Speaker 9: Have after the comment period.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Christmas card you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening. I'm Chris Vickery with the control group 1509 York Street. After our robust engagement with the neighborhood, the neighborhood really challenged us on coming out with the following outcomes focus on open space, balanced density with inclusion, housing, a neighborhood retail center, solutions for traffic and improvements of the tower that's existing. The proposal in front of you tonight, we've have we've created inclusive development that provides doubling the open space 10 to 20% with one acre community park and other open space that will focus on seasonal programing and art, limiting our residential density to 840 units. That's inclusive of the 150 units of affordable housing that we'll be providing on site. That makes up to 18% of affordable housing out of the residential units. Additionally, we're going to target the separate segments to really make this as diverse as we can, and that's getting age restricted assisted living, market rate and probably for sale depending on the market. The affordable housing is a part of the project with or without the TIFF. Really, the tiff is really just going to expedite that getting delivered outside of what we did committed in our development agreement neighborhood center, we really spent a lot of time here. We're trying to create what we call the heart of a project. And you can kind of see on the site plan that was surrounded around a plaza. We studied city centers in Europe, in other places in Europe to really figure out what what's the best size and how do we activate this and do something great since we're off of Colorado Boulevard and we think we found the right size and placement of that, and with the density around it could be successful. That's going to be lined with restaurants, a grocery, a cop shop, other neighborhood retail center services that the neighborhood will want to come to. And we're going to hopefully focus local traffic since the beginning of the rezoning. This is something that we've had a head on just with the change that's coming there. We've worked with the councilmen, the neighbors and our team. The proposed traffic improvements that we're making on and off site. Some of those are a mile away. Off site. We're actually making low level service better than what they are today, including our our traffic. So I think that's a huge step forward. The other really big thing that we need to focus on is the pedestrian, the biker and other modes to get to the site. And we're proposing a very robust TDM strategy with the mobility hub and other modes to really incent people to get out of the car rather than always using Colorado Boulevard and driving to the site . Luckily where we are, we're bordered by two bus lines, the 40 and 46 and where we have light rail that's only three quarters of a mile away. And we're going to have to create a way to connect to that. The existing tower is a unique beast. We'll get that one and get it redesigned. And we really envision this as the project, not Cherry Creek, not Rhino, not low, high. It's a culture and experience. It's our Virginia village. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jimmy Buffett.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel and councilwoman. I'm Jimmy Butler, office co-founder and principal of the Cancer Group. And we're the company that's developing this great project in front of you guys tonight. We're here tonight to seek your approval for a tiff. With this tiff, we can create this amazing project, and we can create this best community. We can create the best community possible with a set of enhancements that will help transform this great development into an unforgettable one. This quick recap This project is comprised of 150 units of affordable housing that we will be built on site. It also is going to include another 690 units, a market rate unit for sell units, senior living and for sale product. We also are planning to construct this vibrant, walkable community where we'll have a grocery store, cafes, restaurants, neighborhood, community, neighborhood oriented retail that will service the surrounding neighborhoods. We plan to create 200 permanent jobs, and then we also plan to reintroduce the street grid. Asch and Belair will come through between Louisiana and Arkansas. So these were all the requests that were put in development agreement. When we had our ten meetings with the community, we heard great things. That cannot be taken lightly. And so we heard that the community wanted a park, which we're going to deliver on this site. And that's taken the the open space from 10% to 20%. We're also going to deliver a rebuilt of a tower. Right now, the tower on site is an eyesore and we plan to beautify that tower and make it more of an icon than than an eyesore for the community. We also are doing a cop shop and we're also doing a vibrant, vibrant streetscapes that's very walkable for the whole community. I am asking you for your support tonight, but I want to thank all the groups that have helped shape this project from City Administration Public Works, CPD host the Division of Real Estate Cities Attorney's Office, Councilman Cashman. And of course, the neighbors and all those stakeholders have really shaped where we are tonight, and we're going to continue to work with all stakeholders as we built this great project. I'll be available to answer any specific questions once all the speakers have concluded. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: Chairman say who likes the arts movement? Self defense. Very rarely. After over 15 years of coming down here. Can I actually consciously. Support a project such as this. It is. Thoroughly organized. It includes. All other aspects that allows the city's poor, vulnerable community to be included. In terms of housing and jobs and being welcomed into a community that is privileged. And perhaps most importantly, because I can't speak to the good and bad intentions of any of the council members. I can certainly affirm without mentioning anybody's name that. This was good. This could. That's good. And the people of this neighborhood are very lucky.
Speaker 0: Could you speak to the microphone so everybody can hear.
Speaker 3: People and people in the neighborhood who've come here for support or against a very lucky to have the quality of leadership that currently exists for this district. Now, of course, that's no endorsement because rarely do we agree on stuff. But I got to go. I got to go get this one. And I'm glad I came tonight because this is one of those things that I didn't expect to happen here. So. Good luck. Congratulations. And Tracy. Smile. I'm not going get you this time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris and I'll call the next five up to the front bench. Pamela Whitney Walsh, Debora Powers, Monte Powers, Brooke Webb and Russell Welch. Go ahead.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Council President Clark, members of council members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse. Listen, Paris. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. And I slogan is Just for the poor people. Our prophet and I represent for Denver Homicide out loud, Blackstar, some more self-defense forces have actually come in for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and the Universal African People's Organization in my OHI knows I am still reluctantly against this because for the simple fact we were told we can do better this whole time. And all I keep seeing is rezonings for more housing that people cannot afford, you need to just stop corner at affordable housing and just say, Look, this is not affordable. You're just not going to be able to afford this 60%, am I really? That's that's the best we can do. While we have how many vacant luxury apartments in this town, it is apparently clear where your priorities are. And it is not affordable housing, let alone attainable house. And tonight I've heard two rezonings for housing that most people, especially people that look like me, cannot afford. But yeah, I keep hearing all this stuff about diversity and inclusivity and it meets this criteria. So systems are the criteria. You're going to approve it anyway. But logically speaking, this is not the answer. But I have a good relationship with Councilperson in this district, so it's going to be a reluctant. Yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Pamela Whitney off.
Speaker 2: Good evening.
Speaker 10: I'm Pamela Walsh and I reside at 1316 South Elm Street. And I'm here tonight in support of the financing needed for the redevelopment of this project. I participated in nearly every one of the ten community meetings hosted by Castro in my roles as a prior board member of the Virginia Village Community Association, as well as the East Evans Business Association, and tonight as a neighbor. I live just about half a mile or five blocks from the site, and I'm anticipating this new development to be my go to for all of my basic amenities and services. Potentially hair salon, dentist, veterinarian and entertainment like a park and movies and restaurants. I dream of living a mostly carefree lifestyle, and I think this site has the potential to not only provide for most of my household needs, but also to elevate the reputation of the southeast Denver neighborhood as a destination and something for other neighborhoods to aspire to. Specific to the funding being requested tonight, I believe that TIF financing is critical to address some of the fundamental components of the site redevelopment so that it can fully maximize its potential, including the creation of a neighborhood park and more open space that might otherwise not be possible. The ability to more effectively address traffic management and thoughtful design transfer to thoughtfully design transportation options like public transit and car share to minimize the impact to the neighboring community, to reconnect the grid that was previously obstructed by the on campus, and to beautify the communications tower that is currently an eyesore. Finally, I believe the program is worthy of this incremental financing because Castro group has demonstrated that they're genuinely interested in committing to creating the best experience for our community, as evidenced by their ongoing community meetings, adjustments to their plans based on our input, including the maximizing of low income housing units, and providing a park and engaging a local architectural expert to advise on their conceptual designs to ensure that it meets that it fits in with our community esthetic. So as a neighbor who stands to benefit from having a locally focused one stop shop that reflects the charming midcentury modern design of our special neighborhood, I ask that you vote in support of funding tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Debora Powers.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Debra Powers. I live at 4503 East Arkansas Avenue, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. January 2020 marks the two year milestone to my introduction to the project and my first Cantrell neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood embraced affordable housing as part of the project control grid. We wanted more open space and then we wanted more open space. And they went back to the drawing board and they gave us the park. I envision this development, bringing a vital, vibrant addition to our ever changing city. I will walk to many new amenities that the development will offer. I like that the retail will support local businesses. I am most excited when I hear that there is a discussion of a transportation hub being created here. It makes sense that a tip investment will be used for the redevelopment was a thoughtful inclusion by the control group to partner with Dora. One of Dora's objectives is to steward a citywide vision as Denver grows and changes. I find Dora had a hand in some of my favorite development projects throughout Denver. Larimer Square, the Pepsi Center. Ari, the Sauce and University Hills. Let's move this project forward and provide the investment needed. Tonight I ask for your support. Please vote to approve the partnership and tip investment that will help finance this redevelopment in my neighborhood. When we bring it across the finish line, I believe it will be exceptional.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Monte Powers.
Speaker 3: My name is Monte Powers. I live at 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. Thank you for letting me speak to you tonight about the redevelopment of the property of 4201 East Arkansas Avenue. I believe Cantrell has assembled the best team to do this project and the control group that proven that they care about my community. When other developers would have bought their way out of a 60% and my affordable housing, Cantrell chose to include these people in my community. I've been to all ten of the community meetings. Controls had controls listened to my community. The plan has evolved as a response to community input. I'm excited to have a new restaurant and retail opportunities with walkability in my neighborhood. I'm happy that there will be a small park as part of this community, and I'm also excited about the plans for transportation hub. This is a great project that can transform this part of Denver. The use money generated by the by the use of tiff money generated by the revenue created by this project are useful tool to let Dura and Cantrell have a development that will stand the test of time and be a model for future development. Please vote for TIFF funding for this development. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brooke Webb.
Speaker 10: Good evening. I'm Brooke Webb. I live at 5382 East Colorado Avenue, about eight blocks from this the space. The reason I'm speaking tonight in support of the TIFF funding is because of many of the features that have already been mentioned tonight. So I'll just quickly run through them. But my understanding is we're getting around a one acre open space park, many restaurants and shops. There's going to be a mobility and transportation hub. And we need to retrain, retain and attract families to the neighborhood. My daughter attends Ellis Elementary School, which has a population that's been decreasing. We really need the affordable housing. As of right now, 85% of the students that attend Alice Elementary are on free and reduced lunch. So even though we're in a very affluent neighborhood, there's still a very big need for affordable housing in the neighborhood. And I also think that funding is very important for the tower. Right now, it's an eyesore, but it sounds like it's going to be a place finding landmark for the future for the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Russell Welch. And Stewart Anderson Jeff to Hardie and Bill James if you'd come up to the front bench.
Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. My name is Russell Welch. I live at 1964 South Pontiac Street. I represent my family and they're probably the toughest constituents I'll ever face. So that drove me to be here tonight. You know, I've been part of this since the very beginning, and I've not seen a developer in my time working in commercial.
Speaker 4: Construction acts the way Castro does. They've not only spoke, but they've listened.
Speaker 3: They listened to all of our needs. They provided the open space and the retail that we so desperately need.
Speaker 4: I've lived there.
Speaker 3: For 15 years, so my kids have grown up there. We live across.
Speaker 4: From the Sears that we see that's.
Speaker 3: Dead. And hopefully soon it'll it'll come back to life. But we have no place to go when it comes to meeting our neighbors.
Speaker 4: And many days, we look longingly at South Pearl Street or South Gaylord Street in the festivals that we can't ride our bikes to, we can't walk to. And our kids need that. Our families need that. And I think our community needs that.
Speaker 3: We can look to other examples of projects that have had that have had TIFF financing in our area.
Speaker 0: Whether that's you, Hills or Tamarack.
Speaker 4: They've been successful. But you know what? Those are just retail. This project brings people together.
Speaker 3: Go have a beer with one another.
Speaker 4: Go out, play.
Speaker 3: Some horseshoes or cornhole or whatever. We don't have that and we desperately need it. This is a 13 acre site and this is your chance to make a good project. A great project.
Speaker 4: And I've lived in Denver a long time, and I don't know that our city council does things just good.
Speaker 3: We do it great. And in order to do that, we.
Speaker 4: Have to pass the TIFF financing. So my constituents will be very upset with me if I have to go home and tell them that this didn't pass. So I implore you, please pass the two financing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Stewart Anderson.
Speaker 3: Street, Anderson 1041 Marion Street. I run an organization known as Transportation Solutions. We work in that area where the control was building and we've been working with them in good faith to address a variety of issues that you've heard about. And certainly there's three core components that we're looking at. One is to create a multimodal environment that means anybody can get around walking, biking, using a cargo bike, whatever it is that they need a car share, it'll be there. The focus is this mobility hub that will be placed on the east side that will not only benefit those at that site, but the residents around that area. It'll improve access to Colorado station for residents of that area. And the second is to connect the network. We're trying to connect to the Florida bike path so that so this property is connected to all other types of facilities that are available. But the third point that I'd like to call out and why I think this investment is very important, is that they've really focused on one thing , and that's called internal capture, and we overlook that too often. Internal capture means putting a grocery store in that property where you have residents. There's not going to be somebody getting in a car and driving to the grocery store. It reduces those trips, and a well-designed facility can reduce up to 30% of their trip generation by putting different uses and making those available. And one thing that we don't look at at the city is how many trips we reduce from people around the area. And I think having a grocery store, having restaurants, having the ability to walk in an area that was blocked by the court headquarters when you're going north and south, allows people to get out and to enjoy these things. And I really think it's going to be an asset for the community. And I would encourage you to go forward with the funding and make this happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeff Tardy.
Speaker 9: Good evening. Jeff Hardy, 1970 South Clayton Street. In listening to Tracy earlier tonight, she was talking about the financing package, which included about 23 million and change of eligible TIFF dollars for this project. And I'm thinking about that gap that's provided and that unique opportunity tonight to approve a package of public money, to go back into the community, go backing into the roads, allowing for a catalyst or for future development, open space. We're creating jobs, 200 plus jobs, commercial retail, affordable housing for sale, for rent, housing, product, a true mixed use community.
Speaker 3: We have an opportunity that's unique.
Speaker 9: I just want you to realize that as you make your choices, you have a good developer who stands behind their word here. We have a unique tool to take this from a good project to a great project and make this be almost a legacy model of what TIFF can be for future projects. So with that, I ask you to approve tonight's TIFF package.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Bill James.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'm Bill James.
Speaker 0: I live at.
Speaker 3: 1145 South Glencoe Street for those council members that haven't met.
Speaker 0: Me before. I was on the board of directors of RTD.
Speaker 3: For two terms and then a.
Speaker 0: Couple of years ago. And I'm a commercial.
Speaker 3: Real estate appraiser.
Speaker 0: And consultant.
Speaker 3: I lived in the Cherry Creek area for a long.
Speaker 0: Time and now live in the.
Speaker 3: Virginia Village area. And I'm happy to do that. And one of the things that I found was there's an opportunity presented by this site, and I decided to support the site. Among the things I.
Speaker 0: Support because of my career are cost effective public and private resources, affordable housing and enhanced mobility. I'm one of the founding.
Speaker 3: Members of the Board of Directors of Transportation Solutions, which is run so well by Stuart Anderson.
Speaker 0: I'd like to say good real estate's supporting residents and businesses. And there's a number of things that this project that I see that I appreciate a lot among them, that the council's willingness to listen to citizens and the input that they were able to give.
Speaker 3: The city, taking the opportunity to take this site.
Speaker 0: And encourage its redevelopment.
Speaker 3: In ways that can benefit the community.
Speaker 0: As well as it can. The result of the site feel it took place a little while back. It was, I think, very helpful to allow retail and gathering place type uses. The the.
Speaker 3: I really appreciate the the outreach that Cointreau.
Speaker 0: Has done. I've watched some of the other projects that they do and it's and this.
Speaker 3: Is likely to turn out to be a very good project as a.
Speaker 0: Result of that, the affordable housing component that has been required along the way is is sure to benefit.
Speaker 3: The neighborhood, contribute to balance the.
Speaker 0: Mobility enhancement that is.
Speaker 3: Required.
Speaker 0: The team will benefit the neighborhood as well. I really appreciate the fact that the antenna tower.
Speaker 3: Will be beautified as.
Speaker 0: Much as it will be. And then Control's agreement to include a park in the in the development as well. The and some of the conversations that I've had with them.
Speaker 3: Encouraging things like a food.
Speaker 0: Hall.
Speaker 3: Developments that.
Speaker 0: Can cause people to be attracted to this location and make it so that this neighborhood has a a gathering place.
Speaker 3: Similar to the Cherry Creek that.
Speaker 0: I don't live in anymore. So I really encourage.
Speaker 3: The council to.
Speaker 0: Approve this TIFF financing. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a question for Director Huggins or a couple of questions? They should be quick, though. Thank you for coming. Does this application require a letter of support from a city council person?
Speaker 14: We have requested a letter of support from the councilperson, and through that, the conversations that we have had with the councilmen during the course of this have really stood in the place of that letter at this time. But we have we would always prefer to have a letter of support, but that has not been received on this project.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And that's it for direct or. Excuse me, Mr. Bluffs, may I ask you a couple questions? And thank you, Director Hawkins. Hello. Hi. How's it going? Good. Thank you for living in District ten. Sorry you moved out of District ten. Anyway, so I had a couple of questions about the development. Do you have. In the presentation, there was a thought of linking this site to the nearby transportation three quarters of a mile away. Do you. Since. Since it was brought up, do you have any ideas on how that might happen? Yeah, there there was the bus line 46 I believe that runs Belair, that runs North-South. It's still not running as efficient as it can, but we plan to sit down with our team, our multi mobile team and work with RTD to see how we connect to it. I know at one point there was a chariot that ran with Glendale that went away, so I think there's some ideas there, but I think it's going to take some discussions with some stakeholders that can get us to that stop. Yeah. Chariot actually went through your neighborhood between Camp Hill and Cherry Creek, so I'm familiar with the project was very short lived, but yeah, a just as other potential sites, Inglewood has the art bus that connects the transit station to the businesses surrounding the community. So if there's something that that could be similar. So I like the idea of of connecting the site to the transit hub because we've talked a lot about multimodal transit, and I'd love to further encourage getting people out of cars. Um, did I hear that you're restoring the grid, as in reconnecting through streets? Yeah. So part of the development agreement was to at least bring one of the streets through, and that was built there. And so right now you have Louisiana to the north and Arkansas to the south, and you have.
Speaker 0: A big block.
Speaker 4: That is stopping the Denver street grid. So with a tiff, approval will connect Belair and Astro. So and what was the thought process behind Reconnecting Through Streets? Is that I mean, was that a requirement from the city or one of the streets is. But I think we can we want to build this vibrant community. And a lot of the charm around the city is on a grid. And we just want to want to keep it. Why recreate the will? So we just decided to kind of continue it. Sure. And and I think your your plan is probably already well down the path. If we are encouraging multimodal modal transit, I would love to pedestrianize more streets rather than car and ize them. Yep. So just just as an ash is probably going to be more of a private street, the metro district will control it. And we want to make it all brick. And we we want to make it more of a private street that's more pedestrian friendly than car. I mean, there's not going to be any surface parking lot through this whole site. So this is going to be a very pedestrian oriented development. And that's absolutely fair to. There are a lot of European streets. I think someone mentioned European earlier tonight and a lot of European streets that technically allow cars, but it is designed more for people than it is for cars. So thank you for considering that. And then the last thing I'd say is you talked about how this is a community for a lot of people and you talked about age and income. I I'd just a do you are you putting in disability friendly units or are you considering that? I guess I would just say I would invite you to to make that part of your conversation as well. Yes. As when we get to the detail drawings, we want an inclusive community. So. Great. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. But first, in response to Councilman Haynes's question to Tracy, I decided against providing a letter in advance, because this is a very serious, important discussion, and I didn't want to short circuit that discussion. It was neither. No inference should have been made from that. Let's see, Chris. Question for you. So the the area that the park. Will be constructed on is an area that historically has been connected with some environmental challenges. Can you speak about that? And does that affect construction of the park? We just.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah, no problem. So the northeast corner is has a historical contaminated site. Cedar has been actually in the for a program with the Department of Health and being required to clean it since the eighties. They're making good headway. It's basically isolated to the groundwater now, and it's right at the northeast corner of basically Louisiana and Birch. So that doesn't mean you can't occupy. It doesn't mean before they see that had employees operating in the facility. And in this circumstance, how it'll work is Cedar still actually owns the underlying land. They're still going to be required to take care of the contamination and close out the site. And how we operate under that is it's actually a license agreement that will allow us perpetual use and to develop there. So once we kind of get along with design, we'll see that in us. We'll go meet with the Department of Health to then say what's safe here and what do we need to do? Does that mean we need to do a vapor barrier and take out some dirt to make sure it's publicly safe and then everybody will sign off and the park can be installed.
Speaker 6: Okay. And Chris, have you figured out yet the exact size of that park? I know it it has to do a bit with the tower and some other factors.
Speaker 4: So right now, we're still at probably about 1.42 acres we're getting close to. And what's been hard about this is we're trying to solve the tower site. The tower side only has about 9000 square feet. It was used utilizing all the facilities of seedat. So or trying to solve for them is what do you need? Is that bathroom? How big of a kitchen? How many employees you're going to have there? So we're getting close to that. I have a weekly call with the state trying to satisfy what they need. And that's really what's driving that. That size is they might need some parking. So it'll be above an acre for sure. And right now we're at 1.42 acres.
Speaker 6: And can you. Are there other one acre parks that come to mind?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So we've done a good study and that's a good idea. We took the councilman on a quick drive just to kind of give some scale to things like Governor's Park McKinley, which is in Cherry Creek. There's a couple in Lodi that are around that size. And it's all about quantity. And you know what you're providing in that quality of that park. We're working with a public it's called Gale out of Copenhagen that's going to help us program how that will work. And they'll we're going to treat it just as a it's like a city park. We're going to have neighborhood meetings. We're going to go out and say what's going to what's needed here.
Speaker 6: And this is a public park. It's not just for the developer.
Speaker 0: Correct?
Speaker 6: It's created. Okay. You know, that's that that's good for right now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy, I just wanted to ask a.
Speaker 5: Couple of questions. I know the last time we met was when we were setting an urban renewal area up on East Colfax. And there were a lot of questions around gentrification and displacement and the effects of an urban renewal area on the community. And so I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about what steps you have taken in this area to help ensure that that those kinds of issues are not going to happen in this area.
Speaker 14: So I think that the first and foremost, the current condition of the site really is important to take into consideration. It is now, since the buildings have been demolished, it is vacant. So we are not looking to go in and take something that an existing business that was there because they already left the site to be able to to bring new opportunities. I think the addition of the affordable housing really helps to provide new people coming in, as well as people who are already in the community have new options. I think the considerations of the age, the the senior and senior assisted again allows people in the neighborhood who are already there a different alternative as far as being able to stay in their neighborhood even as their life circumstances change. We did look a lot at the demographic around the area and its location very close to Colorado Boulevard already provides some additional barriers to change, if you will. You already have a very well-developed commercial corridor to the west. You already also have very well-established residential, albeit highly rental. This is a portion of the neighborhood that has a high degree of rental housing. And so this will add to that. But it has been in place for a long time and see this as really complementing as opposed to competing with with that site. So thinking about jobs, thinking about the affordable housing, thinking about just the infill nature of the site itself, I think all work to help mitigate the overall impact of change in this as you move farther to the east, really established in residential neighborhood, some hope we believe that all of those things in combination will help address what might otherwise happen happen to the area.
Speaker 5: Great. And then in terms of this is a little bit different because it comes with the tiff attached to it. So is this a is this then for a specific project or is this covering the entire area? So clarify that a little. Sure. Sure.
Speaker 14: So the urban renewal plan establishes the urban renewal area, which is just the property that started on. That is also the boundaries of the tax increment area. So the taxes that are generated only from that area is what we will capture to then reinvest back into the project to help deliver it.
Speaker 5: Perfect. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill one, two, four or five is closed. Comments by members of Council or Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And my colleagues will indulge me. I do have some thoughts. I've been living this project 24 hours a day for the past couple of years. It's never been very far from my mind. I live about seven or eight blocks from the site and I love my neighborhood. I'm not moving anywhere. And so whatever form it takes, I'll be living with this project as long as I'm on planet Earth. From the first time I heard about the potential redevelopment of the 13 plus acre site at East Arkansas Avenue and South Byrd Street, I've had one concern, and that is that whatever is built on the site and I've said this a million times, that it enhances the Virginia Village community rather than overwhelms it. So what does that mean? To enhance the community would be to bring in a mix of housing and commercial uses that allow Virginia Village residents and other locals to live, work and or play on the land where Colorado Department of Transportation held forth for for many decades. To earn money there or to spend money there at neighborhoods serving businesses within walking distance of their front doors. Overwhelming the community would involve traffic going to and from the site that the nearby arterials and collector streets cannot handle, thereby sending traffic streaming on to local residential streets where it's not intended to go. So the previous zoning for the site allowed for substantial use of 12 storey construction after initially considering some 12 storey construction on the northwest corner of this site. Kentaro decided agreed to drop the maximum height for the development eight storeys as part of the turf negotiations. As you've heard, the developer has capped the total number of doors, residential doors at 840. The development agreement went well when the rent control engaged with the city to purchase the site. The requirement of 150 units of affordable housing had a buyout agreement on it, a cash in lieu. And as we would go to the public meetings and they would say of affordable housing, affordable housing, I would tell them, you know, it's just another maybe the way maybe it'll be a health club or maybe it'll be something else. And so as things move forward, the development agreement they signed and agreed that that 150 units of affordable housing was a definite must do as part of the project. And as as I believe Tracy mentioned, that takes the affordable component to 18% on this site, which is getting close to what we should be doing on every site , you know, where usually we talk about 10%. This is nearly double that. The developer's own estimates have predicted that traffic generated on the site is expected to grow anywhere from 5 to 7 times over what the old DOT site generated to reduce that number. At my request, early on, Kentaro contacted Transportation Solutions and ended up contracting with transportation solutions to devise infrastructure and processes to reduce auto trips to and from the site. Again, at my request, even though there have been no formal site plans available to work with. Courtesy Kim Lee Horne has and Kentaro have have worked with Denver Public Works in two different teams since we lost the first team to other cities, but have worked repeatedly to to get ahead of the game and assess traffic mitigation opportunities between Colorado Boulevard and Holly Street from Arkansas down to Florida and have come up with with a number of recommended improvements. And while that while the tiff includes some money that would go towards paying for these improvements, these traffic mitigation measures should along the way Denver Public Works decide. You know what, guys, that's not enough. We need more. That will have to come from the from the developer's pocket. And that's part of this of this TIFF agreement. And again, has been said, the agreement includes that whatever ends up being built needs to generate 200 permanent jobs, 200 new jobs, in addition to the construction temporary construction related positions. It is conceivable that during construction on this 13 acre site, multiple companies will be working on site at the same time. And so Control is also agreed to assign a single construction manager so that any concerns that might be related to construction will have one point of contact to. Carry that, carry the message where it needs to go. And in late in the project, realizing that Denver Parks and Rec now has a. Substantial fund for purchase of parkland along with Parks and Rec. We met with Castro and started discussions on wood with the city. Purchase some land and buy a park. And the city wanted two acres. Castro was unable to to work that into their plan, but then took the approach of they would construct a park in the 1 to 1.4 acres, a number, as you've heard, that will be accessible to the public. It will be designed with public involvement. And that brings that the normal ten again, the normal 10% open space figure, which should be more as we access as we evaluate projects moving forward, this gets us up closer to 20%. You've heard the money will be used to beautify the erector set my communications tower that has had nothing in the way of esthetics. And one thing that most people probably understand, some people may not right now. And while Seedat was on that land, it did not generate tax money. You know, the state was tax exempt. So while we are considering entering into a deal where for a couple of decades the taxes generated will not go into city coffers, they are paying for investment in connecting the street grid and all the other improvements. And after those 20, 25 years, substantial tax revenue in the millions will be coming in to the city annually. Let's see as far as the jobs. By involving Dora in a TIFF and managing a TIFF program, though, those 200 permanent jobs and the construction jobs are subject to a first source hiring dictate that requires that they welcome first application from low income Denver residents. It doesn't mean that the jobs have to go to those people, but it does mean they have to be given serious consideration. You know, in our current especially in our current construction, with so much building going on around the city, those jobs can be can be difficult to fill. What else? 23% of the total project budget, excluding the land costs, will be devoted to SB firms, small business enterprise firms. That number is not set in stone. It is a guideline. There are no penalties, particularly if they don't reach that number. However, they will be required to present a plan to doer to show how they intend to reach that number. One of my first requests, when we considered this project two years ago, there was a cop shop at Monaco and Lead Stale that had lost their lease. And I ask that they consider finding, you know, a couple hundred, few hundred square feet for a cop shop. And while the details haven't been settled, there's what I consider a handshake commitment that that will be part of this project in some form. Last thing as far as. Why would we want to enter into this agreement is it provides an overall degree of oversight over what's going to happen on this property. That wouldn't be there if there wasn't this involvement with Dura. I'm believing what the developer says, that they intend to sell the pads to other builders, vertical builders, and then take back management and ownership of the retail portion. I believe they'll remain on site should they decide to sell. Any sale needs to be approved by Doura to ensure that the plan that we're approving, whether it's Cantrell or anybody else, gets carried through. So this has been a real wrestling match for for a couple for a couple of years. As I said to Councilman Hines. You know, I don't know. It was a month or two months ago when this hugging said, you know, we really would like a letter from the council member and say.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 6: No, we're we're still talking about this. There's still work to be done. I don't know whether we've gotten to the point that I have been aiming for as creating a development that is going to enhance more than impact. I think we've made real, profound steps in that direction. So now we'll just continue as a community. Should my colleagues support this project to try to build something that I think is what my neighbors would want? So, yes, I will be supporting this package this evening, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in investing in the Virginia Village community. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. The city saw this as a great opportunity when Cedar was moving away from this site and we were given the first right of refusal in the city, said, Yeah, we want it, but we're going to turn, turn around and put it out to bid. And I had the opportunity to attend a couple of the community meetings and saw the incredible work that was being done by the Kintore Group in in terms of really listening to the community and incorporating that input into this project. Clearly, the TIFF piece is a critical component that makes the overall finances of the project work. But. I think in general, you know, the fact that you're doing more affordable housing on the site than is normally requested with other TIFF projects that you're doing more open space than is normally requested or provided is just speaks a lot to the commitment and the dedication of this team in bringing forward a project that the community was happy to support. And you had community people here tonight. We didn't see any naysayers. Even to have Sekou and Jesse here speaking in support. I guess Jesse was sort of on the fence, but. You know, Brother Sekou is typically very critical of development projects that don't incorporate, you know, certain elements. And obviously the affordability that is part of this project and the fact that it will it was going to happen regardless of whether the tiff was in, you know, Inc., I think speaks a lot to the the genuine commitment that this team had to making this a quality project for this neighborhood. I would love to be able to connect you guys to some local groups. We have some incredible models like The Prodigy Coffee, the work options for women, the commercial program over on the taxi site. These are all incredible services being provided to the community. But at the same time, they're they're working with different segments of our population and they're giving back to the community as well. So I would just hope you would consider some of those as as potential options to have as as possible tenants in some of the spaces that you guys are going to be having, depending on, you know, what that makeup or the mix of of those various types of businesses are that are going to be on the site. So I'm happy to support this tonight. I think this is clearly a model that I would hope that other developers take note of and really look to in in terms of. Actually what used to be provided to City Council on a pretty consistent basis before the zoning code was changed. And some of us are talking about trying to codify some of those old steps that used to be part of the zoning process. So stay tuned on that. There's there'll be a lot more conversations with the development community about that before anything is brought forward to city council. But great job. I think your your team did an amazing job in working with the community. I want to thank Councilman Cashman for his tenacity in continuing to push the envelope and really ensure that this is a project that was, you know, supported and welcomed by the community. Does it mean there won't be some challenges? I think with any project, it's all kind of continuing to work through those details with the community once the the development phase of it gets started. But this is a big step in moving the project forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I also will be voting in favor of this as well. But I part of the reason why I really enjoyed the message that you've delivered is something that I said in a in a previous conversation tonight. And that's you know, I'm very I'm a firm advocate of the 20 minute neighborhood. And and as Mr. Anderson had said, also a District ten resident, he had said that, you know, locating all the things you need to survive and thrive within walking distance or rolling distance, as the case may be, is is critical for us to get out of cars. And to President Clarke's point, getting out of cars is good for physical health. It's good for community, but it's also good for the planet, too. So so I commend you for your for your attention to it attention and intention to give us a place where we can have community. Apparently. Speaking of community, last thing I'll say is apparently you have a dearth of cornhole locations. So that was the as well. Geez, if there's if there's no cornhole and this will solve that, then I'm happy to support. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right, so no other comments. I will just say thank you all for coming tonight, sticking with us late into the evening to be a part of this conversation. Thank you, Tracy, for the presentation and for walking us through all of this. Thank you to the development team for all of your hard work, all of the meetings with community and with our colleagues up here to get to this point. I remember when we were debating the zoning on this site, I felt very, very strongly that night that the entitlements that were on the property, if left, how it was zoned versus what we were contemplating as a rezoning, that we would get a much better project and much better outcomes for the community. Under the proposal for rezoning. And I feel the same tonight that we will get much better outcomes and I won't go into the details of all of that because it's been covered and it's been talked about. But this will be much better for the community and for our city if we approve this than if we don't. And so I'll be happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black eye to the Barca. I. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. PASHMAN. Yup. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, I am secretary. Please cause voting. Announce the results. 1339 as Council Bill 1245 has passed. We're not quite done yet. We have that companion bill that we delayed earlier. Councilman Herndon, will you please put council bill 1246 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 19 dash one, two, four, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments on this one or can we just get to the vote? Looks like we can just vote. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black eye. CdeBaca Then I feel more. Herndon High. Hines I. Cashman I can reach. Ortega All right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Um. We're missing one. Did we miss somebody? Oh, all right. Madam Secretary, please close voting in those results.
Speaker 7: Oh.
Speaker 0: I think. No. Ortega, you didn't come through.
Speaker 7: I don't know what happened from.
Speaker 0: Where you and I.
Speaker 2: 39.
Speaker 0: 39, 39 As Council Bill 1246 has passed, seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area and the 4201 East Arkansas Sales and Property Tax Increment Areas.
Approves the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-12-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11252019_19-1245
|
Speaker 3: Let's try it again. From Financing Governance 1245 The bill for an ordinance approving the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area and the 4201 East Arkansas sales and property tax increment areas. Bill 1246. He bill for an ordinance approving approving a proposed cooperation agreement between the city and county of Denver. And 4201 East Arkansas urban redevelopment area to establish, among other matters, the parameters for tax increment financing and incremental sales and property taxes. From Safety, housing, education and homelessness. Bill 12 1189 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed seventh Amendment and restate restated inter-governmental agreement to provide fire protection between the city and county of Denver and the city of Sheridan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. We do have a late filing council in black. We will need a motion to suspend the rules of council to allow for the introduction of a late filing.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Area and the 4201 East Arkansas Sales and Property Tax Increment Areas.
Approves the 4201 East Arkansas Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and sales and property tax increment areas in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-12-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11252019_19-1116
|
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I move that.
Speaker 5: The rules of procedure be.
Speaker 3: Suspended to.
Speaker 7: Allow for the introduction of Council Bill 19.
Speaker 5: Dash.
Speaker 6: 1116.
Speaker 7: Increasing the number of county judges from 17 to 18.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This bill was.
Speaker 7: Finalized and moved out of committee, but holding the bill to file on a later date led to an administrative oversight in getting the bill filed in the system by noon on Thursday. The agency is requesting this bill be allowed introduction tonight in order to keep it on the intended timeframe.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. All right. So seeing no other comments, 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 3: Black Eye. CdeBaca. I. Flynn. High Hines. High Cashman. Kimmich. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Right. We are very, very sorry. I pushed the button on the.
Speaker 6: Screen, but I pushed my button. Sorry we didn't show up.
Speaker 7: Me neither.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, Constable. 1116 may be introduced. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bill title?
Speaker 3: From Finance and Governance Bill 1116 a bill for an ordinance increasing the number of county judges from 17 to 18.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right, council members, this is your last opportunity to call out an item this evening. Councilman Hines, will you please make the motions for us?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions, no items have been called out under bills for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Councilman Kennedy has called out Council Bill 19, Dash 1232 for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Don't miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item on our screen and Councilman Hines, will you please put Council Bill 1232 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance increasing the number of county judges from seventeen to eighteen.
Amends Section 14-2(a) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to increase the number of County Judges from seventeen to eighteen. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19. This item was approved for late filing by Council President Clark.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11252019_19-1232
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes counted. 1237 has passed. All right. Unfortunately, we're not done yet. We have that companion bill that we delayed. Councilman Hines, will you please put House Bill 1232 on the floor?
Speaker 1: I. I'm of of counsel, Bill 1234 or 12 excuse me. 12 3232. Thank you. Be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Any comments by members of council? Doesn't look like it, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye. CdeBaca. Eye Lynn.
Speaker 1: High Hinds.
Speaker 3: High Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Y. Sandoval. Sawyer, i. Torres High. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 Eyes, 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: Health Bill 1232 has passed, seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 6: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a new fund in the Special Trust Fund Series for the “Unclaimed Minimum Wages” program.
Establishes the Unclaimed Minimum Wage Special Trust Fund to temporarily maintain unclaimed wage payments made by Denver employers pursuant to the minimum wage ordinance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-12-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11252019_19-1120
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and. Seconded the public hearing for council bill 1120 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Our second deck is designation for the evening is 1717 Eastern Zone and this is number 2019 hours, 005. This also is an application that comes from the owner, the admin, a family trust, also just located on the same block within Washington Park. Again, this is Council District six, Paul Cashman Blueprint Denver Urban Neighborhood Context Low Residential Area Future Place Current zoning is used. You see, just as a reminder, designated property needs to meet these criteria in the following categories history, architecture, geography has maintained its integrity and be considered by LPC for historic context or theme like the last designation . It also meets History A and Architecture A and B. This property is directly associated with the historical development of Washington Park in the Washington Park neighborhood, specifically the Washington Park Place Subdivision, development of large, ornate building styles and forms and development commissioned by Jane C Pete as an investment property. Pete also hired Jules G B Benedict Design 1717 East Arizona Ave. The property illustrates the strong connection between the design and development of Washington Park and the surrounding neighborhood. Where this property differs significantly from the Gilpin Street address is in this architectural style built between 1915 and 1916. The House embodies the distinguishing characteristics of the Tudor revival style character. Defining features include the use of brick and half timbering on the exterior multiple front gables in arched front entry, arched window openings, window groupings and strings of three or more in a tower like curved wall on the West Side. Additionally, the house is a rare and distinct subtype of the Tudor revival style, given its steeply pitched false thatch. Excuse me, false thatched roof. The Tudor revival style house is a significant example of the work of prominent Colorado architect JJ Benedict. Like the Gilpin Street address, it is one of his earliest residential commissions. It also stands out from other Tudor revival style Benedict designs with its wavy, half timbered, false thatched roof and more modest, approachable scale. One can see the differences when compared to other Tudor designs by Benedict, including the Hermann Cres House and Golden in the top , around the top of the screen there. And the Gettys house in Denver's Country Club neighborhood in the lower right. The property retains a high degree of integrity, of location, design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, association alterations that are compatible with the original design include a one story brick addition on the East elevation completed in 1982. In 1983 that you see on the screen here and a retaining wall with wrought iron fence constructed in 1983. You can see in the photos that it looks like the porch on the southeast corner of the structure was enclosed and extended. So that was the alteration. However, the openings have not been altered. Most windows are original. Many other original materials remain, and the original distinctive wood has been retained. Benedict's original design is easily recognizable. This property also relates to the theme of housing for Denver's parks and parkways between 1905 and 1929 and its period of significance as 1915 . Designation of 1717 East Arizona AD is consistent with visions and goals found within both the comprehensive plan and blueprint. Denver. Designation of the property helps retain Denver's authenticity by preserving historically and architecturally significant building. In summary, the property meets the criteria for landmark designation. It meets three designation criteria in two categories history and architecture. It maintains its historic and physical integrity, and it relates to historic context or theme. There have been three public comments in support of this designation, none in opposition, and LPC unanimously supported the application at its October 15 public hearing. Therefore, staff recommends approval of landmark designation for 1717 Stairs, Arizona. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up for this one this evening. First up is Steve Edmond. And Shannon Stage. You'll be next.
Speaker 12: Hi. Good evening. I'm Steve Edmond and I am one of the.
Speaker 1: Owners with my wife of this house.
Speaker 12: And it's really a privilege to be able to be here and to present our discussion about why we feel it should be designated a historic landmark. And it's been our pleasure of having.
Speaker 1: Moved from Chicago to Denver about 40 years.
Speaker 12: Ago. And Walsh Park has always been a gem of a neighborhood. And as much as.
Speaker 1: I missed Chicago initially in many aspects of it, Denver has so many.
Speaker 12: Unique features, the uniqueness of.
Speaker 1: Its specific neighborhoods. But Walsh Park was the draw, and part of it was from the neighbors, the style, the park itself and the history.
Speaker 12: Behind all of this.
Speaker 1: And for the last nearly 30 years, we've lived in this house, raised our kids there, four kids and now two grandkids. And it's been such a pleasure to live in that home. And it's been a pleasure because the architecture speaks to history and the history provides us a sense of community. And there's that sense of community that really enriches our lives and enriches.
Speaker 12: What it means to live in Denver, especially in this neighborhood. And a good.
Speaker 1: Example is having the relationships we do with the locks. Our neighbors just a couple doors down, who you just heard from, very special to have that feeling. Very special to preserve that. It's also been special to know that this home has stood there for so long. And we've had a number of visitors who will knock on the door, who grew up in the neighborhood, someone who actually grew up in the home. And it gives you a sense of continuity. And I think that's so important as we think about making improvements and Denver as a.
Speaker 12: Place to live.
Speaker 8: With what Laurie.
Speaker 1: Tetlock mentioned about so many properties being being knocked.
Speaker 12: Down and rebuilt and in a style that is not unique to Denver and not.
Speaker 8: Unique with a sense of history or.
Speaker 1: Or a sense of community to them, I think is.
Speaker 8: Really at.
Speaker 1: Risk for devastating.
Speaker 12: The quality of our lives and what it means to retain.
Speaker 1: This piece of our history. So it's been our pleasure to be living in this wonderful house and a wonderful community and having great neighbors. And we think.
Speaker 12: That, again, the uniqueness of the the.
Speaker 1: Architect and his history has been something we've.
Speaker 12: Discovered over the years as well. So so I.
Speaker 8: Urge you to support the approval.
Speaker 10: For this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Shannon Stage.
Speaker 7: Good evening again. My name is Shannon Stage. As I mentioned earlier, I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. We saw inspiration spirit spread right here in East Wash Park. When to designate other homes. When the admins heard what the talks were doing, they reached out to us at Historic Denver to try and figure out how they could also be a part of this process to designate their home. So I worked with the admins to hire the same consultant Kristi minnillo to do the research and writing of the application. We were excited to see the homeowners passion for their homes driving their commitment to start this process and bring it to the finish line before you at City Council tonight. As you heard from Jenny, the admin house has a similar history and architectural legacy to the catwalk house. The house clearly meets the designation criteria. These designations will really anchor the neighborhood and preserve East Wash Park's history, our East Watch Parks history, as well as Denver's history. We want to thank the admins as well for their commitment to this landmarking process and for wanting to designate their home and bring it to you tonight. We hope these landmark stories and their passion to preserve Denver's history will inspire others in Denver to designate their homes and neighborhoods. We urge you again to support this designation as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kristi Mineo.
Speaker 5: Good evening once more. My name is Christie Minnie Yellow, and I also prepared the landmark application for this property built between 1915 and 1916, also located in the Walsh Park neighborhood. The property is directly associated with early development of that area. As with the Matlock house that you previously heard about, it was also designed by one of Denver's most well-known architects, J.J. Benedict. After seeing images of the previous property, I hope you can appreciate just how adept Benedict was at designing different properties in vastly unrelated architectural styles within a short span of time. This property is one of the most creative and fantastical of his commissions in the Tudor revival style. It stands out with its wavy half timbered second story and its false thatched roof, which is a rare feature for the stylist Jennie mentioned through the course of my work on this application. I frequently heard it referred to as the fairytale or storybook house upon its completion in 1916. The Rocky Mountain News stated that it was, quote, considered one of the most unusual and ornate in the South Side and quote, that certainly holds true today. Although the property has experienced greater turnover and ownership than its Benedict designed counterpart to the north, alterations have been few and sympathetic. The retains integrity of location, design, setting materials, workmanship and association. I support the designation of this unique property as a Denver landmark. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Jesse Larson. Paris. I'll be your next mayor in 2023. And I reside in Canarsie, the Barclays District, and I wanted to touch on the history involved with why Spark was Spark was not always and still with, some would say, welcoming place for blacks and other so-called people of color. So I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that racist history, that racism, white supremacist history that goes along with this. I don't even know if black people were even allowed to visit this place, let alone the. Visit or stay there. So I would be remiss if I did not bring that up, but I'm going to be in favor of this either way. It's going to be a reluctant yes due to that racist history. But I trust Cashman and others in regards to this. So it's going to be, I guess, a reluctant. Yes, though. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for Townsville, 1120 is now closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the Edmond family. I'm not going to repeat the words I just said to the catalogs, but please know that my appreciation is equally as profound for what you're doing. This is so important. You know, I'm sitting here thinking, why do people collect pictures? We don't take pictures of every moment of every meal, but we do mark those that have importance to us. For whatever reason, we want to remember where we've been from, whence we have come. So we have some grounding to appreciate where where we're heading. And so it's we approach landmarking structures in the exact same way we choose those that have special relevance to us and hearken back to those important times in our lives as individuals, as families, and as a community. So I will repeat this same thing whenever a landmarking comes before us that it it is just such a important thing you're doing for our community. I think back to, you know, Denver is changing so fast, we're all aware of that and people are upset about the density and the pace of growth. But I'm thinking when when Denver was horses in in dirt streets and then the automobile came about and the uproar that must have taken place then is this profound change happened to the community. And then later on when the individual homes that dotted our city became neighborhoods and two acres around a house became ten feet apart. And the upset that that brought and so while change has happened and is going to continue to happen, it becomes ever more important to do as these families have done tonight. So I look forward to approving this and urge my colleagues to join me.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other comments, I will just add again, I know these are both in Councilman Cashman's district, but I feel like they are very close and personal to me. As I mentioned in the last one, I grew up a couple of blocks away from here. This house is actually on my maybe run is too generous for what I do, but my morning jog route. I see it every single day and I also see and have watched, I'll say with a little bit of horror, what has happened across the street and what will happen to every house in this community if if we don't have citizens who step up to do exactly this. And I so nowhere is there more of a stark reminder of what happens if we don't have citizens who are committed to preservation in our communities, then that corner where you can see what was and now will be compared to what the market will do if left unchecked . So a very special house. I'm very excited. Thank you for your gift and excited to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. I. CdeBaca I. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 3: Hindsight. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please consider voting against the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes countable. 1120 has passed. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Hines, will you please put counts, Bill? One, two, three, seven on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 1717 East Arizona Avenue as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 1717 East Arizona Avenue in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11252019_19-1237
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes countable. 1120 has passed. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Hines, will you please put counts, Bill? One, two, three, seven on the floor?
Speaker 1: I would love to, Mr. President. I'd like to take a moment of personal privilege. And in addition to board member elect Tim Anderson, I would also like to welcome State Senator Jesse Danielson to the attendance tonight. Thank you very much for coming. I and Mr. President, I move that council bill 19 1237 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved. And second urn and Councilman Hines, before we jump into it, you have a motion to amend?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I do. I move that council bill 19 desk, 1237, be amended in the following particulars. One on page a, page two line seven ad. Whereas, the city has a long history of embracing equal pay for equal work and finds that it is in the interest and the best interests of the city and workers that all persons be paid not less than the minimum wage, regardless of age or disability or ability, but that where minors are enrolled in a certified youth employment program that meets the criteria established by this ordinance, and ditto they are receiving valuable educational training and or career development benefits to justify up to a 15% reduction in the minimum wage paid only to youth under the age of 18 enrolling in such certified programs, and that no person other than such minors shall be exempted from the requirement that all workers be paid the minimum wage for work performed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. That has been moved and seconded questions or comments on the amendment by members of council and Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. The Colorado State statute granting local excuse me, local governments power to enact a city wide minimum wage. States that, quote, all adult employees shall be paid not less than the minimum wage enacted by the local government. End quote. This the ordinance conforms to this guidance to treat all employees the same, and it does so by defining worker broadly as any person performing work without distinguishing between or creating any exception for any class of worker. The proposed WHEREAS Statement affirms the legislative attempt to create a uniform wage for all workers and highlights the fact that no exception for those of differing ages or abilities is provided other than the own. The one very narrow exception for an emancipated minors and a certified youth employment program. The statement also provides the rationale for the narrow exception for an emancipated minors under the age of 18 in certified programs. I bring forth this amendment to provide additional clarity about our legislative intent for the minimum wage ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. As the lead sponsor of the bill, I just want to thank Councilman Hines for working so collaboratively to find a way to affirm our intent and underlying it, if you will. And I just wanted to encourage my colleagues that I'm in full support of this amendment, and we're happy to have it move forward . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. See no other questions or comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Black Eye CdeBaca. Hi, Lynn.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: Hinds. Hi. Cashman. Cannick. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. The amendment has passed. Councilman Hines. We now need a new motion for Council Bill 1237 to move, as amended, placed upon final consideration, and do pass as amended, if you will.
Speaker 1: I move that council bill 19 1237 be placed on final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. All right. All right. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1237, as amended, is now open. May we have the staff report? Do we have separate? Are you taking us?
Speaker 5: We do. Mr. President, thank you for your forbearance, colleagues. I know that we had this in committee a couple of times, but because we want a complete record and we have folks from the community who may not have heard all the details, we are going to give a brief summary of the bill to make sure we all know what we're voting on tonight. So and also, I want to thank I'm sharing this presentation on behalf of my other lead sponsor, Mayor Hancock, and his team. And I want to thank the co-sponsors who've worked with us on this bill, in addition to Councilman Haines, Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Torres, Councilman Flynn. And she could not be here tonight, but is in strong support co-sponsor Stacey Gilmore. So see if I can work my technology here. So we under the state law that gave us the authority to consider this bill tonight has some legal requirements for outreach to the following sectors that you see here local governments, businesses of various types , labor unions and community groups. And we did complete outreach to each of these groups. You guys got all of the numbers in committee and they are in the appendix of this presentation. But that was robust input and it was influential input. This is a summary of some of the changes that were made to the bill based on feedback and advice that we got from the community, the businesses that engaged first and foremost. We'll talk about wage levels in a minute, but we made changes and updates to the enforcement options that will especially help the auditor help to enforce the bill where there are particularly vulnerable workers who may not be comfortable making a complaint. We have improved data reporting for this council to be able to monitor how enforcement is going more time to find workers if there are unclaimed wages that are found before those expire to the general fund, and also a certified employment training exception for minors who are getting something of value other than just doing the job. So all of that feedback helped make this a better bill. Principally you've heard this around a month ago, but we heard really strong feedback that it was important to slow this down just a bit, to allow businesses more time to plan and adjust, but that it was very important to workers to still begin right away because they were so far behind the cost of living in Denver. So you see here that our final proposal has wages of 1285 in year one. That's $0.95 less than the original proposal, but still impacts 50,000 workers in year one. So still strong impact, but a little bit easier for businesses to adjust to on a short time frame. And then two steps, 1477 and 1587 to catch up with how far we are behind the cost of living in our city. But then we use the Consumer Price Index to keep up. So you see that we made significant changes to the proposal based on stakeholder feedback. You also will recall that we added a exception for use in those certified employment programs that Councilman Haynes's amendment spoke to, who may be paid not required, but maybe paid up to 15% less. And they in order to get that reduced wage, those employers will have to really meet standards set out by the Department of Economic Development and Opportunity. And we have Deborah Cameron here from that department tonight to answer any questions. But first, they'll seek a certification. Second, those programs that qualify will be required to maintain a curriculum that actually identifies what it is those youth are learning with that, including job competencies, career paths that that job can lead to. And then also, they will be required to have meaningful training outside of working hours. So it's not just that you learn on the job. You have to be getting classroom training or some other training of value to justify paying the lower wage during those working hours. And then you will need to be recertified annually. We did hear significant feedback about the TIP credit throughout the process. But just a reminder, we are not legally able to make any changes to the TIP credit under state law. So that is why there is no change in this bill for that particular tip credit. It was and remains $3.02 per hour for those who are food and beverage workers receiving tips. There is a really robust enforcement regime in this bill. I would call it best in class, modeled after many of the cities across the country who've gone before us. And it includes both a process for the auditor to enforce on behalf of the people of Denver and recover wages and enforce. But it also includes a private right of action for a worker who has been lost wages under this law to be able to sue directly and get redress through the courts. So it has two important pathways. This bill will have a significant impact on the people of Denver. Even in its revised form. We will be giving a raise to 90,000 employees who live and work in Denver. Who live and work in Denver. Additional workers who commute in will benefit as well. This is an overwhelmingly adult population. I think some of us have a nostalgic sense that the minimum wage is jobs held only by youth. But the truth is that the majority, 95% of the folks in our city doing this work are adults. They're parents with kids. They're single or they're married, they're single parents. It also disproportionately will benefit women and people of color, including African-American and Latinos. So this bill represents not just race and gender equality and advancing those goals, but income inequality overall. We have several staff members who will be here during the question and answer portion for council members if there's anything that you need covered. So Sky Stuart is here from the mayor's office and Evan Dreier. They particularly can answer questions about the outreach process if any of those arise. I mentioned Deborah Cameron's hear from Dito, and then Frank Romans was our lead drafter. But of course, cursing Crawford, our legislative council was involved as well. With that, Mr. President, I turn it over to our public.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. We have 23 individuals to sign up. This are signed up to speak this evening. We have a one hour courtesy hearing. So I will ask I'm going to call five at a time up to this front bench. So as soon as I call your name, you can step right up to the microphone instead of fighting through from where you're sitting. So I'll call you five at a time. And then if the speaker speakers before you have said what parts of what you were going to say, feel free to reiterate what they're saying. But if anybody can leave a little bit of time on the clock, then we'll try and fit as many people into our hour as possible. All right. So the first five, if you could come up to this front bench right here. I hope Lewis, Laurie Tabak, Betsy Murray, Patrick Horvath and Curtis Chong. If you could come up and app Lewis, you are up first.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Allen Lewis.
Speaker 0: Allen.
Speaker 8: Natural Grocers here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right, Laurie, talk. One might have been left over from the other one. Sorry about that. All right. Betsy Murray. Get your.
Speaker 11: I was first. My name is Betsy Murray. I'm a former 30 year resident of Denver. In fact, Washington Park. So I appreciate the discussions this evening. I do currently live in Parker, Colorado. I'm here this evening representing the Home Care Association of Colorado. And I want to thank Councilwoman Kennish on making those adjustments that they did on the first year to adjust to the wages situation, especially as it relates to Medicaid in the home care industry. That first year, we still haven't had mass approve the final Medicaid rate, but we're hoping to have that by January one. So that will be enough to cover those costs. And this is the kind of night that providing services can be rather challenging for home care workers. We appreciate their service, and we're concerned about meeting the needs of clients with personal care services and homemaker services for January 2021, which is the second year. We ask for your help in securing those Medicaid funding rates for January 2021 with the almost $2 increase in minimum wage. This funding would be approved in the 2020 Colorado legislature, which is what is of concern to meet those needs in January 2021. And health care policy and financing. And the governor currently not asked for a adequate funding to cover the Medicaid rates for that second year. I've been working for almost 30 years in the industry, and the original rates were $7.88. So we have come a long way, but we have more to go for sure. But that's that's the rate. That's how long this program has been around. And it's an extremely valuable program for keeping people in their homes. Uh, in a continuum of care. This impacts approximately 4200 clients in Denver, according to health care policy and financings numbers and 57 agencies that provide Medicaid services. Again, support in raising the Medicaid rate would be appreciated.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Patrick Horvath.
Speaker 4: Good evening, council members. My name is Patrick Horvath. I direct the Economic Opportunity Program at the Denver Foundation. The Denver Foundation in 2020 will be serving the seven country metro Denver region for 95 years. We're located in Council Member Hines Perfect ten. We're actually moving in June to another part of his district from Cherry Creek to Capitol Hill. So pleased to be here and pleased to have supported this committee for so many years in our community grantmaking program. We focus very narrowly or very with with great energy on the most vulnerable people in our community. The people our most marginalized people live in historically oppressed communities. And we do that through a lens of core values, to core values that are very important to the Denver Foundation. One that people excuse me, who are directly affected by an issue are the people who should be involved in designing the solutions to that issue. And the second that everything we do must advance racial equity in our community, these guide our grantmaking and they also guide our policy advocacy when we apply these core values to our attempts to make our resources available to the community and to take action on policy issues, it's very easy to see how they come down on this issue. What would our community partners say about this? We've heard it at public hearings that Councilman Kanis and the mayor have held for the last several months. They've shown up in droves. They've shown up with energy and enthusiasm, and they've indicated their strong support for this bill. And secondly, what would be the impact of this on racial equity in our community? Advancing racial equity in the Denver community, half of the Latin community workers in in Denver City and county and 40% of black workers would get a pay hike through this bill. Centuries of systemic oppression and institutional racism have locked people of color in our communities at the very bottom of our wage economy. This would begin to saw a few to put a little bit of a dent in that lock and to begin to provide opportunities to combat some of these structural issues that have so deeply affected our communities of color and our partners in our in our lowest income communities. The Denver Foundation enthusiastically supports this bill, and we urge the council to vote in favor of it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Curtis Chong and I'll call the next five up, Tyler Fox, Berhanu Yali, Jessy Danielson, Roble Work. Who and the honorable Terry Anderson. Go ahead. If you'll forgive me, Mr. President. Um.
Speaker 1: I'm not able to see the clock up there on the wall. So if you could give me a 22nd.
Speaker 0: Warning, we'll do my time.
Speaker 1: My name is Curtis Chong. I am speaking representing the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado. And we support the notion.
Speaker 8: That the minimum wage.
Speaker 1: Regardless of who sets it and regardless of whether there is one, if there is going to be a minimum wage, it must apply to everyone, including people with disabilities. Including the blind. In our federal government, there is a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Section 14 C, which when I was a teenager, enabled me to earn a whopping $5 for 16 hours of work at a time when the minimum wage was a dollar 60. This kind of situation for people with disabilities must not occur. And we applaud the city of Denver for. Supporting the concept established by the state which says the minimum wage applies to everyone and we interpret that to mean everyone , including the blind and other people with disabilities. If that is, in fact, what this bill is intended to do. We support it.
Speaker 8: And I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tyler Fox.
Speaker 4: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your time. My name is Tyler, folks, and I'm a member of Colorado People Alliance. In 2007, I graduated high school and stepped out into a failing economy, would know with no other option or with no other option or hope for a future. I joined the military. My time in the army was well paid, but the cost of.
Speaker 12: My mental health has been great.
Speaker 4: I was discharged after being diagnosed.
Speaker 12: With PTSD, the effects.
Speaker 4: Of which make it difficult to hold a steady job. Despite this, I'm currently using utilizing my GI Bill to get a higher education without incurring debt. I am thankful for this opportunity, but these days the college degree doesn't necessarily mean.
Speaker 8: Higher wages or a.
Speaker 4: Secure job. Since I've been out, I've worked three minimum wage jobs and once again, my graduation is looming.
Speaker 12: And I see I'm stepping into an.
Speaker 4: Economy that is destined as to poverty. I ask you, how can a government that fails to care for its people be considered legitimate?
Speaker 12: How can I talk to my son about the usefulness of government when nothing is being.
Speaker 4: Done to guarantee the well-being of folks it supposedly represents.
Speaker 12: When nothing is being done.
Speaker 4: To secure the futures of our children. Council members, I am calling on you to show us your worth by demanding we be paid ours.
Speaker 12: Workers cannot afford to live in the city and the.
Speaker 1: Entire state is harmed when people are.
Speaker 4: Not given our fair share of the massive profits.
Speaker 1: Being made by businesses in our community.
Speaker 12: It is our labor that has built the facilities.
Speaker 1: And things that we can enjoy.
Speaker 12: So I'm asking you to vote yes on this minimum wage increase.
Speaker 4: To take a stand for workers rights and an economy that works for all.
Speaker 12: Of us and not just the wealthy few. Thank you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up for Hannah Aly.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counselor members. My name is Barahona, where I work at the airport as a personal service agent for the Prospect Company. And I want to thank you for passing the minimum wage for airports, contractors and city workers early this year. And I know my almost all my coworkers are very happy and we are really very glad that we convinced you. You have heard our voices and that gave us a lot of confidence. And we see that now we have a little bit more money in our pocket at the end of the month. And it has a good impact. I mean, we see the improvement, the climate, the condition and, um. We have also more incentive to work more. And. We know that we if we ask something, our question will be heard and and answered in appropriate way. And this was not only restricted in the area of the airport, but it is also good if it is extended to the other part of the country as the city. Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing. I thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Dennison, the honorable Jesse James.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I'll be brief because there's such a big community turn out. I think their stories are very powerful and you should hear them.
Speaker 5: My name is Jesse Danielson. I serve in the state senate. I represent Jefferson County. But I just.
Speaker 3: Came here tonight because I wanted to thank Councilwoman Kenney, the mayor's team, and each and every one of you who helped with this effort. I was the.
Speaker 5: Lead sponsor, along with my colleagues in the legislature.
Speaker 3: That carried the bill through to allow local jurisdictions to set the minimum.
Speaker 5: Wage as they see fit.
Speaker 3: And so, again, thank you so much for your time and consideration and your hard work.
Speaker 5: Having the city and county of Denver move forward in such a significant historic way for the workers.
Speaker 3: In this area means a lot to me, and I know it means a lot.
Speaker 5: To the 100,000 workers that you're going to help fairly.
Speaker 3: Immediately. So I'll just conclude by saying again, it was my intent as a sponsor of the bill.
Speaker 11: To remove.
Speaker 5: The barrier that the state has in place for local communities to see what's right for the workers that they represent. To give you.
Speaker 3: The power as local leaders to decide what the minimum wage should be and thus.
Speaker 5: What the workers should earn in order to live where they work and thrive.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rochelle Walker.
Speaker 11: Thanks for your time tonight, y'all. My name is Robe. I'll work who I use him, his pronouns. And I'm an economic justice organizer at Colorado Peoples Alliance. Thanks to Councilwoman Venetian Mayor Hancock for co-sponsoring this effort that will have over 90,000 workers here raised in our city. This has been a long time coming. The fight for 15 has been ongoing for six years in the state to change the narrative around wages and drive this particular demand that started with a McDonald's strike back in 2013 in North Platte. And continuing here tonight and 2016, Copa co-chaired a successful effort to raise Colorado's minimum wage to $12 by 2020, which included a broad coalition of community and labor groups, including together Colorado, SEIU, United for New Economy, the AFL-CIO, the Policy Center, KLP, the Colorado Educators Association, 9 to 5. We, along with our allies, understood then that 12 was a positive and achievable step, but wasn't enough for the workers in our state that came. That campaign was both about immediately improving material realities for our communities and setting us on a trajectory to fight for more. In 2018 and 19, Kopel led the work here Thrive Here, a coalition which includes our allies from the AFL-CIO, SEIU Together Colorado and Good Business Colorado. We worked together to start shifting the narrative around local control and wages back in 2018. And we're successful in passing local wage option with Senator Daniel Danielson earlier this year, making us the first state in the country actually to repeal preemption over wages. After passing this legislation across the street, we are excited to learn that folks here in this building are ready to move with urgency to give workers a raise. Again, we had a strong partnership between community and labor groups, including ourselves. Some familiar faces together Colorado, SEIU, Denver Area Labor Federation, the Working Families Party towards Justice, the Painters Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Unite here in the Bill Policy Center. This coalition connected with thousands of supporters across the city on this issue and generated hundreds of emails and calls to the mayor and city council. And I think a lot of you all probably heard some of these messages. The culmination of these efforts is what you have in front of you here tonight, an increase in the minimum wage to 1587 and enforcement mechanisms that ensure that folks are paid the wages that they are owed at its core. Increase in the minimum wage is an issue of racial justice. We heard some numbers earlier about how this will disproportionately impact black and brown workers. But beyond the stats, it's about the humanity of those whose labor built and maintained the city on a daily basis. This is neither the first nor the last step toward shifting our economy to prioritize the needs and rights of working people. We tout our city as having a strong and growing economy, but we should take even more pride and responsibility in ensuring that our city works for all people and not just corporations and the wealthy few are more. Simply put, we're not free until all of us are. Our vision is for a city and state that recognizes, protects and promotes the inherent dignity of all of our lives. When we shift wealth, we shift power, and that's the only route to justice. So with that, on behalf of the coalition to urge you all to vote yes tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Anderson and our call. I'll call the next five up, Adam Alman, Bonita Bok, Pedro Correll, Matt Hayden, Walter Murphy, Marianne and Benjamin Elwood. And I know that this is a very emotional and important night for a lot of people. I will ask that in our chamber. This is a place where people disagree and people need a safe space to talk to us, their representatives about this. We're also trying to get through and get to everybody if we can. So we'll ask if you can hold your applause while we move through so that we make time for as many people to speak and to feel safe speaking here in this chamber. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I am here on behalf of not only just my capacity as a Denver school board member elect, but also as the youngest African-American to ever be elected to public office. And the reason why I say that is because young people have a place in society and they matter. And so I don't want anybody on this on this dias to think that it is okay to exclude young people from this equation or to say that young people should make a less wage than than if they were 18. So I just want to make sure that's clear. I also want to make sure that we are talking about fighting for our educators in our school system. As somebody who has been a Denver educator that's worked under $15 an hour at $15 is great to get to. But I'm going to be totally blunt with you. It is too late to already talk about $15 an hour. We need to start talking about what's next after 15, because right now, Denver is not a city where our educators can live and teach in their city. And so although our teachers may have got an increase, our hourly wages have not. And we have to make sure not only just as a city council, but in partnership with our school system, that we are fighting for every single one of our employees. And so that's my charge to you all this city council, this. Yes, let's pass this. Let's get there. But also, I want to make sure that we revisit this conversation in saying where are we going to go in the future so that we are fighting for everybody to show that Denver is not just a place for the top 1%, it's a place for everybody. For single mothers, for homeless teens. For people. Will that do not have the ability to go anywhere else or cannot afford to go anywhere else because Denver is their workplace. And so we want to make sure that every employee, not just our educators, but those who are sustaining our city on a daily basis, have it has a have a livable wage where they can live and thrive in their city. Once again, 15 is great. I hope that you pass it, but 15 is too late. We're ten years behind. $15 an hour should have been talked about years ago. But now as a council, you have the authority and the obligation to making sure that everybody in the city and county of Denver, including our Denver educators, is paid a livable wage. Yes, starting at 15. But now it's time for us to start talking about what's next. And so thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Adam Aliment.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. It's a privilege to be able to speak in front of you. And I own the game lounge in Park Hill and am very supportive of raising the minimum wage. And I'm glad that you've brought this forth and I urge you all to vote yes. I think it's a boon for businesses to increase the minimum wage. I have tipped workers at my place and I'm not worried that their wages are going to go up. It means more money in the pockets of more people, which means more money will be spent at my restaurant. And, you know, that's basically why it benefits me. But I think it also benefits our community. I mean, it's it's good when you raise wages. We and I agree with say, you know, 15 is is is going to be rough in two years still. I mean, it's it's tough for people to make it out here. And so I appreciate that you're doing something. And obviously, there needs there are other community needs that need to be addressed. But thank you for doing this. And I.
Speaker 0: Could could you state your name for the.
Speaker 4: Record? Adam Almond.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes. Have a great night. Thanks. Next up, Benita Bok.
Speaker 5: Evening. I'm Reverend Benita Bok, and I live here in Denver, and I'm a ELCA Lutheran clergy person as a volunteer.
Speaker 11: With Together Colorado.
Speaker 5: And Together Colorado is a statewide faith based community organization representing 220 congregations and faith leaders with a 40 year history in Denver and in Colorado of bringing faith voices to issues of human dignity. We have been a leader in raising wages in Colorado and Denver. We've co-chaired the successful statewide effort to raise the state minimum wage in 2016 and helped pass legislation this year that allowed Denver to raise wages for Denver workers. And we supported the effort to raise wages at Denver International Airport with our.
Speaker 11: Labor and community partners.
Speaker 5: As you heard earlier, we commend the city council and the mayor for taking this bold stance.
Speaker 11: To support Denver's.
Speaker 5: Lowest wage workers and urge you to pass this.
Speaker 11: Ordinance before you.
Speaker 5: To raise the minimum wage of Denver. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Book of Exodus, it is written. The Lord said, I have seen how my people are suffering and I have heard them beg for my help because of the way they have been mistreated.
Speaker 11: In my.
Speaker 5: Christian tradition, we.
Speaker 11: Have seen God's.
Speaker 5: Work on our hands during this Thanksgiving week. We are thankful that you have heard the cry of the people and that you are exercising your ability and using your authority to respond to the cry of the people. You are helping to create a moral and a communal economy with the passage of this ordinance as persons of faith and.
Speaker 11: Members of together Colorado.
Speaker 5: We believe that our economy should reflect our values that cause us to thrive together. And we support your efforts to do the same in this cause. We have a copy for each of you of a clergy letter of support of this ordinance that we emailed last week and now have 93 clergy, bishops and lay leaders.
Speaker 11: From Denver.
Speaker 5: Congregations and others representing parishioners living in Denver that I would like to.
Speaker 11: Present to you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Pedro Carrillo.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you all our city council members, grocery stores. I want to speak in my languages.
Speaker 11: Spanish so this could happen to me. Numerous Pedro Carrillo.
Speaker 8: Your trabajo para la compania much grander Olympus other Colorado case.
Speaker 11: Commercial cleaning systems.
Speaker 12: Trabajar ebony occupy capoeira Merida Propuesta Perla Concert Hall the last year that parliamentary salary.
Speaker 11: Your meaning more akin to dollars.
Speaker 8: Borrowed in Denver como janitor me trabajo isn't the nearly peerless edificio de estadio de la rather Denver.
Speaker 11: De la corporatism must.
Speaker 8: Prosper as investors strategy that these companeros the trabajo are not intimate bazaar PERALTA all without us for last year that contra mental illness.
Speaker 11: Risk is our ampersand rostro salado minimal no Podemos. No Podemos I surrender into custody. B There is more Dificil We live in separateness. Transforming less is more epochal, probably case or whatever. Iraq, Basra. English.
Speaker 0: Hi, my name.
Speaker 10: Is Pedro Curiel and I'm a janitor working at CHS. I've come here to stand in support of the City Council's proposed measure to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour in Denver as a janitor whose job it is to clean the buildings of the wealthiest corporations in our city, my coworkers and I feel overlooked, forgotten by a city whose out of control, rising rent and cost of living make it our affordable for us to survive. I know. Well, we're raising wages to more livable standards means to workers in our community. I'm proud to be a member of SEIU Local one of five, and to have a union in my workplace that allows me and my coworkers to fight for better wages and working conditions for all of us. My coworkers and I are so proud to support this measure as it would raise the wages of 400 union janitors in our city, giving families the hope of an opportunity to continue living in Denver. This will not fix all of the problems janitors are facing in Denver is a step in the right direction. We're excited to see the impacts that growing living wages will have in our community and how the City Council will continue to tackle inequality by making it easier for workers to join unions so we can all thrive in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mad Walter Marion.
Speaker 12: Thank you. My name is Daniel. Tomorrow I'm an airport worker at the VA. And a union member is how you look. I don't know if I have come here to stand to support the city council, to propose measures to raise the minimum wage for workers in the city of Denver. My union coworkers are. And I. Our proud to have been a part of leading the way in addressing rising inequality in our city by standing up for $15 minimum wage at Danbury Airport, a measure that passed this council early this year. Airport workers at the, however, continue to face many issues, including unpredictable schedule entry to workplace safety. Establishing a livable wage is an essential step in ensuring we can continue to work and in the city we call home. Additionally, workers are doing very important. Great access to a fundamental freedom to join a union. I just wanted to address this issue as we working in this area property. We are facing a lot of problems there because this might not have like individual right or a choice to be a member of a union or not. But when we try to be a member of our union, we just get like unfair treatment. So we work in the city property. So I'm asking you guys. To give us the power to negotiate the better wages and working conditions with the companies who profit off our labor. We are proud to stand in the support of rising wages and look for our to build a strong community by empowering all workers to join together in the union. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Benjamin Ellwood and I call the next five up Chelsea Stallings, Dawn Howard, Jessie Parris, Donna Quan and David Roybal. Good.
Speaker 4: Good evening, City Council. My name is Ben Howard. And while I would ordinarily introduce myself as the current co-chair of the Public Policy Committee for the Democratic Party of Denver, today I stand before you only as an engaged citizen. I have lived in Colorado for a grand total of 14 months now, having moved extensively throughout my twenties. But I consider Denver to be a place that I call home in no small part due to its potential as a proving ground for progressive and inventive policies that could shape U.S. politics for years to come. Its rapid growth in recent years is testament to American's desire to embrace Colorado, its rising economic, political and cultural status. However, no city is without its challenges and indeed, a rapidly growing economy has brought, with its rapidly growing costs of living and housing, threatening to strain the resources of both new and old residents left unchecked. Denver may find itself an ironic victim of its own rising prosperity if many of those living here cannot be provided with some additional means to compete in the workforce. Fortunately, one possible recourse is recourse has presented itself today. Raising the minimum wage, in my opinion, will allow working class families to maintain a living in the city they call home and will help to curtail wealth disparities that adversely affect the lower class and by extension, minority communities. Our federal government has set an unfortunate example by allowing the minimum wage to stagnate for a decade while the cost of living in the nation's most populous areas continues to climb. Colorado, however, has managed to distinguish itself as one of the handful of states that has taken up the slack to promote just in bold legislation. Now, our beloved city of Denver has a chance to carry the torch even further. There are, of course, those who are understandably concerned about the economic effects of raising our minimum wage to such levels. Whether or not wage increases have demonstrated long term effects on an economy and what exactly those effects are is still a matter of debate. It will take courage to wait and see how this policy plays out in the near future. But I am reminded of a quote by one of our nation's greatest leaders, FDR, who said, It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it, frankly, and try another. But above all, try something. Let Denver earn a reputation for political innovation by implementing this bold strategy. Let the working class know that this is a city that is willing to take risks to see thousands of its residents find relief in the midst of their struggles with the gentrification . Let our city be on the right side of economic history. City Council, I thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chelsea Stallings.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the committee. My name is Chelsea Stallings, and I'm the.
Speaker 7: Advocacy manager at Healthier Colorado. We are a statewide nonprofit based in.
Speaker 5: Denver, focused on policies that.
Speaker 7: Address our state's most pressing health issues. I am here because the research is.
Speaker 5: Evident that income has one of the biggest impacts on an individual's physical and mental health, as well as the health of their children.
Speaker 7: Many of us.
Speaker 5: Take for granted the ability to take time off from work to seek treatment when we're sick. A 2011 study found that an increase in minimum wage was strongly associated with a decrease in reporting of workers.
Speaker 7: Unmet medical needs.
Speaker 5: Raising the minimum wage also provides workers with more purchasing power and more income to obtain previously unaffordable basic needs and services to have access to living healthy lives not only as a person's physical, health and well-being connected to income, but one's mental health is as well. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, those considered low income are 2 to 5 times more likely to suffer from mental health disorders than those in the higher socioeconomic group. However, there is hope. Research shows that increased wages can improve mental health outcomes. A 2019 study published in the American journal Preventative Care showed increased minimum wage is associated with slower growth rates of suicide. The mental stresses connected connected to financial hardship in adversity is also believed to have harmful physical effects on the body affecting one's hormones and immune system. Overall, wages are inherently connected to one's ability to access housing, housing, basic needs, medical care, and have and have an impact on one's overall physical and mental health. As Denver boasts a booming economy, hard working Denver rates who work full time and part time jobs need and deserve wages that at the very least allow them to live with dignity, make ends meet and access the full range of services they and their children may need to be holistically healthy. We believe this current proposal is an essential step in the right direction to provide more Denver sites, the opportunity to live a healthy life. And we strongly encourage you to support the ordinance to raise the minimum wage in Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Don Howard.
Speaker 6: Hello. But stupid that the members of the council. My name is Todd Howard, director of community organizing for the Call of the Cross. That's a political issue. CDC Works for Social Justice Table. Colorado wins with the superlatives. C, c, d. C. Blue believes all opioids have the right to equitable, fair workplaces. All employees deserve to be paid at least minimum wage. The two tiered system about paying people with disability to sub minimum wage is unjust, but too long worked by people with disability to build the values. I encourage you to vote for to avoid paying people with disability to minimum wage hits, including those. Individuals who have guardians and are not considered adult and because they have guardians. So I. I encourage you to vote yes for the proposed amendment and proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse Larson, Paris, and I'll be your next mayor in 2023. And I just got down running for city council at large with almost 15,000 votes with no money. And the slogan still stands Justice for the Poor People over profit. And I represented for several of the partners of those that have already spoken Denver Homeless Salau Blackstar some more for self-defense, positive action, commitment for social change as well as Unity Party of Colorado and a UAP universal African People's Organization. And we have a show called My High Notes took us on our YouTube Facebook. In regards to this proposal, I've been involved in this process every step of the way. As you already know, I'm a regular here. I have a better attendance record than those up here, and I was an approval of it. I still am in approval of it, but as my colleagues have spoken already, it is not enough. Currently you have to make at least $25 an hour to afford to live in Denver. That's not even surrounding suburbs. That's just Denver. So $15 an hour by 2022. By then, you have to make $35 an hour. So I know it's up to the state to actually get some rent control in the state because it's a two way decision is the reason why we don't have rent control in the States. So this next legislative session, we need to get our legislators at the State House to get that actually passed. But in the meantime, it's a step in the right direction. We still have a massive housing problem and it is very hard to afford to live here. We are one of the most richest, most expensive cities in the whole United States of America. And that is ridiculous because I'm a native. I grew up here. It was very cheap at one time to live here. But this is planned out. Know this didn't just pop up. This is planned out about 20, 30 years. So I'm looking to that if you want to no further. But in regards to this, of course, I'm going to say it's approved. You already made your minds what you're going to do before we were coming to the chamber. So we already know you're going to approve this tonight. So you have heard the voices of the community. You have heard the workers from the workers that are most affected by this. But keep in front of your mind, in 2023, we'll have a new council and a whole new mayor. So make sure you get loud, get registered, get involved, engaged. We start early.
Speaker 0: 2024. If you could stay on the subject of this hearing, please.
Speaker 10: Please vote yes on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Donna, cool on.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I've got nervous and put in my dead name. My name is DC Cullen. My pronouns are he him and his and identify as male. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to Mayor Hancock and Robin King. Thank you so much for working on this proposal. I really hope that Denver will be the first as it states here to go ahead and move this ahead of what was originally planned. And maybe we can get this thing to 1380 by 2020. I hope we can. That would be amazing. Denver likes to be the first at doing things, and I'd really like to see you do that for all the citizens of Denver. We appreciate the hard work you've all put in on this. We just really want to make sure that, number one, I would like to see the word minimum wage go away and living wage in its place, because it is not a minimum wage. It is a living wage. People have to make this no matter how young they are, how old they are, no matter what, they have to make this money to live in our city. Please do not become San Francisco. I saw this on the news the other night. Their medium rent is 30 $700 and I do not want to see Denver move in that direction. Growth is a wonderful thing, but growth on the backs of those that keeps a wage low is not good. So I do thank you for all your efforts. Thank you, Robin. Thank you, Mayor Hancock, we appreciate everything that you're doing. I am here representing Metro Caring tonight, and I appreciate your time. And please, one more thing to remember, all of you and I thank you for listening to us. I really do. But not about us. Without us. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Roy before he left. All right. We have Laurie and Mills and Ms.. And Hughes. If you could come up to the front. Laurie and Mills, you're up next.
Speaker 6: And. First of all, what a privilege. And with Metro caring also I am minimum wage. I have been exploited for as much as to 13.
Speaker 0: If you could, you could a little bit closer to my country have been.
Speaker 6: Exploited for as little as to 13 and or been working 40 years. What you're doing is amazing for women, for people of color. And I'm going to hurry this up. But living wage got to change the language. The CPI, my big pet peeve. It's all well and good to fill that shopping cart. But if you don't add rents and mortgages into that. You just got a shopping cart and I can look out my window every day of Josephine in Colfax and see that. The irony is no escaping me. You guys. I'm sorry. It's overwhelming because I finally see where I don't have to work as hard. I'm like, Mr. Chong, Miss Howard, I'm disabled. I'm kind of capped at my income, so I have to kill myself just to keep up. Thank you so much. And we're really but look what you've done. You've heard a lot of hey, you know, you guys, thank you for listening to us, for understanding that we need to be able to live here, to go down the block and see that movie, to buy that sandwich from that little local coffee shop. I want to be.
Speaker 3: The citizen.
Speaker 6: That's engaging in my economy. I want to know. I have to go to food.
Speaker 3: Banks.
Speaker 6: As much anymore. I'm so grateful they're there. But thanks to every bit of your efforts and you're listening and you're really working this lady here. I just I am honored, humbled and so grateful to live in such a great state and with such great, great representation.
Speaker 5: Again, I'm with Metro Caring.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Could you state your name for the record, please?
Speaker 6: My name's Florian Mills.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.
Speaker 5: Of Oregon.
Speaker 11: Hi, I'm Mrs. with Mitchell Carey.
Speaker 5: We just renamed our group. It's called Voices in Action.
Speaker 11: This is a.
Speaker 5: Meaningful opportunity to improve the.
Speaker 11: Lives of the people.
Speaker 5: Working in Denver.
Speaker 11: Again.
Speaker 5: The minimum wage has not been raised since the Reagan era. We are playing catch up.
Speaker 11: Except that.
Speaker 5: 1023.
Speaker 11: Years ago, a living wage.
Speaker 5: Would would work $20 in 2021 with the one bedroom apartments in Denver.
Speaker 11: Being 1660. Vote yes. Vote yes on the maximum amount.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. I want to thank everyone here for helping make sure that we had time to get to every single person who signed up to speak. Now we're going to move from speakers to questions from members of council. Are there any members of council have questions on this item this evening? All right. Seeing no questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1237 is closed. Now we're going to move to comments by members of the council. Council. Would you like to go first?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. Thank you to everyone who came out and testified as the snow is falling outside and to the hundreds who aren't here tonight, but who attended meetings and engaged throughout the last few months. Everyone had valuable feedback and very different perspectives. I want to thank my partner in this endeavor, Mayor Hancock. For both of us, this conversation was rooted in rooted in pretty deep values. And he did not miss a beat. We partnered to raise wages for those doing business with the city in the spring. He was at the legislature testifying in behalf of the bill that made tonight possible. And then he jumped in with me to work on this bill before we were even done with our post-election vacations. Thanks. And our apologies to the staff team that has supported us before their vacations were over. But to Skye Stewart and Evan Dreier, thank you. Frank remains to my aide Chris Lowell and our legislative counsel, Kirsten Crawford. I also want to thank the work here, live here, the coalition. And I think that they described themselves best, Robel did with the nonprofit Faith Labor members for having faith that the arc of history bends toward justice and not giving up and to at caring for bringing the voices of those who are impacted to the front and making sure that you were in every conversation to those from the disability community tonight. Thank you for being present. I am proud that our bill at no point had a carve out for people with disabilities and I am happy to underline that fact tonight. But everyone who does the job gets paid the same under this bill, and I'm very proud of that. And I appreciate you making sure that you, too, were visible in this bill and in this conversation. So we're 20 years in the making for the history that we're making tonight. It was April of 1999 that the state legislature eliminated local control for wages just as cities across the country were starting to think about whether or not they could act in the face of a one size that did not fit all federal minimum wage. Here in Colorado, we had families living in poverty who were building power and trying to engage to hold local government accountable. And because of the state law, they could not pass a bill for everybody here in Denver. But they did pass Denver's first living wage ordinance. They covered for job categories 20 years ago. But here we are. The people of Colorado took matters into their own hands. So the state said, it's our job. And the people said, okay, do your job. And they said, Let's raise the wage in 2006. And then again, the people of Colorado came together and said, let's we raise the wage in 2016. Now, a lot of people in metro Denver were disappointed when the state raised the wage to $12. It's going to get there on January 1st, 2020. But if you think about our vast and diverse state, you can imagine that finding the right wage for Denver and Rifle and Grand Junction and lineman. I don't know that that's hard. I think it might be impossible. Our cities are so different. And so the legislature made history when they said, we see that. We see that our state is diverse. You need this local power. And they gave it back. They gave it back. And we heard Senator Daniels and the other sponsors, Dominique Moreno, Jovan Melton, I'm sure I'm missing a sponsor. But to all those legislative sponsors, so our residents, they face the demands of cost of living here. They have to pay wages here. So now they need our help here and we have the power to do that. So we can't cover the full history of wage stagnation tonight. But if we can all acknowledge that it's real and that especially for those in service sector jobs, someone used the word irony tonight in their testimony. And I think that's right on every new high tech job we create here in Denver creates five additional jobs and three of them, three of them are low wage service jobs. So in our city, like so many other cities, we cannot have economic success attracting high wage jobs without attracting these sister jobs. And they're going to disproportionately in our in our city and others be filled by women and immigrants and refugees. Folks, we've heard from tonight Latin X and African-American residents. So while we can and we should move to work individuals and train them out of those jobs into better opportunities, there will still be someone who comes along to work those jobs. That's the way our economy is built. And so we have only one option. We have to transform the jobs. We have to transform the economy. It has struck me so many times during these months that we've been working on this bill, that this is so much like the climate discussion. Our economy is hooked on cheap labor, like it is hooked on cheap oil. And we have to transform our economy off of cheap oil to save our planet. And we have to transform off of low wages to save our communities. And that is transformation. That is not going to be easy. Now, we didn't have a lot of speakers with concerns tonight, but we have heard from them throughout this process. And I think that it's really important that we recognize that we are not. We may have a really bold and strong audience before us tonight, but for better or for worse, we're not the first. And this is not unprecedented or untested. So what we know is that the economic research tells us that in cities that pass wages like this, there are still restaurants to eat out. There are still people employed at about the same rate as counties or cities next to them that didn't raise the wage, that there are still firms doing business. So what I know, though, is that an economics study never changed the mind of anybody with a deeply held value. It doesn't work in climate and it doesn't work in wages. Some people really deeply believe that higher wages will destroy businesses in spite of 20 years of studies that are peer reviewed by economists. The studies are not going to change folks values. And I also know that studies are an aggregate of an overall economy, and they do nothing to predict what will actually happen to one person's business. So it was very important to us to listen to each of the stories, particularly from our locally owned businesses that, you know, are not huge corporations, but our members who probably look a lot like those of us in this audience today working hard to make ends meet and meet payroll. So I'm proud of how many small businesses we have in Denver. I appreciate what they contribute. I appreciate that they wrote and visited and called, and I appreciated that we improved this proposal to make it a little easier for them to transform. But I do think it's important to underline that transformation is necessary. I don't believe that our businesses are any less resilient than Chicago or D.C. or Seattle or the other places that have gone before us. I have faith that they can and will evolve and transform. But I acknowledge it may not be easy, and I thank them in advance for stepping up because our city and the families of their employees depend on us figuring out how to do this differently and better. So I said that, you know, this this process was very personal and based on deep values. And, you know, my parents worked very hard and only because they made decent wages that their unions fought for. Life wasn't easy. But I always had a roof over my head and I always had food to eat. And it's personal for me because when I join Denver's movement for economic justice, raising wages wasn't an option. It was illegal, or the other strategies we had were so politically impossible, they might as well have been illegal. I only started working on affordable housing because I could not figure out how to raise wages. I knew nothing about affordable housing and during that time I started to work on what I call the other side of the equation, which was lowering the cost of living. And we've heard throughout this process about both sides of the equation. Folks want us to work on lowering the cost of living and raising incomes. And tonight, what we recognize is that we lost ground in the 15 years that I had to only work on affordable housing because I couldn't work on jobs. Things have gotten worse, inequality has gotten worse. When we started the conversation during my start in the movement. We were talking about poverty, about families having poverty. We still have that, but now we're talking about losing entire communities that might be displaced. We're talking about schools closing because some of our neighborhoods have lost so many families with children. Minimum wage parent, working families with children that the schools are no longer viable. So the stakes have gotten so much higher. And tonight is about catching up, right? It is about catching up on that income side of the equation. It's about acting before it gets worse. You know, I've had folks say during this process, you know, I can't believe we're looking at wages that are like San Francisco or like Seattle or name your city, right. Name whatever big coastal city that people love to hate on. And they say we don't need wages that high. And and they say, you know, look at the cost of living there. And I say, we don't want to wait. So we're the big coastal city. Tonight is about stepping up before it gets that bad. I don't care what the wages are in those cities. We set our wages based on two things state law. Our wages conform with state law, and they do not. By the way, for the record, stop at $15. The wage in 2022 is $15.87. And it will grow every year with the Consumer Price Index. It will go to $16. I can't tell you what year, but it will go there and then it will keep growing. So tonight's about acting before it gets worse, before we rise from the 28th, 20th, least equitable city in America. We don't want to get any higher on that list. This is a list where we'd prefer to not be listed at all. The most inequitable cities in America, where 20 tonight is about getting parents a few extra hours with their kids. It's about getting them a couple of hours off work to go to the doctor and catch something early before it becomes untreatable. It is about. Making ends meet. It's about the chance to stay in your city that you love. And it also happens to be history. And so with great gratitude to my entire colleagues and all the time you spent learning about this and being here tonight, I will be enthusiastically voting yes to raise Denver's minimum wage in 2020
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Canete. Next up, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. So that's kind of a tough act to follow, right? Councilwoman Kenney is very eloquent in just covering so many different aspects of why this is so important. And when you see all of the wealth building that is happening in our city, it has not been trickling down to benefit everyone. And, you know, we have had many conversations among city council to look at what are those policy issues that we need to shift the needle on to make sure that there there is actual benefit to people in our communities who are struggling, who are having to leave our city because they can't afford the price of housing, whose jobs have not been affording them the ability to stay in our city. And I want to say a big thank you to Councilwoman Quinn, each for her leadership role in and her tenacity in in staying the course to move this needle, along with Mayor Hancock, who has has been unwavering as well in this process. I'm honored to be one of the co-sponsors of this effort, because I think it's a step in the right direction. It's one of many steps. As you know, we have worked to ensure that our big contracts in the city now have a commitment to local hires, making sure we've got language in the contracts and not just local hires, but commitments to apprenticeships, so that we're continuing to make sure that people have access to livable wage jobs. The work that Councilwoman Kenney did with Councilman Brooks in bringing forward a dedicated revenue stream for affordable housing and work that is happening right now with DHS playing a role in accelerating a number of projects by being able to bond those funds, a number of which are moving forward right now. So it's not just that this is the only piece that is being looked at in terms of what we need to do as a city to raise that bar for everyone. It's it's that in combination with a number of other things that are still being talked about. As you know, our environment is also critical, and we know that changes that are happening have an impact on low income and minority communities. And what are we doing to make sure that we're closing the gap on food deserts and access to healthy food? Those are just some of the additional things that are being talked and talked about and worked on the issue of mental health. And as you know, the voters were very they were supportive of the the initiatives that passed last November that create additional resources to assist us in dealing with some of those issues as well. And so I just think that the the work that has transpired with input from so many of you who were champions and really for your advocacy in coming to the public meetings, for making phone calls to our offices, for writing letters and just being there as well to express the importance of this. And I just want to be clear that that input was not just from workers. There were lots of businesses who came forward. And I want to thank Councilwoman Kenney for the work that was done in listening to that input, because we had some small businesses who were concerned they'd have to lay off workers. And so there were some changes that were made that reflected those concerns as well. So the bill before us tonight really is is from listening. To the input from everybody, from all of those public meetings. So again, I'm just happy to be one of the co-sponsors and look forward to putting this into action. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank Councilwoman Kenney for her leadership on this critically important issue and for taking public input to heart in crafting this historic wage proposal. I want to thank Matt Hancock and his staff as well. While I recognize that mandating these increases in salaries will challenge some small business owners, asking our workers to exist on less than is being proposed tonight has challenged them for far too long already. With the proposed increases, we're getting closer to the point where two people working full time at minimum wage will be able to meet the basic monthly financial needs of a couple with two young children. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer. Unfortunately, even with these changes, a single wage earner with a dependent child falls far, far short of meeting those needs. I did want to say on a personal note that I know I'm privileged at this point in my life to have a job where I can pay my bills, where I can put a little bit away. But as a young man, I was a single father with two small children, and I was not in that position. I was not earning enough money to meet my bills. And I know what that feels like to worry about paying rent, to not have enough food in the refrigerator, to not be able to send your kids to school wearing the clothes that they would prefer to wear. And I know the embarrassment that comes with that. And I know government food programs and making that drive. So. This is long overdue. And as has been said by several people, it's only a start. Finally, Mr. President, you know, I had the privilege a few weeks ago to visit Atlanta, Georgia, and spend a few hours at the National Center for Civil and Human Rights. And I spent about 3 hours reading documents and looking at movies about people like Dr. King and Andrew Young and Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt and people who made their lives of civil rights and human rights work. And the last document that we looked at before we walked out the door, I want to read a paragraph from that. It says, After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many civil rights organizations shifted their focus to education, social welfare and employment issues under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SLC framed inequality as not limited to racial discrimination, but as the result of income disparity. The SCLC partnered with labor unions for fair wages and safe working conditions and formed Operation Breadbasket, a nationwide campaign to ensure fair employment practices. The organization then launched the People's Campaign. It's the Poor People's Campaign, its most ambitious campaign for economic equality, and the second phase of the civil rights movement. I'm sorry that so many years later we have not moved further down the road to equity and equality. But as I said before, I am pleased that we're taking this step to move closer to that goal. And thanks again to the sponsors for this hard work. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to also thank the people who have come before me and spoken tonight. I won't rehash some of the same things that have already been spoken. I definitely want to thank Councilwoman Cage. She is still there. She's hidden behind the president's computer. I want to thank her for all her hard work and her months of hard work and her willingness to to support the amendment that that I brought forward tonight, basically. And I want to thank the mayor as well for for your consideration and support of making sure that the people in Denver have the chance to try to make a living wage are close somewhat. We're moving towards a living wage. Basically, if you're hired for an honest day's work, you should receive an honest day's wage. This isn't my first choice, Bill. Frankly, you know, it isn't the bill that if I were king, I would make it. But I also refuse to let the the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that this is a great move in the right direction. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the bill. I think that I think that there were people you know, if I were king and I were to make a decree, maybe I wouldn't have been perfect. And and it was good that we went through the stakeholder process. And it's good that we went through the thought process. And we heard from a lot of different people. I would say I was a little surprised that I mean, I guess not everyone listens to me and every opportunity when I'm on television. And so I said a couple of things personally in committee that I want to repeat just. For the record, I, I grew up an only child of a single mom, and my mom never made more than $26,000 a year. She currently makes $8.10 an hour. She doesn't live in Denver. Denver's perfect ten. I tried to get her to move here to Colorado. She's. She's stubborn. I got my stubbornness from someone. It's my mom. And. When I was when I was 18, I asked my mom, why do we move around so much? It's because we got evicted because we couldn't afford to pay rent. And my mom sheltered me from that. And she what she did for me, what I could not do for myself. She wanted a better life for me than she could have for herself. And I was so excited that she could come up for inauguration. She lives in rural Texas. It's hard for her to get out of town and she's got a bunch of dogs. She's in Tard Rescue, but different story. And but she came up here for inauguration. And inauguration was in the morning of July 15th. And then between inauguration and my first Denver city council meeting, which was right here the evening of the same day, she lost her front tooth. And she refused to come here tonight on the 15th. She had already lost the rest of her teeth in her mouth and could not she she was too proud to come to council because she didn't want to embarrass me. But the reason she couldn't. She lost her front tooth is because she couldn't afford dental care. She hadn't been to the dentist in decades. She made that sacrifice for me, for her own child. And I can only imagine all the single moms here in Denver today and all the people here in the city today, the 100,000 people that this bill will affect just the people who live and work in Denver Light. If I get, I don't know, the 100,000 people, but if you are a 10th, the person that my mom is and I'm sure that you are. I am so proud to help you get closer to being able to survive in this city. And the last thing I'd say is Denver's leaving the leading the way in Colorado. And we're I'm proud that we're part of the National Movement for Disability Rights. I want to say this as someone with a disability, we're the first in Colorado to do so, and we're the first city nationwide to eliminate sub minimum wage for people with disabilities on the first try. As soon as we were able to do that, we with as Councilwoman Kennicott said, it was always part of the plan. The amendment makes it explicit and clear that that's what we're doing. Denver is once again leading the way. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Guzman. Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I. I want to, first of all, thank Councilwoman Cain each for allowing me to come on Isaac as a co-sponsor of this. When I looked at the a few months ago when the proposal was made, it had been long been in my mind that even before the legislature acted to allow us to do this, that the the way to address the high cost of living in this city and the income inequality was too heavily weighted on us up here. The last four years that I've been here, at least we have spent. Tens of millions. I didn't actually tabulate at all. Maybe it's in the hundreds of millions. On subsidizing the social costs of having low wage jobs in the city. And it was it was all well, not all, but primarily on the public sector. And it came home to me in a few votes that occurred on housing, on subsidizing some housing programs that I remember saying on one of them and one which I voted no, that I thought it was ridiculous for the city to set up a fund into which employers contributed money to subsidize rents for lower income workers that they employed, that we would subsidize the rents that landlords were demanding for vacant apartments. I said, that's wrong on two ends. If the vacant if the apartments are vacant, the landlords should gradually lower the rent until they fill them. And instead of the companies contributing to our fund so that we can subsidize rents that are too high. They should put that in your paycheck so that you then can go out and get it on your own. I want to acknowledge something that I think has been referenced by a councilwoman, Kenny, and I remember Councilman Cashman as well, and again in a letter that I got from a constituent in my district who operates a small business. This is going to be difficult for small business. And I think we need to acknowledge that it's going to be a difficult thing for small business. Not every employer in this city is, you know, name your your big multinational corporation. In fact, the base of employment in this city is small business, and this is going to be hard for them. But you know what? The costs of subsidizing the social costs, the price of subsidizing the social costs that we've been doing up here for at least in my first term, they've been pretty difficult also. My homeowners and my property owners, all property owners in Denver pay a half mil on your property tax to subsidize the cost of continuing to pay you below $15 an hour. And I think that's it's time today to bring everybody into the solution. And this bill, I think, goes toward doing it. And with that, I'm very happy to co-sponsor this and to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks to Senator Danielson and those at the state who helped us get here tonight, but also to because I'm seeing so many friends in the audience from labor. Pedro choreographs this house. Then he says companeros they SEIU are you Pat Lazaro her daughters who have fought for this as long as.
Speaker 6: They have as well.
Speaker 5: So thank you all. I want to commend the work of councilwoman can each the mayor's team on both a strong bill and a comprehensive process. We can't be blind to the income struggles of our residents, and we have to recognize the overwhelming pressures and take deliberate steps to assist those who currently make less than $15 an hour are more likely to be people of color, women, and those without a college degree. And if we approve this tonight, 50% of Latinos, 38% of African-Americans working in Denver will get a raise. We're struggling to find enough housing for our residents. We cannot meet our needs solely through housing funds, through fractional inclusion of 80% Army units, Section eight vouchers, public housing, senior housing. These are all limited. There are waitlists. Our residents have to earn more across the board. A perpetual conversation exists in Denver. I've been in the city for 19 years. It's been there that long and probably decades longer than that about resident representation in city meetings and civic conversations and relates directly to this conversation. Residents in District three have multiple jobs to live and survive in this city. They are working their second or third job when the R.A. meets. They're working when the neighborhood group takes votes of approval or opposition. They are working when we have town halls. They are working all the time. And we have a responsibility to support our families and support community wealth building efforts. This includes increasing the minimum wage, but it will also include wage theft protection and increasing asset ownership. I thank all of our speakers here tonight, all of the community and those who wrote me in either support or concern. I believe that this bill represents all of those narratives and those needs, and I look forward to voting in favor of it tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank Councilwoman Kenny tonight for her leadership on this issue and her willingness to be open to community feedback. I think Councilwoman Ortega said it best earlier. This was truly a collaborative process. I know that even though there weren't they weren't very many. There weren't many or any, I think small business owners. I'm here to speak out against it tonight. There are a lot who are concerned about this proposal, and they have spoken out to a lot of us in writing via email previously, and they're concerned about their businesses . And and that's an important part of the conversation. These are big and tough conversations to have, but we have an opportunity tonight to do something bold for our most vulnerable communities, to combat displacement and gentrification in a real and meaningful way in the city of Denver. In most cities in America, there are strategies that we can employ to help support our workers better, when we might have more flexibility with housing options and other costs of living. But Colorado's kind of a unique state, and our state level legal structure leaves us with sort of few ways as a municipality that we can actually take action to support our workers. So I also want to thank our state legislators who are here tonight, some of them, and who are working to make those changes on a state level. And I want to urge all of you to help support them in their fight to make some of these changes on the state level as well , because that's where many of these things need to happen. We as a municipality are doing what we can, but there is actually very little that we can do. There are a lot of state level guardrails that we need your help in advocating with. So is this bill a perfect solution? No. For some of you, it's too much too soon. For some of you, it's not enough. It's not a perfect bill. Right. But it is a reasonable, actionable thing that we can do. We can do something to make the lives of the people in city of the city and county of Denver better. I've said this in this chamber before.
Speaker 7: It's a motto I live by.
Speaker 5: And I think it fits this bill. And this evening, perfectly imperfect action is always better than perfect inaction. So tonight, I'm thrilled to act, to do something to help our most vulnerable community members. I'm so excited to be supporting this, and I'm proud. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I also would like to thank Robin. Councilman Robin Kimmich. I always talk about seven generations that the work I'm up here, I'm just a conduit to the next seven generations. My father's from Denver. I'm from Denver. I'm raising my kids in Denver. So I'm raising a third generation. And I just want you to know that this will impact the next seven generations. So it's an honor to be supporting something that has such great impact that I won't be able to see, but hopefully my kids and my grandkids will. And thank you for the mayor to the mayor to take such a bold stance and to support such an initiative. I know he's from Denver. He's a Denver native, and I know he cares deeply about the minimum wage and these issues. So growing up and a small business in La Casita that my family started in 1975, I understand what minimum wage is. I grew up with the letters. I grew up with generations of family letters. And I understand when employees are paid well, they enjoy a better mental state. And then physical state where employees are healthy, they improve, their.
Speaker 6: Performance is improved.
Speaker 7: They are happier and they're motivated to work on behalf of you. When business owners have happy employees, the company runs better. And this is why many companies, even in industries where low wages have historically been the norm, will voluntarily pay minimum wage to their workers. Motivated workers may also be more likely to pursue a career advancement in their current workplace rather than departing. And they also enables employers to train and promote workers from within. So for me, as a small business owner in Denver, as my family has been a small business owner since 1975, the conversation of the impact of this minimum wage is real. It's we don't make tons of money. We're just a small local tamales shop that we sell tamales. And talking about this at my family's restaurant and the impact that it would have. Are some of the people who have historically lived in northwest Denver and worked at like I said, I might be able to afford the rent and continue to work at La Casita and some of the kids who my parents, my children's parents who there work minimum wage jobs. Their kids might be able to stay at North High School and stay at Skinner and stay in Bryant Webster because Northwest Denver historically was a low working class, hard working class neighborhood. And it has changed and that has been very challenging for me to see personally. And so this is maybe one step in the right direction. And I keep hearing my colleagues talk about a perfect bill. There's no perfect bill. This is democracy, and this is democracy at your finest. Look how many people are here in these pews on a cold, snowy night. That's democracy. And democracy is not perfect. But I will tell you that you have leaders up here who are hearing the voice of the people. So on that note, I'll just end with a quote. I love Dr. Martin Luther King. He gives me inspiration. And as a leader, sometimes it's hard to find inspiration when you hear complaints all day. So you have to go to some sources, right? You have to continuously find inspiration in this job to keep you going. So Dr. Martin Luther King said all labor has worth it is a crime for people to live in this rich nation and receive starvation wages. It is a crime to have people working on a full time basis and a full time job getting part time income. And with that, I will be proud to vote in favor for this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to our state.
Speaker 5: Legislators who made this conversation.
Speaker 7: Tonight.
Speaker 5: Possible.
Speaker 7: Thank you to all of you in our audience for coming out on a snowy night to fight for a city.
Speaker 5: That's accountable to its most vulnerable workers.
Speaker 7: We are well aware of all of the reasons we should be reducing the burden of poverty on all.
Speaker 5: Of our residents. This bill is a step in the right direction.
Speaker 7: But I must share my frustrations.
Speaker 5: With the.
Speaker 7: Constraints of our ultimate.
Speaker 5: And our ultimate impact.
Speaker 7: And highlight why our work here has only just begun.
Speaker 5: This is the second time we've fought for 15 in the last five years, and we still won't hit 15 for another two. I've run a.
Speaker 7: Small business myself and never would have even considered paying anyone below $15 an hour.
Speaker 5: That is not responsible business. Of our 700,000.
Speaker 7: Plus residents in Denver.
Speaker 5: Only 6.9% or 50,000 individuals will benefit in this first year. Area median income in Denver is $65,000 for one person at 1285.
Speaker 7: An hour, 40 hours a week and 52 weeks per.
Speaker 5: Year. An individual working full time would still only make $26,728 a year before taxes. That's less than half of the army. Unfortunately, even with this increase and the going rate for rent at at least 1500 dollars a month, a minimum.
Speaker 7: Wage worker will still.
Speaker 5: Be severely rent burdened. More than half of Denver renters.
Speaker 7: Are cost burden, meaning they are spending more than 30% of their income just.
Speaker 5: On rent. The Consumer Price Index.
Speaker 7: Is not a complete cost of living index.
Speaker 5: And it is a conditional cost of living.
Speaker 7: Index.
Speaker 5: Because it doesn't quantify all of the factors that affect our cost of living. A minimum wage.
Speaker 7: Disconnected from critical contextual.
Speaker 5: Elements like average rents or a complete.
Speaker 7: Cost of living index.
Speaker 5: Means we will always fall short.
Speaker 7: Of meeting the needs of.
Speaker 5: The workers who keep this city functioning. I've heard the cry of the people and they are.
Speaker 7: Asking for wages.
Speaker 5: To be tied to a cost of living, not political negotiations that are reliant on the political.
Speaker 7: Ambitions and political debts and fears.
Speaker 5: Of politicians. A living wage would put us well over.
Speaker 7: $26 an hour for wage workers.
Speaker 5: While I wish we were.
Speaker 7: Making much more meaningful.
Speaker 5: Gesture to the workers we rely on. I realize the contextual limitations of this increase and will support this symbolic incremental increase with the hopes that we recognize and brace ourselves for continued and a more robust movement to demand that our economy work for all of us. We must face the reality that we will never catch up at this rate. Our economy isn't just hooked on cheap labor. We were built on free slave labor. While we fight in this paradigm for survival. We can never forget that this economy was built to chew up and spit out our wage workers.
Speaker 7: And our work has to transcend.
Speaker 5: Fighting for scraps in the paradigm that exists. If we want free people, we need to simultaneously begin to imagine and build.
Speaker 7: A new economy that doesn't.
Speaker 5: Rely on exploiting cheap labor for someone else's profit. So in the vein of Councilman Hines and his comments about being king and councilwoman.
Speaker 7: Comments ending with a quote.
Speaker 5: I plan to go home with the words of the great.
Speaker 7: Poet Nas in my.
Speaker 5: Ear, inspiring me to build on his lyric how if I wrote.
Speaker 7: The World's, I'd free all my.
Speaker 5: Sons. And I hope you take this snow day to do the same and get back on this in this struggle to do even more in 2020 at the local and state level. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore was unable to be here tonight. She was very sad that she couldn't be here for this. So she asked me to read the following. These are her words. Thank you, Councilwoman each and Mayor Hancock, for your leadership. And my colleagues will support this legislation tonight. Thank you to the community for your strong advocacy to raise the voices of our citizens who every day make Denver a wonderful place to live and work. More than 90,000 Denver workers will see higher wages from this proposal, allowing residents to reduce significant cost burdens of housing, transportation, childcare and utilities. We must begin to address the wage gap, and this is a tremendous step forward to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make a living wage and begin to stabilize and build wealth. I'm honored to be a co-sponsor of the Minimum Wage Ordinance and companion bill setting up the Unclaimed Minimum Wage Special Trust Fund to create a streamlined process for workers to lodge complaints and seek compensation through this fund managed by the auditor. This is an important milestone in Denver's history. I look forward to continuing this conversation to ensure everyone thrives in our great city. All right. Seeing no other comments. Thank you all so much for coming out, for sitting in these hard benches, for braving the weather to be here tonight instead of me giving another speech here. How about we vote and give you something that you can really clap and cheer for? Madam Secretary, roll call on 1237.
Speaker 3: Black eye. CdeBaca. I. Flynn. High. Hines. I Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Hi. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Long awaited 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes counted. 1237 has passed. All right. Unfortunately, we're not done yet. We have that companion bill that we delayed. Councilman Hines, will you please put House Bill 1232 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adding a new Chapter 58, Wages.
Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 58, Wages, creating a citywide Denver Minimum Wage. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-12-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1207
|
Speaker 0: 11 I one abstention. Resolution 1206 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Cashman, go ahead with your questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. So no secret to anybody, unless you've been living under a rock or in a cave, that a year or so ago, the airport, with the approval of this council and the administration, entered into a very complex, important project renovating the great hall that went sideways, creating problems for the city, team travelers, etc. It's in everybody's best interests that we move forward as quickly as.
Speaker 5: Possible.
Speaker 2: In completing the project as close to envisioned as possible, as quickly as possible. But the question that I get most often from constituents is what about the New Deal.
Speaker 5: That's being crafted?
Speaker 2: Gives promise that this will be managed more efficiently and more successfully than the original contract called for. So I wanted to ask anybody on the airport team to give us that.
Speaker 5: Give us their best view of that.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Krystal Torres de Herrera. I am the executive vice president, chief of staff for Denver International Airport. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for asking that important question. We often get that question as well, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer that fully. So first, I would just like to say, you know, everyone's asking how is tomorrow going to be different than today? And I would tell you right here, right now, today is already different. In the past 90 days, we've accomplished more on this project than what has happened in the last year. To stand before you today with five contracts that we have done through a competitive selection process in just a short period of time, less than 90 days is a true testament to how quickly and how decisively we are moving. But to also get to your question, we have also brought on additional resources such as Jacobs to assist on the program management side, to assist with us in keeping the projects moving and holding ourselves accountable, because at the end of the day, the buck stops with us. We acknowledge that and we own that. And we have looked very hard at ensuring that that happens as we move forward. We've also committed, as we talked with you in basic committee, about fuller transparency and what that means for the public and having a public facing dashboard where people can go on fly Denver dot com and see the status of the project. We think that level of accountability and openness with the public and transparency will assist with all of this as well. We're also incredibly customer focused. That was something that we want to make sure we continue to carry through. We do know to your point that it is burdensome on the passengers and the public who travel through our airport. We want to make sure that they can get to their flights, go to see their families for the holidays in the best possible way possible. Earlier this week, we started installing directional decals on the floor to show people how to get to ticketing, how to get to security. We're constantly looking for ways to make it easier for the public. So those are some of the things that we are doing currently to ensure that tomorrow is different from what has happened prior to this. And we take it very seriously. I've also got Michael Sheehan up here who can answer any other specific questions on the contract side.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you for that. That answers my question. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flint.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I think the the public should be aware that the principal reason for undertaking this in the first place is in the post-9-11 world to reconfigure the terminal that was never designed for the kind of environment that we're in today that we need to provide a much more safe, effective and efficient and secure way to process passengers through security. A lot of us remember when the airport opened and the the fifth level of the gypsum terminal was a public gathering place, a very pleasant place. And that all changed after September 11th. And we have to adjust to that. And that's the principal reason this is being done. And to Echo Councilman Cashman is the principal reason that we need to get it under way as quickly as possible. Having said that, I share with a lot of the public the same sort of anxiety about whether this.
Speaker 2: Will be.
Speaker 7: The path forward that gets it done on budget and in less time. I have a lot of confidence in the companies that have been selected. And I would point out all those this will undermine what I just said. I'll point out that this is a similar project management structure as that which was used to build the airport in the first place. So as long as we don't try to add an automated baggage system, we should be fine, perhaps. But I think that going forward with this structure, it and still not knowing exactly what it's going to look like at the end of the day. I look forward to very soon when the next contract comes forward in early next year. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: That's correct. So we anticipate having the next contract and hopefully as soon as January and.
Speaker 7: That will be the the actual.
Speaker 3: Contract to correct.
Speaker 7: Exactly that, then we will be able to tell our constituents, here's what this will look like. But in the meantime, I believe it's essential, Mr. President, that we move forward with these contracts now so that we can fashion those details and get them before us sometime in January. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 3: How are you? I'm good. How are you?
Speaker 2: I'm all right.
Speaker 3: I saw his dog earlier. I saw his dog right here.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So a question for you. We talked I mentioned this in in Biz Committee, I. You as as an airport and as a as a management team have set the bar high for accountability and transparency. And you had a statement that you made about accountability and transparency that.
Speaker 2: Frankly.
Speaker 5: Made me not ask a whole bunch more questions. So do you recall that statement?
Speaker 3: And if you recall that statement, would you like me to repeat that? Yes, please. Okay. Absolutely. At this committee and it was a very great conversation, very thorough conversation by the members on that. I made the comment that we are committed to a level of transparency that the city has never seen before on a project of this magnitude. And we take that incredibly seriously, and that is exactly what we're looking for.
Speaker 5: So thank you for that statement. Thank you for setting the bar high. I think that I want to empower you to do all you can and certainly on one tember to succeed. I want Dan to succeed and we'll be holding you to that.
Speaker 3: I hope you do, because we'll be holding ourselves to that as well.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Crystal.
Speaker 3: Hi, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I think we are all very anxious to get the project improvements done. It's going to certainly improve the experience for the traveling public and the employees. The question I want to ask is when? What is the timing? When do you all anticipate resolution of how much has to be paid out to the Great Hall Partners? Because that is key to the scope of work moving forward, because that then determines how much we have to scale the project back and we don't know what that figure is yet. So do you have a ballpark idea?
Speaker 3: So I so appreciate you asking this because we are working on that as quickly as possible. To your point, it's a very important piece of information that as we move forward, we want to know. So we are really trying to resolve that as quickly as possible. We would love to have it wrapped up by the end of the year. But to be safe, we've told people that we were trying to get it done by Q1, but certainly as soon as possible.
Speaker 6: To we anticipate that that will be resolved before we do the contract with the general contractor that you will be bringing forward to us next year.
Speaker 3: We would hope to have that be the case, but we're not the only people in that environment to make that happen. And so there's a lot of, you know, it's complicated and so we're trying our best to get that done. Okay.
Speaker 6: The last thing I want to say is. I'm pleased that we have all these local contractors and local minority contractors that are now part of the project moving forward. Some of us wish this is how we would have done it from the very beginning. But, you know, it's it we are where we are. And I think you all are trying to be as diligent and efficient in trying to move the project forward. I know you couldn't do anything once the decision was made until the building was actually handed back to us. Which was last week, right? Correct. So now that we've got control of the space, it allows us to step in and do the that work that needs to happen. So I know these contracts tonight are key to moving the project forward, so thank you for having done the tour for many of us week before last to help us really see some of the challenges that were that were posed to the airport during that whole phase of trying to work with an outside company. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn, your backup.
Speaker 7: Thing, Mr. President, just stated. I should have added that as a member of this council who supported going forward with a three with the P3 back in 2017 and now being in a position of regretting that given the circumstances of what happened, I think it's very essential that before this Council is asked to support another P3 project , even outside of the airport, that the airport produce a robust, not just a lessons learned, but about an autopsy, if you will, on what went wrong. And and I would hope that it would examine our faults as well and what we did and how we how we're improving that in this next round. And we'd really at least I think most members up here, probably all of us, need to have a very clear understanding of what happened. Before we will undertake this kind of venture again. I think that's important for many other projects in the city that that be produced. And I would ask that that be undertaken. And again, not just the lessons learned, not just a you know, not a not just a 12 page report, but give us you know, let's let's air our laundry and let's find out what did we do wrong and how have we fix that? Thank you.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that. If I can just respond to that for a second. And we had this conversation in Biz Committee, and we are certainly committed to making sure that the lessons that we learned are shared throughout the city family. We think that's incredibly important as we all move forward, not just for us, but for the entire city.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. That concludes the questions or comments on this item. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens, which should be 1177, which is the bill creating the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. concerning program management for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. by adding $49,000,000 for a new total of $52,000,000 and two years and 8 months for a new end date of 12-31-24 for program management, including design quality assurance and construction oversight for the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport (201630091). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-9-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1177
|
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. That concludes the questions or comments on this item. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens, which should be 1177, which is the bill creating the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. And I just wanted to call this bill out to, again, thank all my colleagues, to thank the administration and to thank all of the citizens who pushed really hard for this and have been pushing us to elevate this conversation around climate change and pushing us to step up our response on this issue. This is a huge step in the right direction, but our work is not done here. We have a long way to go until we can say that we're doing everything that we need to do as a city to meet the science based targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. I look forward to seeing this office stood up and focused on this critical work, and I also look forward to the forthcoming Climate Task Force meetings and the hard work that that task force will undertake. Looking at what we are currently doing, what we what more we need to be doing and how we close that gap. And I look forward to this body continuing to push hard on this issue until we know that we are doing our part and everything that we can as a city to solve this global crisis. So, Councilman Hines, did you also want to make a comment or ask question?
Speaker 5: Well, no question. But I do want to make a comment. Mr. President, I want to thank you also for for pulling this out. And I want to thank my colleagues and everyone who's worked on this. I think this is a critical program I want to our initiative. I also want to mention I was fortunate to stand with the mayor, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the executive director of CDOT and Lyft. Last week when they unveiled that they are adding 200 electric vehicles to their fleet in the in the city. And I want to say, this is an example of how we should all do our part as individuals and as organizations to to to work to to make this a better planet to a cleaner planet and a more sustainable planet. And and so I think that even, you know, companies like Lyft should be celebrated. And and I think that they the governor and Lyft both last week gave a gentle challenge. I would bring the same thing again and say, we should all do our part, not just individuals, not just government agencies. But I love the gentle challenge that that left in the governor had companies we would love to support you in your quest to become more sustainable as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published, and we are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration, except for Resolution 11 zero four concerning the 14th Street General Improvement District Resolution 11 zero five regarding Gateway Village General Improvement District and Resolution 11 zero six concerning the Reno Denver General Improvement District. After the recess, Council will hold separate public hearings on these three councilmembers. Remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last opportunity to call an item out for a separate vote. All right, Councilman, can we please put the resolutions for adoption in the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 1186 1205 1207 1208 1209 1210 1163 1204 960 1190 1192 1118 1090 1091 1092, 1093, ten, 94, ten, 95, ten, 96, ten, 97, ten, 98, 1099, 1100 1101 1102 1103 1107 1157 1171 1172 1173 1174 1062 1125 1126, 11, 27, 11, 28, 11, 2911 30 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1148 1150 1151 1152 1153 1117, 1177. All series of 2019.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I Herndon High. Haynes High. Cashmere High. Can each i. Ortega I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in notes results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, Council will convene separately as the Board of Directors of the 14th Street, Gateway Village and Rhino Denver General Improvement District to approve a work plan, adopt a budget, impose capital and maintenance charges, and make appropriations for the 2020
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance creating the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency.
Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to create a new Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency and makes conforming code changes to transfer responsibilities for related programs to the new office. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-2-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1104
|
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Gilmore. Will you please put Council Resolution 1104 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 19, dash 1104 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council resolution 1104 is open.
Speaker 2: May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening, board members. My name is Michael Carrigan from the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I'm here to provide to provide the staff report for the 14th Street General Improvement District and request approval for the district's 2020 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 parcels along both sides of 14th Street. It was created by council and approved by electors in response to the 14th Street initiative to create Denver's Ambassador Street. The initiative began in 2005 and visualized 14th Street as a promenade and a major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplated streetscape enhancements and related public infrastructure improvements to take. All stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations who participated to establish the conceptual design for the 14th Street in 2009. City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street Guide and creation of a district advisory board. The district was established to acquire finance, operate and maintain street improvements. The district's creation ordinance calls for the city to at least annually pass a work plan and budget. The District Advisory Board after notice and a hearing recommends to the Board of directors the proposed work plan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before you tonight. The 2020 district plans plans to continue maintaining district amenities including but not limited to tree planter and flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and sidewalk lighting maintenance . The work planned budget and charges include revenues of $579,201, which is comprised of $268,071 in maintenance charges and banner rental revenue, plus $311,130 in capital charges for the repayment of debt used to fund the capital enhancements along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2020 budget work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Beth Musky.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Beth Moisi. I'm with I'm the executive director of the 14th Street General Improvement District, and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Members of council. Members of the audience. My name is Jesse Paris. I'll represent for Denver homicide allow black socks and woman for self-defense. Positive action commitment for social change as well as universal access to people's organization and moral high notes. And I'll be your next mayor at 2023. My question is, will you still be sweeping people along 14th Street with this no bid proposal? And who is going to be exactly allowed to occupy this space because you are currently sweeping all of up or down town, as it's being called now. So could you please answer that question and I'll greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Joshua Robinson. No. I think Joshua might have been the one who signed up incorrectly. Okay. So we only had two speakers. I apologize for that. That concludes our speakers questions for members of the board. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Member Ortega. I apologize.
Speaker 6: I have a quick question either for better for Michael. So first, remind us what the the length from what street to what street on 14th does this cover?
Speaker 3: He goes from Market Street to Colfax.
Speaker 6: Okay, so how do we treat the DC complex since it's a city owned asset? Do we treat that differently from all the other property owners?
Speaker 3: We do, and we also treat the web building differently for the same reason. We do provide services when it comes to plant care for the plants that are the planners that are in those streets. But the properties each take care of their own pan and rooming and trash removal along those blocks. The plant care is through a separate agreement that we have with arts and venues and then a separate agreement with the city to take care of the planners in front of the Webb building.
Speaker 6: So because we do that, are they not contributing financially otherwise to the improvement.
Speaker 3: District they're paying? We're passing along the cost to do the plant care. We pass along that cost to the city.
Speaker 6: Okay. All right. That answers my question. I was going to ask something similar along the 15th Street if we do that with the Denver dry building as well. I know that's a different improvement district, but I think, Michael, that would be a question for you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, probably.
Speaker 6: And that's that's not relevant to this tonight because it's not in front of us.
Speaker 3: You can call me later.
Speaker 6: Yeah, okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Mr. President. Beth, could you just explain, if you can, this level of detail on the revenues that the difference between the standard zone and the premium zone revenue next year, over this year, there's a there's a additional premium revenue goes away in 2020, and there's standard zone revenue is increased by almost the same amount. What it counts.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. That's a that's perfect recognition. What happened it so there's a standard zone which the treatment on the surface of the of the block is sort of minimum and there are trees and street trees and but there are not raised beds or benches, but there is lighting and some other amenities that are in the sidewalks , in the premium zone. There are raised beds, there are benches and much more robust three dimensional treatment. And so it costs more to take care of those properties. And those properties actually are paying 75, roughly 75% of the cost. And then the standard properties are paying roughly roughly 25%.
Speaker 7: And the exception my point is, though, that the revenue shift is coming from additional premium revenue and shifting into standard zone revenue.
Speaker 3: That's right. Those are standard properties that elected to upgrade their properties as some degree to premium level, but not to the prime level. But they are paying for that support.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. So, Councilman Ortega, did you have some.
Speaker 6: Yes, I forgot to ask one question. And it's about the issue of security. Several of us have been invited a number of years in a row to meet with the people from the spire. And the issue of security is an ongoing part of that conversation that they talk about our security costs built into this budget as well
Speaker 3: . The 14th Street General Improvement District is only to take care of the maintenance of the amenities that are in the sidewalk from curb to building phase. Those are the amenities that we're the capital investment. The downtown Denver Business Improvement District does take care of security to serve the entire business improvement district, which is a separate district.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it typically does not cover the first street corridor in the 14th Street.
Speaker 3: There is some coverage there. Yes. Not just not to the degree that 16th Street rises.
Speaker 6: Right. And then just very quickly, what is the value of the cost that you talked about earlier that the city is providing as a result of. Their contribution to this improvement district.
Speaker 3: Uh, I'm going to say that is combined. It's $23,000.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions. The public hearing for council resolution 11 zero four is closed. Are there any comments from members of the board? All right, CNN, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye. Flynn, I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 5: Hines, i.
Speaker 4: Cashman, I can eat. I. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero four has been adopted. Council is now convened as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council. Can you please vote Council Resolution 11 zero five 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 2020 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2020 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 10-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1105
|
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero four has been adopted. Council is now convened as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council. Can you please vote Council Resolution 11 zero five on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 19, dash 1105 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Resolution 1105 is open.
Speaker 2: May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening, board members. Once again, Michael Carrigan from the city's finance department. And before you tonight to get the staff report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2020 Annual workPlan and Budget and a 2019 Budget Amendment. The district is located northwest of I-70 in Chambers Road, I-70 and Chambers Road intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border of Montebello. It is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities of the district include maintaining landscaping and parks. City Council approved the formation of the Gateway Village General Improvement District by ordinance number 551 series 1994 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The Creation Ordinance also created a district advisory board made up of property owners within the guide. The ordinance specified that such District Advisory Board should conduct and manage all affairs of the District as the authorized agent for the Board of Directors, including its financial and legal affairs pursuant to Resolution Number 32 Series 1995. Denver City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the District Board of Tours by the Board of Directors Gateway Village. 2020 Budget proposes overall expenditures of $825,489 in transfers to the capital fund of $500,000, with total revenues of $696,758. The district plans to assess 20 mills on real property within the district during 2020. The district plans plans to continue to to complete its major infrastructure and fence improvement project. Additionally, the district plans to continue landscaping, irrigation maintenance, snow removal, storm drainage maintenance within the district. City staff has reviewed the 2020 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. First up is Jeffrey Erb.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Jeffrey Erb, and I'm general counsel for the district, and I'm here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Jesse Paris represented for Denver Homicide Loud Black Star Action Moment for self-defense, part of a commitment for social change, as well as the UAP and the Unity Party of Denver, Colorado. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. My question was, how much of the budget is going toward this and when can we expect these improvements to be put in place like time frame? How long is it going to take? Because we have all these construction projects going on and people will like to know how long this is going to take. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the board? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Jeffrey, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So is the improvement district folded within? An existing metro district or is it independent of a metro district?
Speaker 2: Yes. So general improvement districts are independent of metropolitan districts.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I know they can tax themselves as well. So how many? So 20 mills are being added. Is that what I heard you say to Gore, correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah. The budget for next year anticipates a property tax of 20 mills on the properties within the district, which is actually a reduction from what it used to be prior to 2016 when the district paid off its debt.
Speaker 6: And what was that?
Speaker 2: And you're going to ask me that. I think it was 35 mills when we had bonds outstanding.
Speaker 6: Okay. I was just trying to look at the budget here in our. Report. Give me a second, because it looks like in the this budget is significantly higher, at least in what it's showing us than it was in previous years.
Speaker 2: If you have the whole budget in front of you, there's a summary page that shows 2018 and 2019 on it.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 2: In 2020.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm pulling up a different document than I was just looking at. But this is the full budget, so. So the reason for the reduction. In the in the mills. You said it was 35 and now it's 20.
Speaker 2: Yes, I believe that's.
Speaker 6: What is the reason for the reduction?
Speaker 2: The district has no more outstanding bonds, so it issued bonds back in the late nineties and those were paid off at the end of 2016. So it didn't need that extra revenue for any debt service. So now we just use our revenue for operations and we basically fund projects as we.
Speaker 6: Just to cover this budget. Mm hmm. Okay. That's all I have questions about. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman C.A. Other questions? The public hearing for Council Resolution 11 zero five is closed. Comments from members of the board. Right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Flint.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor I. Herndon All right.
Speaker 5: Hines High.
Speaker 4: Catchment.
Speaker 2: Can.
Speaker 4: Each. I. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero five has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District. Councilwoman, can you please put Council Resolution 11 zero six 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 Gateway Village General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2020 and approving a Mill Levy, and approving an Amended Work Plan and adopting an Amended Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2019.
Approves the 2020 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 10-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1106
|
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero five has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District. Councilwoman, can you please put Council Resolution 11 zero six on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 19, dash 1106 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council resolution 11 zero six is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Once again. Good morning. Good evening. Board members Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance and before you tonight to get the staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2020 Annual Work Plan and Budget and End to End 2019 Budget Amendment. The district is located northwest of downtown, includes residential and commercial assessed properties around Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally that is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 on the north side to 29th Street on the South Side, and bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad Line and into the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line. The guide supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Reno area, including streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino Denver Guide by Ordinance Number 309 Series 2015 and establish 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 Advisory Board should, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the District as authorized agent of the Board of Directors. The District Advisory Board has created the 2020 budget before you. Tonight, the budget proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $917,214 and overall in overall revenues of $1,159,213 of these revenues, the district will generate approximately $916,213 through the levy of four mils on real property for general operating purposes. And it will generate approximately $175,000 from the imposition of the capital charge assessed on a linear foot basis on properties adjacent to two Brighton Boulevard for repayment of debt used to fund the capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. City staff has reviewed the 2020 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that. And since this is our last one, I'll just say thank you for all of your hard work on all of this. We appreciate it. All right. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Tracy while.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. My name is Tracy. While I live at 3611 Chestnut Place and I am the president of the right.
Speaker 0: Art district and representing the rhino.
Speaker 2: Jade. And I'm here for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Law Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive actually come in for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and a universal African people's organization. My question was going to be, is this in regards to this promenade that you are planning on putting here in what is now known as Rhino, but as native know as the east side of Denver? Is this pertaining to that and exactly how much of the budget is going toward this Cherry Creek that you are basically putting in a once abandoned area? And are you going to continue to put money toward sweeping people along the Platte River, which are adjacent to where this is, is that if he could please answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the board? Right. Seeing none. The public hearing for council resolution 11 zero six is now closed. Comments from members of the. Seeing none, Madam Secretary, recall.
Speaker 4: Black. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I. Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Haines.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Connect. Ortega. Sandoval, i. Sawyer. Hey. Torres. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting announced the results.
Speaker 4: 12.
Speaker 0: Hours. 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero six has been adopted. Council is now reconvened and Council will resume its regular session. Council can it will you please put Council Bill 1008 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 2020 Fiscal Year and approving an Amended Work Plan adopting an Amended Budget, and making appropriations for the 2019 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2020 Work Plan and Budget for the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1008
|
Speaker 0: Hours. 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero six has been adopted. Council is now reconvened and Council will resume its regular session. Council can it will you please put Council Bill 1008 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19, dash 1009 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: I think we're on 1008 and I missed one 1008 first.
Speaker 1: Yes. 19 desk ten await be placed in my final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 1008 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. I got the PowerPoint up on the screen, please. Thank you. So this is a request to rezone 2120 135 South Cherry Street and 4500 Evans Avenue from C five to see Annex the property is located in Council District four in the University Hills neighborhood is at the southwest corner of I-25 and Evans Avenue. It's about one and three quarters acres just south of the Colorado station, light rail station. And the request is to rezoning the property in order to redevelop the site. As I mentioned, the property is currently zoned C and five with the same zoning surrounding it on the East and west with a planning and development zoning just to the south and C 20 zoning across Evans Avenue to the north. You also notice outlined on the map is a another rezoning that is the following public hearings. So these are two rezonings from the same applicants, same property owners, but two separate applications for separate rezonings. The property is also part of the Colorado Station General Development Plan, which was approved in 2008. It is in the secondary G.D.P. area development area, too, which calls for primarily office uses with ground floor, retail and heights generally up to six stories. It also calls for new open space if land assemblage allows, and the GDP also states that it does not specifically control height, use or density. And those things can be changed without any amendment whatsoever to the general development plan. Existing land use is office and commercial. And then you can see commercial and mixed use along Evans Avenue and then residential to the south. And here you can see the subject properties and some of the surrounding properties. As part of this rezoning, the city has also negotiated a development agreement with the developer that covers housing, open space and streetscape. Specifically, the developer has committed to providing 10% of the residential units as affordable at 80% of the area median income for 99 years. 25% of those units will be two bedroom or larger, and units will be built as part of the first phase of this development. For the open space, the developer has committed to a minimum of 30,000 square feet of private or publicly accessible private open space with at least 20,000 square feet of that in one compact and contiguous segment to serve as a pocket park. And that will be protected by an open space easement with the city. And then the developer has also committed to install detached sidewalks with tree lines, as opposed to the standard requirement in this area which would be attached to sidewalks. This went to the planning board on September 18th, received a unanimous recommendation of approval. One member of the public spoke. Went to the committee on October 8th. You'll have in your packets a letter of support from the University Hills North Community, along with the Good Neighbor Agreement that they have signed with the developer. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2040. As described in the staff report, staff has found the proposed rezoning is consistent with these ten strategies from Count Plan 2040 relating mostly to equitable development, providing a range of housing types near transit. Increasing access to affordable housing and open space. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2019. The plan designates the context for this area as urban center, which is consistent with the urban center context of the proposed Sea Annex eight zone district. The future place designation for this property is a community corridor, which calls for a mix of office, office, commercial and residential uses and heights , generally up to eight storeys, which again is consistent with the proposed sea and zone district. Evans Avenue is a mixed use arterial, and both Cherry and Claremont are designated locals providing property access. The property is within the community corridors in the center's future growth area, which is intended to accommodate 25% of new housing and 20% of new jobs over the next 20 years. Also within Blueprint Denver, there are various strategies. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these three strategies relating to providing mixed use development, particularly near transit, affordable housing and providing additional open space. As a staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the Colorado Station General Development Plan, which I mentioned earlier. As I said, the uses are primarily commercial, which is consistent with the proposed zoning. The GDP calls for heights generally up to six storeys, but again, the GDP does not actually control height, density or use, and it also calls for that open space which would be provided through that development agreement that finds the proposed rezoning generally consistent with the Colorado Station General Development Plan. And the last plan is housing and inclusive. Denver. The city's affordable housing plan, which calls for providing additional affordable housing throughout the city. And again, through that development agreement, additional affordable housing would be provided on the site. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the relevant adopted plans and the first criteria, and that the second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the C Annex eight 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 providing that park space, promoting physical activity and better health. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning justified by the changing and changing conditions in the area. There has been a fair amount of new development in this area, some higher intensity development on the south side of Evans, making this a denser area and new development around the station on the north side of Evans. Turning this really into a transit oriented development area. And this rezoning would be furthering that and consistent with those changes and justified by those changes in the area. The final criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in development that is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context, description and the zoning district purpose in intent for the CMC's zoned district, which is intended for areas or intersections served primarily by arterial streets where a building scale to date stories is desired. As I mentioned, Evans Avenue is an arterial street and blueprint. Denver calls for buildings generally up to eight stories, so staff finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak on this item this evening. First up is Chase Hill.
Speaker 5: Good evening to you all. I'm Chase Hill, the developer with Cypress Hill Advisors, and I'm here to answer your questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ben-Hur to.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Ben Hiroto with federal capital, also with the applicant. I'm here to answer our questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I represent for Denver Homicide Loud Black Star Action Movie for Self-defense, Positive Commitments for Social Change and the Unity Party of Denver, as well as the OPIO and Mile High North. And my questions are, what guarantee do we have that this is actually going to be affordable? And who is this exactly affordable for 80%? Am I is not affordable. We have a housing crisis in the city and we need units that are 0 to 30%. So 10% at 80%. That is not affordable. I don't know who lied and said that it is affordable. It is not affordable. So I want to know exactly what guarantee that we have that this is going to be affordable and what how many units are going to be built here? And when is the construction process on is going to begin and when is it going to be completed? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there questions from members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Can you give us an idea? I guess I'm asking Chris Hill if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Can you give us an idea of how many units are proposed to be on the site so we know what 10% on the affordable is actually equates to.
Speaker 5: The initial initial massing. Studies show about 150 units.
Speaker 6: Okay. So we're talking about 15 units.
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. And 25% of them will be two bedrooms.
Speaker 5: That's correct. Will be proportional to what we do at the market rate, but a minimum of 25%.
Speaker 6: And will there be any commercial space on the site at all, or is it all intended to be residential?
Speaker 5: There likely will be. We're actually much farther along in the design of the first phase, which we'll be talking about next, but we anticipate having a retail component at the ground level.
Speaker 6: Okay. Will that phase, Evans?
Speaker 5: It will likely front Evans and turn the corner at Claremont.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: But I don't think you're Mike Tyson.
Speaker 3: Jenni, did you mean to speak? I guess. Yeah. So why don't you come up now and speak? Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Davis, and I live at 2575 South Cherry Street. I'm the co-president of the board of the University Hills Community, registered neighborhood or Neighborhood Organization. My co-president, Jennifer New Helfand, and I have provided a letter of support for your packets and are here to read a statement of support for the rezoning applications. 20181-00112 and 2019100024. In September 2018, the University Hills North Community R.A. Board met with representatives from Flywheel Capital and Cypress Real Estate Advisors regarding their planned development at the Cameron Motel site. For the first time in the following months as the R.A. reviewed the project's Phase one plans. Board members and the community at large cited concerns with traffic, parking, architectural fit and overall project impact to the neighborhood. These concerns were relayed to the development group in an effort to establish lines of communication for neighborhood input on the impacts of the proposed development. In a subsequent meeting, representatives from the Cameron Project informed the board of their intent to request zoning, zoning, zoning variances for Phase one. Pudi g m you three to see them x five and phase two of their project or from S.M. x five to see a max eight to gain neighborhood support for the variance. The developer was willing to enter into a good neighbor agreement to address neighborhood concerns with the aforementioned plan. Scope and overall impacts of the Development. I want to be clear that the only reason the board and neighborhood is in support is due to the contents that were agreed to in that good neighbor agreement. We expected developers to be accountable to it. The zoning variances are consistent with the Denver Transit Oriented Development Strategic Plan, calling for increased housing density through the building height and light rail station watersheds that are prime locations for activation. The Colorado station watershed has been identified as such a location, and the Cameron site is in close proximity. Safe, pedestrian, bicycle and E-Scooter passage across Evans Avenue to the to Colorado station will be paramount in achieving TOD density goals while promoting light rail use. The developers have committed to working with the neighborhood and the city to address these multimodal traffic concerns to the benefit of the safety and welfare of the existing neighborhood and its current and future residents. I'm out of time.
Speaker 4: I see.
Speaker 0: So sorry. Just to clarify, so it looks like you had signed up to to speak as speakers for this item, and we got you on the wrong one.
Speaker 3: So both of these are connected. They're both in our neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just to clarify for the record from our secretary and legal, do they need to make this statement on the record for both items then or speaking at this one hour so that it's officially on the record in case this were to be reviewed? How do you want to handle that?
Speaker 3: Kirsten Crawford Legislative.
Speaker 1: Counsel I think it would be good to have her to speak on both matters.
Speaker 0: Speaking on both matters in this hearing or speak on both matters wants at each hearing.
Speaker 3: One for.
Speaker 1: Each hearing.
Speaker 0: Wants at each hearing. Okay. So then we are going to keep you under the hour. Rules for testimony to the 3 minutes. Councilwoman Black might call you back up to answer questions or to finish anything. But we're going to get you and finish with Jennifer on 3 minutes, if that's okay. Jennifer knew how often. You also have 3 minutes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Um, I am Jennifer New Hoffman, and I am the other co-president of the new agency, R.A. And I will finish the statement that Liz started. The newly adopted Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 designated the site is located within an urban corridor neighborhood context that calls for increased ground level activation. This project will achieve that goal through ground floor retail on the Phase two property on August 20th, 2019. The voting members of the R.A. were presented. The principal proposed assurances to be included in the Good Neighbor Agreement, including an RTD pass for each initially signed and designated green space, both of which address and improve public health, safety and welfare. An empowered neighborhood primary point of contact. A thoughtful construction and parking plan. And continued collaboration communication with the University Hills North community are other assurances provided by the developers and the Good Neighbor Agreement. These will ensure that the project will be a partnership that integrates a new development into our community in a way that maximizes its benefit to the developers and the community. The University Hills North Community Board voted in favor of supporting the zoning variance from CMCs five two CMCs eight, as well as the PD and GM use three to CMC's five contingent upon the execution of the Good Neighbor Agreement. Today, the Good Neighbor Agreement has been completed to the satisfaction of both the Cameron Project representatives and representatives of the agency. The University Hills North Community fully supports the proposed zoning variance and the statement was provided on behalf of the entire board. And see. No, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right, Councilwoman Black, now we're going to get back to do you have any additional questions in addition to that?
Speaker 3: Yes. Go ahead. Okay. I have a question for the development team. Can one of you come up and talk about this sign? It's an iconic sign. And I know there was a lot of talk about preserving it somehow. So can you tell us what you're planning to do with the sign?
Speaker 2: It's really. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for asking the question. We feel the signs are iconic as well, and we had intended to preserve those signs, in fact, as part of this project. There was a small portion of land immediately adjacent to Evans and the onramp to I-25 that was previously owned by C Dot. And as part of our agreement with Cedar, that was access real estate that Scott was going to dispose of as part of our agreement with C, that we have agreed to preserve those signs and incorporate those signs into the project. And so that agreement is in place. And if for whatever reason, that does not happen, we had agreed with that to offer those signs to the city of Denver or historic Denver or another nonprofit type of organization in order for them to be preserved. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And for those of you who don't know what we're talking about when we say the sign, it's the Cameron Motel is from the fifties and it's right on Evans and I, 25. And it has a very cool old neon sign. That would be a nice neighborhood landmark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. I thought Councilman Cashman was up next, so I apologize. Councilman Kennedy, I'll get back to you. I don't know. We got a lot over there, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. So anyone from the development team. So 1008 and 1009, which will be coming up next, are paired together. Was total acreage of the two plots. Total acreage is right around five and a half acres, five and a quarter acres. Okay. And you said 150 units estimated on on this portion. How about on the on the other portion? On the other portion is about 360 units. Okay. So about 500 total units. Do you have any idea have you done any traffic studies as at this point looking at what your development would generate?
Speaker 5: We're still very early on in the site development plan process and building budget process. We have reached out to the relevant departments of the city and we are advancing those conversations. But to date we have not completed a traffic study, but we do anticipate it being a requirement of the STP.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just trying to envision, I believe one of the main access streets would be cherry. Is that correct? And let me ask my client, Cherry Street's Cherry Street Dead ends at a at the highway. Right. The main access point is off of Claremont, North Side. Thank you. And one of the things that we've discussed with the city and staff up until this point is ingress and egress off of Claremont and what the potential options of those are. While those have not been finalized at this point, we have been in discussions with city staff about what those options could be. Yeah, I'm trying. Regardless of numbers of units or whatever, I'm trying to envision how you would turn left to go westbound on Evans out of that. I don't I don't think that would be possible. Okay.
Speaker 5: The idea we envision is that you would actually get a bird such as a light protected light and take a left there.
Speaker 2: You you'd go over.
Speaker 5: So you would take Warren over to Birch north on Birch, and then take a left or west on Evans.
Speaker 2: Great. Okay. Thank you very much. That's another question. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: But thank you, Mr. President. I also have a question for the developers. You decide. Pick your favorite.
Speaker 2: We'll take. We'll talk to you. Okay. So there are 150 units.
Speaker 5: In this and this section in Bill 1008. Correct. Housing units under 50 on the North Parcel we're talking about now and 360 on the southern half. Okay. And 10% affordable housing as I. Right. So 15 on this, uh, this this parcel. That's right. And 36 of the other. And will the affordable housing will there be on site four. Is that is it in this industry exclusionary affordable housing within the projects we're building? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman each.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I just kind of thought that maybe Melissa Teddy is the one to ask about this, but is there a parallel build, alternative plan or development agreement? So I just want to clarify. I heard that there is a good neighbor agreement and that the affordable housing is in there. But that's we're not it's not in there. Oh, okay. So let's I just want to clarify which city, where, what the status of any city applications or agreements are regarding this.
Speaker 4: Melissa Tardy Department of Housing Stability. We have an executed development agreement which solidifies the affordable housing commitment.
Speaker 1: And so that development agreement is not being submitted to council because it doesn't meet the thresholds for council approval. Correct. Okay. So there are no vested rights in that development agreement then than that? Correct. Okay. And then can you just remind us again, even though when we have these units created at 80% of AMI our law and regarding source of income nondiscrimination in voucher holders, can you just talk about how it is that units at this level might be occupied by families who are lower income.
Speaker 4: For a deeper affordability or at the 80%?
Speaker 1: Well, how they would how how a family with a voucher might might be a lower income than 80. Sure.
Speaker 4: So various organizations, but especially the Denver Housing Authority, administers our housing choice vouchers, which are what we call tenant based vouchers. So they travel with the tenant. So, for example, a family who has a 0 to 30% AMI may carry a voucher with them to this project and could live in an 80% or below in my unit . Additionally, there is a source of income, nondiscrimination or anti-discrimination ordinance which says that landlords cannot discriminate against tenants based on how they pay their rent. So if someone came with a voucher, that would need to be accepted.
Speaker 1: And can you just refresh us as a family at 30% of AMI, as a working family often, what is it that they're earning at that level.
Speaker 4: And have to look it up? I pulled up the 80%. Okay.
Speaker 1: It's would it be fair to say they're like minimum wage workers in that range? Yes. Right. So these might be service workers. Yeah, it could be.
Speaker 4: You know, to single are two parents, both working full time minimum wage.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you. And then can I just speak to the developer team for just a second? So you have executed the development agreement, so there's a binding city ability to enforce. This is in lieu of your linkage fee payments? I'm guessing so. And you're aware of the need to be nondiscriminatory in advertising these units and making them available?
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. And you will be operating these units, not just will you be developing and then maintaining ownership or you'll be selling?
Speaker 5: That is correct, that we don't know for how long or when, but the idea is to develop and operate it and also manage it.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, then I would ask for your commitment to make sure that if you are passing on ownership of this, that you make sure that any buyers are on notice regarding Denver's laws and regarding I know that they're bound by the development agreement, but just making sure they're aware of the need to advertise nondiscrimination in their in their in their advertising.
Speaker 5: We certainly.
Speaker 1: Will. Okay. Thank you. And your management company, I guess in some case, you probably won't be managing it. All right. All by yourself. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing from counsel Bill 1008 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to our neighborhood leaders. Thank you so much for coming down here and really for doing such an incredible job for your neighborhood. They have spent hundreds of hours working on this and advocating for their neighborhood and talking to a lot of different people who have a lot of different opinions. So thank you very much for your leadership. And I also want to thank Chris Nevitt, who I didn't call up to ask. Questions of. But Chris Nevitt is our toddy director for the city and he was very much involved along with Scott Robinson on this project. It is in a very central location in Denver, directly across Evans from the Colorado Light Rail Station. And it is one of our goals in our city to direct density to our light rail station so that people will take the train and not drive their car. And so this is meeting one of those goals currently, that edge of the neighborhood, the edge of their neighborhood that's closest to Evan, has just a strange mishmash of random zoning that there's really no rhyme and reason to it. Paul Cashman and I, I think as far back as 2015, met with our community planning and development director and staff, begging them for some kind of plan for this neighborhood because we predicted what was going to happen. And that is exactly what has happened is now there's lot homes and one really big apartment building that everyone hates and a lot of other stuff. And so it's really unfortunate that they did not listen to us, but I'm excited to say that this section of Evan's will be part of our next neighborhood planning initiative starting next summer, and that public works is working very hard to get an Evans Corridor study funded, so it will coordinate with that neighborhood planning initiative. And then we are also working with Stantec to do sort of a mini neighborhood generated little neighborhood plan so that we can have some more weighty discussions with anybody else who who comes forward. So a couple of the big benefits to this program is the open space. Chris Nevitt and his team negotiated with them for that which was much needed. And believe it or not, in this part of town, we have Hollywood sidewalks and initially public works was just going to let them put in Hollywood sidewalks. But thanks to Chris, they are not. And so, yes, wow. Imagine that we're going to have real sidewalks. They can walk to a light rail station. So I'm very happy about that. And as I think everyone knows, earlier this year, the city purchased almost two acres for a neighborhood park, which was greatly needed. So good things are happening. We need to remain vigilant and we need to hold the developers accountable and make sure that the good neighbor agreement is enforced. I'm really excited. You're going to give people light rail passes. That is exactly the kind of thing we need to do. So again, thank you to everyone. I will be supporting this. The final thing I'm going to say is to public works. We need to make these streets around the light rail station more safe and more walkable. Bucktown, Colorado Boulevard and Evans, they're not safe to walk across. And so we need to keep on that. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. So I've had two concerns about this development, one being traffic, just knowing the area. They're having a hard time envisioning the access and the egress. The other concern that I have is and this is not particularly this development, it's how it's our approach to affordable housing period. I don't think we can raise a flag over 10% affordable housing. It's not going to get us where we need to go. However. I believe the proposal meets the criteria that we're asked to assess. I have COBRA no precedence here supporting the development and I have nobody here raising their voice against it. So I'll be supporting this this evening while maintaining those concerns and hope they're well addressed along the way.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank all of you for all the work that you've done for this for this project. I also want to thank Councilwoman Black for her lifting up the replacement of Hollywood sidewalks for the sidewalks that people can actually use. And I want to thank you for your commitment. You know, it's important for us as a city to to get beyond a car centric society. 75% of Denver ites commute to and from their work by single occupant vehicle. And it's partly because 10% of Denver has no sidewalk at all. Another 30% of Denver has sidewalks narrower than four feet wide, like these Hollywood style sidewalks. So this is part of the part of that all hands on deck on you know, I mentioned climate change earlier. You know, helping us protect.
Speaker 2: Our.
Speaker 5: Our planet means that we need to get out of our cars. And and the way we do that is to make sure that we have the freedom to get from A to B and feel safe while doing it. So thank you for for being willing to to put in real sidewalks there and and to put in and to provide bus passes. Thank you, Honorable Nevitt for for all your work as well making sure that we that we continue to push this and so I will be supporting this this evening as well. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Kelso. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have to just second.
Speaker 1: Councilman Cashman's comments. I think that, you know, we have Arnaud.
Speaker 3: Presidents here who are.
Speaker 1: Supporting this. And I think that that is fantastic. And without anyone here from the neighborhood who is speaking against it there, and it's clearly fitting into the criteria, there's really no reason for us not to support this. But I definitely don't think that 15 units is getting us anywhere near where we need to be with our affordability goals. And that is a shame because there's a real opportunity here, especially this close to transit, for us to really achieve some much needed affordable housing. So I just want to put that out there. And, you know, I wish that there were a way for us to achieve some. To make a real dent in our affordable housing needs in this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counsel. I'm sure seeing no other comments on this item. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black I.
Speaker 4: Flynn. I Gillmor. I Herndon. I Heintz. I Cashman. Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, I.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, I. Torres. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting in the results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours counts. Bill 1008 has passed. Councilman Kennedy, will you please vote counts? Bill 1009 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2100 South Cherry Street, 4500 East Evans Avenue, and a portion of 2135 South Cherry Street in University Hills.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at 2100 and 2135 South Cherry Street and 4500 Evans Avenue from C-MX-5 to C-MX-8 (urban center, mixed-use, 5 stories to urban center, mixed-use 8 stories) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-8-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1009
|
Speaker 0: 12 hours counts. Bill 1008 has passed. Councilman Kennedy, will you please vote counts? Bill 1009 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. This time I'm going to move that council bill 1910 zero nine, be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1009 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. Scott Robinson again with community planning and development. This is a request to rezone 21, 35 and 2175, South Cherry Street, 21, 76 South Claremont Street and 4501 Warren Avenue. From Jim, you three and PD to 77 to see Annex five again. The property is located in Council District four in the University Hills neighborhood and again just south west of I-25 and Evans Avenue and just south of the previous rezoning request. This property is about 1.3 acres and again requesting the rezoning to redevelop the site. The existing zoning is GMU. Three and 277 with single unit zoning just to the south, CSX five to the north and east and GMU three to the west. The PD comes from the eighties and allows basically what is there now. The existing building and a fairly limited range of uses are allowed under the existing beauty. Property is also part of the Colorado Station General Development Plan from 28. Also in the secondary GDP area development area one, which calls for residential transition between intensive office development and lower density, uses south of Warren Heights generally 1 to 4 stories mixture of housing types. Also calls for that open space if development allows. And again, does not specifically allocate use height or density. And those can be changed without any amendment to the GDP. Existing uses are residential on the western portion and office on the eastern portion of predominant primarily residential, south and west and commercial north and east . And again, you can see the subject property and some of the surrounding properties. This is subject to the same development agreement that has been signed by the city and the property owner, which again includes the voluntary affordable housing commitment of 10% of the units below 80%. Ami for 99 years, 25% of those units, two bedrooms are larger and units that will be built as part of the first phase. The open space commitment for 30,000 total square feet with at least 20,000 square feet of that in one pocket park with an open space easement and the streetscape commitment to build the detached sidewalks with the tree on. This also went to planning board on September 18th, received unanimous recommendation of approval. Two members of the public spoke and also in your packet is the letter of support from the University Hills North Community. With that signed Good Neighbor agreement in order to approve a rezoning of city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are four plans that apply to this property. First is Comprehensive Plan 2040. As described your staff report, staff has found the proposed rezoning consistent with these ten strategies from comp plan 2040 relating to equitable development, providing additional housing and affordable housing near transit. Providing additional open space. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2019. The context designation for this property is urban center consistent with the proposed Cn-Kcs five zone district. The future place designation is a community corridor which calls for a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Heights generally up to eight storeys, which again is consistent with the proposed K'NEX five Zoning and Claremont. Cherry and Warren are all on designated local streets providing connections to Adams, the arterial to the north and east. The Collector to the south. And it is part of the community centers and corridors growth area intended to accommodate 25% of new housing and 20 20% of new jobs over the next 20 years. And there are additional strategies within Blueprint Denver that this proposal is consistent with relating to concentrating development around transit areas, providing affordable, affordable housing, providing additional open space, and bringing properties out of old code zoning and custom zoning. So bringing the pad into the Denver zoning code from 2010 is also consistent with the blueprint Denver so staff finds. The proposals are consistent with Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the Colorado Station General Development Plan. The intent is to provide the transition from higher intensity long ovens to low intensity south of Warren. Again, heights generally up to four stories, but the GDP does not actually control height, and that can be changed without any amendment to the GDP. And we are getting the recommended open space. So staff finds the proposed rezoning generally consistent with the Colorado Station General Development Plan. And the final plan is housing an inclusive Denver, which again calls for providing more affordable housing throughout the city, which we are getting through the development agreement. So staff finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations that finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the CMC's five 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 adopted plans and again providing that a pocket park in that mixed use development, creating a more walkable and healthier environment. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is justified by the change in changing conditions. There are new development in the area, changing the character of the area to be more consistent with the proposed next five zoning and then also a portion of the site retains that old code. Former Chapter 59 Community Zoning sought to bring that into the new code is also a justifying circumstance. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, district purpose and intent. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the urban center neighborhood context, description and the purpose and intent statements of the CMC's five zone district, which is intended for areas or intersections served primarily by collector arterial streets where a building scale of 1 to 5 storeys is desired. So again, Evans is an arterial just to the North Island. As a collector, just to the South City, the area served by arterials and collectors. And Blueprint Denver calls for heights generally up to eight storeys as a five stories here is appropriate staff finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval . I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much and thank you for all your hard work on these two items.
Speaker 2: I see three.
Speaker 0: People this time. I'm wondering if you guys are also going to talk on this one. No. All right, then it looks like we have three. First up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Jesse Parrish, represented for Denver Homicide at Low Black saw a movement for self-defense, positive action coming for social change as well as the upo universal African People's Organization and Unity Party of Denver. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. I have the same questions. What is the guarantee that this is going to remain affordable at 80% AMI until 2118? And who is going to enforce this? The city is going to enforce this is to perpetuity. Do we have this all completely in writing? I want to know for sure, for sure that this is going to be guaranteed affordable housing for the next 99 years. And also how many units? Because I'm confused. Is it 360 is a 350 and how many of those are actually going to be affordable? Thank you. So what's the timeline for this? When will construction begin on this and when will it be completed? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Elizabeth Davis.
Speaker 3: Thanks again. My name is Elizabeth Davis. I live at 2575 South Cherry Street, and I'm the co-president of the University Hills North Community Registered Neighborhood Organization. And I wanted to let you know that the board is in support of this request as well. Again, contingent on the things captured in the Good Neighbor Agreement. And if it's okay, we'd like to request that the previous statement that we read be applied to this as well.
Speaker 0: Do we need the statement to be ready in time?
Speaker 1: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I think it's fine just to put the written statement into the record.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. Jennifer new helping.
Speaker 3: Same as with Liz Davis that what I read was the completion of the statement that Liz started. So I'd like to make sure that we'll give you a written statement for the record.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And do we did you email a copy of that statement over that we have? If not, could you just deliver it over to the our secretary over there? Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I have two questions for Mr. Hill, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. So, I mean, you guys are the same developer on this site as well? That's correct. So has the Good Neighbor agreement been signed between both parties?
Speaker 5: It has. Yes. This is Chase Hill with Cypress Field Advisors. And both the good neighbor agreement and the development agreement have been fully executed.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then do you all intend to apply for low income tax credits for either one or both of the projects?
Speaker 5: Currently, we're not intending to.
Speaker 6: You're not intending to. So the only affordable is are the ones that are already spelled out.
Speaker 5: That 10% of inclusionary affordable housing.
Speaker 6: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Scott.
Speaker 7: Could you explain a little more, first of all, how many units are on this site? And then how did we arrive at 10%? Because this close to a transit station, I would think that we would try to leverage more affordable units and deeply affordable units than ten, just 10%.
Speaker 5: Yes. So the my understanding from the developers is they plan about 360 units on this site. They can talk more.
Speaker 7: About as opposed to the other one, which was 100. 150. Yeah. Okay. Three. How many?
Speaker 5: 360 is.
Speaker 7: -60. Okay.
Speaker 5: And then the the amount came through negotiations with the developer. And again, this is entirely voluntary on their part. We have no requirement that they provide affordable housing, just that they pay the linkage fee. Right. And so this is more than what the the linkage fee built out alternative would have resulted if they had just decided to build. What would.
Speaker 7: That have.
Speaker 5: Been? I don't know. Off the top of my head, we can do the calculation. Okay. But I know I know we are getting more than we would have under just the the like actually build alternative. And so it was a series of negotiations over months with the developers over what they could give and still make the project work for them. And you're right, we always want more affordable housing, deeper affordability, longer times, larger units, all those things. So they were all in play and this was the the deal we could get.
Speaker 7: How did we arrive at 25% of them being two bedroom as opposed to one? Are the others one bedroom or are they studio or.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: So the way that a good neighbor agreement and a developing agreement is drafted is that it's proportional to our unit mix for the market rate units. And it's currently contemplated that 25% of our market rate units will be two bedrooms above the remaining 75%, 60 or one bedrooms, 25 or 15 or studios.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for the development team. If you could come up to the mic, can you talk to us? Can you talk to us about that, the the right of way that you're vacating? I asked this question in ludi, but I just want to make sure that it gets on the public record because right now, ingress and egress on ingress and egress on cherry seems super challenging. And your rezoning from an approved new zoning. So can you just talk to me about where you are in that process and where you are in this site development process?
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. That's a great question. So we have now officially vacated Cherry Street as of two weeks ago. So the section of Cherry Street that bifurcates our site into two east west halves has now been fully vacated. So Cherry, she will stop at war. And then we are introducing a new east west private road that will split our site north south that is actually in the GDP plan to eventually have those east west roads. So we're kind of the first domino in that plan. And that road will also allow access out of our property over to Claremont. And we have a second point of entry which is wanting the neighborhood wanted out of our project under Warren. So you can access you can get out of our garage to the north of the new east west road or to the south along Warren
Speaker 3: . And talk to me about the when you vacate, will you have sidewalks on the front going east west now or.
Speaker 5: Yes. So the new private street, which it's not going to be the city right away, it's private road that bifurcates are phase one and phase two. We're talking about phase one currently. That is merely basically a fire lane for primitive fire access. The sidewalks, which are detached sidewalks, not the Hollywood sidewalks, are running along Claremont and Warren.
Speaker 4: Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. May I ask Mr. Robinson to come up? The developers are really kind to stand there. So the question that I have so we had a couple of concerns about the percentage of affordable housing in the last the last rezoning. And your comment just a minute ago is we have no requirement for affordable housing.
Speaker 2: Can you?
Speaker 5: I mean, I think I know the answer to this, but just to the public knows, can you explain why we don't have a requirement for affordable housing yet? We clearly have a need for affordable housing. Yes. So what we have is what's called a linkage fee. And we my understanding is we went with the linkage fee and replaced our formerly former inclusionary housing ordinance because we could not require of inclusionary housing. We could not require developers to build units when those units were rental because of state law and state Supreme Court decisions. So under current state law, we can't require a developer to provide affordable housing as part of.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 5: Rental project. And so we have the linkage fee instead, which does not actually require developers to build any affordable housing units. And does that court decision, this state Supreme Court decision, have a particular name or the it's known as the Telluride decision. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other questions. Public hearing for accountable 1009 is closed. Comments by members of Council Council Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have much to add other than to just clarify that there are. If they build what they are proposing to build, there will be at least 50 units of affordable housing, which is far better than paying the linkage fee. So I just wanted to clarify that and also just to personally make the pledge that I will make sure that they comply with the development agreement and the good neighbor agreement. Personally, I've lived in near there almost my entire life, and so it's very important to me and to my constituents who are in the back of the room. So I will make sure as I am able to hold them accountable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Joyce.
Speaker 1: Hi. Thank you so much. Just wanted to mention piggybacking on Councilwoman Greenwich's comments about voucher holders being able to access these particular properties at 80%, but still only paying 30%. It's a it's particularly important because not even a year ago, a lot of voucher holders were leaving Denver with their voucher because they couldn't find those units. I appreciate you including 80%. And we just want to make sure that those voucher holders are aware of what they qualify for. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Torres. See no other comments. I'll just add again a thank you to staff for all your hard work on this. Putting together the report today and the staff report in our packets, I think it clearly demonstrates that this meets the criteria and I'll be voting yes this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black I.
Speaker 7: Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor I heard him. I hate. I mean.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Can eat. Ortega Five syllable high.
Speaker 3: Sawyer I.
Speaker 4: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Before the voting announced results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 1009 has passed. On Monday, November 25th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council 1119 designating 1168 South Gilpin Street as a structure for preservation. A required public hearing on Council Bill 1120 designating 1717 East Arizona Avenue as a structure for preservation and a courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 1237 Adding a
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2175 South Cherry Street, 2176 South Clermont Street, 4501 East Warren Avenue and a portion of 2135 South Cherry Street in University Hills.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at 2135 and 2175 South Cherry Street, 2176 South Clermont Street and 4501 Warren Avenue from G-MU-3 and PUD 277 to C-MX-5 (planned development and multi-unit, three story to urban center, mixed-use, five story) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-8-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11122019_19-0913
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvened. We have one public hearing this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and their cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called to come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time and on the presentation monitor on the wall you will see your time counting down. 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. First up, we have our hour one that we are delaying. Councilman Ortega, will you please vote? Council Bill 913 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Mr. President, I move that council bill 19 0913 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sandoval, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I move into final consideration of Council Bill 19 0913 with its public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, January 21st, 2020.
Speaker 0: The motion to postpone has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to call to everyone's attention that this will be the second time that I asked for this to be postponed. As I mentioned on the first time, we have a landmark preservation application and the parties are trying to facilitate a third party buyer. So we need time to do the due diligence for that. And we believe that January, the end of January can get us to what we are trying to accomplish. So I would love everybody support this evening to postpone the motion. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. CdeBaca. I.
Speaker 6: Flynn. I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Herndon. Hines. Cashman.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 4: I seen the ball.
Speaker 3: I. Sawyer. Torres. Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in the results.
Speaker 4: Eliminates.
Speaker 0: 11 days. Uh, final consideration of Council 913, and its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, January 21st, 2020. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please wait? Council 1177 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11122019_19-1177
|
Speaker 0: 11 days. Uh, final consideration of Council 913, and its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, January 21st, 2020. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please wait? Council 1177 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Mr. President, I move that council bill 19 1177 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: I think were on first reading so ordered published.
Speaker 1: Be that it be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for council 1177 is open and we do have. Looks like four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So first up, we have Jeff Newman Lee.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Jeff Newman. Leigh. I live in Denver in the Whittier neighborhood. I'm. In favor of having a. An Office of Resiliency. Why? Why why would the city of Denver need to do this? Why can't we just all use the market and work on our own to make the changes that we need to make? You know, one of the greatest proponents of of individualism in America are corporations. And that is, of course, very ironic because corporations are creatures of the state and they are a collectivization. So they use their collective power. We have a collective power that we need to use to deal with climate change because climate change is a common collective problem that each one of us has to deal with. We need to protect people. We need to protect our people. We all know the weather's been changing. We all know the different, the difficulties. And we're in a fairly safe spot. We can look at other places and be very upset. We need to protect our people. There's also advantages in the new energy economy and electricity. The physics of electricity is that in time it's just cheaper. It's cheaper, and it will empower people in many ways to dove into that kind of an economy. I was talking with a state representative today and I asked him, what do you think the city should do? I mean, do we need the city to participate in this or is the state just going to take care? But, you know, this this problem is so deep. It touches so many people right at at their own home level. Everything we do, oil and gas. Oil and gas. It takes people to change. And we need to change at every level. So we need the city of Denver to make changes that other people can see. It's leadership. And finally taking this office and endowing it and getting it going is world leadership. So much of the world is suffering. People are dying because of climate change. And we here are participating in it. When we do what's right, other people see and other people will follow. We're powerful. People were the city of Denver. We have no business not being leaders.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 5: Wow. Yes. My name is. Chermside Coop bound organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. And also a candidate for United States Senate 2020. You know, I was sitting here. Doing research. Recess. And I was listening to Marvin Gaye story about Mercy, Mercy Me, the ecology. And that was 75 years ago. And you all know the song. Yeah. And then here we go. Now we're at a critical stage where the Earth is getting ready to take care of all of this. All of this you're talking about. Climate action. When black people ever get climate action on this planet. Because Lester. And then you're talking about sustainability. For the last 500 years in this country, you have suppressed black people every day, 24 hours, seven. And we are on a bottom in every category. There's political, economic and social development. And you sit.
Speaker 1: Here and have the audacity to.
Speaker 5: Bring something up like this. If you can't do this, how are you going to do the plan? Talk to me. And then, last but not least. I came here. There was a woman. And I was walking down the 16th Street Mall. I didn't know. Nobody sees a place they call as when one ask one question about is global warming. They. I said glasses. So she said, well, maybe you can ask them this question. So she said, What do black people have to lose if the planet gives buried in water? What would be free from all this? And then everybody can start all over with a level playing field. She said, I'm betting on the planet. And I'm with the planet. I hope it all goes under water. I've been praying for. For 75 years. So you tell me. Answer that question. What does black people have to lose if all of this goes underwater and if you change it and save it? Is that going to help us at all as you continue to do the same old, same old? You got to do something different. Answer that question. I dare you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sebastian Andrews. Right. Next up, Perry BURNETT.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Perry Barnett. I live up the street from Councilman Clark at 1378, South Pennsylvania. I've lived in the same 1885 home for 29 years and another little old house before. Then I first encountered climate change in 87, working on a project called Greenhouse Glasnost before the world came down when email was new 1987 . It was a collaboration between the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Soviet Academy of Sciences. We knew then what was happening. We knew that most of the actions in themselves had a lot of benefits society, weather, public health, clean air economics, international geopolitical instability. And we still failed. Since then, I've spent most of my career working in bureaucracies trying to shift the paradigm for CDP and pollution prevention. Work on the bike issue here for the city, worked inside green print for a few years. I worked in programs that were given a lot of verbal support and very scarce resources, certainly not much leadership. I used to say at best what we could expect from leadership was permission to try something new. I want to thank you, city council members for finally realizing it's now or never to take actual leadership to provide a vision for this city to move forward. More than permission, this issue will evolve. Our actions will not be perfect. But to start now and to move with great haste and with substantial resources. I am eternally grateful. And I'm also grateful to the city staff who have brought us this far with virtually no resources scattered and embedded in the bureaucracy and with great faith.
Speaker 1: 60 hour weeks not paying attention, not, you.
Speaker 3: Know, neglecting their families at home. So they just deserve our gratitude. In addition to the present city council members. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions on this item from members of council tonight? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for council, 1177 is closed. As a reminder, this is just first reading. This will be back up for final reading next week. Are there any comments before we vote on publication? All right. Sing. No comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco, I flinch.
Speaker 4: I go more.
Speaker 3: I heard it like.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Sawyer Torres. Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 4: 13.
Speaker 0: 13. His counterpart, 1177, has been ordered published. City Council sitting ex-officio as the board of directors for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District, Reno, Denver General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement District will hold public hearings on Monday, November 18th, 2019, related to the 2020 work plans and budgets for each district.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance creating the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency.
Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to create a new Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency and makes conforming code changes to transfer responsibilities for related programs to the new office. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-2-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11042019_19-0805
|
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Countable. 1110 has been. Ordered. Published. Published, ordered. Published. Success. Thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next items on our screen and Councilman Flynn, will you please put Bill 805 on the floor?
Speaker 5: As president, I move that council bill 19 805 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. We're gonna go to comments. This is the bill that was originally filed a couple of months ago creating our Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. We have since gone back to the drawing board, started with a new bill which was supposed to be in committee last week, hence why this was delayed to today. But we had a snowstorm that canceled our committee, so it will be in committee this week. But this was set to come up today to make sure that we kept the fuel on the fire, to make sure that we got this office created. So it will be in committee this week. So I'm asking that we kill this bill now in favor of the new bill, which will be in committee on Wednesday, I believe. Great Councilman Cashman I believe Wednesday. So again, the ask is to for a no vote to kill this bill. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black? No, said Ibaka. I wouldn't.
Speaker 5: Know.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. No. Herndon.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Haynes.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 2: Kenny Ortega. No. Sandoval.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 2: Sawyer.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Torres. No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 nays one.
Speaker 0: I, 12. Nays one. I believe five has failed. That concludes the item must be called out this evening.
Speaker 8: 1037 Can we ask questions?
Speaker 0: Ten. We have a late breaking one called out. Ten. Madam Secretary, can king put 1037 1037 on our screens? Councilwoman CdeBaca has a question.
Speaker 8: Is there anybody here from Denver Health who can speak to the changes that we had requested in the contract? Councilwoman, were you able to review and see if the the changes were satisfactory? I didn't get an updated contract.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency.
A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11042019_19-0964
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvened we have four public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, state your name, and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. 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. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 964 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 Dash 964 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council 964 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, Council. I'm Brandon Shaver with CPD presenting an official map amendment 433, 33 and 3395 Bratton Boulevard. The request is to rezone from PD 702 to CMCs eight, A01, D7 and CMCs eight. I own DEO seven with waivers. The subject property is located in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. Again, the request is for Cemex eight, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use with a maximum height of eight stories. The applicant is also proposing to include A1, a height, incentive overlay and d07a design overlay, which I will speak to in a few slides. The property is approximately 4.7 acres with current industrial and vacant land uses. The purpose of the rezoning with the overlays is to allow for additional height as an incentive in exchange for commitments to benefits, including affordable housing and improved design outcomes. The current zoning is Puti G7 you two. That is the billboard use overlay and the surrounding the subject property. There are a mix of industrial and urban center mixed use zone districts ranging from 5 to 12 storeys in maximum height. Most of these include the incentive in design overlays that were legislatively mapped in 2017, as the property has customized zoning in the form of a beauty. The overlays were not added legislatively, and then to the northwest of the subject property, you'll notice OSA zoning, which is the future River North Park, currently under construction. This PD was established in 2013 with three specific goals. The first was to allow brewing and distilling uses for great divide. These will be carried forward through waivers. The other goals speaking to height and building form standards will no longer be necessary as the design overlay can be applied. Current land use is on the site, including industrial and vacant adjacent to the subject property, their mix of industrial office, commercial retail and multi-unit residential uses. The photos to the right of this slide give you a sense of the building, form and scale in the area. The subject property is on the bottom right and a new office building across 35th Street is on the upper right. Again, this request is for Cemex eight Urban Center neighborhood context mixed use, maximum height of eight stories and up to 110 feet. This zone district has higher build to and transparency requirements as well as street level active use requirements. The zoning is the same as the zoning that's allowed by the current PD, which is based on CMC. The H1 or incentive overlay one allows for incentive heights at this location of up to 12 stories or 150 feet in height and requires affordable housing at a rate four times greater than the typical requirement and other community benefits when the buildings exceed face heights. The river north design overlay d of seven increases building form standards for the base CM Zone District, including a 16 foot minimum street level height and increased transparency while requiring street level nonresidential active uses . The proposed waivers for the sites are for that northern parcel of the subject property where great divide is in operation. These waivers allow for general manufacturing fabrication and assembly use as well as limited outdoor storage. This follows CPD's policy of using waivers as a bridge to a future text amendment. You'll see the Blueprint Blueprint. Denver calls for an evaluation of commercial mixed use zone districts such as the CM eight to expand the allowance for hand-crafted manufacturing and maker spaces where compatible the waivers preserve and carry forward the existing title from the Putty. Additionally, in this case, the waivers can be used to implement Blueprint Denver's goals on this site before CPD evaluates all commercial mixed use zone districts and authors, a testament to the Denver zoning code speaking to the process, informational notice was sent out in November of last year. At this point, the applicant went through a zoned out amendment process and revised the rezoning application. CPD received the revised application in late July and sent notice for planning board on August 19th. Planning Board voted in favor 620 to move this application forward to City Council and then speaking to the public comment as a present, we have received nine letters of support. One from the R.A., which is the Rhino Arts District. Two from nearby business owners. And six letters of support from surrounding property owners. Now on to the criteria. There are a number of plans that impact the subject property. So please bear with me as I walk through them and remember that you can find greater detail in the staff report. The proposed rezoning is consistent with Plan 2040 as it relates to a number of goals and strategies focused on increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use areas. Building on a network of well connected, vibrant, mixed use centers and corridors. Encouraging quality infill and focusing housing growth by transit stations. In Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as having a neighborhood context of urban center. These contexts contain high intensity, residential and significant employment areas. These areas typically contain a substantial mix of uses with good street activation and connectivity. The future place as identified in Blueprint is a community corridor. These places also have a wide mix of uses, a wide customer base and buildings sited in a distinct linear pattern along the street also have no are future street types with 35th Street identified as local and Brighton Boulevard as a mixed use arterial. The proposed rezoning is located within Blueprint Denver's growth strategy for community centers and corridors. We expect these areas to take on 25% of new housing and 20% of new employment by 2040. Overall, this request is consistent with Blueprint Denver policies and strategies, as the plan recommends increasing affordable housing in parts of the city with access to transit. The proposed incentive overlay will incentivize affordable housing in exchange for increased height. In accordance with Blueprint Denver. Another policy speaks to the need for better design outcomes to ensure active and pedestrian friendly environments along high profile corridors. The proposed design overlay seven will result in exceptional design outcomes consistent with the design vision that was articulated in the 30th and Blake Station area plan process and in accordance with Blueprint Denver . Therefore, the proposed rezoning from a paddy zone district to a standard Denver zoning code district with an incentive and design overlay is consistent with Blueprint Denver's recommendations. On to housing and inclusive. Denver This was adopted in 2018, and while it was not adopted as a supplement to the comprehensive plan, it can be considered an adopted plan for this MAP Amendment review criterion when relevant. This plan includes citywide guidance for using Blueprint, Denver and other partnerships to reduce regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing and supporting mixed income communities. Some of its recommendations can be applied to individual map ments that propose incentive overlays. In this case, the following goals on the screen are applicable. And the River North Plan from 2003 a full a few of the goals and strategies still to be accomplished include rezoning portions of the area to mixed use zone districts. While this has been accomplished generally on an area wide basis, the subject property was not included in the Legislative Map amendment because of the existing PUD zoning designation. Other goals in this plan include promoting economic activity in the neighborhood and creating a variety of housing options, including affordable housing. The proposed TMX eight zone district, combined with the incentive and design overlays, is consistent with the recommendations in this plan, as it will allow for a mix of residential office and retail uses in a pedestrian friendly form that contributes to the urban fabric of the district. The proposed MAP amendment is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Illyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan, as it will allow for a variety of housing options and will offer the opportunity for increasing the employment base in the area. In the 30th and Blake Stationery plan. The subject property falls within CBRE, AC, which is mixed use, residential infill and redevelopment. The recommendation for this up area is to increase the populations of residents living near transit through the adaptive reuse of existing buildings or construction of new residential buildings along Brighton Boulevard, creating a residential base around the 36th Street and Brighton node and continuing southwest along Brighton Boulevard towards Senado Market. While the specific building heights reflected in this plan were modified by the 30th and Blake Station area height amendments. This plan does state that maximum building heights should be higher than building height southeast of the railroad tracks. Therefore, the request for a mixed use zone district with greater intensity is consistent with the station area plan. In September of 2016, the 30th and Blake Stationery Height Amendments was adopted and this updated each of the three smaller area plans previously mentioned. The recommendations in the Building Heights Amendment plan aim to make it clear highlight a clear vision for building height, respond to changing conditions and public investment affecting the station area and surrounding NBCC area, and support appropriate and desired growth patterns, including building form standards and mixed income housing opportunities associated with greater density and height within the overall station area. The subject property is mapped as having a base height of eight storeys with a maximum incentive height of 12 storeys. So as part of ongoing efforts to implement the 30th and Blakes stationary height amendments, text and map amendments to the zoning code were implemented, creating the incentive and design overlay zone districts. The proposed map amounted to either one will result in the maximum incentive height of 12 storeys applied to the site. Therefore, the proposed rezoning to CMC's eight A01 D of seven is consistent with the 30th and Blake stationary height amendments and all of the adopted plans as amended. Steph also finds the requested zoning rezoning meets the next two criteria, as it will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further public health, safety and welfare through incentivizing affordable housing and ensuring enhanced design outcomes as advanced by the two overlays for the discussion of these criteria can be found in the staff report. This application describes two change conditions that are justifying circumstances for the rezoning. The first references nearby development and redevelopment throughout the Brighton Boulevard corridor and the station area. Additionally, city, a city adopted plan since the time of the previous rezoning, justifies this rezoning as the PDE was adopted in 2013 and the Height Amendments were adopted in 2016 , which crucial regulatory tools needed to achieve the vision for the area. This plan is a change condition because it was adopted after the current zoning was put in place and the subject property is wanting to include the overlay already mapped on the majority of surrounding properties. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood contexts that exist in the surrounding area and with the CMC's 801.7 Purpose and Intent statements, which can be found in greater detail in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria are met. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening, so we're going to jump right in. First up is Kristy Greer.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Kirstie Greer. I'm here representing Mcwhinney, a co applicant and the subject rezoning request. I'm a Denver resident residing in District one. Mcwhinney is a real estate and development company based in Colorado with 160 associates employed along the front range. As a member of the Union Station Alliance, Mcwhinney helped oversee the $54 million redevelopment of Denver Union Station in 2014. Mcwhinney also developed Lotos New Dairy BLOCK Micro District, a progressive experience of local shopping, dining and drinking in a historic downtown block. Mcwhinney has been passionate about Denver and developing exceptional real estate here for decades. More recent for us is a growing love of the Rhino neighborhood. We're especially excited about the opportunity at 3333 Brighton Boulevard, the subject of the rezone application before you for a number of reasons. First, we found an incredible partner and great divide. Much like Mcwhinney, they're a local company with deep roots in the city of Denver, and they're an important member of the rhino community. Second, we're an enthusiastic participant in the 30th and Blake incentive height overlay area. We recently purchased land at 38th and Blake with plans for a development that will utilize height incentives through the provision of onsite affordable housing. Mcwhinney, like the city of Denver, likes to do dense urban, exciting projects near transit and in the path of growth. The request to bring the great divide land into conformance with the surrounding zoning is a necessary step in realizing the potential for high density development and affordable housing. Despite the need for a rezoning, we see the site as a straightforward candidate for development. It's currently vacant. It's at the center of a long list of future and current development projects. It's adjacent to a future public park and situated in the path of the major improvements made on Brighton Boulevard and is within a ten minute walk to a major transit station. Lastly, we've learned that there is community sought support for exceptional placemaking in Reno CBD and others with the city of Denver have recognized the need for density in this plan area and guided us toward a free zone. Our community outreach has resulted so far and positive feedback for the possibilities that the reason could provide, especially with a retail focused placemaking developer like Mcwhinney. At this point, we do not have plans meaningfully developed for the site. Our current vision would include a vibrant neighborhood serving ground floor retail district for at least the full length of Right and Boulevard. There could be components of both housing and office, but with the zoning uncertain, the use, height and density have have remained unresolved. I would like to thank CPD and Dito, who have helped to answer the important questions raised by members of Luti in the meeting of September 24th. We hope that CPD and Dino's efforts in conjunction with the response letter we wrote dated October 30th. Two men, two members of council, have served to answer the questions raised. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brian Dunn. Good evening. My name is Brian Dunn. I'm a Denver resident living living in District eight, and I'm the owner of Great Divide Brewing. We're here tonight requesting that the subject property on Brian Boulevard be rezone to CMC D seven in A-1 and with waivers on the existing brewery and taproom to allow the continued use of brewing which make our site a mixed use hub of employment and neighborhood activity. In 1994, I started a great divide at 22nd in Arapahoe in the Ballpark neighborhood. In 2012, we searched all over the Denver metro area for additional real estate to expand the brewery. Despite the fact that a neighboring community offered to give us five acres.
Speaker 5: For free.
Speaker 0: Or dramatically reduced price. And despite the fact that real estate along Brighton Boulevard was more expensive than any of the other options we looked at, I felt strongly that I wanted to keep great divide in Denver. Ultimately, we decided to purchase approximately 5.1 acres at 35th and Brighton, and we went under contract on the land in the summer of 2013. Our intent was to build a production facility and to create a taproom that would serve as a central place for the local community to gather, socialize and enjoy our beer. When we investigated purchasing the site with the intent to redevelop it, CPD directed us to pursue a PD zoning designation. This zoning designation was intended to allow the brewing of beer on site without allowing the type of large scale industrial brewing that was disallowed and disfavored by CPD for the Reno neighborhood. The PD was also. The PD also allowed us to build our taproom. The party was approved.
Speaker 5: In 2013 and we opened for.
Speaker 0: Business in July of 2015. We were one of the first new businesses to invest and Rhino Brighton Boulevard looked a lot different in 2013, looked a lot different in 2013 than it does now. We initially built on half of the 5.1 acre site and we built what the business needed the most a packaging facility to count our beer warehouse offices and a taproom. All along, our intent was to build out the balance of the site into a full brewing facility with a large restaurant and tasting room. However, today we are choosing to sell the vacant land to Mcwhinney because of their successful track record at Union Station and Dairy BLOCK. The craft brewing business is very competitive and we no.
Speaker 5: Longer need to build.
Speaker 0: A large brewing facility on the adjacent parking lot. The location of the department dynamic mixed use project next door will drive traffic to Reno and the brewery and help retain our strong employee base, some of whom live in District nine. Our property was not able to be included in the 2018 legislative rezoning based on the fact that it was zoned as APD, which was in fact done at the direction and request of CPD. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Blair Lectern fills.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Blair Elect and I'm a Denver resident residing in District four. I'm here this evening is outside counsel to Mcwhinney in connection with acquisition and rezoning of the subject property. On behalf of the applicant, I'd like to thank CPD for their guidance in helping us.
Speaker 8: Prepare our application and navigate.
Speaker 3: The approval process set forth in the zoning code. Our request for rezoning approval is based on the fact that the rezoning not only meets but exceeds all of the criteria for MAP amendments set forth in the Denver zoning code. Facts which are detailed not only in the letter from me on behalf of the applicant, dated August 28, 2019, and provided to each of you by Brandon Shaver via email on November 1st, but also discussed in the staff report presented by CPD this evening. One of the key criteria for rezoning approval is the existence of justifying circumstances as discussed in the zoning code and in detail by Brandon this evening. A justifying circumstance exists when, since the date of the approval of the existing zoning, there has been a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is actually in the public interest. Specifically, the types of changes contemplated by the zoning code include the city's adoption of a plan or change or changing conditions in a particular area. Both of the foregoing justifying circumstances apply to our application. The primary justifying circumstance is City Council's 2016 adoption of the 38th and Blake Stationary Hyde Amendments and the associated legislative rezoning of the majority of the nearby properties and rhino great divide was not.
Speaker 8: Asked to opt in to.
Speaker 3: The City Council approved 2018 legislative rezoning, which impacted much of the rhino area and implemented the vision in the 38th and Blake Station area. Hyde Amendments tonight great divide in Mcwhinney are asking that the subject property be zoned to conform to the 38 and Blake Station area height amendments. So that is not only consistent with the adopted plan guidance but also treated in the same manner as the other neighboring properties which were able to opt into the 2018 legislative rezoning. Our letter of August 28th, 2019, as well as CPD's staff report, addresses the change in changing conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, which also justify your approval of this evening's rezoning. So I won't address those conditions in detail in these remarks. It is important to note two other benefits to the city if council approves the rezoning this evening. First, in addition to implementing the A01 overlay, which allows for increased height in exchange for compliance with increased affordable housing requirements. The rezoning also imposes the DE seven design overlay on the subject property. This design overlay provides for enhanced design review over and above the requirements set forth in the existing PDD for any development or redevelopment occurring on the property. Secondly, approval of tonight's rezoning will reduce the total amount of customized zoning in the city and in the Reno neighborhood. It will decrease the footprint of the waivers associated with great divides. Existing brewing use.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Brian Lucky's.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Brian six and I'm here representing the Great Divide as the senior director of finance as well as a board member of the Rhino Business Improvement District. As you're aware, in 2013, we received support to rezone the property to allow for our specific use and were given a loan from the city's Office of Economic Development to help acquire the property. Since then, we've created jobs, activated ground floor retail, partnered with the city and neighborhood to carry out the vision of rhino, increase the property and sales tax base of the parcel. We purchased and redeveloped and participated in numerous charitable charitable efforts supporting local causes and organizations. I say this to reemphasize the fact that Great Divide has been a great member of the community and committed to the neighborhoods where we reside. Part of the request in front of you this evening is to approve waivers that would continue to support our ability to operate as a regional craft brewery and tasting room. The loan reference was part of oldest CDBG program, where businesses are provided funds to help close the project's financing gap and was approved by City Council in 2013. In this case, we were able to use loan proceeds to help acquire land and as a result, expand our operation and create additional jobs in Denver. The loan has a repayment obligation and great divide as remitted monthly P.A. payments since the loan funded and it revolves those funds right back out into the community for the benefit of other small businesses, low income housing projects and local nonprofits. We will be using a portion of net sale proceeds from the sales transaction with Mcwhinney to pay down the loan balance like the principal and interest payments. The proceeds received by OED will be people back out in the community to spur economic development, create and create additional jobs. As active members of the community engaged in public outreach efforts to properly inform the neighborhood of this red zone request. After numerous meetings, presentations and conversations with residents, businesses and property owners alike, we received nothing but support. To date, there has been zero opposition and I believe that is directly correlated with the fact that we are only asking for zoning considerations that our neighboring property owners have already been granted via past legislative action. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Council. President Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense, Positive Action for Social Change, Unity Party of Colorado and Universal African People's Organization. Denver Chapter. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. And I ran for city council where large almost 15,000 votes with no money on the surface. This sounds like an awesome idea. I remember coming to these meetings last year about a promenade and rhino. Now two US natives that were born and raised here. This is not Rhino, this is East Denver, this is the Eastside. But just for context, we will go with this Rhino North River district. It sounds like you're trying to put another Cherry Creek along Brighton Boulevard. So really, who is that to benefit? Because currently we have unhoused neighbors camping right on our gas, caught in fear of being swept. So who is going to really benefit from this business? Developers, transplants, people that just got here, those that can actually afford to live here. Where is the guarantee that there's actually going to be affordable housing here? Previous meetings about this overlay, the lowest I heard was 60%. And my area median income recommendations between 60 to 80% and my level. So I want to know for sure, if you pass this tonight and you do decide to build affordable housing on the sites , what the AMA level for that is actually going to be and not between 30 to 60 or 40 to 80, but actually 0 to 36. We can do better and the priority should be housing, but yet it seems to be more commerce and tourism. So I would like somebody to please answer my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next time, Bolduc.
Speaker 10: Good evening, counsel. My name is Table Doc. My husband and I moved our motorcycle shop to Walnut Street in 1999. In addition, I am one of the founding members of the Rhino Bid and a property owner on Walnut Street. I've also sat through many of the zoning overlay to me overlay meetings. I am certain that the new zoning was not meant to punish a longstanding business like great divide. I think that like most zoning issues, we aren't always able to take into consideration all of the potential problems that might arise when we pass an overlay. I believe, unfortunately great divide has been caught in this crossroads between what was then and what is now. Great Divide has been an integral player in the growth on both Brighton Boulevard and the Rhino Arts District. Their presence has enticed others to follow suit and start businesses on this once empty corridor. They also employ several people, contribute to the community and pay substantial taxes. They simply are asking to remain as a business and a neighbor, just like they stepped up and worked with the city to open a business in an underdeveloped neighborhood. I urge the city to step up and work with them as they are only asking for something. They already have to keep their business going and the ability to sell their excess property under the new zoning provisions. I don't see how by allowing this sale and allowing the new owners to take advantage of the new overlay that they can do anything but add to the vibrancy of the community. As a city, we keep a performing business and we add density to an ever growing Denver population. Voting for this is a win win for everyone involved.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jordan Bark.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name's Jordan BLOCK. I'm a District nine resident and neighborhood Kol. I'm also a professional urban designer, so I'm sort of speaking as a resident and a professional. I was asked by a friend from the applicant Mcwhinney if I would consider doing this. And you know, I wouldn't consider it unless I saw the project. So I did. I sat down, saw this project, and I was really enthusiastic about what I saw. I traveled through the Brighton corridor all the time. I travel through Denver all the time. I'm a Denver native. I know what the city is and what's come from. And one thing that is extremely disheartening for me to see is all the corridors are supposed to be live, community based corridors that are just lined with apartment buildings or other uses that have nothing that is public facing. I was really surprised with the level of commitment that Mcwhinney was willing to make towards active use, especially retail on Brighton. But also from what I saw in the drawings I saw was active uses and maybe some retail on the park, which I think is something that you would not get a commitment from from most developers. I think that committing to these things and ensuring that not just right now that we have a good sort of public space or public facing amenities on these corridors, but ensuring that we have them as long as these buildings are up, which is generations potentially is really important. And on top of that, I think the affordable housing that's coming in the form of the overlay incentive that they're opting to take is really important. I do agree with Mr. Parris that there's obviously larger problems to be solved in the corridor and the community in general, and this might not make a huge dent overall, but it is, I think, something that a developer like Mcwhinney has shown that they're willing to commit to and actually do on projects like the one even closer to me at 38th and and Blake right by the station and another project around the city. So I want to speak as a professional that I think that's really important to have good quality developers, local developers, commit to good projects and corridors that really need sort of the future foundation for good placemaking and public realm. And I think that this project represents that. So I was happy to come in and speak in favor of it. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council on this item council and Central?
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. So you'll have to forgive me. I have a lot of questions tonight, so I will just start with the CPD. And so in 2010 when this got re zoned to the PD it currently is what was the current zoned zoning on this parcel.
Speaker 6: And the city was written in 2013.
Speaker 3: 2013.
Speaker 6: And I am not sure what the zoning was before the beauty was written.
Speaker 7: So according to the application that I found online in August of 2013, it was SIM Ex eight zone district. So we took a cmcs zoned district and turned it into a PD that has CRM CMCs eight underlining for the forms. Is that correct? That's correct. Correct. Hearing that. So in that application in 2013, part of it is the justifying circumstances are the land and its surrounding environments have changed and changing to a degree. So basically a change in circumstance. And then tonight we're also using that same justification. So can you explain how in 2013 to 2019 they were using the same justifying circumstance?
Speaker 6: Sure. So I think that it's important to note that that's only a one piece of change or change of condition that's listed in this application. I think that what we are more hang our hat on is the city adopted plan and that since the current zoning went into place in 2013, the city wrote a plan that said that we need incentive in design overlays for affordable housing and now this property is wanting to take advantage of those. So that's sort of the justifying circumstance.
Speaker 7: Okay. So then I also have a question that why everyone keeps talking about the fact that this wasn't able to be part of the legislative rezoning that Councilman Brooks did. I've looked at other things. I have other examples. How come a PWD cannot be part of a legislative rezoning?
Speaker 6: I'm not sure if it's that. It just can't be included in the legislative over zoning, but I think that it does add to the complexity. So for that reason, when it was done as a blanketed approach, none of the areas that had custom zoning were able to opt into that legislative mapping.
Speaker 7: So none of the areas that had customized zoning opted into that. Two, are you sure about that?
Speaker 6: Yes. And you can see in the map that there's a lot of surrounding properties that still have customized zoning that do not include the overlays.
Speaker 7: Do those other customized earnings have a new pad? Because this this pad's pretty new. The other ones were like the old zoned district. Is this one of the fewer new pads or are there newer pads in that area that didn't opt in? I think. Are they old zone districts?
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is probably one of those few newer pads. Okay. Code pads, real time.
Speaker 7: So I have a question for the property owner. When Councilman Brooks was working on the overlay, did he I know he did robust outreach in this neighborhood. Did he come to you and offer you to be part of the legislative rezoning process?
Speaker 0: No, not that I recall.
Speaker 7: Do you remember getting out, having outreach done in that neighborhood? I know you guys were involved in Reno in Overlay, so none of you were at any of those meetings and asked to opt in?
Speaker 0: I wasn't personally, but Brian could probably speak to that better than I can.
Speaker 5: You know, I was just knowledgeable as a board member from the bid, so I was never at any of the outreach meetings, but no one specifically came to us and asked us to opt in.
Speaker 7: And you didn't. Given that you were at those meetings, you didn't ask to opt into the affordable housing incentive overlay or anything?
Speaker 5: Not at that time. As a brewery, we had no aspiration or.
Speaker 7: Okay. So then I have another question for you. So in your testimony, you talk about the OED and how it was a bill to help you close on the land. But actually, it's a community block grant that you got. And in that was it was contingent upon the rezoning of this parcel. Do you remember that part of the OED loan that OED actually led the process for you to have to rezone into a customized zone district?
Speaker 5: I do not know. The the loan was completely separate from the rezoning.
Speaker 7: Yes. So it was adopted the same night as the rezoning, according to the Denver. You know, you can go online and you look so in that loan doc that you all signed, it says specifically that it's contingent that you have to get the customized zoning to get the land. So you all did that the same night. So you also said that you got the loan to help buy the land. But actually, according to your loan documents, it says that you had to create 29 new permanent low income jobs. So do you still have those 29 low, permanent income jobs? And can you talk to me about what entry level they are, how they're paid, and what kind of position that they go to?
Speaker 5: Sure. The use of funds was to acquire land. There was a requirement of the loan agreement to create jobs, and we did create 29 jobs. I don't know the exact percentage, but at least if at least 51% were made available to low to moderate income residents. So jobs such as packaging tax. Brewer's logistics.
Speaker 7: And to the east I. How long do people that the average person work for you and can you just tell me a little bit more about your business since the city helped incentivize your business to go along Brighton Boulevard?
Speaker 5: Sure. Our turnover, much like any business, exists, but I'd. I'd say that ours isn't all that great for those jobs specifically. A lot of them are still there. Some are. Some are brand new. They moved on and we rehired and backfilled those positions.
Speaker 7: Okay, Brandon, CPD, I have one more question for you. So in that 2013 application for this, one of the justifying circumstances to go to a PD was that the city is anticipating updates to the Denver zoning code to allow for brewery operations to expand and reinvest themselves within the city and county of Denver. And now I hear once again CPD using waivers to me a business where it's at. So my question and I know this is probably way bigger than everyone has a boss, right? And everyone has a plan and everyone has ideas. But for me that the fact that this was called out in a PWD in the city doesn't do pwds in 2013 and it's 2019 and we still haven't talked about that text amendment and we're using waivers which is customized rezoning again. So this is the exact same parcel that has to type of customizing rezoning. Can you talk to me about the waivers and the and that what blueprint Denver calls out and the waivers for this particular parcel, this corridor? And then could you talk to me also about where these waivers also could use for us in Denver? Because it is in my correct in my understanding that a waiver is a bridge to a forthcoming text amendment.
Speaker 6: You're correct. I'll try to break that down first. I think it's important to note that the original PD from 2013 was established not only for those uses that we're going to carry for with the waivers, but it was also for heightened design standards and building form standards. So that's why the PD was necessary in 2013. Moving forward to current date and the use of waivers is justified because Blueprint Denver says that we need to look at all of our commercial mixed zoned districts and allow for the kind of manufacturing and handcrafted use. And so I don't think that this is the only place in the city that we are looking to explore expanding these kinds of uses. I think that there are other places in the city where we want heightened building forms and but to allow for that makerspace as well.
Speaker 7: So do you mean the high end building forms? So the use for the maker and craft space are those usually in industrial zone districts and they're not in CM Exon district. So what you're what I hear you saying and tell me if I'm right or wrong is that you're trying to marry forms but uses in an industrial zone district. So we get form standards that would be in an industrial zone district. Is that what I hear?
Speaker 6: You're absolutely correct. Okay.
Speaker 7: So I have one more question for the the property owner. So. Often times rezonings are contingent or sales of land are contingent upon the rezoning so the sale won't go through. It's usually written up in the agreement. If the rezoning doesn't go through. So tonight, if this rezoning were to go to fail, would you would mcwhinney still purchase the land?
Speaker 3: Blair, which involves counsel to mcwhinney. So there is a condition to closing in the purchase agreement that.
Speaker 8: Provides that.
Speaker 3: If the rezoning is not approved, final and appealed and unavailable, mcwhinney has the right to terminate the contract.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. And I have one more question. So sorry. I just lost my chair. Uh, I'll. I'll defer, and then I'll come back up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel Kelso, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a couple of questions about the waivers. Was there. I guess I'm a little bit confused because it seems like there wasn't a specific project or you said that there was not a specific project, but then you mentioned that there you had seen a design for a project. Is there a project or is there not a project at this time? So there's no project fully designed. What Jordan Bloch and I talked through was what I mentioned in my speech, which was the retail component where retail developers were committed to doing retail. So we talk through what our vision could be for Brighton Boulevard and what our vision could be for the forthcoming festival way that fronts the Rhino Park. Okay. That's that's pretty much the extent of it. Got it. And so what what is not the quote unquote project is the affordable housing piece that would potentially be right on top of. Right. As I said, you know, it's a big investment and a big commitment to develop plans for one of these projects. So until the zoning is figured out, we've sort of held off on that part of it. Okay. So. I totally understand why you're saying that's great. It makes perfect sense to me. But then why are you applying for a waiver requiring no parking when you don't know what affordable housing options you're going to provide that would then you don't know whether you would need parking or not. Am I can you can you just explain? Sure.
Speaker 6: You know, the proposed waivers are only for the existing great divide site. So if they were to sell a portion of the land to make money, the waivers do not run with that parcel just with the great divide. Pursell.
Speaker 3: Okay. So that's it. So it will separate at that point and got it. So there would be parking required for the separate site if the if this rezoning were to be approved?
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm here to tell the owner. I know we don't.
Speaker 5: We're talking about affordable housing.
Speaker 0: But that only comes into play if you go for the height that's available in the plan as an option.
Speaker 5: How certain should we be.
Speaker 0: That affordable housing might be a part of this?
Speaker 3: So as I said in my speech, we definitely believe in density. We want to do a dense project here. While there's no guarantee we'll take advantage of the incentive height overlay and provide additional and provide affordable housing. That would be our plan.
Speaker 5: Okay. So it's just maybe, maybe, maybe not.
Speaker 3: Right. Okay. It's difficult to say with the uncertainty of the reason, as I said, and our inability to develop plans, we have every intention of taking advantage of the height overlay. But again, there's no guarantee. Sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: My question is for someone from the current ownership. Can you tell me if the loan has been paid off? That was obtained from Hawaii to purchase the land.
Speaker 0: Brian can do with that. As a as.
Speaker 5: A finance guy, I do know we pay it every month. So to date, we've paid 387,000 of principal and interest approximately, along with a $10,000 loan processing fee. And as a next Office of Economic Development employee, we hardly ever charge the loan processing fees. We got charged and we gladly paid. So that's 397,000. In addition, we have spoke with OED and we will be, if this goes through, will be adding another $350,000 loan pay down. So all in would be 747,000 on $1,000,000 loan taken out in 2013.
Speaker 2: So you would still have an outstanding balance. We would after paying your 350,000 from the sale. So I know typically when the city has been involved and I know this particularly to be more prevalent when we have nonprofits who are involved in purchasing land with city funding, they expect it all to be paid back at the time of a sale, or they expect affordable housing to continue where it's a nonprofit that's done housing. And it appears to me that we're using city money to create a windfall opportunity by selling part of the land that was originally acquired for this particular business. And when when you're able to sell it at a higher rate, it makes it harder to get affordable housing at a lower EMI scale because the next person coming in and acquiring it is paying a higher value for the land. So I guess I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about the the actual commitment of what is being proposed to go there. And I know when you go to the planning department, they probably tell you you don't have to tell city council any of this stuff because they're just dealing with the form of what your , you know, the scale and the form of what you're you're asking for. But. It's hard for us to know what you know, what the community's going to be dealing with. And I know in this area, as we have seen it completely, you know, it's almost completely built out where we have seen particularly housing. And in part of the issue is that we're not mandating the the amount of parking that might otherwise be required because you've got to tod stops close to this area but yet all up and down the the Arkansas coast Arkansas court next to the South Platte River, you've got cars bumper to bumper. And I don't know if those are employees, if those are tenants from the housing. And and so I'm struggling with how we address that balance of of what is needed. So I don't know if any of you want to speak to how the need for parking for the business is going to be sufficient. I've been to the facility many times for various functions and that lot kind of fills up if you have a bigger a bigger event. So do you feel like that in any way, shape or form is going to compromise the the kinds of. Events you might be able to attract if you don't have the kind of parking with with the other part of the land being developed on.
Speaker 5: Well, let me first just say that in regards to the loan and the pay down, yes, there will be a balance, but there will also be a deed of trust still out with the city. So their remaining balance will be securitized against our existing facility, which is the 65,000 square foot property. So they will still have a deed of trust. They're doing a partial release in exchange for a pay down of the loan. And again, those funds are able to then get Revolv back out into the community as other CDBG business loans, grants to nonprofits and loans or grants to low income housing projects as far as the parking . You know, obviously, we have a great partner, Mcwhinney, and we're going to work together to understand what their phasing of their project might look like. But for the foreseeable future, there still will be vacant land that could be used. Yes, it's it's owned by them. But I believe that we have the ability to find other parking in the in the district and in the neighborhood, for instance, office space that uses their parking lot during the day, but not in the evening when most of our events would occur.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. And then I just have one last question for CPD.
Speaker 3: Sure. Councilman Ortega, I just wanted to address to two issues that you raised. First, with respect to the amounts of affordable housing, my my colleague Kirsty mentioned this earlier, but as you know, Mcwhinney hasn't really sort of figured out the full development program for the site. They're looking at retail, they're looking at residential, they're looking at office, and they're trying to see what is most viable in connection with affordable housing. They will comply with the law that's in effect at the time that they are pursuing their SGP approval and their building permit approvals. And so if they elect to build up to the incentive height, they will of course also comply with the incentive overlay requirements. I did want to call out that Mcwhinney, as Kirsty mentioned recently, acquired some property at 30th and Blake they are intending to build up to the incentive height on that particular property and in fact have agreed to provide affordable housing units above and beyond what is actually required by the city under the incentive overlay. And as it relates to parking, I think it's somewhat of a similar answer in the sense that they will have to evaluate the program and understand what their ultimate users are and how that interfaces with the neighborhood and how, you know, the parking analysis will work in terms of the dose of an overlay and what is required. So that's a little bit of a TBD, but obviously we're sensitive to parking and need, you know, need to build a project that works for our end users, tenants, etc..
Speaker 2: So one last question for CPD. So assuming that this all goes through, they sell it, mcwhinney buys it and they're going to max out the the density of what they could do on the site. Who determines what the EMI scales are for affordability on the project?
Speaker 6: Ditto controls oped housing stability, Department of Housing Stability now and then as host.
Speaker 2: And do we have anything that is standardized or is it all done on a case by case basis? Please.
Speaker 3: I don't see.
Speaker 0: Our partners from host here tonight. So yeah so.
Speaker 5: I'm kind of part of a community planning in development. The incentive overlay in order to take advantage of it, you are required to follow the Chapter 27 housing.
Speaker 0: Rules as they relate to the incentive overlay those rules required. Then Dito now the Department of Housing.
Speaker 5: Instability to adopt a rules and regulations that set forth how.
Speaker 0: You comply with that and provide plans for how you can what level affordability as you can achieve and you're required to achieve and all the rest. So they are set forth both in chapter 27 and in rules and regs adopted by now.
Speaker 2: Host So do we have those rules and regs in place?
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Councilor.
Speaker 3: And can I send a lifeline?
Speaker 0: Looks like she has an answer to the question. You are jumping?
Speaker 3: Yeah. The way the ordinance was adopted, the default and my level is currently 80% of am I. What happens is that if you do, there's there's two there's three options. Under the standard ordinance rate, you pay the fee you build on site, or you do a build alternative plan, which can include a different number of units or a different set of images. And so there is the potential to negotiate an agreement to provide a different set of images. And for example, that's the plan that was used at River Mile, where the developer decided to do a difference, entered into a negotiation with the city to negotiate different levels. But if you take the automatic trade, the height for the affordability, then it will be at 80% of AMI. There are some, some, some, some, some ways that they can talk about bedroom sizes and army levels and alternatives. But but I will just say to I don't know if you want to speak to the study, but there is a CPD hosted study that's going out right now to examine whether or not those army levels should change or the build formula should change. And so that's for the base zoning as well as for future incentive overlays. So there's I don't know that we can say for sure in the future that it will always be this level because the study is intended to look at that. So I don't know if confirm if. That's right. Sure.
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, that's right.
Speaker 0: So the zoning just refers to the housing is the housing is easier to change over time and react and respond. So what I would agree with what was said earlier, they'll be was.
Speaker 5: They'll be held to whatever requirements are in place at the time.
Speaker 0: That they develop.
Speaker 2: And when is that study expected to be completed? Any idea? 18 months. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman and Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This question is.
Speaker 3: For.
Speaker 8: The owner. It sounds like we have some processes that are going on right now. We're waiting for a potential text amendment. We've got the the incentive overlay study going on. And you guys don't have a plan yet and a sale hasn't happened yet. So there sounds like there's some things going on with you all, too. What is the rush? Why not create the plan and then come back to zoning? Why not have the transaction completed? Figure out your plan and come back to us with your plan.
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you for your question, Councilman CdeBaca. I think that the issue is that in order for Mcwhinney to develop a plan, they have to engage engineers, architects, etc. And there's a great deal of cost associated with coming up with those plans. And they don't want to develop the plans until they know sort of what the base zoning is, so they know what they're designing to.
Speaker 8: So I'm really concerned about this one because I love Union Station, but it's not a place that we can go all the time because it's very expensive. The placemaking element of it was not designed to be affordable, and I don't recall when I was doing my research. Any other projects that you've done affordable housing on? And so I'm, I'm hearing 38 them. Blake But that's not complete yet, right? It's not.
Speaker 3: So 38 and Blake, they are in the process of getting an approved site development plan. They're very close and they'll move forward to with the balance of the process, which I believe is building permits and whatnot. But the site development plan and the BAP that we're working out with DOE requires us to build a certain number of residential units on that particular project. And as I mentioned, Mcwhinney has voluntarily elected to build affordable units in excess of the number required by the city to get the incentive high.
Speaker 8: And are you guys going to go all the use the whole incentive, or do you plan to use part of the incentive because that drastically changes how many units we get that are affordable. And the affordable is at the 80%.
Speaker 3: Are you talking about this 34th thing? Yeah. Brighten the.
Speaker 8: Subject? No. Well, what are you guys doing on Blake? Because that's a great indicator of what you'll do here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can say. Yeah. So our current plans that are in for review for STP contemplate 17 stories. So that's taking full advantage of the height overlay and the design overlay. The BAP form calculates your number of affordable housing units based on gross square foot. So the bigger your building, the more affordable units you have to provide. So we made the building as big as we could and the the BAP form which is generated by DITO and given to us and we fill it out and it tells you your number of units was based on that.
Speaker 8: And how many units is that.
Speaker 3: The form calculated? 19.
Speaker 8: Out of how many total?
Speaker 3: 348. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. When I first looked at this, I thought, this is a slam dunk. There's no one against it. And yet here we are still talking about it. So I am I am starting to be concerned, frankly, and just the the lack of a plan for immediate development. I think you have a reasonable explanation. But I also that there you're using public funds and not fully repaying the public funds. And then I've been looking up the actual location where the great divide is. Would I have someone from the Great Divide come forward for a second? How wide are your sidewalks on Brighton in front of the Great Divide?
Speaker 0: Whatever the city made us there asks us to do well and remember. And we go ahead.
Speaker 5: We go.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 5: That was part of the area where the Brighton Boulevard capital investment took place. And so we put in a temporary condition because we were ahead of that construction. But the city allowed us to do that because knowing that construction was right on our heels to build that out. And that was part of the capital improvement project along Brighton Boulevard that both the city and the property owners as part of the General Improvement District supported financially.
Speaker 4: So there are sections and immediately in front of great divide where there are those columns, those decorative columns where the sidewalk is narrower than four feet wide. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: I don't know exactly, but it is narrower. Yes.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. So I actually was part of a an article that was in one of the local publications. There's someone here in the room who edited that article. And that area actually isn't four feet wide. And now I'm concerned that Dito is using public funds. We had a public improvement project and we didn't follow ADA standards. I, I just assumed that that was privately funded. So now I have concerns about what are we doing with this new development that's, that's backed by a great divide. So I'm not sure exactly where I want to go with this, but but I you know, if if we don't know exactly what we plan to do with the neighboring section, I just I just want to understand, you know, are are we working with an organization that will. Follow the rules and make sure that I mean, we wanted Britain to be a corridor that's accessible for everyone. And and so I'm somewhat frustrated with Britain because it is not accessible for pedestrians and I use a wheelchair for my body. That's a pretty important mobility feature for me. Just. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval, did you still a question?
Speaker 7: I did. I found it. Sorry about that, Councilman. Mr. President. So to the owner or mcwhinney whoever couldn't take this one, why are both parcels being re zoned? Why was not? Why is the brewery not just staying in the party and the other part going to see Max?
Speaker 3: Because we were instructed to do it this way by CPD.
Speaker 7: The CPD gives you told you that you had to rezone both properties.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 7: Can I ask Brandon? That is that is so this is not to take us back a couple weeks ago with this seems like a consistent thing that CPD keeps pushing property owners into zoned districts. And in my six and a half years here, I have not heard CPD do that. So did you guys recommend that they had to do this? Is it like based on parcel size, acreage size? Like what was why?
Speaker 6: Oh, I don't know if I would say that CPD directed them to that. It is CPD's practice to limit the use of custom zoning. So where we saw an opportunity to take away APD and replace it with waivers that were specific to that site and then resume the other piece to a standard zoned district, I think that was the thinking on our behalf.
Speaker 7: Tried to get at a customized zoned zoning. So the only I have one question following up, but there still is customized zoning with the with the waivers. Right. So we're not eliminating all customized zoning on this property. There still will be customized zoning because of the waivers.
Speaker 6: There's customized zoning that would move forward to allow great divide to continue its current operation. Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. That's it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. So no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 964 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman said about you, this one's in your district. Did you want to comment first?
Speaker 8: CHAIR Thank you, Mr. President. I am very concerned about this one, and I've been concerned since you all came to committee. I don't think that this is an appropriate shift, especially without a plan. I think that the sale of the parcel that was used or that was bought with city dollars feels inappropriate. It doesn't feel different than profiting off of a subsidized home. And so I am not supportive of this tonight and I hope my colleagues will follow. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So this one is a little bit close to home because I used to work for Councilman Monteiro and I worked on this Peabody, so I knew the justifying circumstances. In 2013, I saw more agencies working together to get this property, this catalytic property on Brighton Boulevard, and that we needed to advance the Brighton Boulevard with the DCC. So we had in DCC, we had already we had Parks and Rec, we had public works and we had CPD at the table. And in six and a half years I have never had that many agencies talking about a rezoning. So for me, I don't feel like there's enough justifying circumstances that the landscape has changed enough to justify going back to a zone district that was formed in 2010. So when the city and county of Denver updated our whole entire zoning, we had the opportunity. It was a five year robust process. There was tons of outreach and there are parcels in northwest Denver that do not have updated zoning that are called Chapter 59, part of the old zoning. And in northwest Denver, I have had the need to use customized zoning to save some of our historic properties and historic structures. And we have not been allowed to use customary zoning. We've had properties in northwest Denver that needed OED dollars to make sure that we had robust commercial zones. And we have not have been granted OED dollars. We have not been granted OED dollars based upon contingent upon a rezoning. So for me, this one seems like there's a lot of city investment, which there is if you look at buy in Boulevard and the mayor's budget since the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative was started, this area has received more capital improvement and more money than any other area in Denver. And I'm thankful for that. I think it's redeveloped. I don't agree with. Everything. But tonight, I just do not feel that this rezoning meets the criteria that you all are basing it on. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I think that there are a lot of balls up in the air. We don't have a specific project in mind right now. It looks like we're thinking about doing some rezoning as well. And just to be consistent with if we're if we want to make sure that we, you know, with our budget discussion earlier tonight, if we're going to have I mean, if we're going to think things through before we greenlight things, I think this is a number another opportunity for us to think things through. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this. It does meet the.
Speaker 3: Criteria, and.
Speaker 7: It is not within.
Speaker 8: Our law that you really you provide us with the plan.
Speaker 7: And I understand why you don't have one without having the zoning redone. It's a priority for this council and for our administration that we get more affordable housing, which is why we have these incentive overlays, especially in this area. And I see Chris Nevitt back there, our Tweedy director, and I know it's it's very important to him and the people he works with in CPD and our DITO Department that we get affordable housing in this area. So I'm excited about the sense of overlay. I know the city spent a lot of resources creating that and I will be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Seeing no other comments this evening. I'll just add that I agree with Councilwoman Black that this application has met the legal criteria for rezoning. I think some more discussion and the discussion that we continue having is about what we're presented in front of us when we're making these decisions. And I think that warrants us continuing to look at how that can be different. But it is not right now. And I think as demonstrated in the staff report, this meets the legal criteria for a rezoning. So I will be supporting it tonight. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel CdeBaca. No Black.
Speaker 7: Eye.
Speaker 5: When I.
Speaker 3: Gillmor I.
Speaker 0: Herndon High.
Speaker 4: Hines Ney.
Speaker 2: Cashman High. Kenny Ortega Reluctantly.
Speaker 7: Sandoval No.
Speaker 3: Sawyer No.
Speaker 2: Tourists? No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Right. Madam Secretary, please close voting and notes results in 12. Go.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes, five.
Speaker 0: Nest, eight eyes, five needs constable 964 has passed. Desmond Flynn, will you please put Counsel Bill 1967 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 967 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3395 Brighton Boulevard and 3333 Brighton Boulevard in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at 3333 and 3395 Brighton Boulevard from PUD-G#7, UO-2 to C-MX-8, IO-1, DO-7 and C-MX-8, IO-1, DO-7 with waivers (planned development to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-24-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11042019_19-0967
|
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 967 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 964 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Jerusalem. Sara with community planning and development. This is another map amendment. Located at 18300 East 66th Avenue. The request is to rezone from a former Chapter 59 Zone District, CMU 20 with waivers and conditions. Air which is the airport overlay to suburban context. Community Community Corridor I'm sorry commercial corridor five stories air which is the airport overlay and I'm you aren't seeing and I have no.
Speaker 0: Reference to technical difficulties on the display here.
Speaker 2: Arrow so I'm going to use. So this is in city. Are you not seeing us? No.
Speaker 0: We have it in our system. But we're seeing this in the years. You know.
Speaker 2: The public seeing it, though?
Speaker 7: I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Maybe it will wait. So maybe here. Does that help, huh?
Speaker 0: Here we go. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay, so, city, this is in Council District 11 in the DIA neighborhood. Again, the request is to rezone to suburban commercial corridor five stories with an airport overlay, and the only building form allowed would be a general building form. And the airport overlay. I don't know if you're familiar with, but does accommodate airport operations and impacts to surrounding properties. So the existing zoning again is a Chapter 59 zone district with waivers and conditions and waivers and conditions. You have a copy of that ordinance in your staff report, but most of them are related to airport operations and impacts to surrounding properties. So the subject property again CAMUTO with waivers and conditions. To the north and east and west. The same zone district to the south is CMU ten. Another Chapter 59 zone district with similar waivers and conditions and the airport overlay. So a lot of vacant land in this area currently is property is vacant. To the north is a hotel and to the southeast is a new 7-Eleven that isn't even showing up on this map . South and west vacant. And on this map, you do see the 7-Eleven down in the corner here. So. That's what it looks like out in this area. The pictures also show you very much vacant. There is that, again, a hotel to the north and to the southeast, a new 7-Eleven. So informational notice on this went out in June of this year. Planning Board Notice was posted for a August hearing. At that hearing, there was unanimous support for this rezoning. And then we were at Liberty in September, and it was passed on to the full council. And we are here tonight with a properly notified public hearing. So there are several RINO's in the area, but no one has written in a letter, a comment letter, no R.A. letters and no other public comments. So, you know, the criteria, the plans that apply our current plan, 2040 Blueprint, Denver 2019 and the New Far Northeast Area Plan, the same year this year, 2019. So there is support for this in plan 2040 to build a network of well connected, mixed use centers and corridors to facilitate growth of a diverse business sector, to support our airport as the gateway to Denver and the world, and to promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. The Blueprint. Denver The future context is suburban, as we said earlier. Single family, multi-family, residential on commercial corridors and centers, a mixture of land uses generally curvilinear streets. Although in the Gateway area or this area, the air area, we are actually getting some grade streets. So that's a good thing. And then of course, the DIA overlay future please type in Blueprint. Denver is community center, which is a mix of office, commercial, residential and different varying scales large to small. And then again that I o which is the overlay and a recommended height of five stories. Street classifications for 66th Avenue is an underserved needed local Yampa Street to the west is a commercial corridor and then tower half a street. Half a block to the east is a commercial arterial. Future Growth Strategy from Blueprint. Denver is community centers and corridors anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth and 20% of new employment growth. Far Northeast Area Plan again suburban suburban context which speaks to commercial development focused along main corridors and centers. Community Corridor Future Place, which is a mix of retail, food, beverage, entertainment, hospital, hospitality and office uses and oriented along streets. Far northeast area plan growth strategy is the same community centers and corridors with most growth going to greenfield areas and existing community centers and corridors such as Tower Road maximum recommended height in far northeast area plan is eight stories and the DIA neighborhood corridors are are seen to be on major through streets and major at major intersections. There is also a GDP for the area that is a 2000 to document. That speaks it's a very simple two or three page GDP speaks to development of the CMU 20 mixed use zone district two. Those standards, which are very similar to our SCC five that's being proposed with that staff, believes this is consistent with our adopted plans that we are by using a standard zoned district, we're furthering the uniform application of our zone district city wide by allowing new development on vacant property that's consistent with our desired character. As described in our adopted plans, we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare justifying circumstances changed conditions. We are zoning out of a Chapter 59 zone district. We have three new plans with new direction for this area. So staff believes change conditions is a correct justifying circumstance. And then we did already discuss a little bit about this being consistent with the suburban context and the intent of the CC Zone district for our corridors. With that Stafford. Approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Mark Throckmorton. Of the four of you, if you could just come up to the microphone, introduce yourself and just say that you're here for questions. Mark Throckmorton with Elsie, full and whiner representing the landowner, and I'll defer for questions. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Members of Council Council President Clark. My name is just Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Lao Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense Positive Action Commissioned for Social Change, Unity Party of Colorado and the Universe of African Peoples Organization. Denver Chapter. We are neither for or against this. I really want to know exactly what the army level is going to be for the housing proposals house and that is going to be in this area. I was just out in this area recently, about a couple of months ago, and I seen rapid development going on. It looks like this is going to become another Denver Tech Center. This would be Texas in our number two because we have Panasonic and other tech companies out there as well. So I would like to know what the AMA level is going to be for the proposed House in this area and exactly who is going to occupy this space. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up for both.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Council President and Council Member Thanks for having this. Ferdinando 725 17th Street, Denver, Colorado. I am president of LC Film and Writer Inc the landowner and the applicant. I think I'll just keep this very simple. We were in the old zoning code and we're looking at flexibility uses and SCC seems to be the best rate along town road and commercial corridor. And over time we will probably come in with other land to try to get out of the old zoning code into the new code. So marker or I are here for any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there questions from members of council?
Speaker 2: Councilman Ortega offered, if you wouldn't mind, coming back up. So where is this in proximity to the the development that is closer to the transit stop?
Speaker 5: So it's about just over a mile north, probably a mile and a quarter north. It is a long tower road. Long tower road. We're experiencing more auto and type uses. And right around the rail stop, we're saving that for more dense uses. We have a hotel that's going to be opening soon and we're working with additional users to have a densify closer to the rail shop.
Speaker 2: Any idea on what percentage of housing might be included in this proposed site?
Speaker 5: According to the airport overlay district, we cannot have any housing north of 64th Street, so we will know.
Speaker 2: That was going to be my next question about the noise contour. Yeah, I'm looking at this contour map right here. And so I was just trying to understand this map is not showing me the actual street grid of where the southernmost part of the noise contour is. That and I know we've already encroached into that with the development that is part of the 64th and pioneer area. So so this will not and cannot have any housing at all, is what you're saying?
Speaker 5: Correct. There's no no housing north of 64th on our land and there's no single family housing north of 56. And this being north of 64, there will be no housing.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, I'm seeing. Oh, Councilman Hernan.
Speaker 5: Teresa, is this the first rezoning where we are using the far northeast neighborhood plan? I would just.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 5: Wonderful. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herman. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 967 is closed. Comments by members of council. So I'm Gilmore. This one's in your district. Would you like to go first?
Speaker 10: CHAIR Thank you, President. Clerk I will be supporting this rezoning tonight. This was this entire tower road corridor was the point of many, many conversations during the far northeast neighborhood planning process and folks really wanting to see commercial corridor businesses along this area and you know, looking at some collision repair auto uses is something that the neighborhood really wanted to have close to home. We a lot of times have to go to Aurora or outside of Denver to get those services. And so I see that it meets all the criteria and I'll be supporting it today. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Seeing no other comments, I'll just add my thanks to staff for all your hard work on this report. I think it clearly shows that it meets the criteria and I will be supporting it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Gilmore I.
Speaker 7: Black I.
Speaker 2: Said about that.
Speaker 3: I'm going to abstain.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 3: Gilmore.
Speaker 2: I earned it.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Hinds. High Cashman.
Speaker 2: Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I.
Speaker 7: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Torres. I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes one abstention.
Speaker 0: Provides one abstention. Council Bill 967 has passed. Right next up, the council will recess and reconvene as the board of equalization. First up, Golden Triangle pedestrian mall. Though a protest letter was filed for the Golden Triangle Pedestrian Mall because no speakers have signed up to speak, council will forgo holding a public hearing on this local maintenance district
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 18300 East 66th Avenue in DIA.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 18300 East 66th Avenue from C-MU-20 with waivers and conditions, AIO to S-CC-5, AIO (urban center, multi-unit to suburban commercial corridor with airport influence overlay) in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-24-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10282019_19-1073
|
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions, Councilman Sawyer has called out Resolutions 1073 and 1074 for questions under bills, for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first items on our screen? And, Councilman Sawyer. Go ahead with your questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to just be talked to the airport quickly about these two oil and gas contracts. I just want to clarify a couple of things, if you guys don't mind. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hi. Rachel Marion, director of government affairs for Denver International Airport. Hi. Thanks.
Speaker 4: Thanks for coming tonight. I appreciate it. Just wanted to we sort of went through this in committee, but I just want to make sure for everyone watching at home this evening that we just clarify exactly what's going on with these contracts and what's happening as they come through. So can you just kind of talk a little bit about what these contracts are and what they're doing?
Speaker 1: Sure. So we currently have 76 oil and gas wells on airport property, most of which existed prior to the airport being built on that land. And what these contracts do are they fulfill our environmental and safety regulatory obligations. So checking on them daily to ensure that that leaks aren't happening and then responding in the case of any sort of emergency. What these contracts do not do is enable any sort of oil and gas production at the airport.
Speaker 4: Okay. And so the requirements that are in place, we are. Can you just explain we are required to have these contracts. In place.
Speaker 1: Sure. So on the federal level, we have Environmental Protection Agency, EPA requirements. At the state level, we have code CC, which is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission requirements. And we also have Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment requirements with regard to all of our existing oil and natural gas wells.
Speaker 4: Okay. And so as long as we keep any oil wells that could potentially go back to being active, we are required to maintain these these contracts as active. Is that true? Correct. Okay. And so these contracts are for how long?
Speaker 1: The contracts are for three years with two one year extensions. One of the contracts, the existing contract expires at the end of this month. The other expires in December. So we're bringing them on to the same schedule. But it's three years with two one year extension options.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And so there's just to clarify then there's no option for us to have these contracts not continue forward. We're required to have these in order to maintain these 76 wells on the airport land.
Speaker 1: Correct. So these contracts are necessary for us to meet our environmental and safety regulatory requirements as required by federal and state regulation.
Speaker 4: Okay, perfect. Thank you very much for clarifying. I really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman, to our Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Hello. Hi. How are you doing?
Speaker 1: Great. How are you?
Speaker 6: I'm all right. Thanks for coming. So I have a few questions. So there was one example last. So the last actually couple of questions. When was the last time we extracted anything from these wells?
Speaker 1: All of our wells have been shut in since May of 2018.
Speaker 6: Okay. And there was one instance of a leak identified between May of 2018 and today. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 6: No more than one.
Speaker 1: No more than one. And then prior to the leak that happened earlier this year, the most recent leak was in 2014.
Speaker 6: And do you know how much leaked in the in that the 20. The one the recent one?
Speaker 1: I do not I do know that as a result of these contracts, we were immediately responsive and there were no incidents of environmental contamination after the leak was identified and remediated.
Speaker 6: Okay. How much would it cost to permanently close? I'm sorry. There's 76 wells. Four or five have been permanently closed. Is that right?
Speaker 1: We're in the process of the the correct term is plugging and abandoning. So we're in the process of plugging and abandoning five wells this year.
Speaker 6: Okay. And how much would it cost to plug and abandon all wells?
Speaker 1: The most recent estimate we have is $9 million to plug in, abandon all of the wells.
Speaker 6: Okay. Final question. I asked you this and I'll ask you again. If you if the if ten does choose to consider resuming production from any of these wells. You will give us the opportunity to discuss that in advance. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hinds. All right. Seeing no other questions on that item. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Our bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. 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 an item out for a separate vote. Councilman Sandoval, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move that resolutions be adopted in bills and confine on final consideration, be placed placed upon final consideration, and do passed in a block for the following items. Oh 19 Series ten 6610 6710 6810 7310 7410 5010 5910 6510 7510 7610 zero seven 1061, 1063, 1069, ten, 60, ten, 72, ten, 64, ten.
Speaker 0: Well, just second. I think we got off track here, Madam Secretary. I saw I've gone from 1069 to 10. 48. Am I missing? Did we miss out on that?
Speaker 5: Mr..
Speaker 2: Yeah. So we should have 1069 1048 1038 1039, 1049, 891 and 1019 to conclude that list.
Speaker 5: Okay. Do I have to say I'm or can you say.
Speaker 0: All right, so we got them all, Madam Secretary. Yes. Thank you. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel Black. I see. Tobacco, i. Flynn, I Gillmor, i.
Speaker 7: Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Hines.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: Cashman High.
Speaker 2: Commission I. Ortega, I.
Speaker 5: Sandoval, I.
Speaker 2: Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and note the results. 1339 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight, there will be required public hearing on Council Bill nine five for designating 2288 South Milwaukee Street as a structure for preservation.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and ATP Oilfield Services, LLC concerning on-call maintenance of oil and gas wells located at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with ATP Oilfield Services for $2,500,000 and through 12-31-22, with two possible one-year extensions, to provide on-call roustabout services for Denver International Airport oil and gas wells, including labor, equipment, and associated supplies to maintain, plus corresponding flowline, gas lines, and tank lines to adhere to all federal and state environmental and safety regulations, as required for regulatory compliance regardless of well status (201948714). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-18-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-16-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10282019_19-0954
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvened. We have three public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must say 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 Wall, will you please put Council Bill 954 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 19 0954 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bill 954 is open. May we have the staff report it?
Speaker 4: Evening Council. My name is Jenny Button Bergen with Community Planning and Development and I'm going to go through 2288 South Milwaukee Street, a landmark designation application. The ability to designate individual landmarks and historic districts in the city and county of Denver is set forth in the 1967 Preservation Order and Landmark Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to designate, preserve and protect historic structures, foster civic pride, stabilize and improve esthetic and economic vitality, and promote good urban design. We currently have 344 individual landmarks, which you can see on the screen indicated by the red dots in 55 historic districts which are indicated in the colored blocks by year of designation. This equals about 7000 buildings or 4% of the city, one and 25 structures that are designated landmarks in the city and county of Denver. Designation applications can be accepted by a variety of people. It is a community driven process, and those who can designate through applications are the owner or owners of the property, manager of a community planning and development, a member or members of City Council, and three people who are either residents, property owners, or have a place of business in Denver. Four 2288 South Milwaukee Street. The owner is the applicant, Francis Taylor, who is here with us this evening. This is in the University Park Neighborhood Council, District Number six, Councilman Paul Cashman and Blueprint Denver. This is the urban neighborhood context and low residential area future place. The current zoning is you as you see for a property or properties to be designated. They have to meet a set of criteria. They need to meet a designation criterion and at least two categories of history, architecture or geography. They must maintain a historic and physical integrity, and they need to be considered by the Landmark Preservation Commission for relation to historic context or theme for this property. It meets History C, which is to have direct and substantial association with the person or group of persons who had influence on society in architecture. B Which is to be the significant work of a recognized architect or master builder. And I'll go both of these and go, Excuse me, go through both of these in detail. Now, the property is directly associated with Dr. Edward Jackson, a well-known and highly celebrated ophthalmologist who commissioned the design and construction of 2288 South Milwaukee Street in resided in the home with his family from 1902 to 1920. Dr. Jackson was a major figure in advancing modern American ophthalmology. Excuse me? I lost my cursor on the screen. He developed new techniques for examining the eyes, such as Jackson's cross cylinders seen in the top right of the screen, used for the final fine tuning of the access and strength of astigmatism. He's also credited with popularizing the use of the retina scope seen in the lower right of the screen, a handheld instrument that objectively determines the refractive error of the eye. Indeed, for glasses, Jackson was a founding director of the American Board about the malady in the Colorado Optimal Logical Society. He was appointed Professor of ophthalmology at the University of Colorado Medical School and established the country's first postgraduate course in ophthalmology. Many of his career achievements occurred while he resided at 2288 South Milwaukee Street. The House at 2288 South Milwaukee Street, built in 1902, is a significant example of an upscale version of the four square form designed by Denver architect Glenwood. Huntington. Huntington ran a Denver practice between 1897 and 1938 and built a prolific career, mainly focused on residential designs. Many of his Denver projects are still extensive and contribute to local historic districts like East Seventh Avenue, Humboldt Street, Alamo, Casita, Wyman and Country Club. Few residential examples of Huntington's work have been recorded or documented in the University Park neighborhood. Like 2288 South Milwaukee Street. This Huntington house is unique given its substantial size footprint and a wraparound, uncovered front porch, facilitated in part due to its large corner lot setting. It demonstrates the character defining features of the four square form, such as a two story hipped roof structure with minimal decoration, broad overhanging eaves, classical frieze with holes and porch. It is unique given the absence of a full covered front porch and large dormer with a palladian window. Common design elements that Huntington included in other Foursquare designs. Yet it illustrates other Huntington trademarks like the use of brick and rough cut stone at the foundation, lintels and sills. It is an excellent, intact example of an early Foursquare form in Huntington design. The primary structure retains integrity of location, design, setting materials and workmanship, feeling and association. Early alterations that gain significance include a 1930 concrete floor replacement on the front porch and a 1934 partial two story brick addition on the rear elevation that you can see in the photo on the top of the screen. A late 1960s roof addition to the rear patio is compatible with the character of the house. That's the bottom photo. The openings have not been modified. Most of the windows are original and most of the original materials remain. Huntington's design is easily recognizable in terms of a historic context or theme. The property relates to the development of the University Park neighborhood, built in 1902 and a prominent corner location across from Observatory Park. The house was the first residence built on the block and is one of the earliest in the University Park neighborhood. As such, it also relates to the establishment and growth of the University of Denver. The land upon which the property sits was transferred to the Colorado Seminary in 1886 and platted for residential development under a vision named the University Park Colony to provide revenue through land sales to support the University of Denver, which opened in 1890. The proposed designation is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the 28 University Park Neighborhood Plan. It meets several comprehensive plan vision elements, including the goal to preserve the authenticity of Denver's neighborhoods and celebrate our history, architecture and culture. It is consistent with Blueprint Denver's vision to improve quality of design that preserves and creates authentic places using historic designation as a tool. And lastly, it meets a primary goal of the University Park Neighborhood Plan by maintaining the historic character's neighborhood while accommodating change. In summary, the property meets the criteria for landmark designation. It meets one designation criterion in two categories history and architecture. It maintains its historic and physical integrity, and it relates to historic context or theme. Two members of the public have provided comment and supported the designation application not in opposition, and the Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously recommended approval . Therefore, staff recommends approval and forwarding. Excuse me of my old notes on here. Recommends your approval as City Council for Landmark Designation of 2288 South Milwaukee Street. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have nine individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'm going to call the first five up if you can come up to the front bench so that we can get everybody going. Barbara Paul Chairman Sekou Frannie Taylor, Candace Christiansen and Rosemary Stoffel. And Barbara Paul, you are up first.
Speaker 2: Thank you and good evening. My name is Barbara Paul. I'm the senior vice president for Field Services at the National Trust for Historic Preservation. But I'm really here tonight because I also live in the University Park neighborhood. The National Trust happens to own the historic Emerson School in in your district, Councilman Hines, which is also landmarked. But I'm here tonight principally to support Fran Taylor, who is a good friend and colleague and been a long supporter of historic preservation at the National Trust and Historic Denver and really all that Fran and her late husband Eric did to be such a good steward of this of this property. And I also want to draw awareness to the unique history of University Park. I know that you are aware that the Denver land, the survey of historic properties in Denver is woefully incomplete and never did get south far enough to our wonderful neighborhood in a store in the University Park neighborhood. And so that's a strong association with the development of the University of Denver is just starting to become known as we start bringing these properties forward to you. But I think it's also important to remember that preservation of historic buildings takes commitment, it takes resources, it takes patience. And and we really the opportunity here to sort of honor that legacy of people like Fran and Eric and what they've done with this property through landmark designation is really the right thing to do because the decision to tear something down only happens once. Demolition is forever. There's no do overs, there's no mulligans. But the decision to save something is something that has to be made over and over again. And I think the opportunity to landmark this special property in my neighborhood is important. That said, there are many other properties in our neighborhood that are being lost because they are not protected. So what I want you to consider is what Fran's doing tonight and which we hope you'll support, is just the beginning. My husband's here tonight. We have a property home that was built in 1892, and if we're lucky, we hope to be able to bring that house in front of you after the first of the year and ask your support for designating it. And we hope others in our neighborhood will want to do the same. So I urge you to support designation of this property. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 9: Yes. My name is German Sekou. I am the founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. And. We'll also be the. United States senator, 2020 in Colorado. This historical designation process. And. The criteria which we choose. To decide who gets it and who don't. Has to do with. Two things. One, the integrity of the. Structure. And also. The contribution that. The particular original owner represents. And we have to qualify for one out of the two. What we need to start looking at is. How in the context. Did this structure get created at the time that it was created? What was the social consequences that allowed sort of structure and person to be there? If we that the background of Dr. Jackson. It was a couple of surprises there. And I don't know if anyone has taken the opportunity to look at him and his social associations at that time. We know for sure in 1902. It was not a very good year for black people in this town. And just as we have chosen to glorify the designations of Ku Klux Klan members like Mayor Stapleton. We have to look at this day and look at what are we really preserving and what type of legacy we promote. So I'm neither for nor against this thing. Well, I am seeking counsel. I'm sorry, but your time is out the gate. How? We thank you very much. And who we choose next is in terms of the role for any tailor in society and not cover over.
Speaker 10: Things that people have.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Francis Keller. I'm the owner of 2288 South Milwaukee Street. My husband, my late husband, Eric and I purchased the house in 1967. We have raised three children there about house and its side. Lot have been the scene of many lovely, fun parties, wedding reception meetings, all kinds of things fierce croquet matches, badminton contests and kids soccer games on the sideline. In addition to that, we have the entire observatory park in front of us as a playground. We loved the Observatory Park neighborhood with its tree lined streets and leafy, friendly family ambiance. But then the Scrapers came, and first it was older properties such as ours. Then it was starter bungalows and now sixties ranch houses. There are. It was an epidemic of scraping their entire blocks where there is nothing but recent construction. As my brother aptly said a couple of years ago when I was driving him around. He said, you know, if I wanted to live in a Tuscan villa, I would move to Tuscany. So this is what is happening, and the fabric of the neighborhood has been altered mostly inappropriately. So I ask your indulgence in landmarking this house. It deserves to stay. It's reflective of a period of history in Denver which should not be left alone. And I hope that some other family with three children will move in and enjoy it just as much as we did. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Candace Christiansen.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Thanks for letting me speak tonight. And thank you for.
Speaker 4: Any for your application.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 1: This.
Speaker 2: The designate sorry this historic property.
Speaker 4: As some of you are aware.
Speaker 2: The University Park Community Council has a tradition of actively working with city agencies, nonprofits, elected officials for issues with neighborhood and with the city at large. University Park Community Council worked with the landmark staff and historic Denver on restaurant restoration and designation of other historic landmarks in our neighborhood, including the Chamberlain Observatory, which is part of the Observatory Park, Fitzroy Place Mansion, the Hollin House.
Speaker 4: And recently AUM Lee Upsc continues to work with current action funds projects.
Speaker 2: And we have worked with recently Councilman Cashman on the long House rezoning and I've been actively engaged in the 2010 zoning update process and we work closely with CPD and the University's Park Small Area plan. One of the reasons we chose you park as a family. When my family moved, there was access to a reasonably sized home, a walkable neighborhood near major transit. Since moving here in 2012, we have seen the loss of many homes for giant.
Speaker 4: Inefficient carbon sacking single family homes.
Speaker 2: The preservation and thoughtful renovations of the stately homes adds to the historic context.
Speaker 4: Of the neighborhood. And we like you to support that tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record?
Speaker 2: I did not. Sorry. I'm Candice Christianson, the PCC president.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Rosemarie Stoffel.
Speaker 4: My name is Rosemary Stoffel and I live a 2275 South Monroe Street in University Park. I'm the chair of the Community Preservation Committee, which was formed after residents were becoming more vocal about the loss of so many of our older homes. University Park is one of Denver's oldest neighborhoods and our earliest home state to the late 1800s. The goals of our committee are to help our residents become more aware of our history and our historic buildings and to continue to preserve as many of the most important ones as we can. We are so grateful to Franny for initiating this designation and ensuring that one of the earliest homes in our neighborhood isn't lost in the future. Her home anchors the southeast corner of Observatory Park and is the book bookend to what was another historic home on the northeast corner of the park. That house was not designated and was demolished several years ago. Shortly after that, we lost two more important houses posted as being potentially eligible for landmark designation. Franny has watched these and other homes disappear since moving here in 1967 and wanted to designate her home for the neighborhood as well as for herself and her children. She and her husband, Eric Notices, have been wonderful stewards of this home, which Franny continues now. I look at this designation as not only a gift to our neighborhood, but to the entire city. The recently adopted blueprint, Denver, includes preservation of our historic buildings as a priority, and I hope all of you keep that in mind when other, more contentious issues come before you. These historic homes tell the story of our city and its neighborhoods. They are as worthy of recognition as the blockbuster buildings, which most of us are familiar with. We're doing what we can in our niche of Denver, but we need your help as decision makers, too. I appreciate you taking the time to pay attention to all of us here tonight from University Park. Knowing that you will have a huge budget discussion ahead. Please vote yes on this designation and save another piece of Denver's history. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Next four, if you want to come up to the front bench, if you're not close by, Carolyn Eder, Jean Queen Shannon Stage and Jesse Paris and Carolyn Eder, you are a first.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm Carolyn Etter. I reside at.
Speaker 2: 2278 South Milwaukee.
Speaker 4: Which is next door to the house that's being designated.
Speaker 2: It's a pleasure to be before you tonight. There are some familiar faces and.
Speaker 4: Folks that I work with for many, many years. When my husband and I manage the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Speaker 1: For the city of Denver.
Speaker 2: And to those of you who are new, it's nice to have you on board and we'll get acquainted as we move through.
Speaker 4: Various processes, I'm sure. My husband and I have lived next.
Speaker 2: Door to this house for 58.
Speaker 4: Years and the Taylors have been our neighbors for almost all of that time. We have watched our kids grow up. We've watched them bicycle over to the park for spend the day down at Harvard Gulch. And we have found that it is.
Speaker 2: A neighborhood that respects.
Speaker 4: Families and respects people who come to us as newcomers and who want to be part of the Denver.
Speaker 2: Community. One of.
Speaker 4: The many things that is important about Denver.
Speaker 1: Is.
Speaker 4: Those neighborhoods.
Speaker 2: Many of which have a.
Speaker 4: Charming mix of schools, businesses, places of worship. University Park is one of those neighborhoods, a neighborhood.
Speaker 1: That cherishes.
Speaker 2: A variety of.
Speaker 4: Homes of many ages and many styles.
Speaker 2: This park has 18 residences. Two were built.
Speaker 4: On 37 and a half site lots.
Speaker 2: One is what used to be.
Speaker 4: Referred to as an alley house. The other is a new build.
Speaker 2: Our house was actually built on the north of the 2288.
Speaker 4: Property and was part of the garden.
Speaker 2: Until 1962. Franny, this house faces Observatory Park.
Speaker 4: The name of the two block park that includes the University of Denver's two observatories. Some have unfortunately taken to calling the entire Neighborhood Observatory Park, but its real name is.
Speaker 2: University Park and it continues to have significant relationships with the University of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 4: All so much for this.
Speaker 2: Opportunity to speak with you.
Speaker 1: I urge.
Speaker 4: You to finalize the designation.
Speaker 2: Of 2288 South Milwaukee.
Speaker 4: As a Denver landmark.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jane Quinn.
Speaker 2: My name is Jane Quinn. I'm the director of Accelerated Schools.
Speaker 4: At Fitzroy.
Speaker 2: Place. Fitzroy Place was built in 1893 and it's a beautiful old grand lady that tells a story. Yet currently.
Speaker 4: As a school.
Speaker 2: We educate 100 to 200 kids a year at accelerated schools. And it is because and I acknowledge the work of the neighborhood in historic Denver on the landmark designation of Fitzroy Place in 2007, due to the designation as a historic landmark. We were also eligible for state historic funds funds to repair the side of our building. The designation also made us eligible for funding much needed restoration work. I appreciate the help of the neighborhood residents and historic Denver to obtain state historic funds for restoration. I am pleased to see continue efforts on behalf of preservation in University Park with this application for designation and thanks particular to Frannie Taylor. Thank you for any.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Shannon Stage.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. I am Shannon Stage. I am the preservation coordinator at historic Denver. I here tonight to talk to you a little bit about this designation. As many of you know, Historic D'Amour is a preservation nonprofit here in our city that advocates for Denver's unique character and historic fabric. One of our major roles is to be a resource to community members like Fran Taylor. Fran has been a wonderful steward to her home for over 50 years and we were happy to be able to help her in seeing her wishes come true over about over a year ago. Fran reached out to the head of University Park who you heard from Rosemary as well as us historic Denver to help her in landmarking her house. I worked with her to hire a consultant, Kristi minnillo, who was not able to be with us tonight. But I can answer any questions that you may have. She research and wrote the designation that you have before you. We are here tonight to support Franny and to speak in support of her wishes to designate her house as the next Denver landmark. The Jackson Willa Taylor house is significant because it is directly associated with Dr. Jackson, a well known and highly celebrated ophthalmologist who built and lived in the house until 1920. He is credited with popularizing the use of the retina scope to examine the eye. As you heard from Jenny's presentation. He Jackson hired Denver architect Glenn Wood Huntington to build his University Park residence in 1902. The house is also very significant because it's an example of Huntington's work being a substantial brick four square and the first home built on the block of Observatory Park and one of the few remaining examples of his work in the neighborhood. Not only is this House an important landmark in the development of University Park, it is also important to preserve because so many significant homes have been demolished in this neighborhood since 2000. As you have heard from many comments tonight, historic Denver is also excited to be working with the neighborhood in multiple ways , such as helping Fitzroy Place as well as an action fund, working on a historic context of the neighborhood, but also this individual designation at 2288 South Milwaukee Franz House Historic Denver so strongly supports this unique landmark that tells the story of Dr. Jackson and his worldwide contributions to ophthalmology, but also the contributions this House has had to the University Park neighborhood. We strongly urge you to support this designation.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 11: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Perez. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Law. Black Star Action Woman for Self-defense. Positive Action Coming for Social Change, Universal Africa People's Organization, Denver Chapter and several other organizations. We are in favor of this rezoning. We need to preserve our historical landmarks such as this. I come from a neighborhood that was historic. It's historic on paper, but the demographics and the surroundings are matching that. So we need to really do a better job of looking into that, the historical context of what these properties are representing in terms of American history, Colorado State history, the like. But yeah, like I said, we're of approval of this. So good job, Fran. Congratulations and good job, Cashman. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers for this item. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 9: I just have a couple of questions. Jenny, can you. The assessor's records show that the not that this is, you know, would sway my vote or anything, but the assessor's records show the building was built in 1898. And you were saying 1902. Was there did you see 1898 somewhere.
Speaker 0: Also or.
Speaker 4: Some of our assessor's records aren't the most accurate in terms of construction dates?
Speaker 9: I hope they were accurate as far as taxes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, me too. But sometimes we find some discrepancies in construction dates with Assessor's records.
Speaker 7: So you were supplied in 1902.
Speaker 3: By what method?
Speaker 4: So the applicant was the one who put in the application and did the research. Oftentimes to determine construction dates. You can find building permits that will confirm. You can often look at maps like Sanborn maps to confirm construction dates. So there are a variety of different ways to confirm those dates versus just what you can find in the assessor's records.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And then the second question, as a layperson, I'm curious why LPC and staff recommended only two criteria here. When I look at the structure, what I can see of it from the presentation and from the online availability. It looks like a group to qualify under several other criteria.
Speaker 4: Were did you have in mind.
Speaker 9: Contain elements of an architectural design representing significant innovation? Your presentation pointed out some of the differences from a traditional Denver Square model, such as the entire wraparound porch, not all of which was roofed, etc. and under geography being right on an observatory park and on a prominent corner. I was just curious, was there any discussion about why just these two?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think for geography especially, it's some you're right, it's on a corner right across from Observatory Park, but it's fairly set back and there's a lot of tree coverage, there's a lot of foliage. So certainly you see the corner a lot. But I don't know that the house stands out, particularly in terms of prominence. So that would have led to not selecting that criteria. The innovation oftentimes is reserved for structural engineering. Pretty unique architectural design features. The better memorial, for example, adds the Botanic Gardens has that criteria, I believe, for its designation. So if that gives you an idea of the type of innovation.
Speaker 9: And innovation that might have been replicated and became a something that was copied then perhaps.
Speaker 4: Could have been usually it is more of a unique innovation. Yeah. All right. The one that we could have picked, Councilman, was it could have been it could have met another architecture criteria for being a representation of a good four square. But we found that the most solid criteria for this property was our history. C In architecture.
Speaker 9: B Okay, that's why I have a special thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Collinsville 954 is closed. Comments by members of council at Councilman Cashman. This one's in your district. Did you wanna go first? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. It's obvious to everyone who's spent any amount of time in Denver that change is inevitable. And changes here and change will continue while we find cities around the country beginning discussions about new ways in which we zone our inner city neighborhoods. I think it's particularly important that we take the opportunity to preserve noteworthy examples of important elements of Denver's architectural, cultural and historical evolution. I want to thank Mrs. Taylor very much for presenting this gift to the people of Denver and In Memoriam to your late husband as well. I also want to thank the entire group from University Park. There's a very active contingent of preservationists, and they've made tremendous contributions already, and it's kind of catching on in some other neighborhoods close by. We just had a couple of great properties in which Park East and I do truly view it as a gift. You know, especially in today's world, you can take about any piece of ground in Denver and regardless of what happens to be sitting on it, whether it has value or to whom it might have value , you could probably tear that down, build something else and make more money. Just seems to be the reality of our world. And that doesn't seem to be something that's serving us all. Well. So once again, Mr. Taylor, thank you very much. I appreciate your bringing this forward. And it's it's an honor to support it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to echo Councilman Cashman's comments. I has a new councilperson who immediately after taking office, had the wonderful opportunity to discuss Tom's Diner and share that conversation with the nation. I am really excited to see a non-controversial, historic preservation application come forward and thank you for your gift.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Seeing nobody else in the queue, I will just add my thanks. And I love how Councilman Cashman has started referring to this as a gift given to our community and to our city. I think it's so important, having grown up here and seeing Denver changed so much. I'm so filled with gratitude for you bringing this forward and for doing all the hard work, which I didn't realize was as much hard work until recently. I sat down with a constituent of mine in Platt Park who really would like to give this gift to the city of preserving a structure that anyone in that neighborhood would walk by. I would say, Oh, yeah, absolutely. That house should absolutely be preserved. And after sitting down with Annie Lipinski and this constituent and seeing how hard it is to meet these criteria, when even when we have a willing owner, it is it's not easy. And that is that was something that was eye opening for me because, you know, usually when we get to this point with an owner applicant that, oh yeah, everybody's happy and what a great thing. I didn't realize just how hard it was to do and the work that the work that goes into it and just how hard it is to meet these criteria. And so it makes it for me all the more special that we have people like you who are willing to go through this process and to do the hard work, to give this gift to our community. So thank you for that. I will be excited to support this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Cashman Right. Clark I sit about that. I. Flynn All right. Gilmore I turned in my hands.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 2: Mitch, I. Ortega I seen the ball by.
Speaker 4: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes count to go. 954 has passed. So, Madam Secretary, we don't need a motion on the budget. We just. I just. I just go straight in. Yes, sir. All right. The public hearing for the mayor's proposed 2020 budget is open.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 2288 South Milwaukee Street as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 2288 South Milwaukee Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-24-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10282019_19-0776
|
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing done council members Monday, November 4th is the last night to offer amendments. Then on Tuesday, November 12th, Council will vote to either adopt or reject the mayor's proposed 2020 budget. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, I move that council bill 0776 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The continued public hearing for Council Bill 776 is reopened. Since this is a continued hearing, there will not be additional public testimony, nor will there be an opportunity for written information to be provided to supplement the record other than what council has requested. We will proceed with questions from members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Can I can I make a statement?
Speaker 0: I think we are going to get questions officially closed the hearing, and then we'll do a comments and statements. So at this point, it's just if there are clarifying questions still outstanding that anybody has. Before we get to comments. So no questions, council? No. Okay. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. May I ask Mr. Pazienza to come forward, please? Thank you, sir. Couple questions for you about your testimony on a month ago. You had mentioned that an and it's been a little bit so I'm dusting the cobwebs off. I might ask you a couple of questions. You're on the board of the R.A. in question, correct? The.
Speaker 3: Actually, I was.
Speaker 6: And I'm sorry to say that I.
Speaker 3: Was I resigned in the last month.
Speaker 6: From the.
Speaker 3: Board. I was located for the last four years. Three years.
Speaker 6: Well, that's another question. So you were on the. You were on the board was.
Speaker 3: Yes, I.
Speaker 6: Was. And the last time we we talked about this in this room. You had mentioned that there was a vote of the board, and it was three members of the board voting in favor and two abstentions. Is that right?
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 6: Did you vote in favor of the. No. So you were one of the abstentions? Correct. Can you talk a little bit about how that vote came about and why you abstained?
Speaker 3: Well, it I found out about it. And it was 15 minutes late from the phone call. I got a phone call and we said, we're voting in 15 or we were voting. And I went to my voicemail and I didn't I didn't get it. So I was out of it. I wasn't part of the vote.
Speaker 6: Does the neighborhood organization have any bylaws that require there to be a minimum time of notice?
Speaker 3: We have no. It's an R.A.. We started it four years ago, and there are no official bylaws at this point. You know, as of that day, we had adopted, you know, processes. We followed what rules were published. Whenever you whenever you read the the Denver Public Code or whatever.
Speaker 6: Kiawah I think it's a state.
Speaker 3: Law to do it. So, you know, we tried to follow normal processes, said majorities and in in that unique. But it was it was a board meeting it was it was a it was not a R.A. meeting. I mean, it was not a vote. The neighborhood has never we haven't had a neighborhood meeting on this for the last two months. Okay.
Speaker 6: Okay. Fair. Fair enough. So you're no longer on the board? Why? Why are you no longer on the board?
Speaker 3: Well, I was I was very uncomfortable with having the board make the decision for the neighborhood by themselves with on their own personal with their own personal opinions, reluctant. The board was not was not willing to enable us to to get more feedback from the neighborhood. They push back on on getting sending letters out and getting writing up and getting all the votes. They were reluctant to have another meeting at the general meeting before they made a decision where if they made a decision today, I heard that there was a decision, but I wasn't going to do that just as a board myself . I just was unable to do. Did you feel to do that attenuated?
Speaker 6: Did you feel like you could not express your I mean, it's this is what I'm and what I'm hearing. You didn't you could not express.
Speaker 3: I or my opinions, but they were voted down in in the board. And and I just I wasn't going to be part of that. I was just not not willing to to I don't think that's a correct way for the board of board of to operate in an R.A.. Okay. I think we should be listening to the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Thank you, sir. May I speak with someone who's currently on the board? Is there someone whose would either of you come forward? And will you state your name for the record and for those watching on television?
Speaker 8: Of course. My name is Mark Wallwork. I'm a vice president of the board of the I.R.A. and I am on the board. I've lived in the neighborhood for 16 years.
Speaker 6: Okay. Mr. Holick, who who entered said there was a development agreement that that we received just before this meeting here on the board. Did you vote to enter into this development agreement? We did. Okay. And did you. Can you tell. Can you tell me a little bit about the the process that you used to engage the neighbors, if that existed, to help the board come to this decision to enter into the agreement?
Speaker 8: Certainly, there were several neighborhood meetings, so we did have neighborhood meetings that were sponsored by the developer, and I believe I attended all of them are two of our other board members attended most of them, if not all of them. George may have made one or two. He made a couple. So we did attend those. All of us were very skeptical and asked hard questions to the developer. We also were very the board members, Elaina, Aiden and I, we listened very closely to the residents who were voicing their opinions in those meetings. So there were 3 to 4 of those meetings, and we were listening and jumping in and answering questions where we could where we felt like we could answer for the neighborhood, those of us who had been engaged.
Speaker 6: Okay. There has. And were you here when we discussed this last?
Speaker 8: I was not here last month.
Speaker 6: That's fine. Were you nerdy enough to watch it?
Speaker 8: I was nerdy enough to watch.
Speaker 6: Okay, well, fair enough. So one of the things that we talked about last the last meeting was that there was a vote of the members of the R.A. and though that vote seemed to be pretty heavily against this vacation request. But then the board voted in favor of the vacation request. Can you provide some context as to I mean, did did you take a different vote or.
Speaker 8: Sure. Would you mind repeating the two pieces there? The first one was.
Speaker 6: The members of the organization, as in the the R.A. members as opposed.
Speaker 8: To the board?
Speaker 6: Yep. Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Sure. Just a little bit of clarification. George had asked the board how we felt about the vacation of the right of way. Up until that point, we. Had tried to be. We had tried to send to the board, which was not centered at the time, and we were maintaining a very neutral stance. Aiden, Elena and I. Okay. George wanted to know how we felt. So we met. We tried to incorporate George. Schedules did not work out. We were able to incorporate George. And for clarification, there were not two abstentions. There was only one abstention. And that was George's. So we had no no votes. We had three yes votes, and we had one abstention. At that time, I made it clear, and I believe that Aiden and Elaina were in agreement that we had no inclination of publicizing that. That was simply a moment for George as president to get an idea of where we stood as board members. I made it very, very clear that we had no intention of publishing that, vocalizing that in any way. George did that on his own last month, which we're fine with. But I just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 6: Okay. And what about the the the vote of the members, not necessarily the vote of the board. So that as I understand it, I think, Mr. Pazienza and you are both aligned that that the vote was three yes and no. No one against. Correct. But can you reconcile that vote of the board versus what we've seen a month ago was a pretty heavily against vote of the members of the R.A..
Speaker 8: Sure. I would love to speak to that. It's a great point. I think that what you're referring to is metrics that George presented. It was not a a vote of the neighborhood, so there was not a coming together of the neighborhood to raise our hands. Hey, do we support the right of way, vacation or not? George had compiled information using multiple sources, and I believe that's what you're referring to, where you have a number of people who say they are against the right of way vacation, meaning a number of residents who are against the right of way vacation. And then comparing that to this sort of private vote to get a feel of how we as board members felt and we were all obviously in support.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 8: I hope that's helpful.
Speaker 6: It is. Okay. Thank you, I. And do you do you know who currently? I don't know if you're the right person to answer this or not. Do you know who currently owns 2099 Chestnut?
Speaker 8: The 2099 the the actual right of way or the the.
Speaker 6: The the if we were to vacate this that well, I guess the city owns the 2099 but the adjacent property.
Speaker 8: Right so it's my understanding there is only one adjacent property owner and her name is Lorraine. I forget her last name. I do not know her personally. I almost met her once.
Speaker 6: Fair enough. Thank you. And. And I have no further questions for now.
Speaker 0: Thank Government Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. My questions are for the city attorney in the document. Oh, and I see he has stepped up. Okay. So you tell us your name.
Speaker 7: MARTIN Play with city attorney's office municipal operations.
Speaker 2: So, Martin, have you seen the developer agreement that was shared with all of us today?
Speaker 7: No, I have not. And based on my understanding, developer agreement is a term of art.
Speaker 6: In the city.
Speaker 7: Attorney's office. A development agreement would be something that the city may enter into. As I understand it, this is a good neighbor agreement and this city does not enter into good neighbor agreements.
Speaker 6: So then there would be no reason for me to say it.
Speaker 2: So I want to read you one of the statements that's in here. It is. On Page four and its effective date and binding nature of the agreement. It says the agreement and each of the provisions hereof shall become effective upon its execution and shall be binding on all the parties. And assigned to this agreement shall be assigned by any owner of the chestnut property and the vacated right away to a subsequent buyer of the Chestnut property and the vacated right away. And such buyer shall assume the obligations of the MDI herein. So this is the MDI is listed here as the name of the company who's doing business. Under the title, you know, the developer for the project. So my question to you is hearing that statement, is it your understanding that this would then apply to anybody else if this. Property owner decided to sell the land to someone else.
Speaker 7: I can't answer that definitively without looking at the agreement.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: Possibly, but I can't say with certainty whether that. Okay. I would have to review the entire agreement.
Speaker 2: Okay. I reviewed it with Troy earlier, so I'm going to ask Troy. If you would.
Speaker 7: This is Troy Broughton from the city attorney's office. I agree with Martin without reviewing the entire document. I mean, the language that you read does seem to mean that it would apply to future owners as long as that last clause and that last sentence in the provision doesn't apply. So, yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. And the last clause in the provision is, if MDI does not acquire both the chestnut property and the vacated right away and the city does not approve both the ordinance and the application, this agreement shall be no and void, and none of the parties shall have any rights or obligations hereunder. So that's the part you were referring to. Right. Okay. Last question is actually, this is not for the city attorney. It's for someone who is part of the R.A. currently. Can you. What have you come up? Tell us your name.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name's Elena.
Speaker 2: Baroni. Elena is the R.A.. Registered as a501c3. I would have.
Speaker 4: To defer to my board member.
Speaker 9: Yes, we are. I don't know. You got to come.
Speaker 0: To the right sort of.
Speaker 7: Things.
Speaker 2: Comment on the record. We're in.
Speaker 4: Process.
Speaker 8: Pardon me, Marc Horlick. I don't remember all the numbers that are at the end. We are registered. We are incorporated as a nonprofit. But no, no, the answer is no to your question.
Speaker 2: So you have you applied for your final 23, then?
Speaker 8: We have not.
Speaker 2: Okay. You're incorporated, but you're not a nonprofit as of 501 C3.
Speaker 8: That's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. So I was just trying to to understand if it's considered a legal entity in order for, you know, there to be this formal agreement that sort of applies to the whole neighborhood. So that's your interpretation based on the negotiations that you all did.
Speaker 8: With our understanding that is that we are indeed incorporated as a nonprofit.
Speaker 2: With the secretary of state.
Speaker 8: The secretary of state? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: Got it. Okay. Those are the only questions I have for now.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Actually, folks, would you mind coming back? I just have a couple other questions just on the R.A. piece, because and thank you for being here. My question is largely around the statistical neighborhood that the R.A. covers, because the property in question here is in the Five Points neighborhood and not Union Park. I'm sorry, Union Station North. Can you describe for me the boundaries of your R.A.?
Speaker 8: I might be able to count on this. It is correct. We are part of five points, and I forget what the terminology is for that particular designation. A statistical you. We are within five points. As an R.A. called Union Station North. But you do have boundaries.
Speaker 4: What are they? Do you know?
Speaker 8: I do. Basically railroad tracks before the loss or the other side of the flour mill lofts. So we're on on this side of that, we have 20th Street and we also have Dell Gainey. However, the K.C. apartments are not included and are somehow they got scooped out before or after they were built.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: The thank you so much. My second question, thank you all is actually for public works.
Speaker 0: And you might want to just get comfortable in this front. We have a lot of people in the line, so you might just stay up here.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Jason of Denver Public Works.
Speaker 4: Hi, Jason. Just a couple clarifying questions because there were a number of justifications that were sent to us in letters of support or opposition that I just want to make sure I understand and that those requesters understand the parcel that is designated as the right away right now that the city owns and operates. At any point, can anything be built on it?
Speaker 6: Currently, under our guidelines, no. Currently, right now it is considered right away. We always do enhancements to different roadways throughout the city like green infrastructure and those type of things. Not as requested in the past hearing, which was a pocket park or something of that matter. But we do stuff like that. But currently, no, as it stands, we can't actually build something on this roadway based off of law that says this is right away. It needs to be have a utility or a mobility use to it in order for us to not vacate or okay.
Speaker 4: One of the equivalent or what was being proposed is an equivalent circumstance was mentioned a plat plat street area, kind of a right of way in between two major building sections. How is that different from what we're talking about today?
Speaker 6: Right. So that's a plaza that is between the Plaza Street and the pedestrian bridge that's across the South Platte River. And what that is, is an actual area that we put in green infrastructure whose we, the city or other people, we work with it now. We didn't actually put in there's a proposed green infrastructure that is going to go in there. And the difference between this area and the land that we're talking about tonight, which is 2099, Chestnut Place, is the developer who who built right there on the plaza and is asking to put a $1.7 million investment to put green infrastructure . We work with developers throughout the city to try to enhance green infrastructure. This is an actual park and it won't prohibit the utility or the walkway that the plaza is meant to do to get people from Platt Street to the pedestrian bridge. So in those scenarios we do it all the time. We have an entire green infrastructure group with the city and county that works with developers to try to enhance these sidewalks, to have more trees and plants and those type of things throughout the city.
Speaker 4: And in that circumstance, it wasn't a city owned parcel. It was already owned by one of the adjacent property owners.
Speaker 6: No, no, it's right away. And this is just like anywhere else where we put planters or we put trees or anything else. And right away it still belongs to the city. But we work with developers as they develop our sidewalks and those type of things to put in more green infrastructure, which is just an enhancement that we all enjoy in these scenarios versus in this scenario. We would have to do the investment because there isn't somebody who's developing there to put in something. So we wouldn't put in an investment in something that could be vacated because the only guidelines we have is public works. See that that there is a two requirements, mobility and utility requirement. If those two things are not met, then we are to go through the vacating process. There is no carve out in state law that says if we put in $1,000,000 investment into a pocket park, that we get to deny a vacation based off of that. So we wouldn't put an investment into an area right away like that and then possibly lose it to a vacation.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Calvin Black.
Speaker 2: Your speaker's not on.
Speaker 0: You might also get comfortable up here in the front row. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm very interested in the legal aspects of this vacation. I wasn't here for the previous hearing, but we vote on these every week. We vote when developers dedicate land to the city, and then we also vote on vacations. And it's my understanding that there are more square feet of land that is dedicated to this city than we vacate. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: Historically, yes. We have far more dedications, and some of these dedications are quite big. We just had one two weeks ago, they went through there was roughly 20,000 square feet of dedication, which included streets, sidewalks and a lot of amenities that we agreed to. And historically, yes, the vacations are far less than the dedications we receive. This year alone, we've only had ten vacations go through city council where we are, you know, anywhere between 50 to 100 every year of dedications, depending on what's going on in the city.
Speaker 1: So it's state law that governs this.
Speaker 6: It governs the relationship between dedications and vacations, because state law essentially from public works view, sees it as we don't want to make up. We don't want to have to buy dedications because it enhances mobility throughout the city. It makes it where we can get around as as as citizens and be able to get to point A to point B. We also on the flip side, we want to pick a process that goes forward that allows us to vacate land and not. And then the city makes a profit off that. A lot of land that we vacate was at some point dedicated to us. So to make a profit off it would be unfair. So the state tries to guide us to make sure that we don't require dedications and then later down the line make a profit off it when it's requested to be vacated.
Speaker 1: So it seems like we're sort of trying to balance a common good, I guess. Absolutely so. I know in a lot of new developments the developer is is dedicating land that then are big five foot sidewalk separated with the tree line that are adding to our mobility. Right. So in this particular one, I don't know if you've seen the development agreement. Of course we got it at 437, but it says that it it will complete 4500 square feet of usable open space with benches, trees, etc.. New and larger sidewalks, new signage and signs will be designed with R.A. involvement and some other stuff. But so if they're going to build new and larger sidewalks, then would they then dedicate that back to the city?
Speaker 6: I can only speak to what the requirement from the city would be in these would be that the if there is a build on this property, there will be dedication of of sidewalk to make it where people can get around. That's just the relationship we have with development throughout the city to make sure that people are able to get to point A to point B and safely.
Speaker 1: So in this case, for this parcel and probably the other sides of it, ultimately there will be land dedicated back to the city.
Speaker 6: Where this sidewalk and in different parts of those.
Speaker 1: So it's really unusual that we have this multiple hearings and we've never had them before. Since I've been on council and in previous vacations, I had talked to our city attorney and asked if this was something that could be used to negotiate with. And I was told no. So I'm I'm just I know I wasn't here for the last hearing, but I'm a little perplexed that. That we're having this hearing and wondering if, you know, if the city didn't want to vacate it and the city wanted to widen the street, for example, using that land, would we have a hearing ? I guess I'm asking you two questions at the same time.
Speaker 6: But so the hearing on this vacation was a request from city council. So we went through this process. But when it comes to widening roads, we look at that because we look at mobility options that are not just happening now but happening future mobility options that could be in the area. So we we kind of based off our knowledge of what we think is going to happen with growth in the city and everything else. We take all that into consideration before we actually do the vacation. I get that there's things that can change, development can slow down or increase rapidly based off economic things, but this is the best estimate we have. And based of this particular vacation, the city is comfortable with, vacating it with and still keeping our mobility goals.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And then I just have one question for the neighborhood or people. Sorry for.
Speaker 0: Us. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I just sort of read what was in the agreement, just a few things. And is that your understanding of it? 4500 square feet of usable open space.
Speaker 8: And which page are you on?
Speaker 1: Well, it's actually in there.
Speaker 8: In the exhibit.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So benches, trees, larger sidewalks, signage, lights, and then the design would be finalized with your involvement. I just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 8: That is correct. Which exhibit page are you on? This should be in a one through four, maybe.
Speaker 1: It was just sort of the summary.
Speaker 8: Sure. That yes, basically that is our understanding. I was trying to reference that, but I guess I don't need to. And that we would have input. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 7: He was present, I don't think my colleagues, because they have asked a lot of the questions that I was going to. So I just have one. And I'd like to call Jim Johnson to the podium. And Jim, if you could just give your name and background so that. Oh, sure. Jim Johnson. I am an attorney representing the developer under the development agreement. And I spoke with you at the last about a month ago, at the last hearing. And so you helped draft this agreement? Indeed, I did. Okay. So you would be an expert that you could say, is this because we asked our city attorneys and they were not privy to the contract? I am sure you have since you're a party of this. Is this a in your legal opinion, you could certainly be wrong. Do you believe this is a binding agreement between the developer and the registrant? I believe it is a binding agreement, and that was certainly our intent. And in part part of the reason that we we delayed the decision on this matter until this this time was so that the R.A. could go get incorporated and actually make themselves a legal entity so that they could contract and have some enforcement rights there. And both parties have agreed to this agreement. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a question. The Sage George and the R.A. representatives, are there any other members in the audience who live in the in this boundary? Can you please stand up? Can you please come to the front? Can you all just please quickly state your name, whether you own or rent, and whether you're for or against this? Ali This right of way.
Speaker 7: Stephen Barry I own and I'm against.
Speaker 5: And how long have you lived in the neighborhood?
Speaker 0: Two and a half years.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 4: And Sophie Barry also owned with Stephen Barry and also object.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 7: David Kleckner. I object. 12 year resident.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 12: Oh, sorry. Owner. Resident.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Margaret Pazienza.
Speaker 4: I'm an owner and I object. And I've lived there since 2013.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I'm Kim White. I'm an owner for about 11 years, I think. And object.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So for the R.A., can I have a couple of questions for the vice acting vice president?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 5: So do you have the bylaws?
Speaker 8: We do now have bylaws, yes. When as as of our incorporation prior, we do.
Speaker 5: Form those bylaws.
Speaker 8: We used a template that we received from our attorney. He recommended them.
Speaker 5: And who's paying for the attorney?
Speaker 8: I am.
Speaker 5: Okay. And how long have you lived in the neighborhood? And do you own or rent?
Speaker 8: I rent and I have been there for 16 years with my husband.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then do you have like a database or list served? Like so like the registered neighborhood organizations in northwest Denver have a listserv, right? And they send out the agendas and they send out their monthly notifications. So do you have something like that?
Speaker 8: We do have a global email. We have our own email address. George resigned nine days ago and we are trying to pick up those pieces. He was controlling those items. So we are just now new to getting a hold of those that email system. But yes, we have had that since we are since we became an R.A..
Speaker 5: And in the past, have you had monthly meetings? Do you have monthly meetings or how do you function as an R.A.? Because a lot of our owners have monthly meetings and then they have agendas. And tell me your experience as the vice president.
Speaker 8: Sure. My experience with the R.A. is that we have maintained an annual meeting for the neighborhood. I think we followed that because that's what was required by the or by the city and county as an R.A. And then we would add ad hoc, if we found an issue, would come up both for the neighborhood and for the board. That has always been the way we have run on an ad hoc system. We've never had anything more than an annual meeting.
Speaker 5: So we are. You were voting in these meetings. I feel that sometimes representatives vote on these. R.A. Did you ask, did you take a straw poll of the members of your R.A. or did you just vote based on how you felt like did you take like a majority rules type thing? Or was it just you and a couple other people voting because you represent these other people? Correct. So how did you come to the conclusion that you were voting in favor of it?
Speaker 8: Are you talking about the on this specific item? So on this specific item, how we how the board came to a vote on whether we support the vacation of the right of way or not was brought about by George Pazienza, our former president. He wanted to know where we stood, and so we did that.
Speaker 5: And did you ask your neighbors, you specifically have did you go around knocking doors and asking your neighbors how they felt about this?
Speaker 8: That's a great question. I did not literally, obviously texting and running into folks in the hall. J.D. and I are very neighborly people and we know a lot of people, and we would see them at the developer meetings and we would say, Hey, how do you feel? We would hear folks get up and speak at the developer meetings, the ones that were coming along every week or so. And sometimes I would be surprised that someone would say one thing when I thought they meant another, so I would seek them out after the meeting and speak with them. I did that on multiple occasions.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Sure. I have a couple of questions.
Speaker 2: For public works.
Speaker 5: So in your statement just now, when you were answering, Councilman Black, you talked about parcels needed for mobility, correct? Correct. So this could this pass will be used for mobility in the future?
Speaker 6: In our assessment, no.
Speaker 5: So it can be used for any type of bike station like it is now. It can't use be used for scooter parking.
Speaker 6: So absolutely. And there's several places within the area that we have assessed. It could also use those there to move it. And I know there was an agreement with the current base B cycle and the developer to actually keep it on the property. But there's other places that we identified that we can do and still meet. The needs of the of the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: Could be used or not.
Speaker 6: Yet it is currently it does currently have a B cycle station on it.
Speaker 5: So is public works working on a policy called transportation demand management?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 5: And within the transportation demand management, are you not going to require future development to have transportation demand management plans?
Speaker 6: Correct.
Speaker 5: So if you look at this map, I don't know if you have one, but there's a 813 bedroom apartment slated for construction and then a 13 story tower apartments slated for construction. Do you feel like these? I can't remember all the triggers for transportation demand management, but I believe that these would trigger them, correct?
Speaker 6: I believe so. Under the current plan we are trying to put forward, remember, the plan is still being put forward. So depending on when this actual development takes place, whether it will be before we actually have this plan in place or not, the time which you're talking about.
Speaker 5: Yes. So if the 813 bedroom construction went online and transportation demand management was also a policy, could they put some of their scooter parking there? Could they use part of that area because it's right away to help ease the ingress and egress of this area.
Speaker 6: So in when it comes to Treme, just a little bit backwards is we don't we won't require somebody to have parking for scooters. Scooters is provided by a private sector who are working in relationship with us to use the right of away to make parking stations themselves. We wouldn't lean on developers to have to provide parking for them, but TDM is mostly to give the tools to these developments to cut down the SUV, SUV, which is the single occupant vehicle being used by 50%. These tools are far greater than scooters or any of those type of things and we wouldn't have those requirements in TDM. We are trying to figure out ways to get people to transit into and out of the single occupant vehicle, which could be scooters. But scooters as being a private sector mobility option would have to work on getting their own areas to put scooters.
Speaker 5: Okay. So when Councilman Terrace was talking about Klatch Street and you kept talking about we, how much money has public works invested in the $1.7 million by unico developer into that right of way to make it the green space it is like how much has public works invested?
Speaker 6: None. This is a private option that they requested and felt that the option of investing this $1.7 million was worthwhile. To be able to create green infrastructure in the plaza, which they can put tables out and chairs out for everybody in the community to enjoy. This is a this is the type of relationship we tried to build throughout the city on green.
Speaker 0: Infrastructure.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 6: To minimize our investment.
Speaker 5: In new started in public works. But just fancy me this question. Were you here when Unicode put in that way to vacate that area? Were you in your position? Okay. And then do you know how much the developer has paid in permits to get the $1.7 million invested? But the permit process that they've also had to pay.
Speaker 6: I do not know offhand, but I can definitely get you that information.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 5: And then I have one question for the lawyer who put together the proposal.
Speaker 7: Yes. Tim Johnson.
Speaker 5: Thank you, sir. Thank you for being here tonight.
Speaker 7: My pleasure.
Speaker 5: So I have a question for you. How besides saying that this that you all signed off on this development agreement or in other words, a good neighbor agreement saying you're part of the the side your developer doesn't follow through. How do. What recourse does the neighbors have to come and find you? Would they have to get a lawyer or would they come to the city or what? What recourse does the then neighborhood organization have to make sure that you follow through with the the agreement and and codify it like you have said?
Speaker 7: So that was one of the big concerns that the that the neighborhood organization had when we were talking about this agreement. And actually the first version of this agreement that we put forth had a much more, I would say, traditional arrangement where they would where they were the R.A. would have to get a lawyer and there would be there's an arbitration process based on their comments, on the R.A. comments. We we very much streamline that process. And so now there is a there is a very quick process to get to an agreement. Essentially, the R.A. there's there's two different stages. So there's during construction and then there's after construction because there's some obligations in here that the that they're really actually three pre-development during construction and after construction and so. During pre-development and construction. There is contact information in here for somebody directly at the construction company that can that anybody can call this person and say, we have a problem, that you're not adhering to the provisions of this agreement. There's a 24 hour provision there, 24 hours to to resolve the issue. And if that's not resolved in 24 hours, and there's like I believe it's a three day time frame for the R.A. to come to arbitration, put present whatever information they want. And actually, the developer is responsible for.
Speaker 9: Paying up.
Speaker 7: To a certain amount of the costs of the R.A. to do that. So there's no lawyer's required, and it's intended to be a very quick process.
Speaker 5: So but the. So if they had to come to arbitration there, it would be on the owners of the registered neighborhood organization.
Speaker 7: That's that's correct.
Speaker 5: And so in in your experience. Registered neighborhood organizations, Jorge just resigned and now we have a new vice president. What happens if the vice president who's signed the document isn't here? Six, six, ten months during construction? 22 months. What happens then? Who carries this document forward?
Speaker 7: That's the reason that it was critical that they be incorporated, that they are no be incorporated in sign off and become an entity and registered under Secretary of State, because then there's ongoing requirements for that entity to have perpetual existence. And so whoever is in whoever's managing that company, it would be like any other any other company out there, as opposed to just a registered neighborhood organization that didn't that didn't have independent kind of viability.
Speaker 5: So we're making a registered neighborhood organization become incorporated, take legal action, and make sure that they're following through when it's all volunteer to follow through to make sure that your good developer agreement gets followed through on. Is that what I'm hearing.
Speaker 7: That that is? That's one way to put it. But this arrangement is not unusual in Cherry Creek, Cherry Creek Neighborhood North Organization is the same way they're incorporated there. 501c3 And they have the same kind of model and perpetual existence. And so it's not it's not kind of a new idea that we're trying to do here. It's something that's that's been replicated in other areas of the city. And way I would I guess I would caution you not to call it a good neighbor agreement. In my opinion, at least a good neighbor agreement is where there is some kind of aspirational element to it. And there's an acknowledgment that there's really not an entity there that can enforce the obligations. And then the ones I've been associated with are typically we're going to respect certain construction hours. We're not going to respect certain noise that maybe is above and beyond what the city would otherwise require. And this agreement, there's an obligation that that the developer is going to process an application with the city that's consistent with with things that that the developer that the that R.A. has requested, things like the open space in the and the improvements to the corner and step back requirements and brick veneer requirements, things like that that I've never seen in personally never seen in a good neighborhood agreement. There's there's there's this is a beefier and much more, I would say more traditional kind of develop agreement, development agreement, not in the in the municipal sense.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, councilmembers. We have a lot of people in the queue as people jump in back in the queue for a second time. And we certainly can debate this all night. We've kept this hearing open for a long time. I will just ask, if possible, please keep your questions concise and keep them to information that hasn't been presented, things that will help you make your decision if you already have your decision made. Let's get two comments so that we can get this one resolved once and for all. Tells me Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So, sir, the attorney. And we had, I believe, two delays of this project, of this decision extending over several weeks. And I'm wondering why we got this agreement. Minutes before the meeting with no time to really consider it or evaluate it.
Speaker 7: I I'll I can say as I apologize for the timing of that I can't give you an answer to that. I don't know. I was not part of actually getting the document signed up or any any of that. So I don't know why you got it when you got it. I don't know. Is there anyone.
Speaker 0: Here that can answer that question? Yes, sir. If you have an answer.
Speaker 6: Tabor Suite with Mortenson Development. The R.A. was actually incorporated on Thursday. Yes, the R.A. was in corporate on Thursday, so they couldn't execute prior to that. We got the signed agreement on Friday morning and then candidly, we're a very big company and signatures don't come very quick. So we did our best. And I'm sorry that it was last minute, but it was just a more of a function of getting the right person.
Speaker 9: In the right room to execute on our side. I.
Speaker 0: Difficult the weeks that we set this back. My other question is for Troy. Thank you, Mr. Shrimp. When we're addressing rezonings, we have specific criteria we're legally obligated to assess by what. What are our obligations in this case?
Speaker 7: Well, I would defer to Martin, the city attorney, but in my mind, it's it's a legislative decision. It's a it's a vote. Yes or no.
Speaker 0: Sir.
Speaker 7: Martin played assistant city attorney, meaning ops choice. Correct. It's a legislative decision. There are no criteria. There is a statutory criteria that government cannot vacate. Right of way, if it will leave a property landlocked. That is the only requirement and that's not here. So really, with it being a legislative decision, it's does city council feel that the city needs the right of way now or in the future?
Speaker 0: Right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the representatives from the.
Speaker 4: Reno Police.
Speaker 2: Force. So I got a little confused around. Well, could you clarify, are you an LLC that is registered with the secretary of the state, or are you a501 C3, which would have to go through the IRS, the secretary of state, and then the local municipality?
Speaker 8: We are not the second one. We are definitely not.
Speaker 2: You are not a51 C3 because that's a nonprofit organization. So an an LLC. Correct, for profit. So which are you?
Speaker 8: So we when we incorporated, we were able to select nonprofit and we made that selection. It's fairly streamlined online. So you registered.
Speaker 2: With the Secretary of State, correct? So you have not thus far then filled out the federal IRS.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman, can I have one C3? Sorry, I don't want to interrupt. I just want to make sure it's clear that you can be a nonprofit without being a501 C3 and registering through the IRS. There are mechanisms through the Secretary of State's office to become a nonprofit without necessarily dealing with the IRS and those tax implications.
Speaker 2: So can you clarify if because this is new information to me, because.
Speaker 12: I founded and ran a.
Speaker 2: Nonprofit for 20 years and was fully compliant with all the federal and state and local regulations. So if you file with the Secretary of State's office as a nonprofit, can you accept tax or not or.
Speaker 12: With.
Speaker 7: Charitable contributions? Right. So that's where the tax implications come on when you are accepting charitable contributions and how those are taxed. But you can register to become a nonprofit without without any tax repercussions with the IRS.
Speaker 2: So are you going to operate and accept charitable donations?
Speaker 8: We have elected not to take any moneys, no clues, no contributions.
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. So what the Mr. Johnson, I believe, said and to Councilwoman Sandoval's questions, if there is a dispute or the developer in this developer agreement that I believe they wrote and crafted, if there's an issue, you're not going to have any funds to hire a lawyer to make sure that they are complying with what they wrote in the developer agreement. So how are you proposing that you're going to legally represent the R.A. to the full.
Speaker 12: Extent of the law.
Speaker 8: We negotiated? I totally get what you're saying. It was one of the first questions that I had. Basically, our hands would be tied. It was incorporated into and negotiated into the developer agreement as best as we were able to, to alleviate that, to make it so that we would not need to pay any moneys. But to answer your question, if it were to come to that, it would be difficult.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And then, Mr. Johnson, I have a question for you on and that we did get this very late, but I've been trying to review it really quickly on page four of the agreement. Number six, it says that the attorneys fees or talks about attorney's fees and says within five business days following the execution of this agreement, MDI will pay the Arnaud's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with negotiation and execution of this agreement, which the parties agree is $3,000. So. So you crafted this document. They're going to sign it, but then you're going to turn around and pay them $3,000, is that correct?
Speaker 7: Yes. And that's really not unusual.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cannick.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just bring Jason Gallardo, Fleurs Gallardo, please. Sorry. My my mouth is failing me. No problem. And ask you to clarify and perhaps just give you a chance to clarify something. Councilman Sandoval asked you a few questions about your conclusions and public works about the site. So as I understood it, you do not need or have plans for this site, for transportation infrastructure right now, is that correct? That's correct. And secondly, you've identified other locations where you could put transportation infrastructure. Yes.
Speaker 6: But for the bicycles specifically, we talked about the bicycles specifically was in the agreement that we know about between the developer and them. But we also have identified other areas in the in the in the area that we could have put a bicycle if necessary.
Speaker 4: Okay. Where I think things got muddy is though she asked you whether it could be used in the future. And I want to be really clear. Did you conduct any analysis that indicated it would be infeasible, i.e., not physically possible to utilize this for other types of transportation in the future? Because.
Speaker 6: Sorry, no. Yeah. As I stated before, there is obviously different things that can happen with more development in those type of things that that we are just based off of our assessment that we use for every vacation we use throughout the city. Didn't see a use for this in that process.
Speaker 4: So what I'm asking you and I'm I'm going to be asking really specifically, did you conduct any analysis that term and it was infeasible, impossible or otherwise, not ever possible for this site to be used for transportation in particular. I know you don't have plans. Yeah, I know you don't want it, but I'm asking you if you made a technical determination.
Speaker 6: Right. So you're asking me, is there is there just to clarify, is there no possibility whatsoever that we would use this for.
Speaker 4: I'm not talking about possibilities. I'm talking about technical feasibility. Did you analyze this and say definitively, no, it could not ever be used for transportation infrastructure? I'm asking a technical question because that's the role you guys provide in this system. Right. And so that's why I'm trying to pin you down more specifically, because I feel like what you want it for is not the question that I don't think Councilwoman Sandoval was asking. And it's not the question I'm asking.
Speaker 6: I don't want to give you a false answer here. So I don't know the entire of the process goes through. I believe it's. 31 days of us going through and analyzing this with over 30 agencies internally and externally. We're from the city to see if this is the proper direction to go or not. But I don't I don't think I can give you a definitive answer without asking, you know, Matt Brown or something else to be able to tell you definitively that that process was 100% to your your question.
Speaker 4: Let me ask can I try asking the question one other way, and then I accept is the answer is this you're not sure? I totally get that. That's what I'm saying. So to the extent others have identified potential future uses that this land may have for mobility purposes, have you done any analysis that specifically disqualifies or refutes those things that folks have identified as potential future uses of this.
Speaker 6: From the protests that we received? You mean.
Speaker 4: Any. Yeah, the protest or testimony in this or testimony in this chamber. There have been numerous emails. So so I'm not sure, you know, but if you if there are, generally speaking, been some ideas thrown out of things, this right of way could mean needed for in the future. Did you do any analysis that says those things are definitively not true?
Speaker 6: Yes, we had 42 protests that were received through the process that we have, and all 42 were deemed lack of technical merit on on our standard based off the analysis we made at Denver Public Works.
Speaker 4: Okay, we're tot work we're not connecting here in the question. Okay. Thank you very much for trying.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. All right, round two. You know, I ask that you be as quick and concise as possible. Councilman Heights.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a my my questions now are about the R.A. that was or excuse me, 19 Chestnut Place was just created last Thursday. So. I guess. Mr. President, may I have you come up? Yes, it appears in our audience we have to pass to people who are residents in the immediate area who are in favor. We have seven, six people who are in present who are against who live in the immediate area. What's to keep you from forming an R.A. that appears that would then appear to represent the majority of the people in this audience?
Speaker 3: That that is that is the question. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We counted Councilwoman CdeBaca. Totaled up the objections that she's received in the last since we started the delay the deferrals of the and the question for the initial voting that we had that was done by people sending emails back and saying I'm for it or against it was about 80% for objections. Now there's I think 63 have come in emails of commend recently, and 80% of those emails are objecting. I can tell.
Speaker 6: You. Right. Okay. Thank you. And I thank you for your time. I have a question for perhaps one of the attorneys, city attorneys in the room. This legal entity was created on Thursday for an R.A. that didn't have standing, but now does. What's to keep this legal entity from no longer being a going concern in a year when it's time to renew the secretary of state? Like, I'm I'm trying to understand the enforceability of this agreement that I still haven't had time to read because we just got it less than an hour before this meeting. But like. Like Kirkuk North, which was the other example, has been a going concern for a long time and is in perfect ten. Thank you Cherry Creek North people watching. But I guess I'm trying to understand like, ah, is this a lot iron clad, you know, can I put this in an ironclad lockbox next to Social Security and Medicare and, you know, those sorts of things? Or do you know what? Do you get the nature of the question?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Troy Bratton from the city attorney's office. Councilman Hines, I mean, I guess I don't know how to answer the question there. They are incorporated, nonprofit. That is a legal entity. Things are going concerns until they're not. I mean, I can't say how long they will be, but I can say that they are now. And I haven't reviewed the entire agreement. But it sounds to me like they are a registered nonprofit and they are incorporated as of right now, so.
Speaker 6: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. One last question for Mr. Gallardo. Welcome back. So public works won't improve the property because it may be vacated at some point in the future. And that totally I mean, this is these are taxpayer dollars. So I totally understand that. Can the neighborhood improve the property? No. I mean, there's there's always options to be able to do these type of things. I don't know that there's a direct pathway for us to say that a neighborhood can give the city money in there because it's an investment that they would be making on something that could also be vacated in this situation. So I don't know that the city would get involved in an agreement that would allow somebody to invest into it, putting a park, green infrastructure or those type of things on this land, and then still be guided by state law that says it would be vacated if it doesn't have a mobility or utility use. I just don't know that there's a process for that. So. Okay. Would public works. Issue. Assistant Dismissed order. If, say, the immediate neighbors just decided, hey, we're just going to spend money and we totally understand that it might it might be wasted. But, you know, maybe they want to put on or patch grass or I don't know. That might be a better question to be asked to the city attorney's office. But. Okay. And this is my last question, Mr. President, would your city attorney please answer that? Thank you.
Speaker 7: Martin play municipal operations city attorney's office. Citizens can apply for an encroachment permit to place things in the right of way. I would say it's possible that someone could apply for an encroachment permit to put. Something in the right of way, like in private with grass or I don't know. I think it actually has a sidewalk and maybe some trees there now, but I'm not 100% sure on that. But yeah, I think there is a process involved, but that goes through public works in terms of the approval process. And if it's a Tier three encroachment, then it actually comes to the city council.
Speaker 6: So there isn't anything explicitly in your knowledge or legal opinion that would keep the city from telling them, No, you can't build something on. If they applied for an encroachment.
Speaker 7: Permit or whatever. I think that's a fact specific question. Okay.
Speaker 6: Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catherine. Councilman Black.
Speaker 1: I apologize for asking more questions, but I'm going to try and be quick. Mark Pollock I just found your email. Someone was asking you a question or Councilman Hines is asking questions about the status of your R.A. So how long has R.A. been around?
Speaker 8: I believe it was 2016.
Speaker 1: Okay. So you've been around for a while? A little while. You didn't file with the secretary of state? Correct. A legitimate R.A. for several years. Correct. And how many people live within the R.A.?
Speaker 8: I believe it's about 3500 people.
Speaker 1: 500?
Speaker 8: It's a large number. We're pretty we're pretty pretty significant.
Speaker 1: Okay. So it's a very, very, very tiny minority of people who are here tonight. So I just. It's like less than half a percent of the people who are here tonight. So I just it's important for us to remember that everyone who is here is not sort of representing the entire neighborhood. And then can I. George, I'm sorry. I don't know how to pronounce your name. That's it's a cool last name for patients. So I'm really curious what you object, what you are. Are you objecting to the hotel? And what would you like there? And are you not okay with what they're proposing? The 4500 square feet of open space with benches and all that.
Speaker 3: Okay, we are objecting. We actually we're all fine. And building the hotel, that's that's fine. And we understand they're going to be developing what we're objecting to. What I've learned is that most of the people in the neighborhood are objecting to is giving up the open space. The that right of way is on the corner and it's at the entrance to the neighborhood. So that that will be even though there's some of that that's coming back, there's there's a you know, there's six or seven stories of the hotels going to be put over top of it. So the people are objecting to giving up that one third of their property, that that is the right of way. That is the objection. Nothing to do with the hotel. The hotel I think they'll build if they're going to build a good hotel and a big lot of other good hotels in the small lot.
Speaker 1: So even though if it's not vacated, the city's not going to make it something, a plaza or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Well, now there is there's you know, what you're talking about is encroachments. That's what was done at this over by on Platte Street. That was an encroachment. And, you know, that's something we didn't know about. But there's certainly been a lot of discussion among the houses and businesses in the area about doing an encroachment, probably not a million and a half dollars and encroachment, but you can put flour boxes and, you know, we can make that continue to make it look better, which is what the Griffis did. It used to be sky. When they when they built that, they put the concrete in the trees that are in there now. They installed that there. That was an encroachment. They paid $200 a year for it.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Okay. Two very last questions. The first one, Mr. Johnson, if you could come back up, did you in the neighborhood talk about putting a covenant on the property to insure specifically on this right away property, to ensure that all of the things that are committed to in the agreement are even more solidified?
Speaker 7: So I would say that the agreement is in the nature of the covenant is in the nature of a covenant. And specifically, it has the language that you talked about earlier in terms of passing it on to those who who own the property in the future. We did not talk about binding it with the covenant specifically because my client doesn't own the property.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 7: And they couldn't do that at this point.
Speaker 2: Okay. And I'm not sure you're the right one to answer this next question, but what what about this right way property? What is it about this property that makes the hotel work at this location?
Speaker 7: I think this might be a question for Mr. Sweet.
Speaker 2: Okay. Mr. Sweet.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Taber Sweep with Mortenson Development. Councilwoman The I think if you remember the last time we.
Speaker 6: Had put out some images, I think to you guys in a package. So this particular.
Speaker 9: Right of way.
Speaker 6: Is important because we are going to be, as George described it, going.
Speaker 7: Over, but we're going to be cantilevered a piece of the.
Speaker 9: Building over the right of way. So what's really crucial for us.
Speaker 6: Is where those columns.
Speaker 7: Come down on to what is.
Speaker 9: Now the right of way, which.
Speaker 6: Will then become privately owned. We can't cantilever.
Speaker 9: A building above. You can't do that.
Speaker 6: With a type two encroachment or anything like that. It has to be owned. And so that allows us to create the hotel that we've designed and submitted for, for planning approval or for SDP.
Speaker 2: So what, what portion of the building then? Occupies this space because I've been hearing that part of the expectation is that it would continue to remain open space.
Speaker 9: Yeah, there's only a very small sliver of building that actually.
Speaker 6: Occupies part of the right of way on the very eastern sorry western edge. The remainder of it is actually open to automobile traffic.
Speaker 9: And then a piece of the.
Speaker 6: Plaza which we've dictated into that development agreement. There's an exhibit as well that we're going to create. We're going to incorporate that in our in our easement back to public works.
Speaker 9: So the plaza area.
Speaker 7: Although it's underneath the.
Speaker 6: Overhang, will still be a public space. So some of the discussions about bicycle or scooter parking or whatever it needs to be, that will still be public use in perpetuity.
Speaker 9: We're not trying to stop anybody from using that. They can use it as they do today, along with the existing right of way on the corner.
Speaker 2: So you're saying there would continue to be an easement on the property? That is, is it deeded back to the city? Help me understand, Jim.
Speaker 7: I'd have to give you the correct.
Speaker 6: Terminology, but.
Speaker 7: We are providing an easement back to public works for the storm line that.
Speaker 6: Is there.
Speaker 7: And we will expand, correct?
Speaker 6: Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, they'll expand the rights of that easement to include that plaza area to the west of that storm line.
Speaker 9: All but four where those columns come down. Got it. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. At long last, the continued public hearing for Constable 776 is officially closed. Comments by members of council, Kallstrom said. Welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. This land vacation is on it. On its face should not be granted. There's indeed technical merit as it's currently being used for transportation use. Just because transportation is evolving from car supremacy to multi-modal forms of transfer tation does not mean that we should isolate our own understanding of transportation use to be the equivalent of car use. Additionally, this land vacation has been wildly opposed by the surrounding neighbors and others. Originally, public works pulled all 21 adjacent property owners and 71% objected in total since the first time we heard this request. Our office has has received 63 on duplicated opinions and 49 were against or opposed, which is 78%. We've had only 14 support and only four who have since changed their minds since the last time we heard this. The last the land vacation will increase. Chestnuts, places land by 50%. Yes, the city gains land through dedications and trades off through through land, vacations all the time. But it's not appropriate in this case, as this developer is not asking for a corner or an alley to be vacated. It is manipulative to suggest that this is for a common good when this is very clearly a developer windfall. They are increasing buildable square footage from 12144 to 18094 square feet in one of the most expensive commercial and residential neighborhoods in our city and Union Station. We all know what it looks like. What they're describing looks like when you go to a hotel and pull in under under a structure. It's not. It's not public or open space. There's approximately 6000 square feet of free land for a one time fee of 1600 dollars. This developer has manipulated the process to isolate and alienate its neighbors and has still failed to convince a substantial number of residents to change their mind about their opposition. Three people made a decision for an entire neighborhood and are speaking as the sole authority being recognized as the community. We we say we care about ADA access. We say we care about multimodal transportation. We say we care about climate action and reducing congestion. Congestion. What we have an opportunity in front of us to prove it. Neighbors want to see us dedicate modern transportation docking stations to areas that do not inhibit ADA access. Areas exactly like this can serve this purpose. Yes. Public works cannot lean on developers to to provide transportation support. Yes. Current public transportation, including scooters, is being provided by private corporations. Yes. Private corporations owning bike and scooter share programs are currently monopolizing any and all other public right of way without being required to designate docking stations in areas that make sense. None of that excuses public works from its poor stewardship. Again, this is currently being used for public transportation, regardless of who has taken on that responsibility in absence of our leadership. I had from my colleagues I heard from my colleagues in the previous hearings that we recognize the ability to exponentials and extract profit from any land left in the city. Preservation happens in a multitude of ways, and preserving public ownership of the right of way for the evolution of transportation is in itself preserving the opportunity for transportation in an overdeveloped area of town. The bottom line is that if we can walk on it, bike on it, scoot on it, then it meets the criteria to remain in the hands of the public and not a private developer who will extract value from it at our expense. Please vote in a way that shows our residents of Denver that we truly and meaningfully want to reverse the patterns of car dependency and supremacy while also being a good steward of public land and the planet generally. Nobody is telling the developer what to do with their land at this point. We are simply saying that they cannot also do what they want with public right of way without regard for all of the people who live in this community and have very clearly made their voices known. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cannick.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I have been very quiet during most of this debate, just asked a couple of questions and have relied mostly on the testimony in the hearings and probably wasn't going to speak. But I have a couple concerns I need to. On the record with my vote. So first, how am I going to vote? I think this is a very dense area and I think in this area and others like it, we're having a lot of conflicts between transportation users and a lot of risks that those transportation users experience because of those conflicts. I did not I know that my question perhaps I should have shared it with the department had a time, but I didn't think of it beforehand. But in spite of their decision that there was no technical merit, it's my experience that usually technical merit is things like if I grant this right of way vacation, then I won't be able to get out of my garage or my property will be impeded. What I don't believe that that technical merit analysis includes is a feasibility for future transportation, and that is for me. I am concluding that it is feasible for future transportation purposes, and that's important. So what am I weighing that against and weighing that against the community need for additional hotel rooms, basically. I will share that. We had a very similar debate a few months ago where there was an R.A. that negotiated a good neighbor agreement and then there was other neighbors that did not support that agreement. And they were, in that case, going to build some very modest increased density that's in line with the plans we've adopted. And in my mind, the housing need of our city outweighed it. So for me, it's not about, you know, I'm not choosing one side or another. I'm trying to weigh these things. And in this case, I don't think the the needs of additional hotel rooms weigh more heavily than the potential future use of this site for transportation. So I'll be voting against the vacation tonight based on that weighting. But why am I weighing in? I do want to say that I think it's really important. There's been a lot of concerns hurled at the Register neighborhood organization. And I just want to share for the record that I think it's very difficult to generate engagement with registered neighborhood organizations before a controversy exists. You flier, you invite people, you email, people say they're going to come. It's very difficult to get people engaged. And so then an organization does the best it can in a situation where they are not in control of the result. They are not in control of whether this vacation happens or not. And so they decide to either put all their eggs in the basket of trying to kill it or to try to negotiate something to make it better should it pass. So I want to ask that maybe as this neighborhood heals after this experience, we think a little bit about the value of trying to negotiate for something rather than let it being, you know, an ugly overhang with concrete underneath. So whether you agree or disagree with the vacation, I see some very good intentions that the I.R.A. had. And having worked with R.A. for almost a decade or more, if you count my time before a council, I think they're not in an easy position, given how difficult it is to get people to engage until a moment like this. So I think they made a good effort, and I hope that there can be some healing that recognizes that. The other concern I have is just that there was a lot of it's clear my colleagues had a lot of concern. And in the heart of that concern, there started to be a lot of potentially messages or questions that really potentially undermined the potential strength of neighborhoods, the value of good neighbor agreements, the enforceability. And I guess I just want to say I'm a little nervous. What is the incentive to the extent that neighborhoods have used these tools, frankly, very effectively? I don't have a long list of failed and unenforced good neighbor agreements. Frankly, in my time in office. I think that they generally work well, they're generally followed. There's been very few examples I've heard of of them not being enforced. So when we spend a lot of energy talking about how unenforceable and unreliable they are, what we are doing is we are reducing the incentive of neighbors to engage in dialog and we are reducing the incentive of developers to commit to some changes and adjustments . And that worries me. I don't want neighbors to have less ability to negotiate directly for things that are important to them. The test for our land use decisions can never be unanimous support, right? Some folks want to have a clear a majority, a majority of those responding. We're never going to probably know the majority of folks who live in an area because we can't survey them all. But I just want to say that I am voting against this vacation tonight. But I still think these are important tools and I hope that we don't find our way to undermining them to the point that they are no longer a tool that can be effective. And I'm a little nervous about the outcome of my vote because of that. But I think that if we keep talking about it, perhaps we can find a path where we can support these tools while still having the vote of conscience that we need, rather than thinking we have to attack the tool to justify our no votes. So with that, I'll be voting no, but with a lot of respect for those who tried hard in this case. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I share Councilwoman Kennedy's concerns. I just come to a different conclusion. I'll first say that I will support the vacation, and here are some reasons why. One, I trust the work that the analysis that Public Works has done. As it was stated earlier, there were numerous objections to this vacation. And as Jason said, he went through the, I think, tireless process to make sure that each of those objections didn't did not have merit. So I trust that you did your due diligence in ensuring that you were making the right decision, saying that we don't have a use for this land. I do think, though, if we follow the notion that if you could there ever be a time that we could possibly use this land, then sure, and we shouldn't vacate anything. And there might be some people on council who support that notion. That's just not something that I do, because for us to hold onto the land when we didn't pay for it and as we've had conversations about this before, that doesn't seem fitting to me. So that that is so I believe and that's usually where the vacation stop with the analysis. But we have gone above and beyond when it comes to this. Councilman Black made the comment, why are we here? And I feel responsible because I was the one that requested the delays. And so as the chair of Ludie, when I when this first came to committee, there was a concern from the developer, like, hey, we know there's we know the community has some concerns and we would like to sit down and have that conversation with with the community, which I felt was noble. Let's let's sit down and see if we can we can hash out our differences, which is why there was the first request for a delay, because you want the parties to come together. So we as a council don't have to be that body that chooses winners and losers. As I bring back Councilwoman Jeannie fights. And so when we were here three weeks ago, we recognized that the Arno was not registered with the state, which causes a problem and doesn't allow you to sign a contract agreement if you reach one, which brought us to the second delay to where we are now. So for me, the question was if we can reach a place where the R.A. and the developer can come to an agreement, I believe we're in a good place and that's where we are today. And so that's another reason why I support this. I absolutely want to commend you all for being a part of an R.A., a volunteer board, because as a person who was on Stapleton, United Neighbors, the Sun board, I know the pain that you go through where people say you're hiding and you don't know and you readily publish it and you encourage your neighbors to come for whatever reason they do or don't. And so thank you for volunteering to be a part of that. And I would also say to the people in Union Station North, if you're not in support, join the Arno George. I'm sorry, I'm I didn't want to ask the questions because we've been here long enough. But why you chose to step off? Because then you lose your opportunity to be the voice as a member of the Arno Board. And so for the other people that are here and say, I object joined the board, that's what that's how you can make sure that your your voice is being hard. Because when we look we can't look to a community of 3500 our different neighborhoods. We look to the people who say, I'm going to step up and I want to be as a voice of the board. So thank you all for doing that. And as Councilwoman Kennedy talked about, the the hard the difficulty of doing this concerns me as well, because we have an Arno board that I said, yes, we have an agreement in place and this council might very well say no still. And that could send a message to future Arnaud's. Why would we go through this process if we agree? The two parties agree and council still says no. We have that prerogative and that's why we're here. We make the difficult decisions. I think in this case, this wouldn't be a time to make that decision. You and as I trust, the binding, the validity of the agreement. So I don't see any reason to think that that cannot be enforceable. And so from the parties involved have always been willing to come together. So this is why I will be supporting the vacation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'm still new here. I can't use that for much longer, but. But certainly, as we continue to grow as a new body, we learn things. We look, we gain wisdom. I'd like to think I'm an intelligent person, but. But I don't have a lot of wisdom through which I can make this decision. So I want to thank my colleagues for their patience as I asked a lot of questions which may have seemed silly, but it helped me understand more about this issue, but also more about the Arno process, about vacations. And I feel like I need a vacation after all this talk about vacations, but I'm still like I when we were here three weeks ago, I said, I'm confused. I just I can't reconcile, you know, some of the some of the things that we're talking about. And I still am unable to reconcile some of the some of the concerns about, you know, the vote of the board, which is three members, versus what seems to be the concern of the neighbors. And and so I talked a lot about over the last year plus about values. I think it's important for us to have elected officials that have a value system through which we use those values to guide, guide our decisions. So I talked about housing, transportation and representation again and again and again over the last year. And so let's talk about housing. I think, you know, it's already it's already been discussed. This is hotel space, not housing. And so it really isn't part of that. You know, the value that I used that I said again and again and again was important to me. And I'm here because of the things I said. Hopefully I told the truth. I meant to tell the truth, but that's what I said a lot of times. And I don't see how this fits into the value of housing, this transportation. I firmly believe that we should encourage more non car transit. The the artist rendition that I saw was a driveway. I don't want more cars going through what is already a very dense neighborhood and and an already an extremely walkable area of town, probably the most walkable in the state. So that's that's a little frustrating to me as well. When we're giving we're theoretically potentially giving up non car transit access representation. So if I'm going to vote against this, which by the way I'm leaning towards no and that that will ultimately be my vote, why don't I vote in favor of yet another delay from three weeks ago to today? Well, because I believe we all deserve to be heard. We all deserve to have our conversation be heard as long as we can. And here we are. And I wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt and give people time. I think it was a little frustrating three weeks ago that we got a bunch of information about an hour before our council meeting, and I had to try to digest that at the last minute. And I'm frustrated again tonight that we got a whole bunch of information less than an hour before. I can't I can't read a legal document in 40 minutes and do some other things that I'm trying to do last minute to prepare for this meeting. So just so I recognize also, I think that, you know, something that I said over and over again, that I one of the highest compliments I had was someone repeated this back and didn't know that I said it. So I thought that was really cool. Development should happen for the city, not to the city. And I'm I don't I don't see how this really is making the neighborhood a better place. I don't see how this is this is doing something that will make the neighbors a, you know, a more whole community. And and so I also recognize that we've had, you know, some concerns about Arnaud's. Does this undermine the Arno process? I think that's a reasonable concern. I think another reasonable concern that people have had is, is that some feel that the R.A. system, as it is now already doesn't represent the neighborhood. I think that some RINO's are better than others. I'm not saying that just we have you know, we have a lot of Arnaud's and and so I'm not you can't judge them all the same. I think they have their own personality because they're comprised of their own sets of people and some are more indicative than others. I would say I recognize that there's a concern and I recognize Councilman Kenney, just thoughts about the R.A. process. And I want to say that we're already considering, you know, revisiting the R.A. process. And I think that this is a this could be used as a case to make sure that we we use this in our consideration to make sure that we empower our nose to be a full, fully representative of the people that they're supposed to represent. So I'll be voting no. Thank you so much for everyone who's here and for my colleagues for allowing us to have this extended conversation. I certainly intend for other conversations to be quicker because we spent more time vetting out some of the ideas tonight. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Haynes. Councilman Torres.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. So in this process, I think a number of things have been highlighted for me, and I'm growing appreciative of.
Speaker 2: The complicated.
Speaker 13: Subjects we've been taking on as a council in the past three months.
Speaker 4: But nearly all of the emails of opposition that were forwarded to me focused on an argument of open space. I don't fully accept this argument as a singular cause for denial. Residents in the area, especially from this particular spot, are within a ten minute walk to a multi acre park of commons coronavac a variety along the South Platte River. That said, I initially kind of entered into this discussion thinking vacation requests were pretty cut and dry and that it was largely a process dictated by state requirements. But even the language that we put on our public site emphasizes that there's a number of factors that weigh in to approval, and those include impact and effect . And specifically, we say there's no guarantee the request will be approved. A thorough understanding of the need to vacate. Combined with the support of all adjacent landowners and members of the public who may be affected by such an action is important before beginning this process. That that piece, I think, is, is one.
Speaker 2: Of the things that's.
Speaker 4: Moving me on this because of how complicated this has become. My difficulty.
Speaker 2: With this is whether or not.
Speaker 4: A neighborhood supports the proposed project. And we have put the R.A., the the Union Station, North Reno, in the spotlight to fast track becoming a nonprofit, to becoming an entity with the singular purpose of entering into this agreement, which we asked you to do. And I feel like that's been problematic of our process. Additionally, find it problematic that this isn't the only R.A. that covers this particular property. The ballpark collective also geographically covers this property. Whether or not they're active, I don't know. I don't know how long they've been involved. But this is not singular to Union Station North to this particular R.A. and the fact that this is actually the Five Points neighborhood. So when we're talking about the neighborhood supports, the neighborhood does that hasn't been mentioned at all in in the language, in the process and or by the folks that have reached out to me. I feel like that.
Speaker 2: Has been forgotten in a lot of ways. I think we there has been.
Speaker 4: This is a muddied process. And because this is a particular area of emphasis, even in our own language, to the public on what's involved in a vacation request. I don't think we've done justice to a public approval process for this to move forward. So I'll be I believe I'll be.
Speaker 2: Opposing this request.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Towards Councilman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really tough one. I see both sides in my almost four and a half years on council. We have never voted against a vacation or a dedication, so or even had anyone express an opinion. Well, that's not true. What former Councilman Espinosa did all the time. But the rest of us didn't. But so this is new to me and. And I'm I'm a bit tormented about it because we have approved so many. And I like to follow the law and I like to be consistent in my votes. And it's very hard for all of us to sit up here and have people who are so passionate that they sit on those horrible seats and listen to all of us talk way too much until 9:00 at night on a freezing cold night. And so we are swayed by all of you and we really appreciate your passion. But in the end, I always feel like I need to go back to that legal advice that I have gotten a lot of times from our attorney about this and about one that's in my district. And then to respect the the analysis that public works did. I am going to I am going to vote for it. I don't think it's going to pass. I appreciate your work in the development agreement. I think it looks cool. I mean, my district doesn't have anything like that. That's that cool. But also, George, what you said was another option. You know, also might be a good way to go. But just to be true to who I am, I, I like to stick with the advice I get and be consistent in my votes. I am going to vote no.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Black councilman said I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I'm voting yes. See how tormented I am?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Black. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So in northwest Denver, vacations are a hot topic because we have what's called carriage lots, and a lot of them are owned by the city and county of Denver. And so you had a city square block, and in the middle, in the back, you had a square that were actually used for carriages and horses. And so Northwest Denver has been the hotbed of I'll Ride Away vacations. And actually one time I was a council aide to Councilman Espinoza. This body did vote down an alley vacation because of all the work that we had done in the office. And to Councilwoman CNOOC's point about undermining the process of a good neighbor agreement. In my opinion and in my personal time as a council aide since 2012, and I used to work for the councilmember who represented Ball Park Neighborhood, I would say 80% of the time good neighbor agreements work out. The only time that they have never worked out for me is in a right of way vacation. And it's so sad to see. I hated it. I hated having to go through a whole mediation process and having the neighbors get together and have a mediator go through the process. And the developers say they were going to do something and then the city council voted to allow it and then it didn't fall through. And all of the agreements and all of the time that the neighborhood had put into that work wasn't followed through on. And for me, that was very personal because it was on the block that I grew up on, under the carriage lot that I played on as a little girl. And I was just working for Judy and I didn't even understand this process. I was very new to it. So I just want to say thank you all for your work, even if this is democracy at its finest, right? If being able to disagree and being able to have a vote. But also I hope my hope is that you as neighbors can, once this is done, that you all go back to being neighborly because that's what makes Denver great, is that if you all can use this, I believe that on the other side of conflict that you can actually grow if that's what you choose to do. And I think that's what we have to do up here as people who vote is that I have to take my other colleagues votes and I have to think about them and understand why they voted that way and not hold it against them and wash ourselves clean of this tonight and learn from the process. And through this process, I will just say that I during the research and meeting with the neighbors, this that this city of Seattle actually had to come up. It was brought to my attention that the city of Seattle actually came up with a right of way policy that was adopted in May of 2018, because they were having these same issues that we were in Denver. They didn't know how to vote on them. There was no legal authority over them, there was no criteria on them. And it kept going back and forth. It was this real gray area. So I'm just going to say that I'm one to as a council and as a council person, I want to bring these policies into Denver so that the next time they come forward, we actually have a criteria to talk about this situation because we, as Councilman Cashman mentioned, when we do rezonings, we have five criteria. We know what they are. We're very well versed on them, and here we're all floundering. And so I would like to give us more tools in the toolbox. So thank you for bringing this to my attention during this work. And ultimately, I will just be a no vote and I'm not a no vote just because the R.A. was incorporated last Thursday. I'm not a no vote just because it doesn't feel like it's rep reflective representation, even though I know it's really hard to get an R.A. going, I just don't believe that there is clear guidance, like the guidance that on the Public Works website with on the landing page, when you go to an alley vacation or right away vacation, bullet point three and four. Talk about your adjacent neighbors and their objections. And for me, I have to be have reflective representation. And if this was in my district. And there were people who sat in these chairs. When it says on public works, landing page bullet three and four that your voice matters. Your voice matters to me tonight. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciated having this delay, because when we were last here, I was very much up in the air trying to weigh things. But for me, it I've never had a call in four years of someone begging me for a hotel room. Just seriously, it's just not the case. But I get calls almost every day or every discussion I have, whether it's at a neighborhood meeting or at breakfast with friends, about the need for for affordable housing. And that's at all levels. That's not just 0 to 30. That's that's up to 120% of area median income. It's difficult to live in Denver. We all know this. You know, I think many of us, if not all of us on the dais, have gotten involved in discussions with developers on different projects and where they'll say, well, you know, we really you need to give us the zoning that we want or we're just going to have to build crap, or we'll will build we'll just take the existing zoning and just max that out. And what what I would say in this case is give me a project that truly addresses our city's critical need. I'll talk to you about the vacation. I mean, I have concern physically about, you know, I drove this area several times the way the proposed extra 63 rooms, I think that would stick out into the right of way would close in that intersection. I have concern about that. But if this were really a high community value, I'd be willing to talk about that. Not saying that it'd be a guaranteed. Yes, but I'd be willing to talk about it. So. That's that's what I'll be basing my no vote on. And I'm smiling because I just have to add this. If you talk to my kids, they'll tell you the one sin is. Don't bring me last minute stuff. Don't. And I don't I would just be serious about that for a second. You know, we've had a month at least to deal with this. And I think to bring this council a document that could have been so important at the last minute, I think is playing a little fast and loose. And so. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say that I think that, you know, Councilman, can you just point and Councilman Hines point earlier is so very important for those of you who are here tonight, who live in this neighborhood, get involved in your I.R.A.. I mean, I ran for city council because I felt like my R.A. was not representing me in my community. I literally am sitting here today because of a development that I did not want to see in my community that drove me to run for city council. Get involved in your R.A. That is your option. Participate in the process. This is this is how this works. And and, you know, it seems likely, based on the response of most of my council members, that this vacation is going to fail tonight. And I just want you to know that that is not a reflection of you. It's not a reflection of the work that you are doing as the leader of your R.A.. We have had a lot of discussion as council members about how we can better support you as R.A. leaders, because we need to do a better job of that as a city. It's something I want you to know that we are looking into. Councilman Cashman and I have talked a lot about it. I think, you know, it's something that's very it's very difficult job to be an R.A. leader. There are a lot of Arnaud's in the city, and there are a lot of rules. There are a lot of in order to to faithfully represent your community is a very difficult thing. And, you know, to to fairly take a vote is a very difficult thing. Everyone will always question everything you do right. And so there have got to be better ways for us to make sure that community members who can't get to a meeting because they have kids or because they've got to work or whatever, you know, that we can include their voices and there's got to be a way that we can better support our R.A. leaders and better support our community members to make sure that they can participate in the R.A. process better to make sure that this works better for everyone. Otherwise, our R.A. process simply isn't working. It's not reflective of our community as a whole. I know it because that's why I am literally that's why I'm sitting here today. So I just wanted to thank you for your work. I wanted to thank all of the community members who are here speaking out. All of you. I know this is so difficult. I know it's a long night. And I truly just want to impress upon you how important it is to get involved in your community organization and be a part of the voice of the community. Because if you feel like you're not being represented fairly, then you you've got the opportunity to change that. So please do. And with that, I also I'm going to be of a no vote tonight. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman, to our Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be short. A lot of my comments have already been made. I drive this area quite routinely. I live in northwest Denver and drive through that area as a shortcut to get on to. To get over to the Globeville neighborhood or other areas of downtown. And it is congested as hell today. Right. And and as we as a city start moving more and more towards requiring areas to have transportation demand management, we have to have that infrastructure in place to deal with all the different components that make it work so that people are not having to own a car to move around the city. And we know that scooters and bikes have played a big role in part of that process. Right. So when we take away a location that has been serving that function, it it sort of negates the the the direction that we have been moving to as a city to try to address some of these issues. We're dealing with this same challenge with the 41st and Fox station area, where we're seeing a lot of new development coming in and we're, you know, saying you have to have a team plan. We're capping the parking. Actually, we're we're doing that through a different tool, but it's the same effect will reduce how many parking spaces people can have in that area. But you need the infrastructure in place for the different components of this to work. And in this case, this was a site where you could do is pull up the maps and you see the the docking station for the bikes right on the on the maps. So, you know, I routinely patronize the King Soopers in the area. There's a lot of pedestrian traffic that crosses 20th Street trying to get back and forth. Not only their Whole Foods is is just the next block over. And and so I'm concerned that we're taking every little nook and cranny and trying to do everything, you know, vertical. And yes, we have been intentional in this city about looking at where we want vertical development. But does that mean every little corner has to be as dense as as possible? So my concerns are more about the logistics of the site as much as some of the other issues that have been expressed by by my colleagues. So I will also be voting no on this site tonight. I appreciate all the work that everybody has done on both sides, trying to find some middle ground on on, you know, being able to negotiate something that that can be workable. But. You know, unfortunately, it looks like the votes are not there for this to move forward tonight. So I'll will be a no vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you all for sticking with us this late into a cold evening on hard benches, it is finally time to vote. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: See tobacco? No black. Flynn.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. No. Herndon.
Speaker 4: I had no Cashman. Kenny.
Speaker 2: Ortega. No. Sandoval. Sawyer.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Torres.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 days to ice.
Speaker 0: 11 days to ice accountable. 776 has failed. On Monday, November 4th, Council is scheduled to sit as the quasi Judicial Board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for local maintenance districts. Of the 27 local maintenance districts, letters of protest were only received for two of the districts. Thus, on Monday, November 4th, Council will hold a public hearing on the Phase two West 38th Avenue, pedestrian mall, local maintenance district and the Golden Triangle Pedestrian Mall Local Maintenance District. Since no written protest of assessment were filed with the manager of public works by the deadline of September 26th, on October 17th for the remaining 25 districts , Council will not sit as the Board of Equalization for the following local maintenance districts. 15th Street Pedestrian Mall. 20th Street Pedestrian Mall Consolidated Larimer Street Pedestrian Mall. Santa Fe Drive Pedestrian Mall C St Luke's Pedestrian Mall Del Gainey Street is 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall South Downing Street Pedestrian mall Tennyson Street to pedestrian mall west 38th Avenue pedestrian mall phase 1/44 Avenue and Elliott Street pedestrian mall, Greektown Pedestrian Mall, West 32nd Avenue Pedestrian Mall, 32nd and lower pedestrian mall Broadway Pedestrian Mall Park Broadway B Pedestrian Mall Phase two Broadway Pedestrian Mall, Broadway Viaduct Pedestrian Mall 22nd and Park Avenue West Pedestrian Mall Consolidated Morrison Road Pedestrian Mall South Broadway Streetscape, Arizona to Iowa South Broadway Streetscape Wesley to Yale South Broadway Streetscape, Iowa to Wesley Tennyson streetscape portions of 30th to 44th Skyline Park. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-1154
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Seeing no other announcements, we're going to move on. There are no presentations this evening and there are no communications. But we do have one proclamation, councilwoman, towards will you please read proclamation 1154?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 19 1154 Celebrating Denver after school programs and the 2019 National Annual National Lights Out Lecture on after school. Excuse me. Whereas, the Denver City Council recognizes that afterschool programs make a lifelong difference for children and their parents. And. WHEREAS, students who regularly attend high quality after school programs benefit in terms of academic performance, social and emotional learning and health and wellness. And. Whereas, a strong focus on social, emotional and academic learning impacts students positive social behaviors and attitudes, skills such as empathy and self-confidence and academic achievement, providing youth with lifelong skills and setting them up for success in school, work and beyond. And. Whereas, more than 256,000 children in Colorado are waiting for an after for an available program.
Speaker 4: 146,856 are alone.
Speaker 1: And unsupervised after school, and many afterschool programs in Colorado and across the country are facing funding shortfalls so severe that they're being forced to close their doors and turn off their lights. And. WHEREAS, Lights on after school, the national celebration of afterschool programs promotes the importance of quality afterschool programs in the lives of children, families and communities . And. WHEREAS, The Denver Afterschool Alliance connects and unites providers, school and city officials, families, funders and youth to create long term collaborative plan for high quality afterschool programs citywide. And. Whereas, the Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool programs so that Denver's children and families have access to programs that support their success and strength in our city . Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the city and county recognizes the outstanding leadership of Denver Afterschool Alliance in bringing together all stakeholders to create a collaborative, long term plan for our city's after school program and recognizes the 2019 National Lights on Afterschool Day. Thursday, October 24th, 2019, that the clerk in the City of County of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit it to the Office of Children's Affairs.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Or motion to adopt some of. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Joyce.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. It's a real honor to welcome these students here from Stripe Prep and as representative, I think of the thousands of kids that are served through Denver's after school programing and really just want to welcome the programs also that serve them, including El Sistema, which we'll hear from. But I want to welcome Deon Williams to accept the proclamation.
Speaker 0: Before we get to accepting the proclamation, we have a few more steps. Oh, hold on just a second on that one. Were that all your comments at this time?
Speaker 1: I'll just add, I think that the programing, even when it was in place, I think in my generation resonated because our parents worked at multiple jobs at odd hours, and that hasn't changed. In fact, it's probably escalated. And so these programs, I believe, provide such an instrumental source of sustainability for our communities. And so I just thank you all for being here.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And before we vote, I'll just add my thanks to the After-School Alliance and to all the providers of afterschool programs. I got to be on the board for a little while and see firsthand the awesome work that is done in this city by so many different providers that serve such a great need for our kids and and so much value during their day. So I'm excited to support this this evening. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Torres I black. I see the Barca, I. Flynn. Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I heard it.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 6: All.
Speaker 1: Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: We've got a technical issue over there, Councilwoman Black. Something is going on over there that everybody else get their vote logged in. I still only see 12 if we count Councilwoman Black. There we go. Madam Secretary, if you please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 1154 has been adopted. Now, time for the proclamation. Acceptance. You want to go ahead, Councilman Torres?
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd like to invite Dianne, and I think she's bringing up someone from El Sistema to join her.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Good evening.
Speaker 1: Counsel. Thank you so much for supporting this proclamation.
Speaker 3: My name is Dion Williams.
Speaker 1: I'm the executive director of the Office of Children's Affairs and a champion of the Denver Afterschool Alliance. The Denver Afterschool Alliance, which is housed within the Office of Children's Affairs, works to increase access to and participation in quality afterschool programs across Denver. As you just heard in the proclamation, we know that afterschool programs make a real and lasting difference.
Speaker 4: For our city's youth.
Speaker 1: And their families. The trouble is, we're not nearly meeting the need for every one student enrolled in a quality afterschool program. There are two students waiting to get in. That's what National Lights On Afterschool Day is about. And we're here today in celebration of it. We will also be lighting up the city and county building blue the rest of the week and have a photo display in the atrium of the web building where you can find more information about some of our kids in our programs. We're thankful to the city for its support of our afterschool programs through dedicated funding from Measure two A and through marijuana tax revenue funds. Though we know it's not enough to meet all of our needs. With me today, we've brought some students who can show you some of the work that goes on in our afterschool programs from two of the many organizations that support youth in our afterschool hours.
Speaker 4: To share a little bit about their afterschool experience, first we have Noa Mena, a sixth grader from Colorado.
Speaker 1: I have a Dream Foundation. And then we're going to hear.
Speaker 4: From Johan and Zaira Avila's from El Sistema.
Speaker 1: I want to play a song of the violin, and thank you again for all of your support for the Denver Afterschool Alliance and for afterschool programs across the city. So. Good evening, counsel. It's like such an honor to be in front of your guys like eyesight right now. It's like circle. But I'm no winner. And I'm here representing Denver after the Denver after school program. And basically, Denver after school has helped me in many ways, both mentally and physically, because I used to be very kind of sad because I have many things that would happen at home after school helped me because there's teachers and people that are dedicated to kind of getting you to a place where you can be happy and like, it's helped me because like, I've come all this way ever since, like I first got into it and it's very like unique and very different than all the other programs because there's so many different things that you can do , like so many clubs and like so many things I can help you just in general. And this like it teaches you how to basically become a better person in general. And I like how it shows you like how to basically be either like say here like kind of like professional OC because I keep going like, like, you know, so like teaches you how to be professional and like it shows you basically so many things that like you can learn in life that just support you and like help you go all the way up to like the top where like you can like do so many things and like help like the high schoolers we're supporting when there's like global warming and like, you can help like so many things because of just after school. Because they teach you so many things. How great.
Speaker 0: Great job. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 5: My name is Christian Galderma, and I'm the program manager for El.
Speaker 6: Sistema, Colorado.
Speaker 0: And before you, I'm presenting.
Speaker 5: Joanne and Sara Avila's with their teaching artist, Ms.. Beth Remy.
Speaker 1: Stands for the Star Spangled Banner.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you very much. And I will say you said it's cool for you to be here in front of us. It is really cool for us to be up here and have you in front of us and have so many talented young people in our council chambers. I hope that you will continue to come back and be active in your community. Feels great to have you with us tonight. So thank you very much. All right. That is our only proclamation this evening, which brings us to the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2019 Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-1016
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out. I miss anything. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your comment on 1016 thing.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, just a very brief comment as I researched this, a vacation of right of way. I just wanted to commend the Denver Housing Authority and Public Works, traffic design and engineering for the very creative way that they've handled this use of access right of way. It's at a very strange intersection of two old subdivision plots that are almost 150 years old, where our diagonal grid meets the traditional.
Speaker 6: Hello.
Speaker 2: Meets the traditional north southeast west grid. And the way that it's proposed to handle the traffic might require a little more funding from the city to accomplish the the reconstruction on the south side of West 32nd Avenue. But we're at Erie Street, 18th Shoshone and 32nd all come together. This looks like just a tremendous resolution to a really sticky problem. Plus, it allows us to proceed more effectively with the construction and development of 53 more affordable housing units on that corner. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. That concludes the item. Oh, Councilman, I take it you also have something to say.
Speaker 7: Just very briefly. Go ahead. This is in my neighborhood. I drive this street every day. And with more and more residential units and more people walking in the neighborhood, folks don't always know who has the right of way because there are so many intersections or so many access points there. So cleaning up that intersection, I think will be really important move towards addressing a safety issue. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 0: That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. We're not ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, I move, the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon. Final consideration and do pass on a block for the following items. All series of 2019 1040104110421043104410521023102510261032103310341035108410221015101610171020. We've. That's it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call black.
Speaker 1: I see tobacco i.
Speaker 6: Flynn I.
Speaker 1: Gillmor.
Speaker 4: I Herndon.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 4: Hines.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Connect I. Ortega y. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results.
Speaker 1: 1313.
Speaker 0: Ays The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 817, changing the zoning classification for 3141 Raleigh Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 834 amending the Denver Zoning Code.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at the intersection of North Shoshone Street and West 32nd Avenue, without reservations.
Vacates a portion of the North East corner of Shoshone Street and West 32nd Avenue, without reservations, in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-1-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-0877
|
Speaker 0: the zoning classification for four 2 to 5 LRT Street. So sorry if that threw anybody off right before the recess 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. If you you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. 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. Councilman Cashman, will you please vote Council Bill eight, seven, seven on the floor.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 0877 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council bill 877 is open. May we have.
Speaker 5: The staff report.
Speaker 3: There you go. All right. I'm Alice, Stevie. And this is the proposed rezoning for 3930 958 LRT Street. So we are in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. The and this is in the 41st and Fox station area. The subject property is approximately 7.4 acres and currently has residential housing in a225 story building with a 17 story tower. The proposed rezoning to see our X12 Urban Center Neighborhood Context residential mixed use up to 12 stories is to reflect the changing character of the area to a more urban transit oriented development. So the current zoning is AIA with the billboard overlay, which is also found nearby in all directions. Also to the north is see our x 12 and cm x 20. And then to the west is cm x 20. The current land use is multi-unit residential, which is also found to the north along with industrial and office uses. And then there's more industrial and vacant land in the west, and then I-25 is to the south and east. So the bottom right image shows the subject property as seen from above the interstate. And then the top image is residential development to the north, and the middle is a vacant property and some distant industrial buildings to the west. So the 41st and Fox next step study is an ongoing study that is a joint effort between CPD Public Works and the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative to recommend major infrastructure improvements in the study area. The goals of this project are to identify key multimodal infrastructure and roadway improvements, support transit oriented development, the transit oriented development vision and address neighborhood connectivity and traffic congestion. So the Map Amendment application was recommended for approval by Planning Board in August. It was before Luti also in August and then is before city council today. The application includes a list of the outreach conducted by the applicant and staff have not received any comments regarding this rezoning application. So now for the review criteria, there are four plans to consider on this particular site. The proposed map amendment is consistent with several strategies from comprehensive plan. 2040 will enable mixed use infill development, including an increase in allowed housing density near the 41st and Fox station at an intensity that is consistent with the dense, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods around transit that are expressed in the plan. In Blueprint Denver The future neighborhood context is Urban Center, which is characterized by high intensity residential and significant employment, with a substantial mix of uses, street activation and connectivity. The future place of this area is called high residential, which is a high mix of uses, including many large scale multi-unit residential uses as well as commercial uses. LRT Street is classified as under and designated local, and Fox Street is a mixed use collector. 38th Avenue and Park AV, which are both just south of the scope of this map, are both mixed use arterials. So the street grid in this portion of the city is interrupted by I-25, I-70 and the railroad. But the site is close to the new station platform and there are additional bicycle and pedestrian connections in the area. So according to the Blueprint Growth strategy, the site is within a high and medium high residential area. These areas are anticipated to see 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to C.R. X12 will focus residential mixed use growth near a transit station in an appropriate context, which is intended for this kind of growth. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with Blueprint Denver. So the 41st and Fox station area plan was adopted in 2009 and it talks about development of a high intensity activity node on the east side of the station. The subject site is mapped as urban residential 2 to 12 storeys, which is primarily residential, but may include a noteworthy number of complimentary commercial uses. Some of the infrastructure recommendations that are in this plan have not yet been completed. So the city adopted rules and regulations last November that apply to any development in this area that requires a site development plan. These rules and regulations establish a vehicle trip capacity for the area and then allocate the remaining trips as projects are permitted and built. So then the Globeville neighborhood plan was adopted in 2014, and it includes a vision of a diverse transit supportive urban center at the station area. The subject site is mapped as urban residential in this plan, which is higher density and primarily residential. It's also mapped as an area of change and therefore is an area where it is desirable to channel growth. So 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 implementation of adopted plans. And it facilitates increased housing density and a mix of uses which has been linked to several positive health impacts. The staff report details the physical changes in the area, including the 41st and Fox Station and Pedestrian Bridge, the Anchor Street Multi-Use Path and nearby development and redevelopment. This rezoning would recognize the changed character of the area as it transitions to a transit oriented development. And they requested cruises consistent with the neighborhood context, description, zone, district, purpose and intent. So based on finding all review criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval and the applicant is here for questions. They don't have a presentation, but they're happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Mike Franken.
Speaker 6: Hello. I'm the. I represent Real Realty Regency Realty investors, and I'm really just here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record?
Speaker 6: Michael Franken.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver, home of Salau. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive action coming in for Social Change, Universal African People's Organization, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. And I was on top of the ballot for city council where last this past May election, I got almost 15,000 votes with no money. We're in favor of this, especially since the city keeps saying now we can do better. So more housing. Yes. My question is, what is the amount level for this housing? I want to know what the AMA level is, who is going to occupy this space, because this is in a rapidly gentrified area uptown like other parts of this city. But Globeville in particular has been gentrified and the people have not been treated well in this area. So I want to know what the AMA level is when development is going to begin on this project and who is going to occupy this space. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? All right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first say that this particular parcel. Was one of the properties that was included in the 2010 rezoning. There's currently a 12 story building on this site, so it was inadvertently down zoned when it should have allowed to been allowed to keep the zoning that it had. This is the Regency House hotel site. My question, does it have specifically to do with the site as much as it is with the station area and the work that's going on over there? And just wanted to ask maybe Mr. Merritt, who I see sitting in the audience, if you can just give us a very brief because it has a direct correlation on any development in this entire FOX station area. No longer being called the name you gave it before. So can you just briefly talk number one about where we are with the drainage issue, because that's huge for this area. Any of you who have ever been through or tried to get through when it's raining, you cannot go on the 38th Avenue underpass. And that will be an access point for people trying to come off of Park Avenue to get into Fox area or into North Denver. So where are we with that? And then if you could just talk briefly about how many of the developments have already been allotted a trip generation. Assignments, if you will.
Speaker 5: Right. So my name is Chris Nevitt. I'm the city's top manager, transit oriented development. And I'll take the second question first, if I could. So we established the overall trip ceiling, which is about 25,000 trips. I use rough numbers here rather than precise ones, just for use of explanation. About half the trips are already used, so that leaves about 12,000 trips left. And of those 12,000 trips left. We have projects that have reserved to serve their project. About half of those trips. So we have about 5000 trips left. None of those projects has been constructed. Right. So the rules and regulations lay out a series of milestones that any project has to go through. They secure the trips in the concept phase, and then as they move through site development plan and multiple reviews of site development plan, they get to hang on to their trips and then ultimately build their projects. So no project has actually one project has moved to actual construction documents and that is 50 trips. All the other trips, roughly 6500 trips, are simply in a reserved state, awaiting for future submissions of site development plan to refine that number and actually construct the project. So just the one project is actually in construction.
Speaker 7: So this particular property is considered within the current baseline?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 7: Okay. And of those that have been reserved, is does that include the 43 acre site at the far north end? Yes. Okay. So now talk about the.
Speaker 5: Weight the the the the the Fox North site that 40 plus acres has has not yet reserved trips. They are part of the system, though. They have not yet reserved trips.
Speaker 7: But they will have to reserve within the 5000 or so that's remaining. Correct.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. I'm not going to go to my next question because I think it's not as relevant to tonight's conversation, but it will be to further conversations that we will have positive.
Speaker 5: We will have further coverage. Yes.
Speaker 7: So talk to us about where we're at with the drainage study for this area and how that folds into the next step. Discussion with the property owners.
Speaker 5: Sure. I want to bring my colleague up here, Karen. Good. Those two, the next step study and the drainage study have been happening in parallel, but in conversation with each other. But I think Karen Good is better equipped to tell you how that conversation.
Speaker 6: Is, right?
Speaker 3: I hope so. Karen Good, Denver Public Works. And as Chris mentioned, we are working with our our next step study for forty-firsts and Fox station area that is actually being completed by the same consultant who is working on the Globeville drainage plan. And as the councilwoman mentioned, we do have a flooding area, flooding issue, and that's the 30th underpass. So you can still easily get into FOX, the FOX station area from downtown in extreme flooding situations, which happen probably about once every 3 to 5 years where the underpass floods and it's highly advisable not to go through the underpass . So it's hard to get to that Fox station area from if you're coming from the West, from Highlands, Sunnyside, etc.. And we've had multiple studies looking at what it takes to fix that underpass. It is rather extensive because it is a major regional drainage problem, not a site specific drainage problem. Basically, a majority of the water coming from the west gets held up by the railroad tracks. They they kind of serve as a little bit of a dam and they pull the water into the underpass, which is less than ideal. So that's something we're looking at as part of the next step study, along with additional connections and looking at what the priorities and costs would be for those and what potential options there would be to address those. They're pretty significant infrastructure investments. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 1: It does.
Speaker 7: But the only other question I have is whether or not the final implementation of how that gets resolved is to then look at the creation of some kind of improvement district that would ask for participation from all of the developments that are looking to develop in this area.
Speaker 3: That certainly is something that we're looking at. We, as part of the scope for a study, have brought on experts that are helping us look at the different opportunities for districts. There is already one metro district district in the area, and that's for the Denver Post site. But you can layer metro districts with other district options. So we're looking at those opportunities. And we did have a meeting with all the major property owners in the area to discuss their feelings on what they might want to participate in. Because we we don't just lay those out. They have to everyone has to agree to participate. And folks are definitely thinking about it. But I don't we didn't get a oh, absolutely. We want to move forward with this district. In this district. And we're all in. As Chris mentioned, we don't have a lot of developments that we don't have any developments on a large scale that have broken ground. And so that plays into the factor of that funding and financing and how they're going to move forward. But this study will recommend a couple of different options. It may say this is the preferred option. Here are some other alternatives. It will depend how much feedback we get from those property owners as to how much we can say, Oh, this option is the one way to go. We're not going to say that unless everyone jumps on board in a fairly short time period. But we will have a variety of opportunities and options and pros and cons for different districts and district combinations, so that we can all be informed about what the potential funding and financing mechanisms are and as well as the general public and the private developers.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Karen. I appreciate the work that's going on over here because this will be one of the higher density areas in a small concentrated area that's going to for sure add more traffic to the area, even though we have created this trip generation cap, if you will, for the area and unless we get additional infrastructure access to the site. I think what I heard is that then potentially frees up more trips to the area, but I appreciate the work that's going on here. So thank you.
Speaker 3: And the people. Can also change their travel patterns. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Real quick. It's good if you can come back up and it may take both you and Mr. Nevett, but a question building on Councilwoman Ortega's. So we recognize we need infrastructure. We know we can't do it before the development. We're trying these creative trip management processes, and I'm wondering if there's a potential to attach those trips to fees, some similar to impact fees, where we can incentivize affordability in a different way. By waiving those fees, those trip fees, if they incorporate enough affordability. Is that possible to to use this trip pilot and attach fees to it? So we can build our infrastructure.
Speaker 3: I don't know offhand from a I know that the way the rules and regs are written currently, it doesn't have a fee structure associated with it. It's a set cap and it's on a first come, first serve basis. I would have to look at look into whether that would be something. And Chris, I don't know if you explored that with the rules and rec's creation. Chris was much more involved in in that rules and rec's creation. But I don't believe that we have any that have those linked. We could certainly look at. Best practices across the country. See if other folks are doing that. Chris, do you have anything to add?
Speaker 5: Just I mean, I don't want to wander too far off of the subject of the rezoning that's in front of you right now. But when we set up those rules and regulations, we were really addressing what we saw as a potential crisis and to make sure that development didn't get ahead of the infrastructure that we needed to serve it and to protect the neighborhood. So we wanted to put those rules and regs in place. I think some of the ideas that you've articulated about, you know, creating a fee and maybe being able to waive fees for affordable housing, I think that's all for conversation down the road once we've completed the next step study and then we're in a conversation with the community and with the property owners and with the developers about how we could construct this to produce the most the best outcome for the community at large. But I think all your your questions are right on the money. We don't have answers for them yet.
Speaker 1: Well, we've talked about this many times, and I know we have a habit of throwing things at the wall and seeing if they stick. And I think this is a good opportunity to make sure that we're doing it, addressing this potential crisis in a meaningful way. This property's currently in good hands. It is an it is a highly needed amenity for students trying to go to school in Denver. And for now, it's fine. But if this gets into the wrong hands, we're talking about a lot more development here throughout this property. And I want to make sure that we're building the infrastructure that we need to keep our community safe and accessible. And we're thinking about that before it's too late. So thank.
Speaker 3: You. And I think we might be able to add a little bit of that assessment and analysis into our next step study, just to look to see if there's anything that we can look at from a lease national standpoint.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple questions. This one, you might not have an answer to either Ella or Karen or or Chris, but there's a parcel identified on the assessor's map in the middle of this, between the between the tower building and the back property on a lady that appears to be an old remnant of railroad , maybe, or something. Do you know, can you explain what that is? Because that's part of what's being resolved, but it's not owned by the applicant.
Speaker 5: Oh, is that right? I don't. There is a weird it sort.
Speaker 6: Of looks like a snake.
Speaker 5: Parcel. Yes. That belongs to I think it belongs to Metro Wastewater.
Speaker 3: Can you point that out?
Speaker 2: Is that part of the.
Speaker 6: Well, this one doesn't have the right.
Speaker 2: And I beg the president's indulgence, this is.
Speaker 5: Part of my map is towards 31st Street.
Speaker 3: I believe what what's being pointed out is not part of the rezoning and.
Speaker 2: It is not okay and it shows on the presentation just grossly is being encompassed by. Okay. The other. The other question I had is, Alan, maybe you can answer this. The, the C, r X12 is recommended for areas that are served by arterials. So maybe you could talk a little bit more about how we arrived at and I realize there's a 17 story building already on there, but see, our x eight or even five might have fit better with the street classifications that already exist in here. So what? Explain a little bit more the thinking that went into choosing 12.
Speaker 3: The well, in terms of choosing 12, I would have to defer that to the applicant. But in terms of our analysis of 12, there, there is that language in the intent statement about being served by specific types, primarily by arterials. Right. Exactly.
Speaker 2: And there is no arterial here.
Speaker 3: No, no. I mean, there's there are. The area is served by them. But that the language doesn't say that it has to be adjacent to. And so we try and think about it in a more holistic transportation context in this case, because it is close to the turn of the station.
Speaker 2: First and five.
Speaker 3: Exactly. And so the combination of of considering other non automobile transportation infrastructure, in considering the appropriate intensity and then also because the the station area plan called this parcel out for 12 storeys. So just kind of it's there's a bit of finesse in terms of balancing different things. And, you know, you don't always get the exact same direction from every piece. But on, on, on the whole, we felt that it was consistent.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's that's a great answer. I just wanted to be more comfortable with this. And I understand that when we talk about arterials and collectors and whatnot, we're talking about streets with cars. We and we haven't really taken into consideration transit as an arterial. And there are obviously we have the commuter rail, typically a street that would be an arterial might already have real robust transit on it. So that that makes sense. So it's good to see that. I just want to feel more comfortable with that analysis. Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. See no other questions. I will just take a second to recognize that the Honorable Chris Nevitt, formerly representing Denver's Luckey District seven, on this body. Nice to have you back in chambers this evening. And that concludes the public hearing for Council Bill 877. It's now closed. Are there comments by members of city council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I saw that no one else chimed in, but I can't let it go without commenting that this used to be Elvis Presley's preferred place to stay in Denver. When he played in Denver, he always stayed at this hotel top floor. Am I right? Thank you.
Speaker 6: Elvis Presley.
Speaker 2: Elvis. Yeah, obviously.
Speaker 6: Elvis. Do you know any other Elvis clansmen, Kasra? I have not heard of this Elvis. To whom you speak of, I'm sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you, as always. Custom in Flint for the history lesson to go along with our evening. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that. I was on the fence. But if it really has the connection to Elvis, I. I've made my decision. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines, I will remind my colleagues that there is no rezoning criteria that includes any preferences of where Elvis like to stay when he was in town. That being said, I want to thank staff for the comprehensive staff report that I think does clearly illustrate that this project, that this application meets the criteria and I will be voting yes tonight, not because of Elvis, but because of the criteria being met. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black Eye Betsy Tobacco I. Flynn High Gilmer I Herndon High.
Speaker 6: Hinds High.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 1: Kenny.
Speaker 7: Ortega I.
Speaker 4: Sandoval High Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, polls close voting in the results. 1339 Council Bill 877 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 878 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3900 Elati Street and 3958 Elati Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-12 (industrial to urban center, residential mixed-use), located at 3900 and 3958 Elati Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10212019_19-0878
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, polls close voting in the results. 1339 Council Bill 877 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 878 on the floor?
Speaker 6: I Yes, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 19 0878 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. The required public hearing for Council Bill 878 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening members of council on all these here from CPD to represent the staff report for the rezoning case at 4225 North LRT Street requesting from IAU oh two move to C.R. x 12. The subject property is approx is located in the District nine Globeville neighborhood and more specifically in the Fox station East Area. The proposed rezoning is to rezone from urban center neighborhood context to residential mixed use 12 storey height maximum. The subject property is approximately 25,000 square feet or just over a half acre. The rezoning is to allow for redevelopment of the site. The existing zoning on the site as IAU oh two, which is our light industrial complex, which uses FDR as a maximum way of measuring form intensity. And you oh two as a billboard use overlay. No, billboard is currently on the site. The surrounding area is primarily zoned IAU oh two, but there is some CRCs directly to the east as well as CMCs 20 and CMS eight to the west. The existing land use on the site is office and industrial uses and the surrounding uses are industrial multi-unit, some residential office and vacant parking type uses. The subject. Property is shown on the lower right hand corner and the top right hand corner shows the property across the street. And as you can see, the primary character is industrial, low scale uses. The process here today. I'm sorry. It looks like we have an old PowerPoint on here. Ludi that was in August and the public hearing is tonight. In terms of public comments, we have receded, received a letter of support from the Globeville Civic Partners United Action. You can and those are both included in your staff report as well as a letter of support from the property owner at 4320 North LRT Street. The rezoning review criteria are illustrated here and there are five in which I will go through. The first of which is consistency with the adopted plan. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies and comprehensive plan. Specific strategies consistent with this rezoning are equitable, inclusive and affordable goal. One Strategy to increase the development of housing units close to transit and in mixed use developments, as well as the following to create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for individuals as well as trade as well as families. Excuse me. The proposed rezoning will enable for mixed use infill development that allows for new housing near the 41st and Fox station at an intensity that is consistent with the dense, walkable mixed use neighborhoods around transit. Explicitly expressed in this plan. With regard to Blueprint Denver, it provides guidance on the future neighborhood context and identifies the as urban center, which is characterized by high intensity residential uses as well as some significant residential and employment uses. Development typically contains a substantial mix of uses with good street activation as well as connectivity. The future place types as identified as high residential, which is intended to accommodate a high mix of uses, including many large scale multi-unit residential uses as well as some commercial uses. LRT Street is identified as a designated local, and Fox Street is a mixed use collector. Found one block over the site, is close to the new station platform at 41st and Fox, and there are additional bike and pedestrian connections along Inka Street connecting down to downtown. Per the blueprint growth strategy. The site is within a high residential area and these sites are anticipated to accommodate 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. And the proposed map amendment will see our ex 12 will focus residential mixed youth growth growth near transit station and an appropriate context which is intended for a growth of this kind. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with blueprint done over the Forty-firsts and Fox stationary. A plan was adopted in 2009 and established a diverse, transit supportive, sustainable urban center for the station. The subject site is mapped as urban residential, recommending maximum building heights ranging from 2 to 12 stories. Urban residential is intended to accommodate primarily residential uses, but allow for a noteworthy number of complementary commercial uses. Some of the infrastructure recommendations of this plan have not yet been completed as noted previously, and the city has adopted rules and regulations this past November to apply to any development in this area that requires a site development plan . The rules and regulations establish a vehicle trip capacity in the area that allocate the remaining trips as the projects are submitted and then built. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 2014, and it reinforces the vision established at the 41st and Fox station for a diverse transit supportive urban center at the station area. The subject site is mapped as urban residential, which is intended to accommodate higher density, primarily residential uses with complementary commercial uses. It is also map to the area of change and therefore it is an area where it is desirable to channel growth. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations. Additionally, the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans, as well as facilitating increased housing density through a mix of uses which has been linked to several positive health impacts. The justifying circumstances for this area is changed or changed condition. The staff report details physical changes in the area, including the 41st and Fox station, opening the pedestrian bridge, connecting to the west and the English Street multi-use path as well as some nearby development as well as redevelopment occurring. The rezoning would recognize the changed area character of the area as it transitions to a transit oriented development and finally, consistency with neighborhood context, district purpose and intent. The requested Crux 12 is consistent with the neighborhood context description, its own district purpose as well as intent. As noted before, while the subject site is not immediately adjacent to an arterial as it is located on anchor, Fox Street is immediately one block over and the site as a whole is served by arterials and is also established within a transit station. Allowing for other multimodal connections with that staff recommends approval, finding that all the review criteria have been met. That concludes my staff report and the applicant is here as well and is signed up to speak. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Andy Blanding.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Andy blaming my wife and I own blaming dirt work. That is an excavation company that excavate basements and we do sewer and water installs and repairs. We've been in business 26 years and we've been on that site 20 years. The property is about two blocks away from the Fox Street light rail station. We have a metal building on the property that's 1000 square feet we use for an office and an attached garage that we use for storage. We also use the property dump trucks, trailers and tractors. I noticed that last November. We noticed that a rezoning was taking place around us. So I, I thought that we should start doing that. So I enlisted the help of Steve Farris here to help me with the zoning process. We started work with the pre application conference in February and have been encouraged by city staff and others to complete the process, including unanimous support from the Planning Board in August. That said, the main reason I'm rezoning is I'd like to have the property ready to sell when it's time for me to retire. Steve and I met with city staff, community groups and neighbors, and all were supportive of the rezoning. I'm one of the smaller landowners planning for rezoning and it looks like the bigger properties are being resolved, and I hope that I'm going to be rezoning also. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Steve Farris.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel people. I reside in Denver. Steve Faris. As Andy noted, this rezoning is a significant facet of his retirement plan. He's worked on this since February. We've, as you know, reached out to a lot of neighbors. We also found early on that there was a lot of consistency with all of the city plans, as was referenced in their earlier rezoning you just looked at tonight. And I do think there's a lot of good reasons, but I've heard some inklings that some people felt this rezoning is different than the other one you just heard . And I just want to kind of make it clear that this is Andy's only property. The prior rezonings are was by people who own several different parcels have also re zoned other parcels in upper fox. In the meantime, this is Andy's only site and he is looking forward to seeing this come to fruition. It's a smaller site. It's more likely to be combined with another site in the future. He supports any infrastructure and affordable housing requirements that are out there. There's are looking we're watching those and I think Chris Nevitt and Karen Good are doing a great job. I hope they do some innovative and new things that'll help this area achieve its infrastructure goals. And finally, I guess we just want to state that this is a great area for rezoning. It's an opportunity where redevelopment can be a force for good. There's that train station there deserves more higher density. It's a five minute ride to downtown and a five minute walk from most sites up there. So rezoning facilitates that, and it's great for the city to have that done. With that in mind, I just hope if you're considering anything negative about this, I'll be happy to answer any questions we've counted or 11 or 12 other rezonings up here that have been approved and we hope are in that list tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm represented for Denver Homicide Law. Black Stocks. A Movement for self-defense. Positive Action. Commitment for Social Change. Universal African Peoples Organization and Unity Party. Colorado. We are actually in favor of this. I just wanted to know what the AMA level was going to be for the residential mix you see at this property. And also, if you did a traffic study to determine whether or not Foch Street is going to be able to accommodate all of this new development, all this traffic that is coming through this thoroughfare. So if you could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council on this item? Catholic America.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So, Mr. Blending, if you can come forward.
Speaker 6: If.
Speaker 7: So you're you're wanting to do this as part of your retirement plan, but do you have any specific plans for this site if you're successful getting it rezone tonight other than selling it?
Speaker 6: No, my my plan would be to sell it. I'm not I'm not a developer.
Speaker 7: Okay. Are you looking at doing that in the immediate future or.
Speaker 6: You know what I would think in the next year or two.
Speaker 7: Okay. Um, I want to ask Chris now if you wouldn't mind coming back. This particular application made reference to the trip generation study. And what I didn't clarify earlier was when you anticipate that the study will be completed so that we have some clarity on what options are available to the property owners in this area that want to develop.
Speaker 5: So again, Chris Nevett, city's toady manager.
Speaker 7: The the next step study is what I'm talking about. Sorry.
Speaker 5: Right. So that the next step study will not is not a traffic analysis of like what the capacity of the existing infrastructure is or necessarily a detailed analysis of what additional capacity will be gained by new infrastructure investments. The the the rules and regulations have established as a, as a matter of record that Public Works believes that the capacity of the existing roadways is 25,000 trips in 2023. We sort of set a five year, you know, let's let's have these rules and regs in place for five years. Five years hence will be 2023. And in 2023, we'll do a re analysis of what the roadway capacity is and how much of that capacity is being used. But the next step study won't be doing those those calculations.
Speaker 7: So clarify then specifically for my colleagues what the next step study is doing.
Speaker 5: Sure. I will drag my colleague Karen good up again. She's the project manager for the next step study and she can answer any detailed questions.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to get to the connection between. Yeah. What's been developed and how many troops will be in the area to, you know, how we solve the problem of the fact that we've got one intersection to get traffic through into this site. We have no CDOT commitment at this point in time unless you have some new information to revisit looking at that intersection. And that's critical to moving traffic both into North Denver and into this 41st and Fox area. So help me with that. And then I've got one last question.
Speaker 5: Okay. Let me just toss this out here. The in some ways, the the the next step study can even be independent of of these rezonings. We have a station area plan that anticipates considerable density and we have a roadway capacity that cannot accommodate the kind of density that we've planned for now in many places in the city , we do a station area plan or a small area plan, and then we come back with a next step study to sort of drill down on what are the infrastructure moves specifically that the, the, the the station area plan might call for. And the station area plan did call for additional capacity into this area to accommodate development, but wasn't very specific. The next step study is doing precisely that is figuring out what are the infrastructure moves that can be made to add roadway capacity and multimodal capacity to this area to support the development that the plan anticipates. But for the detail, I'm handing it to my colleague, Karen. Good.
Speaker 3: Karen Good Denver Public Works. So the easiest way to think about the next step study might be taking. As Chris said, it's that next step of that stationary, a plan it's looking at. Okay, here are the big picture. High level ideas in the stationary plan. What can we really do? How much is it going to cost? We in a plan, you're looking at a 50,000 foot level where we're the 10,000, 5000 foot level. Now, I'm saying, okay, well, we looked at connections to the west. Where could those be? How could they work? How much might they cost? Who could contribute to those and those connections? At the north end of the station, we're looking both at a connection to the West or a connection to the North. But either way, at that north end of the station to augment the 44th connection, we're only looking at the connection onto the 45th Main Street as having supported bike and pad, not additional vehicular capacity. So that's important to know. But there are two ins and outs to the stationary, not just one. We also have sat down with CDOT. They're open to conversations. They don't have any funding and you would need to go through a federal process to get any changes to the interchange, whether that and we are looking at some different things. You can you can look online, lots of fun stuff. We had a public meeting. We were looking at possible changes to the signals to how the interchange works from a layout standpoint and signaling standpoint to even roundabouts. So we're just, again, high level, not saying any of these are the right solution, but let's look at what.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 3: What the Delhi train might include and then picking and choosing what actually will work in collaboration, obviously with the community members and property owners and businesses in the area. Does that hit your questions?
Speaker 7: It it helps. So now I'm going to go to, if I may, I have one last question. Good. Mr. President, to in Elise, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So given the fact that we only have 5000 trips left of the 25,000 available based on what's been assigned to other projects, and that really includes only like three or four of the sites that have come in for rezoning. And we've already done close to a dozen that have been brought before City Council. So what happens to the sites that are already resold or are in the pipeline to be resolved when all the trips have already been allotted and there are no trips left for any of the ones that didn't get in line fast enough to get any of those trips assigned to their development.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if there were no more trips allowed. And so it was before the time that we revisited those trip counts, then they would not be able to move forward at the time of site development plan.
Speaker 7: They would not be able to develop at all.
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, I mean, they might have a few trips that they're currently using from their existing site, so they might have a small delta, but generally if they don't have the trips, then they might be limited in their development capacity.
Speaker 7: So let me ask this question in a different way than. I understand anybody has a right to try to rezone their property. But if. The reality is that we have maxed out what can happen in this area because of the way that we're calculating trips. Has CPD. Basically not allowed any new ones coming in because I don't want us to be putting the city in a situation where we're giving everybody the impression that they can build to the maximum height that the zoning potentially allows, but yet the amount of trips is going to significantly cap what people can do. And we all know that if you can't if you can't park a project, you can't finance a project. Banks won't finance projects without parking. So that's why I'm asking the question. Just trying to understand whether or not CPD is continuing to allow applications to keep coming through the door. Knowing the challenges we have with this specific geographical area of the city.
Speaker 1: And water comes up, can we just ask one clarifying question? When you say applications, do you mean rezoning applications or. Yes. Great man. Answer the answer to that. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Sergio Walter with community planning development. So I wanted to answer this one just because it's a kind of big picture question how somebody thinks about rezonings in this area. The rules and regulations are tied to site development plan, and part of that is because it's at that time that we know enough about the project to be able to know how many trips to allocate. So right now, in most of the rezoning applications before, you would allow for a wide variety of projects to happen. They can have very different trip counts. And also that trip count can vary depending on very specific things about, for example, team strategies they might do to reduce trips . So so far as you know, and that's why there's the situation that we have now, our approach has been anybody who wants to come in and submit an application can do so. We are talking about no because we're aware of how constrained this area is and the fact that there are a lot of rezonings that have already been approved. We don't know what might happen on those sites. They might not develop at all and they wouldn't take any chips. They might develop and take a certain amount of trips. If they build one type of project, another amount of trips, if they build another type. But going forward, we're looking for ways to better connect the trip, count to the rezoning stage rather than just at site development plan. And that would remove the disconnect that's happening right now, where you don't get to how many trips are available until you come in for site development plan. So we'd like and that's the reason why the rezonings are happening, because the rules and regs aren't connected to the rezonings and the rezonings have to be evaluated by the adopted plan that's in place. But going forward, for any future applications that you see, we're looking to do a better tie between a rezoning and how many trips are left at that time.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel comes from Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a question for analysts if you could come. So if you could go to slide or in your slide deck to slide 11. So on slide 11, if you read bullet point six and eight, I just I just want to bring this to everyone's attention. So it talks about environmentally resilient goal, promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. And I just have to say that I feel like that's inaccurate to have that bullet point on this slide deck, considering that we're having a whole entire discussion about next step studies and considering having rules and regulations. I don't know anywhere else in the city and county of Denver that have rules and regulations on parking. So I just have to say that I don't agree with that.
Speaker 0: Kathleen, I just want to remind you, we're in questions. Our comments. You are you get this is a question. Okay.
Speaker 1: And then I just want to say that number eight, it says environmentally resilient, focused growth by transit stations along oh, no, it was a different one encourage mixed use communities where it can it basically it's talking about medium capacity transit corridors. So can you tell me is this just like. Is this just like you put this in every presentation, the same the same bullet points, or is this presentation specifically for this rezoning? So does this slide look different and different rezoning or is this boilerplate? The slide does modify based off of rezonings, and while there are still many infrastructure gaps, it's also not greenfield development. So we already have a street network in place and some infrastructure connectivity. So while there are many infrastructure gaps, it's getting at trying to incentivize redevelopment of areas as opposed to just going out and developing greenfield development . So that's why that bullet point was included. The last went on there focus on growth by transit stations because this isn't a transportation, it's also a and high and medium capacity transit. So because it's intended to capture all kind of transit rich areas, whether it's a transit station such as these or potentially areas along Colfax, we found that to be applicable and consistent. But I can certainly see your perspective and we can evaluate those a little bit more closely. I also just do want to take the opportunity to clarify that the rules and regulations do not talk about parking specifically. They are focused on trip generations of automobiles. Okay, so then I have another question. Chris never can you come. So for the rules and regulations that are in this area, can you talk to me about the process? Because are those adopted by city council or who adopts those rules and regulations?
Speaker 5: So the rules and regulations that you guys have authorized public works, CPD, other agencies to adopt rules and regulations consistent with the Denver Revised Municipal Code. And so the process in this case was public works and CPD together develop these rules and regulations went through the prescribed public participation process. I can't remember how many meetings we had, but you know, you're required to do things and post it for a certain amount of time. I wish I had that at the top of my head, but we made sure that we obeyed all those procedural rules and then they are adopted by the manager of Public Works and the manager of CPD.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And I have one question for the applicant or the owner. Not the applicant, but the owner.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good morning. Thank you for being here this evening. So you worked and owned this business, your this property for 20 years, correct?
Speaker 6: Yeah. I've been on the property for 20 years.
Speaker 1: Okay. Are you aware of the next step study? Were you aware of these rules and regulations and these trips that are that we're talking about? Have you been part of that process?
Speaker 6: I have been I've been to two or three meetings regarding this.
Speaker 1: And and. And you had input. So knowing that you had these rules and regulations and these trip counts, you knew that potentially, depending on how you sell this, that this will impact your potential development because there's only so many trips in this area.
Speaker 6: You know, I don't I don't quite understand how this is going to work. Again, I don't know when I'm selling it. I mean, I don't have any offers on the table right now. So I kind of think I'm going to go with the flow. I mean, if if if I decide to retire in five years, you know, I mean, this it seems to me that this area, I think, is 127 acres. It's going to develop. I mean, we have my my warehouse is a dump. I mean, it it's not it's not a very nice place. It can be nicer. So this I think this area is going to develop into a really cool thing. And if it's in five years or ten years or 15 years, that's that's my expectation that I could sell it next week. And somebody made me a great offer, but I'm not ready to retire, so I'm going to continue on with what I'm doing. And if I if if you approve the rezoning it, it may come to fruition in ten years, for all I know.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. So, as we heard Mr. Neavitt about I just want to talk about the trip count and what happens. So right now, there's about 5000 trips available, is that correct? I want to make sure I'm listening correctly. I'm checking my own listening skills.
Speaker 5: Again, to be clear, public works has established total capacity of roughly 25,000 trips. It's about half full. So that leaves 12,500 trips left. And then, as per the rules and regulations, projects have come in for concept. Had their concept approved in their concept, we require them to calculate how many trips they will need or how many trips they'll generate. We also require them to do a transportation demand management plan. So how are you going to drive down the number of trips your project will generate and then so that people don't have to rush through the development process thinking that somebody is going to, you know, come in ahead and steal their trips. We say you can once you've gotten through concept, through this process, you've reserved those trips and you can move through the the site development plan process in a methodical way. So it's it's that process that has now eaten up, if you will, about half of the remaining trips. And so there's 5000 trips that are just loose out there. And roughly 6500 have been allocated to a project or two projects. But those projects aren't constructed there. They haven't even completed the site development plan process. They've simply gone through the next step, been able to have trips allocated to them. And so that's the status of those trips there. They're currently assigned to those projects. But those projects are not yet constructed.
Speaker 6: So 12 and a half thousand trips have been constructed. Is that right? Or where?
Speaker 5: 12,000. Again, these are rough numbers. I'm just trying to get their math pros on the end of it.
Speaker 6: Prefer exact numbers, but I'm just kidding.
Speaker 5: Roughly 12,000 are being used today. The existing uses. He's eating up some trips. I don't know how many, but. So existing users, there's still roughly 12,000 remaining. And of those 12,000, about 6500 have been assigned to projects.
Speaker 6: Okay. So there's 5000 loose and. There are enough properties that there are there's more land available than trips. Correct. And so what happens when the trip count goes to zero?
Speaker 5: We will no longer approve site development plans. So our our goal is to make sure that this area is not overwhelmed by vehicle trips from new development. So we we do not want to approve projects. So, yes, you can go ahead and build your project and that produces trips that then bring the limited roadway capacity to a halt. It would be, I mean, bad for people living there, bad for people living around it and critically bad for emergency services.
Speaker 6: So. Okay. So if nothing. So in some ways, this is kind of a gold rush. I mean, you've you've kind of limited the gold rush a bit because you've said we're going to reserve some spots as you go through the development process. But but so in some ways, there's an advantage to people who are informed to the political process. I guess when you created this process where the were the owners of the properties in this area, were they informed that there was a limited amount of trips available? So everyone knows so well. I mean. Well, I mean, everyone is notified.
Speaker 5: Everyone has been notified. Right. So we we mailed out to all the property owners. We had email list. So we tried to reach everybody we could. We we had community meetings. So we did our level best to make sure that every property owner was informed and had an opportunity to weigh in. I mean, we took a lot of, you know, community input into the rules and regs and tried to make clear all along that, that, that. And I think Mr. Blanding knows this, that his entitlement is not an entitlement to build a project and produce new trips if there are no trips left. Our goal is through the next step study and actually constructing in increased capacity would be to make that ceiling higher and to drive development in the direction of more multimodal service.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll ask a question and whoever wants to answer. I feel like the skies have opened and there's this is first time I think I've heard CPD or Public Works acknowledge that there's a limit to how many cars we can move on certain road systems. And I think this is brilliant and I think it's a great approach. And the way I understand it is you're hoping to increase access to that area somewhere down the road. Well, you know, whether it's at the mousetrap or cross side 25 and some or whatever, and I think that's brilliant. I'm just wondering if the plan is to employ this in other parts of the city. To look at areas and and say that. Yeah. I mean, what I'm hearing is we have the capacity to make these judgments. A control. Don't fight over me, kids. Councilman.
Speaker 0: This is we're stretching a little bit from this zoning and this hearing that we're still in an open public hearing. So if we get a very quick answer to this and maybe we can take this to a committee or something where we could talk citywide as a tool. But just in this hearing, since this isn't really relevant to this site, very quick answer or.
Speaker 3: Short and sweet.
Speaker 6: Make it more relevant, but you get the point. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3: So that's something that in other areas that are constraints such as this we would likely look into. But this is a rather unique geography that is significantly more constrained than almost any other location in the city. But it is relevant. Will continue to look at this as a pilot, to see how it works and how we can improve it in the future and move on from there.
Speaker 6: And I would agree that it's particularly constrained, but I think the hundreds of people who call my office every year think the whole city is particularly constrained. Thank you for your latitude misstatement.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Just so I'm clear, the proposal before us does not equate parking spaces because we're not talking about a site development plan. Right. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: For everybody watching on TV. That was a yes answer to that. Correct?
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 0: Okay. See.
Speaker 3: Zero connotation to trips or reserving any trips. It's simply this is really just about the zoning trip to that trip. Capacity and reserving of trips would happen through the development review process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 878 is closed. Are there comments from members of council on this issue? Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to make a quick comment. When this came through at committee, I had concern that a lot of property owners would not understand this, these trips and what this meant. And I was very strategic in asking this property owner if he understood what is his potential is. And he clearly said no. And I think that obviously he's smart. He has ran a business for 20 years. But when you're talking about development, it's hard to understand, like what you can do in 12 stories and the type of projects that go on there. So, Steve, I think it's your job to advise your client that as these big projects come in the queue, there is an Excel spreadsheet that I found the other day by having a meeting with Karen and and Chris and them explaining it to me probably more times than they probably wanted to, but they took the time. That's how I got it. That actually counts the trips, and it's a public document and you go to the 41st and Fox next state next step study and it's going to be updated hopefully monthly with how many trips. And I think that is going to in the next year, it's going to go down and it's we're going to see it at really low numbers in the next few in the near future. And so my concern is just coming from a very small family background. My my father owned Lacazette's Northwest Denver. He was very involved in politics. But when it came to him building his own new restaurant, we had problems with parking spaces because as smart as my father was building its family empire and advising people in politics, he could not understand why he could not build the two Mali factory that he wanted and he didn't need the parking spaces because the actually the retail's really smart and we wanted a bigger toy factory and it's all numbers. And so I just wanted to convey to CPD in Public Works again that we're going to have to peel back another layer of the onion and really talk to these property owners and do different type of outreach than we're accustomed to because this will impact I would hate to have someone who has had a building here for 20 years. They built their whole empire on it, come in here and not understand what this trip count means. So I know I'm beating a dead horse. I know I've said it. But this is really important because it's on the other side of my council district and I've been watching this area and I'm afraid that we have all this public investment in this station area. Stop that will go unutilized if we're not smart and strategic with this area, including the area on sunny side because it's landlocked as well. So thank you for your work. Thank you for acknowledging it needed a next step study. Thank you for. Your work on the globe. I'm no stormwater plan and thank you for taking your time to brief me like three times on this area so that I can understand it in a different way. So then I can be a conduit for you as well and talk about this in a different way. Maybe people understand it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I also appreciate the work that CPD and Public Works have been doing, trying to look at this issue. As we started seeing more and more applications for this area. I just kept saying, we can't keep doing this without talking about the infrastructure. And this is part of the problem of having changed the way that zoning is done in this city. We don't get to see any of this stuff on the front end. And it's important for the property owners, for the neighborhoods, for other people to know how some of these things are getting worked out. When you consider the fact that there are only 5000 trips approximately left for this area. And it does not include the 43 acre Denver Post site. And there are still others who have come through the pipeline, applied and gotten their rezonings approved by this body, who may not be able to move forward to proceed to the process of getting their project approved by CPD. And and I'm concerned about what that means for the city. That we're we're continuing to move people through this pipeline. They're assuming they can build. And and yet when they get to the stage where they're ready to, you know, say, okay, I've put pencil to paper, I've spent money on an architect. We've looked at, you know, exactly what we can do on this site. And now you're going to be told no. That's part of the the the change that I think as a body we need to make in our zoning process that go back to city council. Looking at the details that we used to see in projects that came before us, it was very common to have renderings, which meant a developer had to spend some money on the front end or a property owner to change the zoning of their site. We had general information on how many parking spaces, how many units were going to be put on the site. Typically, there was a traffic study done. We see none of that, especially with big sites. And this when you start looking at this area for me, I'm looking at the cumulative impact to this area of the city by having raised these questions with CPD about what are we doing in addressing the infrastructure issues. We're going to have this same conversation as we get ready to start seeing all these projects along I-25 impacting the West Side neighborhoods where we're not talking about how we're addressing gentrification and displacement. But to get back specifically to this site, I am concerned that. We're we're approving people to move through this process, to then learn that they're they're going to be met by a stumbling block and and rightfully so. And I appreciate the the the fact that we are looking at the drainage, and I'm concerned that we will not have caught doing anything with that interchange, which is critical to traffic moving through and into this area. I drive that regularly. I live in this neighborhood. And and it it's a nightmare today. Before we add all the development into this area and all you have to do is go drive down. I don't remember if it's Arkansas port or which one is on the east side of the river. It's Arkansas. Where we've built, we have approved developers to come in and build new high density development close to two Todd sites. And there's parking back to back on both sides of the road and there's a parking garage in that project. But we you know, and so this is the the the tough balance we're trying to find in this city between how do we encourage people to look at alternative modes of transportation. And how do we look at development in the city. And part of the answer is making damn sure. We're looking at first mile, last mile connections that move people around the city so that we're not just saying, Oh, you can't have as many parking spaces, therefore people aren't going to come with cars until we have the right connectivity in the city. People are still going to drive their damn cars. And so that's part of the the the rep we keep bumping into in terms of how do we solve this issue, not just in this area but across the city as we're trying to figure out, you know, the right solutions as we keep growing as a city because if we keep growing the way we have been and all we're doing is adding more cars to our roads, we're just adding to the congestion and the nightmare and the brain damage that people are already sick of dealing with in the city. So I, I cannot support this one tonight. I do see this one different than the one that came forward before because that's existing development. That's I don't see that changing any time in the near and immediate future. You know, it's serving youth in our community who who go to our our school, our downtown campus. But for me, this boils down to health, safety and welfare. And that by not really having some of this stuff worked out, knowing the next step study won't be done for some time, knowing we're not going to have 3825 Fox and Park Avenue redone before all this development comes into this area. And I think as a city, we need to be talking about a moratorium on no new zones in this area until we figure this stuff out on the front end. You know, yes, we want more housing and we want it next to Todd. But we can't do it in a vacuum without addressing the infrastructure issues on the front end. So that's why I'm going to be a no vote tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. When we were inaugurated on July 15th, we had an interview actually in that corner right there, the five new council people. And one of the questions that that we were asked was, what do you see the biggest issue facing Denver today? And three of my colleagues said affordability, which I think is absolutely an appropriate answer. I gave the really nerdy answer of the relationship between land use and transit infrastructure. What I meant by that is kind of what we're talking about today, as in we have development that's happening to the city, but it's not happening and it happening in a way that that has development. Really consider the area around it. You know, how do people get there? How do people get away? And, you know, the people in District ten are all complaining about traffic. I mean, the few people who aren't complaining about traffic are people who aren't using cards, cars at all and and are really not using our city. You know what? Anyway, what I'm. What I'm getting at is that. We have a lot of people who live in District ten and we have a lot of cool things that people want to see in District ten. And so we're really struggling in District ten and Denver's perfect ten about all the traffic on sixth, eighth, 12th, 13th, Colfax, Colorado University, York Spear. All of those are in Park Avenue. All of them are in ten. And we're getting a lot of regional traffic. And and and people are concerned about their children or their grandchildren. They're trying to, you know, teach their kids how to ride a bike and follow the American dream. And that's been really difficult for for us as an as a as a struggle in that people want to visit all the cool stuff in District ten. But, um, but then, you know, how do we balance that with the people who are living there now or have lived in, say, Congress Park for 60 years? Fact Someone who had my seat. My predecessors. Predecessors, predecessor lived in Congress, has lived in Congress Park for more than 60 years. And so he's seen the growth in the in the city. And I want to thank Mr. Nevett and the and the the administration for coming up with creative solutions that that help us address transit. I'm not sure you're doing it all by yourself, but you are doing it all by yourself. Okay. Well, good bye. So certainly it's it's it's important. It's really critical for us to think about how do we how do we balance land use and transit infrastructure. And I home and I've said this many times I'll say it again. I am I would love to be part of the Denver that breaks Denver's dependance on cars. And and so I just I want to put that out there because this is this is part of the certainly we've got the zoning rezoning conversation here. But this is this is just one example of of something that's really eating at our city. And we've got to we've got to address it. You know, we might well, obviously, we'll have a very small way to address it tonight with this vote. But but we've got to address it going forward so that we can have people still enjoy their own neighborhoods and not worry about all the traffic coming through or or frankly, come up with options to single occupant vehicles, I think is really the better solution. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Carl. Sometimes. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I worry about traffic as much as anybody on council, but my understanding is that no matter what we do with this property, we're not affecting the traffic. There's a set number of trips for this property, and the only way Mr. Blanding gets trips on his property is if his project develops rapidly or his whoever ends up owning his property develops site plans quickly enough that there's some trips left. And if not, then his retirement's going to be a little more lean than he might have expected. To me, it feels clear that I hope the number that public works and CPD have arrived that is accurate, that this road system can handle 25,000 trips more or less. But that is the number. And whether we give Mr. Blanding his rezoning or not, I don't see how that changes it. If at some point we have another rail line running along I-70 and down I-25 or some other solution to open up more trips, then there's more trips going to be generated , whether it's the old Denver Post site, Mr. Blandings site, or whatever else we do there. So I'm. I don't see a reason why I wouldn't approve this this evening. So thank you. And again, since we're in comments now, you're in the right direction, but it needs to spread. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Seeing no other comments, I will just add, I think this is you know, this one is a fascinating part of town. And to go through these conversations that were going through on it, I think really forces conversations that I do believe that Councilman Cashman is on to something. Even though I was trying to push him off of that conversation right now, I really think that he is on to something about how we look at and do this and that. You know, from a rezoning standpoint, I think that this meets the criteria. Unlike other parts of town where we meet the criteria and there are small parcels and then there's no promise that there ought to be traffic studies or any of those kind of impact studies. Here is a place where we have something that meets the rezoning but also lives within this world where we have to figure those things out. And I think that it puts the pressure for making sure that that infrastructure gets better on all the people who are going to want to develop, because now they have an entitled right to do development, but only if we can find a way to fund infrastructure that adds to a trip count. And I think it's a very interesting way to look at how do we manage some of the problems that we're having when we have this disconnect between, hey, here's the plan and here's the area that is right for development. So that is not happening on top of our historic neighborhoods and in ways that are inappropriate. But we also have this massive infrastructure gap that we have to solve. And it's not just one big developer like Gates or like Laredo, where we can build some of those tools in its lots of different parcels. And this is kind of I see this as a way where we can start to have that pressure that's driving that pointed in the right direction instead of just pointing in a pressure for rezoning. It's going to be pointed and hey, it's been rezoning, but you can't build it until we fix this. And all of a sudden, getting owners to work together to fund infrastructure in the way that a master developer out of Loreto or a Gates funds infrastructure, I think is going to be key as we continue to try to build a city that does have the density, that supports a better transportation, multimodal transportation system, that where we build a city that has the kind of housing that has less of an impact on our environment as we combat climate change and has the kind of development that provides more housing, bigger housing supply as we grapple with affordability and attainability and our. So I think this is really exciting. I will continue this conversation beyond this site and really interested to see how this continues to take shape in the site. And if we do have the pressure points in the right place to really get the outcomes that we're looking for. But for tonight, I believe that this does meet the criteria and I will be a yes vote. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Eye for an.
Speaker 6: Eye.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Eye. Herndon.
Speaker 1: I Heights. Cashman. Cannick I. Ortega. Know. Sandoval, I swear I. Torres. All right.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please call the voting and know the results.
Speaker 4: One need to have eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4225 Elati Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-12 (industrial to urban center, mixed-use), located at 4225 Elati Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10142019_19-1112
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. We also do have a late filing this evening. Councilwoman Ortega will need a motion to suspend the rules of council to allow for the introduction of a late filing.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure I have the actual filing number.
Speaker 0: It looks like it's 19 dash one one, one, two. All right. You have the motion in front of you that we need.
Speaker 5: Looking for it on page.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I move for the rules of procedure to be suspended to allow for the introduction of Proclamation 19 dash 111 to honoring Denver Urban Gardens, which would move forward on the consent calendar.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of council councilwoman ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I this is a proclamation that i was asked to do for Denver Urban Gardens that I will be presenting on Thursday at their dinner. Unfortunately, there was some miscommunication between our office and theirs, and we didn't get the information until today. So that's the reason for the late filing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: I appreciate everyone's support because this does require unanimous support.
Speaker 0: Yes, I was just to remind everyone that in order for this to be for the late filing to be allowed, it will need unanimous approval for this motion. So see no other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Ortega. Hi, Black Eye CdeBaca. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, i. I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can teach. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 Eyes. Proclamation 111 to maybe introduce. So, Madam Secretary, will you please read the proclamation title into the record?
Speaker 3: A proclamation honoring Denver Urban Gardens.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right, councilmembers. This is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilwoman Black, will you please make the motions for us this evening?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Denver Urban Gardens.
This item was approved for late filing by Council President Clark.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10072019_19-0965
|
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Flynn, consideration of resolutions 957 and 958 will be postponed for one week to Monday, October 14th. No formal motion or vote is required under that rule. Madam Secretary, please, for the next item on our screens. Councilman Sawyer, would you go ahead with your questions?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And is someone from the airport? Angela, can you come and just answer a couple of questions? I had called this out last week for some questions, and unfortunately, the airport wasn't able to make it because it was very last minute. My apologies on that. Thanks for being here today. Thank you. So I just had a couple of questions. This is an environmental services on call contract, and it just was worded kind of broadly. My questions were sort of in the examples of expected tasks under. To work consists of researching, preparing documentation for airport development projects and then g preparing affected environmental and environmental consequences. Analysis for 16 energy supply and Natural Resources. Can you just explain to me a little bit about exactly what that means or what that is? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Angelica CSM with Denver International Airport.
Speaker 2: And I'm here to answer these questions tonight.
Speaker 1: So basically, this contract is a.
Speaker 2: Consulting contract that sits with our sustainability division. And so these are contracts that when.
Speaker 1: You develop solar or different.
Speaker 2: Projects at the airport, these are the people who are going to analyze the environmental impacts of those of that development.
Speaker 1: So with solar, you're always required to do a NEPA process.
Speaker 2: And so basically this just keeps us in line with and in compliance with that, with that requirement. And so when you're considering natural resources use, when you're putting like a solar farm or something in on airport property, then basically what this does is it analyzes what the impacts to the environment would be like. If there's a wetland that's protected by, you know, federally protected, how would it impact that or those types of things? Okay, great. Thank you. And so we're in the contract. Does it say kind of the specific scope? Is that all under appendix A? I believe so, yes. And then is there a specific place where we would be able to see in these contracts what exactly where exactly we would know that it was specific to the sustainability project as opposed to some other kind of project? Well, there is there is a line and after we talked, I found it it's on the ordinance request that says where the funds are coming from. Okay. And so there is a line on page two of the ordinance request that gives that information.
Speaker 1: So this one specifically comes from CERP.
Speaker 2: Funding and operations and maintenance funding. So that's that is a line item in there. I don't know.
Speaker 1: How we would distinguish it.
Speaker 2: Necessarily, other than if I explicitly called it out in an in an ordinance request to kind of say this is for sustainability projects only or something like that. Okay. Is there have we ever gone outside of the scope of a contract previously or is there is has that ever happened previously? No. No. So, I mean, you know, every division has its own set of money and funding. And so we use we usually align that pretty closely with the funding that's available and the needs of the division.
Speaker 1: So we would rarely kind of.
Speaker 2: Move move money between divisions. And so if it is specific, the source of funds is specific to this contract, we can look to that source of funds and that's how we would know which division of the airport this was, this particular service. Yes, yes. Okay, great. And so these specific services in this on call contract are in no way related to oil and gas. No, no, they are not related to oil and gas. So this is actually the type of contractor who would actually expose the impacts of any sort of building or other other types of development at the airport. Okay, great. Thank you very much. No, no more questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Toia. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members, please remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Mead and Hunt, Inc. concerning environmental planning services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Mead and Hunt, Inc. for $900,000 and for three years to provide on-call environmental planning services to Denver International Airport (201844905). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-21-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-18-19. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilwoman Sawyer called out this resolution at the 9-30-19 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 10-7-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10072019_19-0817
|
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. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 817 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, President Clarke, I move that council bill 19 dash 0817 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. My screen has gone dark. Can I get a second? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 817 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a rezoning at 3141 Raleigh Street. The proposal is to rezone from urban single unit to urban single unit, allowing an accessory dwelling unit. So the application is located in City Council District one in the West Highland neighborhood. It is within an urban context, and that contest text is intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods, does allow an urban house and accessory dwelling unit with a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet on a 3000 square foot zone lot minimum zoned lot. So existing zoning is useful on all four sides and the property itself, existing land use in the area, a few multi units, some two units and a lot of single unit residential. This these pictures give you an idea of the surrounding properties, most of them 1 to 2 stories and height. Top Left is a condo project across the alley from the subject site where there are five units. Otherwise, there are all single unit homes. So the process this started in May of 2019 when we noticed a complete application and we were at planning board in July. They recommended unanimously that we approve this and we were at Moody in August, and here we are for the public hearing that has been properly noticed. There are no letters from our registered neighborhood organizations and there are no other comment letters received on this application. So you know, the criteria, the plans that apply are plan 2040. Blueprint Denver 2019 and Housing and Inclusive Denver. Current plan 2000 2040 several. Several recommendations that are detailed in your staff report supporting this application. Blueprint Denver This is an urban context and blueprint Denver one and two unit residential with embedded small unit and commercial in the residential areas and a regular grid pattern of streets. Future place is low residential, which is single and two unit residential, up to two and a half storeys in height. Street types are. Raleigh is an undesignated local street. 32nd Avenue is a residential collector. Growth area strategy is all other areas of the city, which is anticipated to see 20% of all the new housing growth and 10% of new employment by 2040. And then housing an inclusive Denver speaks to including in our regulations and in through blueprint, in including expanding our housing choices to allow accessory dwelling units and promoting, in fact , accessory dwelling units. So staff believes that this application is consistent with the adopted plans. By using a standard zoned district, we are furthering the uniform application of. Arizona districts by implementing our plans. And we're. That with development that's consistent with our the character of our neighborhoods that we're implementing, the public health, safety and welfare and justifying circumstances is the change. The change has been the adoption of New Blueprint that supports the development of accessory dwelling units citywide. We did talk a little bit about the urban context, and staff believes this is consistent with that context and with the purpose and intent statements of promoting and protecting our residential neighborhoods. So staff believes this is consistent with all of our criteria and recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up is Richard Kerr.
Speaker 7: Hello. I'm Richard Kerr. I'm the homeowner at 3141 North Raleigh. If you have any questions and I'd like to answer them.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We will save questions for a different part, but thank you very much. Okay. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 10: Even now. Members of council, it's good to see you again. I just came from vacation. I was there. So I'm just. It was shot in Paris. I'm represented for Denver Homicide. Low black star action moment for self-defense. Positive action. Come in for social change. And you YPO, which is African. People's Organization. We just started a chapter about three months ago, so I am also an At-Large candidate for 2019. Election was on top of the ballot. The almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I will be running again in 2023. So where I stand on this is what is the AMA level going to be for this proposed rezoning in the Highlands, in the north side that has been rapidly gentrified? And who is going to occupy this space? Because, like I just alluded, it has become white affluence right before our very eyes. I used to live in a in a diverse city where you could see multiple colors of people living in a neighborhood. That is not happening. Or my people were being displaced, gentrified, moved out. Ethnic cleansing out of our communities. And we're not going to stand for this any longer. So it will continue to put candidates run candidates for office so that that can be ushered in. So someone could please answer my questions are greatly appreciated. And thank you all for coming out tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: Okay, guys, start. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And. My name is Chairman Sekou. Unbound, an organizer of the Black Star Action Movement. And. Press release came out today. I'm a 2020 candidate for the United States Senate. Yeah. It was very important that I come to know because you guys won't see me as much.
Speaker 0: Mr. Speaker, if you could stay to the agenda item, please.
Speaker 3: I'm getting there. I'm getting. I'm just trying to catch my breath. I'll just go to the hospital. So here we go. This has already been said. I know it. You know it. I wouldn't be surprised. On the 13th, the vote, at worst, maybe one. Or as Tekken Princess. And if we stand on principle. We've always had this conversation before. And so I support it because it's a done deal. And this dog and pony show needs to stop because the decision already was made in subcommittee. Yeah. And you know what? I know it. And this is too little, too late because there's nothing. Nobody's going to say. It's going to change your mind. You're already committed. And so for the people that are watching Martin Luther King in 1957 doing the bus boycott in Montgomery, that was consistent with 373 days that stop that segregation of the bus to put us on the back seat with Rosa Park. He said, look, you show me a man and woman who's not committed. Do anything. That they're willing to die for. They are not fit to live. Martin Luther King, 1957, inscribed a city park at his memorial. Yeah. Well, that one live by that one. So what are you willing to die for? For poor people. What? Nothing. Because you committed to your lifestyle and you're stuck on stupid, just capitalism. You couldn't quit if you had to. You're like a bunch of crackheads who come here and.
Speaker 0: You could please stay to the agenda item. Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there questions for members of council? Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just a little bit curious, maybe for the homeowner about what sort of community outreach you did. It's pretty rare that we don't get any sort of comments or from any registered neighborhood organizations or neighbors at all. So I'm just curious.
Speaker 7: I went I went and met with all my neighbors. No one objected. So and I, I had a signed petition, but I didn't bring it. I also joined the neighborhood organization. Then they did not respond, I guess. But they did. They they did resist or one person on that on the neighborhood organization opposed. But it wasn't representative of the neighborhood. So that's why you have no letter from the neighborhood organization. But I did. I was actively involved. My neighbors, I consulted the R.A. and and it's been a long process. I know I submitted the application in May, but it was a year before I was reaching out to people in my neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. No, no more questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Hey, Mr. President. Mr. Kerr, could you tell me you are seeking this change so you can add an accessory dwelling unit? And is this a garage conversion? There's a garage on the back of the property.
Speaker 7: Currently, there's a one car garage built in 1925. It does it right. Modern car.
Speaker 8: Right. And so will this be in place of the garage or are you keeping the garage and putting the adu elsewhere on the.
Speaker 7: On the lot? It will replace the garage. Okay.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you, class Teresa. Question. This lot is 6350 square feet. What are the what are the coverage and what limitations on one footprint on. On a lot of that size. How large would need to you could be.
Speaker 6: Built or maybe Kyle do you know that I thought it was 600 square feet. But don't don't quote me on that. But I believe it's 600 square feet.
Speaker 8: 600? Mm hmm. Okay. Mr. Kirk, could you come to my.
Speaker 7: Minus my understanding from my architect. The footprint can be 864 square feet.
Speaker 8: Okay. That's after. Because the garage will be the.
Speaker 7: Garage and the garage footprint will be 864 and the upstairs will be 75% of that.
Speaker 8: I see. Okay. I get it. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. It's. I needed.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. For the homeowner, if I might. Thank you. And I apologize. I didn't get your name.
Speaker 5: Rick or.
Speaker 7: Richard.
Speaker 4: You've said it, but I. Anyway, I'm not good at retaining it anyway. So you started this process over a year ago, is it? And you'd submitted the application in May. Right. What might you do if if this wasn't approved? Would you I mean, are there other options that you would consider? Would you consider scrapping or would you? I mean, this is just a no.
Speaker 7: I'm just when I bought the property in 97. It was zoned out too. And I thought of it when at that time we had one child, brand new child, and I thought, that's great. There's a future here beyond our raising our family. And then it was resolved where that evaporated and became a single family again. And I was too busy to protest at the time because I had two young children. But now we're at a different my children are gone and we're at a different place. And so I'm here to get back to where I was. And I have a vision for this property. And what would I do if denied? Nothing tomorrow. Nothing, not nothing rash. But ultimately, we would probably sell.
Speaker 4: And what is your how much time do you think you've invested? And maybe if you're willing to disclose how much has been your financial commitment for this rezoning process?
Speaker 7: Plenty of time. But in plenty of pacing back and forth and wringing my hands. But money. It was $1,000 for the application. I have $1,000. 1500 dollars in to my architect. That's. You know, I had to print signs or twice. That's $300. 150 each. Yeah. That's okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: It was it's been a substantial investment. It's been a and a lot of hand wringing. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Got it. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask Teresa a question, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the microphone. I just want you to clarify whether or not any of the short term rentals are allowed in an accessory dwelling unit. They are if it's licensed and if the applicant lives or if the property owner lives on the property. So living on the property and living in the property are two different things. And so it was my understanding that the, the language in the short term rental ordinance was that you had to reside part time within the property that within the the unit that is being rented out. Can you clarify that? That's not the language that I'm familiar with. The language I'm familiar with is you live on the property and you can rent out whatever unit you've got. Okay. So let me just ask the applicant if that is one of the proposed uses that you're expecting to have in this particular property if they're successful.
Speaker 7: I plan on renting it out to a tenant. Okay. And I have the other vision I have is I have two young adult children now. Both of them are away. In the event they would come back. They could they could rent it. Okay. But other than that, I have no short term rental visit. In my understanding of the short term rental thing is you have to live on the property. It is now part time.
Speaker 6: Yes. You have to reside within the property. I thought it was 50% of the time. I could be wrong about that. But so thank you. I just want to share that. I think as we were saying.
Speaker 0: QUESTION You sounded like you were maybe getting ready for comment.
Speaker 6: Oh, wait for that.
Speaker 0: All right. Almost. Let me bang the gavel and we'll be there. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing four counts. Bill 817 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that. Thank you, Mr. President. So thank you for bringing this request forward. I remember meeting you as a council aide talking about this this property, and for clarity. Councilman Sawyer, this is one of the answers that doesn't have a very active land use committee. And I have been pushing for five years to get this specific or no more active when it comes to land use so that they can offer an opinion. When we're sitting up here behind the dais, I think it's important. So thank you for taking the time to go to those meetings. I think I've seen you at every single one over the last year, and I know every time I ask for them to have a land use meeting. I know you're also there backing me up. So I appreciate that. As these accessory dwelling units come forward since the passing of Blueprint Denver, I think you're going to probably see a lot more in northwest Denver where people the the cost of living has is exorbitant and people need another way to offset some of their income and or they have an aging in place. They want someone to age in place or they have young children who are going to go off to college and come back. So I think there's very many variables and thank you for doing the outreach that you have because no one's called my office. I haven't heard much about that. And that's what I prefer to see behind this dais. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I think as. We continue to move forward in trying to address the housing needs of the city, creating the opportunities where ideas can be constructed, where they fit onto a lot. I think that makes sense. I am concerned and I will be asking the city attorney to help me draft language to ensure that this is not a loophole where a tight attached dwelling units would be used as short term rentals. That that is not the reason why as a city, I think we've moved to try to expand that. It's it's really to ensure that people who are struggling, trying to find affordable housing and people who are looking for the opportunity to augment their income and be able to stay in the city where that makes sense. But I think if they become nothing more than short term rentals for out-of-town people and folks who are living here that are struggling, trying to find housing, that doesn't make sense to me at all. So I'll be supporting this tonight. But I think this is something that I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to discuss and and really be thoughtful about that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to echo Councilman Ortega's comment. I also want to say I'm really excited that we have increased use of an opportunity of this opportunity to allow seniors to have a way to offset some of their property taxes after they've retired and they don't have, you know, steady income. Certainly, our property taxes continue to go up. And and allowing people to age in place, I think is important. And I think this gives people another tool in the tool belt. Also, parents who want to give their kids a little more privacy as as the applicant has mentioned, you know, if his kids want to come back, I think that's a great use as well. And and the flipside is also true. We've heard over time that, you know, the secret's out. People are moving to Colorado and they want to bring their parents with them, too, but but not in the same house. And so this gives, you know, an opportunity for people to have their their parents come and have their parents have a little bit of privacy and the kids to have a little bit of privacy, too. I'd be interested in, you know, that blueprint has has established that areas should be considered city wide. I'd like to look at that. So I'll be supporting this as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. So you know their comments. I'll just add a thank you to staff for putting this all together and the great staff report. I think this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning. And I will be supporting this this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca I. Flynn.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 1: Gillmor, i. Herndon.
Speaker 4: Hines I.
Speaker 1: Castro. I can teach. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in US results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3141 Raleigh Street in West Highland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3141 Raleigh Street from U-SU-A to U-SU-A1 (allowing an accessory dwelling unit), in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-20-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10072019_19-0834
|
Speaker 1: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, Constable 817 has passed. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please? What counts? About 834 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, President. Clerk, I move that council bill 0834 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for accountable 834 is open. May we have the staff report? Try and get technology to cooperate here. There. Much easier to see. Thank you. All right. Take it away.
Speaker 11: Great. Thank you. Members of the council, Andrew Webb here from Community Planning and Development to present on a text amendment number six to the Denver zoning code, which would establish a new temporary tiny home village use and associated use limitations and regulations. It would also make some small updates to large development review procedures in the zoning code, as well as a clarification to a cross-reference on parking reductions for affordable housing, which I'll detail further on in the presentation. And I'll invite the sponsor as well to jump in at any point during the presentation if she has anything else she'd like to add. So first of all, I'll just briefly set the stage here with an overview essentially of what tiny homes are. These are communities of small, individual sleeping units, typically arranged on a site with common facilities in single in a separate structure, common use structure. Kitchens, bathrooms, that sort of thing there. They exist around the country. And they've gained popularity as as one of many tools in the toolkit for addressing homelessness. They are particularly of interest to vulnerable populations such as the LGBTQ community, veterans, people with pets, couples and others that have challenges accessing conventional shelter systems in cities. So we're doing this text amendment, proposing this text amendment because tiny home villages are not currently addressed at all. The Denver Zoning Code, the rising popularity is something that the larger group Living Project noted over the last year and a half. And we do have, as I'm sure most all of you are aware, a community, tiny home community here, beloved community village. That village has operated on unlisted, temporary use permits. This text amendment would take some of the lessons we've learned during that pilot project and codify them into clearer regulations and use limitations for future applicants and create transparency and predictability. This slide shows the actual proposed use definition for this temporary use. Again, we're talking about multiple relocate of all structures on foundations just sleeping in. It's not full dwelling units located on a single zone lot with common facilities. The zoning use permit for temporary tiny home villages would be aligned with whatever building permits were issued. Building permits will vary in length based on the permanency of utilities and facilities. So, you know, chemical toilets and temporary utilities are permitted. But in those cases, building permits and zoning permits would be shorter. The maximum permit duration is up to four years. And then upon expiration of those zoning permits, no new temporary tiny home village could be permitted on a exist on a subject site for at least four years. The slide highlights how this particular use is different from a kind of a permanent, temporary or a permanent tiny home village concept that we're working on as part of the Group Living Project. The intent here is to grant some flexibility from the zoning codes, building form and site design standards, especially as they address the public realm, the pedestrian realm. For operators that are seeking to address this very important need in the city to address homelessness. We are working on the group Living Project on a permanent version of this that would require at least one common structure to be built up at the at the primary street and meet the city's typical build to transparency and active use requirements so that it would so that a permanent use would fit in better with the fabric of the community. This slide shows the zone districts that would be where this temporary use would be permitted. It's essentially all zone districts in the city except for open space districts in the lower intensity residential zone districts. So the single unit to unit and row home districts, that would be permitted only on properties where there is an existing civic or public use like a church or community center. And there would also be a limit of 30 sleeping units in a tiny home village in those lower intensity residential zoned districts. For all implementations of this use of community information meeting is required and I'll detail that in a subsequent slide here. This slide shows the requirement of applicants. They include an operational plan that details how the how the facility, how the village will be operated, a required community input information meeting prior to a zoning permit application and a site plan that demonstrates compliance with the siting and design standards of this temporary use, which I'll detail here shortly. The community information meeting is a is a new process that we developed with other stakeholders for this use and also for the large development review use. It is a pre application requirement where the applicants would go to the community and gives an opportunity for them to begin building a relationship with the community. There are expanded notice requirements from some of our typical zoning code requirements for this community information meeting that are new as part of this amendment. They include the typical mailed notice to affected city council members and property owners. We're also expanding the requirement from the typical 200 foot buffer to 400 feet. So R.A. is within 400 feet. Other community organizations that are not registered are knows within 400 feet. And not only owners of properties, but also tenants of of of rental properties, both residential and commercial. So as a part of this, CPD has worked with a vendor to, to create a new database of about 135,000 apartment unit address data. So it's essentially all the apartment units in the city so that postcards can be sent to those units as well as commercial units where, where businesses might rent space to allow for us to to implement that new requirement. The operational plan requirements are listed on the slide. I won't go through every single one of them, but generally speaking, we're will be asking upfront for details on how residents will be selected for a tiny home village, how the facility will be maintenance, how housekeeping facilities will be provided, things like laundry and health care, that sort of thing. We'll ask for details on community governance procedures and how how community will deal with members that have violated those requirements. Single point of contact for emergency and mitigation of external effects, among other requirements. The slide shows the the zoning requirements that would be established for temporary tiny home villages by this text amendment. So the primary street or front setback in lower intensity residential zoned districts would be 20 feet, which is generally aligned with typical requirements in residential districts, and it would be per per the zone district minimums elsewhere, side and rear setbacks requirements would be five feet. Entry features would be required on common use structures if they're located within 25 feet of a primary street. An entry feature is essentially a door that is accessible to pedestrians and is an obvious point of entry to the site. We're not requiring off street parking, minimum off street parking for this use. We've heard from operators that there's generally not really a demand for vehicle parking for this use. The number of units permitted on a site would, as I mentioned, in the lower intensity zone districts would be capped at 30 sleeping units on on all other sites . It would be determined by lot size and and required building separation requirements. Those are. Part of the of a recent building code amendment that the council adopted in July, also setting up some building code requirements for tiny home villages. The building separation requirement is ten feet, though there are allowances for smaller separation distances if buildings are built to meet certain fire suppression standards. And I'll also highlight here that accessory uses like pets and gardens would be allowed as they are and regulated as they are for typical residential uses. The slide just highlights some of the additional accountability mechanisms for temporary tiny home villages above and beyond a typical residential use in the city and county. So I mentioned the operational plan and its set of requirements. If there is public funding being used to assist or pay for a tiny home community, there would be contract requirements for that funding. While we're not requiring good neighbor agreements, the community information meeting is the opportunity for an applicant to have that conversation with neighbors and potentially enter into that. Adding another layer of accountability between the operator and the community. And then the the Pre-Application outreach, the community information meeting provides an opportunity beyond a typical residential uses to to make the community aware of what's happening and answer get their questions answered. This slide shows some some possible development scenarios based on different lot sizes, accounting for building separation and typical structure sizes on a on a do so on a typical, very small lot of 4000 square foot lot inclusive of common structures. You could fit about five sleeping units and that goes up exponentially as you get larger on a 12,000 square foot lot, you could get about 24 units. This slide highlights some of the changes to other sections of the code that would be made by this text amendment. The first is too large development review. As I as I mentioned, that process was adopted into the code on in July and did include the community information meeting requirement. However, at that time, that meeting requirement was included in the section of the code that actually deals specifically with a large development review. This amendment would move the community information meeting requirement out of the older section and into a standalone section in the code where it can be cross-referenced by upon this text amendment. Elders in temporary tiny home villages but potentially future uses as well. It also adds the expanded notification buffers and the renter and business occupant notification requirements to the LDR process. Additionally, this amendment makes a small change to a parking reduction section of the code to clarify a cross-reference that allows for reduction of parking to for affordable housing projects that meet the requirements of the inclusionary housing ordinance, which has since been repealed and replaced. This amendment updates those references to the city's current affordable housing standards so that current new developers of affordable housing can take advantage of this parking reduction. This line details the process for for this project. This has been going on for for quite some time. We really started talking about the whole universe of group living and kind of these unique and emerging uses in March 2018 as part of the group living process or project. And we've had many public meetings about this type of use and many other related uses. In spring of this year, it was we decided to pull this project at the request of the sponsor out of that larger project and send it through on its own. And we had several meetings at that time with inter neighborhood cooperation and a public meeting to present on the proposal and take some community input. We put a summary and red line draft of the text amendment out in late June for review planning board hearing took place on August 7th and received a unanimous recommendation of approval. The Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee considered this on August 27th and did send it to the council. And that brings us to where we are today at the council public hearing. This slide just highlights a few of the changes that we did make based on some of the public input that we did receive. They include the limits of of the tiny home village use on sites in low intensity residential districts to those sites that already have some sort of civic or public use and limiting them to 30 sleeping units in those lower intensity districts as well, allowing the or requiring that for years past between establishment of a new tiny home village on a subject site after one vacates the site and then notice the new notice to renters and non R.A. community entities that serve an area. We have received quite a few letters about the project and providing feedback. Those have all been included in your in detail, in full detail in the staff report. These are the criteria for adopting a text amendment to the zoning code. This text amendment is impacted by three adopted plans the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint Denver and Housing and Inclusive Denver. This amendment is consistent with the goals and strategies from two of the two key comprehensive plan elements. It would advance several of the equitable, enforceable and inclusive element goals enabling by enabling a range of a range of housing types, promoting flexible options to and and promoting flexible options to meet the needs of people transitioning out of homelessness . It would also advance the strong and authentic neighborhood element by introducing the new renter outreach requirement and expanding outreach requirements in general. In general, such as expanding the the boundary in which we have to actually send notification to two community members and residents. The Sixth Amendment is consistent with many blueprint goals and strategies aimed at responding to the city's unique housing needs. It would enable a new housing option, essentially to be part of the toolkit for addressing homelessness. And this text amendment was developed through a robust public process as detailed previously. Implement several of all three of Blueprint's three equity concepts by expanding options for low cost housing that can help stabilize people's lives and improve access to jobs and services. And by permitting the use citywide, it helps contribute to the diversity of housing types citywide. And finally, this text amendment implements policies and recommendations from the housing an inclusive Denver that's the city's housing plan by adding a flexible new housing use that can help address homelessness and by establishing new outreach and public engagement opportunities. With regard to the second criterion. This text amendment would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted policies for enabling affordable housing and options for people experiencing homelessness, and by creating more predictable, transparent city processes. And it would address the third criterion by resulting in uniform processes and regulations for temporary tiny home villages that are uniform within each zone district in which this temporary use is allowed. So with that, staff recommends the council adopt this text text amendment based on a finding that all review criteria have been met. And I'm happy to stand for any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have 16 individuals signed up to speak on this issue this evening. So I'm going to call five at a time up when I call you up, if you could come up to this front row so that you're ready to jump up to the microphone when I call your name. Charles Allison Godfrey and Elizabeth James. Ron see Paul Bendell and John Hazen, if you could come up. And Charles Allison Godfrey, you are a first.
Speaker 12: Thank you, counselors. My name is Charles Allison Godfrey. I live at the cross streets of 30th and Zuni, and I'm here on behalf of myself, the University of Denver Law School's Land Use Law Society and the National Lawyers Guild. I have gathered about 50 signatures here from the law students that support the tiny home village zoning amendment. For years, the homelessness crisis in our city has existed at unacceptable levels. Metro Denver Homeless Initiatives Point in Time survey documented a 14% increase in the total homelessness population from 2018 to 2019. The crisis will continue to grow as homeownership has become increasingly unattainable for the majority of our city's residents, as rental rates skyrocket and as funding for housing assistance decreases. With the tiny home village zoning amendments. Denver has an opportunity to make a low cost investment. Will having an immense impact on the lives of individuals experiencing homelessness. As the beloved community village has shown time and time again. These village can villages can exist side by side with welcoming neighborhoods. The villages help foster an environment where formerly homeless individuals can have a space of their own, something many have lacked for years. The villages also allow time for people to develop skills that will help them stay housed in the future. We urge you to vote yes to expand housing opportunities for homeless individuals in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, an Elizabeth.
Speaker 6: I'm an Elizabeth. Located at these 50th and Washington very near East 50th and Washington in Globeville. And I want to thank the council for having this public hearing. I'm here not to speak for or against the amendment, but to ask that the process be a deeply well-considered process, given the residual of the pain that continues to linger in Globeville because of the manner that this came to Globeville, out of which came many of the lessons that are now being brought into this piece of, I guess it's legislation. One of the things I'd like to ask is that all all city council members really recognize that this is a citywide problem that can be resolved by creating an inventory and it can be a matter of talking, looking quickly, going to find where the many diverse needs of homelessness solutions can be found. But I do feel like this process has not generated the deep learning that I think needs to happen for operators of these facilities, the tiny home projects, to be vetted for their their cultural sensitivities and ability to create the bridges between the residents of tiny homes and the residents in the neighborhoods. Globeville. I'm here as an individual, by the way, not affiliated with any of the Arnaud's I've worked with, not on behalf of anyone else, and quite aware of many people in Globeville that are not here, that are wishing that that there there could be more constructive empathy. The situation, the process was mishandled both by the city council person at the time and the staff that came in from the DCC. I don't have any questions about where people's hearts are at. I wish that this was the type of process that could be audited.
Speaker 9: Through the city auditor sociologically.
Speaker 6: I think there's a great deal to discuss. I would like it to be looked at deeply without it being politicized. I think Globeville has all of the elements in concentration that have to be considered in every neighborhood when bringing in the mixture of populations that have a variety of combined stresses and and and aspirations and hope. A lot of what the stress was in Globeville was because the clover was the first neighborhood where the neighborhood planning was rolled out, deploying the planners. And there was there was a blow in relationship to that, too, and with the love for the tiny home residents, which should be respected. I would just ask the City Council to rise up to a deeper evaluation of what this process has been. Do a debriefing, look for best practices, use the standards that are used when National Science Foundation grants come in with programs come in. We need to look more deeply at this because.
Speaker 9: Just listening I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Was your time is up. Thank you very much for full. Next up, James Ramsey. Thank you. My name is James Ramsay. I'm a resident of Denver. I own my own home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Speaker 8: I'll just be brief.
Speaker 0: This thank you for considering this amendment to the zoning code. It offers a regulatory environment that allows individuals and members of the community to provide the sort of attainable housing that is not otherwise provided through higher costs and private development. I, for one, as a homeowner, would welcome a tiny home village on my block and in my neighborhood without question. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next up, Paul Mindel.
Speaker 10: Hi. Thank you for having me. I'm here to speak in favor of the support of tiny home village tax amendment. I'm grateful for all the work that the Community Planning and Development Agency has done, and I've been a part of that group Living Advisory Committee the whole way. Um, so I'm also speaking on behalf of Quinn City Cooperative in Capitol Hill. I believe these forms of housing strengthens Denver's community by providing an opportunity for shared governance and micro solidarity. So micro solidarity is the act of small groups of people banding together and supporting each other economically and emotionally. It's not a particularly new kind of thing. People have done that since Indigenous resistance to colonization all the way through the Underground Railroad to today. You know, small groups of people trying to survive. So in this context, though, I think it's very necessary in the face of Denver's real estate, runaway real estate values and also just the neoliberal policies that we've inherited. And so I believe it's amazing that tiny home villages can allow sort of small groups of people to come together. And in the case of a beloved community village, support each other to create jobs and access to permanent housing. I also see it providing shared governance, which is also an important thing. I worked in a homeless shelter in Flagstaff, Arizona, and saw firsthand that, like moving dozens and hundreds of people in and out of a building each night created high pressure, and it also reduced the amount of autonomy and dignity that individuals received. And so I believe that, you know, these communities, which do allow an aspect of shared governance, of people having a say in a in the circumstances and decisions that affect their lives. I think shared governance is just a huge asset to Denver's community and to building out greater resources to those who are, I guess, most excluded by our current economy.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record? Paul Bender. Thank you. Next, John Haden.
Speaker 7: Hello. Members of council. My name is John Haden. I live in the Five Points neighborhood and I have a property at 34th and Lawrence, which is just a few blocks from where the first community village, beloved community village was located. And so I'm here to testify firsthand as a neighbor about how extraordinary that experience was to have the village in in our neighborhood and what a difference it made for the people in that village to have that sense of community versus what we've seen in the larger shelters on the other end of of our own neighborhoods. So we had kind of this view of of two very different ways of treating people who are experiencing homelessness. And the village, the tiny home villages really are something I would love to see our city embrace. And I'm here to actively support that because I believe they are beneficial to the people who who live in the village . And also and perhaps more importantly for you, because I believe they're beneficial to the neighborhoods where the villages are located. And this amendment does something very important, which is provide the opportunity for these villages to be located throughout the entire city. And I, I really believe that if we have these villages in, in neighborhoods across the city, even in high income neighborhoods, that it will help reduce the sense of the homeless are other from us. People need to understand that people who are experiencing homelessness are in fact their neighbors, that they are people just like them. And by reducing the segregation of our city, by providing housing types from people of all income levels, we do we're taking a step in the right direction to do that. I would like to recommend one thought for you. There is a piece of land outside the city county building that was recently considered for a park, for art, for a museum that's not coming. It's owned by RTD, and I think it would be a fantastic site for a tiny home village right in the center of downtown, where our city can speak loud and clear. These are our neighbors. This is something to be proud of. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll call the next five if you could come up to the front. Duane Petersen, Tyrese Howard Cole. Chandler, Jesse Paris and Julie Patino. Duane Petersen. Europe.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 9: Updating the zoning code for the tiny home village would allow for the expansion of tiny.
Speaker 5: Homes to be built in other locations.
Speaker 9: Providing opportunities to more individuals experiencing homelessness to achieve housing. Having a secure place to reside is important to one's self-esteem. Tiny homes offer safety and stability while providing an individual.
Speaker 5: With independence and dignity. Thank you. My name is Dwayne Peterson.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Tyrese Howard.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Patrice Howard. I'm going to speak with two hats. Now, most of y'all know me as an organizer with Denver homeless out loud, but I'm also a part of the Village Collaborative as a board member and original founder of this village. And I want to speak a little bit to the history which brings us to this place. So back in 2015 and 2016, I and others were in this very council chambers asking you all council members for support for legalization of tiny home villages, which were not yet legal at that time. 2017 that legalization came came about through a variety of supports, mostly from community planning and development and others.
Speaker 2: And and the beloved community village.
Speaker 6: Was able to open up.
Speaker 2: For the first temporary temporary site. That struggle of.
Speaker 6: Of three or four years to just legalize the villages themself did not end. In 2017.
Speaker 2: When the village became legal.
Speaker 6: The unlisted temporary use permit process that the original village was under. Well, it was a great initial pathway was filled with flaws and and struggles that made it extraordinarily difficult to find other sites to to to go through the zoning process in.
Speaker 2: A streamlined and efficient manner.
Speaker 6: And so passing this zoning is is a critical step forward to streamlining the process to enable more of these villages to go up throughout the city of Denver in an efficient way and in a way that can build that community connection that is being talked about, and most importantly, in a way that faces the reality that housing is a basic human need and that right now we have thousands and thousands of folks who are homeless, sleeping on our streets, our alleys, our parks, our abandoned buildings, our busses, our shelters, and will continue to be. So this is a pathway just to make this a little easier to have a place to call home. So I am grateful for the support of Councilwoman Kennish in bringing this forward and in all her work that has made this a law that we can now vote on or that you can now vote on. And I don't have a vote, and I ask you all to please support this and moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Cole Chandler.
Speaker 10: Good evening, counsel. I'm Cole Chandler. I live at 3024 Elizabeth Street and Denver's District nine. And I'm a co-founder of the Carter Village Collaborative. I'm also here on paternity leave. I just welcomed a new baby into my life. So I've gotten to talk with lots of you about the specifics of this text amendment. And I'd like to talk a little bit higher level this evening. And I think many of you will be familiar with this history. But we know that throughout the history of many of America's great cities, that certain zoning ordinances have been used as tools to exclude certain groups of people from accessing certain parts of town. We've regulated a lot sizes, home sizes, built forms, etc., in order to in order to produce well formed cities that serve to increase and preserve the wealth of a few while others are excluded. This historical reality has been one of the primary points of tension since the beginning of our effort. The history that Teresa was just remembering from back in 2015, when people were standing here in these chambers asking for a dignified resident led, tiny home communities. As soon as we started that process, we immediately found ourselves immersed in the power and access that has land accessibility in the heart of our city. Utilizing city planning tools, we have segregated our neighborhoods and communities based upon race, class, religion, gender, sexuality and more for generations. And we are weaker for that. The work of creating an equitable city is to take an honest look at that reality and find places to use the tools at our disposal to change that reality and rewrite that history, thereby liberating the land and the people who live on the land. This is what we have the opportunity to do tonight. We have the chance to make it permissible to build more community based housing, to put more houses on his own lot, to move outside of our traditional build to requirements in order to make space for a group of people in our city that are currently being excluded. We have the chance to rewrite just a tiny bit of history as we make a powerful statement that we all belong in Denver, regardless of our wealth, our racial background, our educational attainment, or the depth of our various struggles. This bill takes steps to make land access a bit more possible for those that don't otherwise have that right. And for that reason, it makes our city a bit more just and equitable, and thereby it makes all of us a bit more free. If this bill passes, the Colorado Village Collaborative looks forward to utilizing the tool, this tool, as we work with Denver's historic neighborhoods to find attractive ways to integrate our brothers and sisters on the streets into these historic communities. Together, we can weave a strong, robust social fabric that will make Denver an equitable, resilient and beautiful city for future generations. So thank you for your support and vision as we move together to free the land and free ourselves so that we may enter into deeper relationship with one another. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Jesse Pierce represented for Denver Home, a sellout Black Star action moment for self, defense and positive and commitment for social change as well as universal African people's organization. We are in favor of this rezoning. As my colleagues have already stated, this has been a long fight with the city to allow for these things to be even possible. This fight has been going on since 2012, since the urban camping ban was passed and we are currently asking for a repeal of that ban. So somebody sponsor. But back to this, there's been a long fight and now the city is coming to grips with the reality that we have a homeless crisis, even though we have 23,000 vacant apartments. Because it's a real estate deal that the city refuses to do and members of this council. But I'm permitted to just trust the council as a whole. So I'm just going to leave it at that. With that being said, City, don't sit up here and try to take the credit for these villages, nor for the repeal of a ban that has been inhumane in 2019. We're still dealing with these type of laws, these sundown. Okeydoke. Jim Crow laws in a supposedly progressive, liberal city. So I don't even know where my city is anymore. I'm a native, long term native, and I don't know where this is going, but this is not my home and I do not feel at home here. So this is a start of we can do better and so on. The public actually what that looks like. But this is just a start. There's much more that's needed besides this. This isn't even scratching the surface, especially when we have 23,000 vacant apartments. So, yes, I'm in favor of this rezoning. Please pass this. It's a step in the right direction, especially since we could do better and we had the money and the resources to spend to program the public into thinking that it's time to show improve. I just came from the Show Me State, so you got to show me where and you can tell me. And that being said, I'll be running again in 2023.
Speaker 0: You could stay on the topic of this hearing.
Speaker 10: And we ask that you vote in favor of this. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not done yet. Thank you. Clinician others for your.
Speaker 0: Please address the councils of all individual council members.
Speaker 10: This is pushing this to actually get us this far. And like I said, there's more need. So since we can do better, let's do better and show us exactly what that looks like. Hold Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Julie Pitino.
Speaker 2: Good evening, honorable counsel. My name is Julia Patino. I serve as the director of Basic Human Needs. How's that for a job title for the Denver Foundation? I'm here tonight in support of the zoning code update relative to tiny homes. The Denver Foundation is a 95 year old community foundation which invest very heavily in this community. We support not only community based organizations and individuals through grantmaking, but also through partnerships. The Tiny Homes Village, the Interfaith Alliance, a number of organizations that have been involved in the involvement of tiny homes, villages. Are all organizations that we've supported over the last five years alone. We have invested over $5 million in housing and homelessness and meeting basic human needs for this community. This is another cornerstone to ensuring that we have housing stock that is otherwise not available in the barren landscape that we have before us, particularly for individuals experiencing homelessness or other vulnerabilities. We have a two fold relationship with the Tiny Homes Village. Not only have we been a funder and funded, not forks or excuse me, shovels in the ground, but really villages who came to us looking for funding relative to navigation and services that villagers sought out to help find jobs to attend school to meet health needs to address another an array of needs. We have various nonprofit partners like Bayside Enterprises who are involved with that. We also have a role in terms of partnership in advancing housing policy and addressing homelessness from a grassroots level. Recognizing that people experiencing homelessness are the experts when it comes to addressing homelessness, and that even our well-intentioned efforts are not served unless we are including their voice and leadership. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And recall the next group up. Tanya Sully. Mark Foul. Loretta Koehler. Chairman Sekou Kate. Bridget and Jeff Baker.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Tanya Saleh. I am a co-director of the Colorado Village Collaborative. I want to thank you all for your continued involvement and support for the Tiny Homes Village and finding a solution to the housing crisis in Denver. I would just like to start by saying you got a background of the Tiny Homes Village, but really what we see it as is transformational housing. We really seek to transform the lives of every resident that comes through our gates and our doors and give them a house and a key and a place to feel safe and dignified and unified in a community that they're not an outsider. But we are all one in the same space. Our goals are to expand and allow more people to have this sense of dignity and feel this sense of community. And due to their unfortunate situations of, you know, impossible rent in Denver and all the other factors that contribute to the housing crisis allow people to have an opportunity outside of shelters, outside of the limited other options for housing, and to provide a unique solution, not the only solution, but it is one. So we want to pave the way for expansion and fill a gap in this continuum of housing and to have an opportunity to expand on our women's village that we've already put the groundwork for. But this will allow a more streamlined path for that to happen and for more villages to come. So the personal transformation that I've seen in the village, through the residents, through people who have even supported this, is this sense of community, through even the success of us being in a part of a community. So we've we've seen crime go down in a neighborhood. We've seen either a positive impact or no impact at all. And so allowing this to take place in different neighborhoods outside of District nine and other districts in other places across the state, this is going to be the first step. This is a model for the city. This is a model for other organizations that are looking to find solutions for housing and clearing. Things such as permitting will allow us to focus on what we really seek to do, which is provide transformation, to provide healing, to provide community, and to provide a sense of ownership in the House , in the places they live in and feel part of it moving forward. Having this stability is the main factors that see success. So having a long term, a longer term place on the site will allow more stability and that'll be more success within our villages. This will be an opportunity for other organizations to implement similar model models. The biggest piece is equitable community engagement. As you can see, we've had some we're still healing from past community engagements with not enough time. So this will allow us to approach it in a time where renters, homeowners, businesses, Arnaud's we can all get together and collaborate to see what we want our city to look like. So thank you all and I hope you can support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Marc, Val.
Speaker 8: Thank you. My name's Mark Fall. I'm a resident of Douglas County, unincorporated. And I want to speak tonight on sort of the technical aspect of the tiny home village I've been involved in the in the process since 2017 and being familiar with the design of the tiny homes and also how the community, Denver Community Planning and Development Department has supported this. There's been great concern for the quality of construction and the quality of the built environment. So I think that expanding the length of time that these units are in place is a doable and reasonable thing. I don't think that it's a substandard building for that kind of stay, and I think that that's very, very important because to let someone stay someplace for an extended period of time at all, the environment has to be built safely. And I think that the CBD has shown great concern for that. They've required a builder with a Class A license to do the construction and oversee the construction of these tiny homes. And the designs have been done by, you know, registered architects, profession, very professional manner, all that's been done. The other aspect of this is that if the tiny homes can stay in one location for six months, you need a new location every six months. If they can stay in a location for four years, then that decreases the number of new locations you need to scale this effort up. And it's a very successful effort, but for a very small segment of the homeless community. So to make it a more effective solution for a larger group of homeless people, a longer stay is important to accomplish that. Lastly, I think there's a proactive measure where the city of Denver will not be reacting to problems that come forward with that that other cities have seen in other tiny home communities. So I applaud the city of Denver for looking at this in a very proactive manner, and it's a great opportunity to be out in front of this and prevent problems that might occur with these villages in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Loretta Koehler.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Loretta Kaylor, and I live in Baker historic neighborhood. And and I'm part of the group Living Committee. And and I want to just talk about a little bit about me and why I think this is a really appropriate First Amendment. And I think we should you should go ahead and vote for this. I've worked most of my adult life with in in low income resource kind of areas. So I still do. And so I see the needs that aren't being met by a lot of different communities and I see where we're failing for our city. I would like to see I've worked a lot in in housing in the past and a lot with transit, transitional housing and a lot with domestic violence. And I think there's a lot of people who end up finding themselves homeless. We know because of medical needs, because of bills, because of domestic violence, for whatever other reasons. And I think this is a means for some people to have some other kinds of housing. When I worked for Boulder County Housing Authority, we worked on ways to work for housing for all kinds of individuals. And it was difficult because housing is so prohibitively expensive. And we know that Denver's become prohibitively expensive. We see this on a daily basis. When I see Homeless off of Broadway coming into our neighborhood and I see people everywhere. I am very supportive of this because there are benefits for somebody having a roof over their head. And we all know that. We all know that having somewhere safe to go to that you can call your own is very important. We know that those kind of supportive services that have been offered for those people in tiny home villages have been beneficial for those people. And the goal is that they can move on and have.
Speaker 6: Something more permanent.
Speaker 2: We need to have transitional housing across the city. As James said, I think the one thing that I would do is I would support it in my neighborhood if they are the industry said they wanted to have that down the street from me. I more than welcome.
Speaker 6: It because I think it's appropriate.
Speaker 2: I'd rather have people off the street. The other thing is I want my city to be forward thinking. I don't want is to be.
Speaker 6: Regressive and not look at what the needs are of people. I think we need to find.
Speaker 1: New ways to fit those needs.
Speaker 6: And this is one.
Speaker 2: Of those ways. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: Okay. Contrary to popular belief, my name is not Notre Dame. I'm not Jimmy the Greek. But I'm telling you flat out, this is going pass. 100%. It's not because all of a sudden there's been a moral change here. You have seen the coming. You don't pass this, Jack. You're in trouble. And I'll tell you how I knew I was going to pass. I saw Herndon outside Lehman. I knew. I knew it. I knew it because if I was. Brooks had been sitting there when you came up. But there is a caveat here. I want to pay attention. It would go. There used to be a sitcom called The Little Rascals. And there was a young kid in there. That they call missed data. And she ended up being the advocate for the group, like the lawyer. But lawyers talk out of both sides of their neck because they always create the loophole for the pendulum swing because they always want to be getting paid on both sides. They don't get. So watch this here. The caveat and the loophole in this one is what? Temporary. Hmm. Not permanent. Temporary. That means it is subject to change when there is a regime change. Uh huh. Yeah. So there's no closer to that. But that's all right. In a morning, I'll be meeting with Michael to change this and give back to make it permanent. Permanent? If it's not permanent, it's not real. When that last zoning change came up, was it temporary that you could temporarily build another house inside your backyard? No. So now we've got two standards one for the privileged, one for the poor, and they're diametrically opposed to each other. So you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Age Data.
Speaker 0: Please refer to the counsels of all but individuals.
Speaker 3: As a whole. Little rascals. You need to grow up. You're too old for this. Acting like children.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up is Cricket.
Speaker 3: Good job.
Speaker 2: I. My notes. My name is Kate Rigo. I am not in any formal role with CBC, but I have some background working with CBC informally, and I also have a number of friends who live our beloved community village. So I spent some time just hanging out there as sort of a part of the extended community connected to that village. I'm also an urban planning student at UCD, so I've done a little bit of study related to planning and zoning best practices around townhouse villages. I don't have anything comprehensive prepared for that, but I just wanted to speak about one thing I hadn't heard mentioned. Yeah, I mean, fortunately so far everyone has been pretty supportive, but I wanted to encourage members of council to not listen to any whatever naysayers might be out there who are going to say things like, well, you shouldn't, you know, shouldn't be bothering with Tanya's village stuff because it's not going to end homelessness. You can only house, you know, 14 to 30 people or whatever at a time. And there's however many thousands of people here who are experiencing homelessness and done it right now. So there's really no point. It's only a tiny drop in the bucket, so therefore you shouldn't do it. So I just wanted to I mean, hopefully no one is thinking along those lines here, but at least wanted to say it's I haven't heard anyone here say that we think this is going to just end. Homelessness across the board is just an important piece of lots of solutions and things that that we're all part of supporting across the board. So I want to put that out there cause folks to go ahead and pass this, recognize that it's not the be all and end all of something that's going to end that's going to end homelessness or anything. But then once that is passed, continue to look for further ways to be proactive and brave in addressing homelessness and more and more creative ways. I'd also wanted to and just real quickly echo lots of other things that folks have said about the importance of these of of this type of housing, the diversity of housing type that it adds to cities as well as positive impacts on communities around them. And most importantly, I think the kind of dignity that does just that is part of this form of housing that that brings to people who are living in it. And I think that it's all time for. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Geoff Baker Hello Council.
Speaker 5: I'm representing Curtis Park Neighbors and president of Curtis Park Neighbors. And we are fully in support of this because it is a small step in the right direction. We would like to see this go to a more permanent down the road. So hopefully we'll be back again to talk about getting this into permanent. But this is a great step. One piece of the puzzle for solution towards homelessness. There's many other things that need to be done, of course, but hopefully with this moving in the right direction, we will see these popping up in neighborhoods and down the road . We won't even think anything of it.
Speaker 7: They'll just be part of the the housing stock that we have in Denver. So that's really all I got.
Speaker 5: We are in support of passing this. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council on this item? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask, first of all, CPD, if we have seen any other applications come through just knowing that this is pending legislation and possibly now includes, you know, other sites around the city.
Speaker 11: While we've heard some interest in coming forward with an application, we have not heard of any anything formalized yet. We have not received any specific applications. Okay.
Speaker 6: And would you mind coming up for a minute, please? Can you just share whether or not the tenants who live at the beloved tiny home village are expected to contribute financially towards their housing? And if not, what other kinds of contributions they're making?
Speaker 10: So the current residents of the beloved community village are not required to make financial contribution. They are required to participate in upholding the community agreements and participate in community life, including coming to meetings that occur weekly at the village and then also participating in upkeep and chores around the village. So those are their community requirements.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. Have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Cole.
Speaker 2: Can you come back? Sorry.
Speaker 1: I almost jumped on there to ask you earlier. Quick question about the cost of setting one of these up and.
Speaker 2: What do you have options with the types of material you use?
Speaker 10: So when we first built this pilot project, we built 11 units for $145,000, which was an amazing thing. And it was done by 6000 hours of volunteer service and lots of just community involvement all around. We think that was awesome and we think as we try to scale, that's really difficult to replicate. So we've been working on a financial model, working with social impact solutions. And Ken, while on that and what we've found is that our startup capital costs for creating a tiny home village of 25 units, which is really the goal that we're trying to get towards, would be $600,000. And so that would include all the staff time, construction, time, design time, all that kind of stuff for $600,000 and a community building with water and sewer hook ups like what we're trying to currently do in Globeville. So that comes out to $30,000 per unit, but the material costs for the unit within that are 15,000. And so that's with what we're doing right now, a stick build that's gone through a traditional permitting process. You know, there could be possibilities for innovation with shipping containers and other kinds of things like that over time. But right now what we're looking at is that stick build $30,000 per unit kind of price point.
Speaker 1: And so when since these are temporary, when the time is up on one of them, you guys had a unique situation and I think you kept the materials from the original one.
Speaker 2: What happens to the materials when the time on this one is up and is there a commitment to keep the materials circulating?
Speaker 10: Yeah. So everything that we have on that site at 4400, Pearl would go to to a future site. The only loss, so to speak, would be whatever pipes we put in the ground and any improvements that we might make to the fence or those kinds of things. And so our move costs factor it out over four years. Time is something like $160,000. When you figure out the cost to move the buildings, the cost of that piping and infrastructure. So we build that into our operation costs for $40,000 a year over the four year time period.
Speaker 1: Awesome. And Andrew, can I ask you a couple of questions.
Speaker 2: About the material? Does this does this amendment.
Speaker 1: Say anything about what we can use, what we can't use for these villages?
Speaker 11: It does not. As long as the materials meet the the building code requirements, which are essentially the international building code and the international residential code requirements for a structure.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. Following up a little bit on what Councilwoman CdeBaca said. Andrew Sorry. Not trying to take it easy on your knees. So this particular zoning would not allow things like are these? How about prefab mobile homes?
Speaker 11: It would not. This anticipates purpose built sleeping units that are not full dwelling units that don't have, you know, kitchens and bathrooms in them built for this specific use. This does not permit the use of RVs or mobile homes which are regulated separately in the zoning code.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. CHANDLER. Yeah. I just want to follow up on something you said a minute ago. You said there's no financial contribution, is that right.
Speaker 10: From the residents themselves? That's correct, yes.
Speaker 4: Thanks for read my mind. So no one has to contribute like $17 a day. They don't have to contribute at all financially.
Speaker 10: Correct.
Speaker 4: Do you require residents to do some of your residents work? Yes. Do you require them to surrender their paychecks?
Speaker 10: We do not.
Speaker 4: Do you require the residents to get permission to leave the premises?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 4: I'm just thinking of reflecting back to another kind of marginalized community that we've had discussions about recently. And you're not a for profit corporation, is that right?
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 4: Who are your investors? Who who gives you money?
Speaker 10: So we're back to Colorado 501c3 We fundraise from individuals and from foundations like the Denver Foundation and the Colorado Health Foundation. And we would love to see a third leg of that investment strategy be the city investing in us as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And congratulations on your little one.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I. Andrew, a couple of questions. The. Are the civic, public and institutional uses in in the low density residential zones single unit, twin unit and row house. The use tables in the zoning code don't have a lot of them listed something. A lot of them are not permitted like a postal processing center and and a museum and things like that. What are what are examples of those types of uses that are permitted with limitation in those zones? Can you in.
Speaker 11: Those in those church density.
Speaker 8: Churches. What else?
Speaker 11: Community centers and schools.
Speaker 8: So what is it? I didn't see a good definition of community center in the zoning code. Could that be a private one? Like. Like a VFW hall or. Or does it have to be open to the public?
Speaker 11: That is a great question. I believe.
Speaker 8: I only ask great.
Speaker 11: Questions. I believe it would. I believe it would include something like a like a Fraternal Order Hall kind of thing. Like you like you mentioned not just a publicly operated.
Speaker 8: Okay. So the one and one problem that I see and I don't know if this is something that came up during the vetting and I'm just seeing it during the hearing as I'm listening. Is that in the zoning code, in the zone, in those residential zones, community centers, overnight accommodations are prohibited. Does this need to be addressed or is this something that this text amendment overrides intentionally?
Speaker 11: This would be a separate temporary accessory use to.
Speaker 8: The primary site. That's right. So the primary use does not allow overnight accommodations, but the accessory use can.
Speaker 11: That's correct.
Speaker 8: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Councilman 834 is closed. Comments by members of council counsel managers, the sponsor. Did you want to go first?
Speaker 2: Yes, I did. I'm sorry. I'm stuck on the wrong screen.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much to all of the speakers for coming out tonight. We have, if you think about an analogy for this project, is like the Olympic torch. It's really those who are experiencing homelessness who lit the torch and really said, this is what we want to try and this is what we need. And then that torch got passed at one point to city agencies with a directive that said, figure out how to do this. And one of the people who spent the most hours I'm really pleased is here tonight, which is Jill Jennings Golic, who is our former she was our deputy director of planning at the time. She was an acting director for a portion of this conversation. And she and many staff members took the torch and figured it out. It wasn't a sprint. It was like a worldwide marathon. Like you imagine the torch having to go around the whole globe maybe several times. And I think that that was hard. It was hard for me and other council members to watch how long it took. It was hard for the staff who once they thought they figured something out, found another piece. And I want to share that. One of the things that was hard about it was the tradeoff between safety and the same standards for folks experiencing homelessness and speed. And I personally had a few rounds on that with, you know, the building official particularly saying, you know, can't we sacrifice this for speed? Can't we sacrifice that for speed? And then the question of, well, you know, do we want to, you know, for example, sacrifice the safety risk of a floodplain for the speed of putting a village in. So this was not easy. And I want to thank all of the folks who took the torch next, which is many of you who are here from the group Living Zoning Code Group. So I may miss someone, but I got Loretta James, Paul, John, folks who spent a lot of hours and many folks who aren't here who took the torch to say , what are we mostly as residents who have not experienced homelessness? We had some work groups that had folks with lived experience on them. But what do we as groups feel like our obligation is and thinking about making our city more flexible. And so all I really get to do is carry the torch across the finish line like a foot and a half. Right. So I'm pretty humble. It's not my ordinance. I just I'm just here to help at the end, the staff. I also want to just thank Andrew and Tina Axelrod, who's not here for spending all of the hours they did as long along with Polly in my office. So I put up a visual because one of the things that folks ask me a lot in the community is what are we doing to address homelessness? And I've tried to find a one page thing that visually demonstrates the continuum. And what I say to folks is some of the things on this list we're working on making better. So emergency shelter is on the far left end of the spectrum and. We're trying to make it work better by moving it to the right so that it's more oriented towards housing navigation. And so that's something that's happening. A lot of what we do is we try to move our way to the right, we try to get out of the red and into the blue. And so one of the things that for me is really important when I when I came to the decision, I spent almost all of my time on the blue, right end of the spectrum, my time in office. That's what the housing fund was about. That's what doubling the housing fund and bringing forward $50 million for land, for supportive housing and those below 30% of median income was about and I was passionate and that's where I thought I needed to spend all of my time and talents, because that's the end of the spectrum. At that point, you're housed and you're safe and you're stable. It doesn't mean you don't need other supports, but it means you're no longer homeless. And for me, the moment where the realization occurred was when we had one project come forward for supportive housing in 2018, only one, and they did not get state tax credits. The city had all of our money sitting there and waiting to fill the gap, but our money's little and the tax credit money is big. And when the tax credit money fell through, we didn't have a new project in all of 2018. And that for me was the line that we had this big gap right in the middle where tiny home villages sits, right? We're trying to make all the things, all the shelter better and move people along. And we have the solution that we know works. And I just have to say it every chance I get. 300 folks chronically homeless, some for decades were offered housing for supportive housing, and only one person turned it down. People don't turn down supportive housing. It's just not common. And so what we know is folks want to be in this housing, but I can't build it fast enough. I couldn't make up all by myself for that 2018 project that went away. This proposal for me was about understanding that there was this gap right in the middle and that we had to put more energy into it . And I appreciate the willingness of the community planning and development to take this piece out and move it faster. Because even if we don't have an application pending, we do have sites. There is fundraising already done for a whole new village and they are looking for sites. And so we would have been six months behind the game if we had waited to do this ordinance. But we're doing it tonight to move faster and to have more creative options. So what I often say to folks is the things on the blue end of the spectrum, especially even in the middle, they work. The challenge is getting them to scale. And that's what this ordinance is about. This ordinance is about saying we need a whole bunch of land to choose from because it's really hard to get. And I want to just address one question about why temporary. I agree that we should have permanent tiny home villages, too. But in order to build a building attached to the ground and hook it up to plumbing and hook it up to electricity, you need to own the land. If you're going to build it forever, it has to be your land. And that is hard to find and it's expensive to find. So the most important thing was to get any land quickly. So this was one of those speed things. It was about saying if there's a piece of land that's needed for a rec center in three years, let's use it. Now. If there's a piece of land that's needed for a grocery store in five years, let's use it now. If there's a condo project, that'll come someday, let's use the land now. So temporary land is not saying that folks don't deserve permanent homes. Everybody, I hope, will move out of that tiny home village and to the supportive housing that comes next and to the permanent affordable housing that may not have any of her services because they don't need them anymore. But the land itself is hard to come by. So while I'm working to get people into permanent homes, this is about creating spaces for villages as quickly as we can so we can get to scale. It's about the most people we can serve. And then I just want to close by saying that this is about more than just this ordinance doing the work. The ordinance is really the easiest part. As long as it took to get that torch around the globe three or four times, it is easy compared to finding that land . So we need to call upon our civic institutions, our landowners, those folks sitting on something and ask them to step up. Our city has stepped up. We're going to keep doing that, but we don't have a lot of we don't keep a lot of unused land around, but we all need to think about that. Secondly, most of you know, I've proposed and the council has graciously agreed to put forward a request that our budget include support services. Folks can't move from tiny homes to the next step on this scale without housing navigators, who can help them make the applications and do the work to get that permanent step next. And so I hope that we're able to get support for that change in the budget, and we need to do more than that. Right. So we heard the $600,000 cost. The best practice research was presented last year at the Housing and Homelessness Workgroup, and we know that cities are often contributing to operations, sometimes to capital, not always . But we can be thinking about other financial investments. We can only grow the scale if the resources are aligned. And then lastly, our neighborhoods. This is a new use. There were a lot of questions, which is why it is so important that we have the community informational meeting in here. That is not the sum total of community outreach, but it happens before the application goes in and the application has to note what feedback came from that meeting and how it was addressed. That's a first for those of you keeping track of our land use process. We don't require anyone else in our land use. So I got questions about that. Actually from Inter Neighborhood Cooperation, they said, Is it fair to ask our most vulnerable project to do more than we ask other developers and others to do? And the answer for now is yes, because this is a new use and people need more time to learn about it and understand. But it is incumbent upon our neighborhoods to engage in this conversation with good faith and with open hearts. Everybody in our city deserves a chance to live in a home. It might be next door to you. The desire for something to always happen somewhere else is not realistic. And so I ask our neighborhoods to think about learning about these homes now, maybe before a project is proposed tour, a supportive housing project now and get to understand why those services create a greater amount of safety, both for the residents who live there as well as for your neighborhood, than it does when you're living in an alley right in your vulnerable and you are a potential victim and you are highly traumatized on a daily basis. So I call upon our neighborhoods to help make the final step of this possible, which is by engaging in good faith and helping to welcome these and learning about them and preventing rumors from spreading and using your sincere desire to shape how you can be related to this. There is a lot of room to shape the relationship here. I do commend Globeville for being at the table to help say, here are some things about how this site could be designed and how these things could be shaped. And I hope every neighborhood will step up and engage with those ideas. With that, I thank my colleagues for their consideration and urge a yes vote tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. It's kind of difficult to go after Councilwoman Kane each those very powerful. Thank you. Denver. We can do better. As we heard last November, we can do better. So thank you, Councilman Kane Cannick, for your foot and a half of movement, which is a lot of work to move it a foot and a half. And thank you all of all the people here today who spoke in support of it and all the people who aren't here today who did a lot of work to make this happen as well, that you're bringing this text amendment forward. I also want to thank the district ten residents who are here today who came tonight and support call it perfect ten for a reason. And you're helping me realize how perfect perfect ten is. Mr. Ramsey, I hope I pronounce that correctly. It's specifically you who stated that you would be happy to have a tiny home village on your block. As Councilwoman Kennedy said, we need our neighborhoods to come forward. And we need to all of us, we need to make make a commitment to all of us as humans. And I would make the same commitment. I would be happy to have a tiny home village on my block as well. I think diverse neighborhoods are make better neighborhoods. And and I think that the some of the neighbors who who have concerns are in neighborhoods that have that are very homogeneous. And as we as we diversify our neighborhoods, I think we we've become healthier as a city. We've become healthier as a neighborhood. And frankly, I think that we've become healthier as individuals as well. So. This is as Councilwoman Kennedy showed in her and her visual. This is just one more tool in the toolbox. I look forward to considering additional tools as we in Denver continue to do better. As we do better. I'm excited to see a model that that treats residents as partners and success. And and I wish you success with my yes vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Consommateurs.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also just want to thank everyone for coming out in support of this ordinance and the work that Councilwoman can each and CPD all put into this? Mr. Hazen I think it was it's something around who would love to see this, the city embrace this, and I would like to echo that. It is going to take all 78 of our neighborhoods to really embrace the potential of what this has and the potential it has to change people's lives. Mr. Chandler reminded us how zoning in our history in Denver was used to exclude people, and it will only change when we actually use zoning to include folks. So thank you so much. We still need a number of solutions. I love Councilwoman Nature's Spectrum of all of the housing solutions that are required and all of the parts that play a role in trying to address this true crisis. I really want to thank also the Denver Foundation and Ms.. Virginia for helping to fund these efforts. These are not free. These are not easy and they are temporary. So it does take investment and and belief that this actually makes a difference. This isn't a singular solution. It's one way to give stability and peace to a small group of people who only need a chance to figure out their next step. Tiny home villages may not be for everyone experiencing homelessness. They are for those for whom it does work a roof in a place of their own that can and will change their lives. So thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank our members of our unsheltered community and their allies for for the grace and courage with which you've leaned into this topic, especially in recent years. You've created a movement, and it wouldn't have been done without you. I want to congratulate Cole Chandler on the addition to your family. Hope your child is healthy and happy and carries your spirit of service. Thanks for what you do. Councilwoman Canete, his outstanding work. Thank you for your leadership on this. So this is an amazing evening. President Clark and I and maybe some others on the previous council will remember a gentleman named Bob Sperling who came around to council four years into the planning department lobbying for accessory dwelling units. And when he first came around, he was just shoot away. You know, it was kind of like, what are you even talking about? He, unfortunately, some months ago passed away after a brief battle with ALS and now on a somewhat regular basis. Now we're talking about this new tool to increase our housing stock, and I find that very exciting. A number of us went to Austin, Texas, this summer to visit their community first village, and they had 51 acres on the first 24 acres. They've got 225 tiny homes and mobile homes and RVs, and they're just started developing the remaining 27 acres for another 300 units. And they have a they're building a 20,000 square foot health center, etc., etc.. So we came back very motivated and wondering how do we replicate that? Does it have to be on 51 acres? Can it be done high rise? Can it be done in different just a different format? And what we're getting ready to vote on tonight provides us at least a shot at that. You know, and I like so much the idea of of individual homes rather than apartments in buildings. You have a you know, while they're certainly not large, they're your own. The door locks, there's space around it. You can sit on your porch and, you know, look out at whatever you care to look at. This is just a wonderful tool and it's such a fitting thing that we're talking about these both of these new additions to our housing stock. And as I would say to Mr. Chandler and say to our tiny homes, may you multiply. Thank you.
Speaker 0: They just mean cash and Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to piggyback a little bit on what Councilman Cashman was just saying. I was one of those council members who got a chance to go to the Austin community first. Residents. And to see how they have incorporated social enterprises into their living environment was was pretty exciting. But really what we saw was a community and that's what we see at the beloved tiny home village as well. And that is so much different than putting an individual in a unit because sometimes they lose that sense of community that they've had, that camaraderie, that that that has been built with the people they've been living on the streets with. And by creating what's more of a community environment, it it gives the individuals that support that is needed. Yes. The all the support services are important, but that sense of of community and belonging is equally as important. And that's part of what I have seen that our beloved tidy home village has created. Sokol I want to thank you and your board for really moving the needle on this conversation, being part of the group living conversations and elevating this to be part of that agenda and making sure that the committee that worked on on this particular section just kept moving the needle on it. Councilwoman, for for taking it across the finish line as you. Articulately elaborated on. But I think the importance here is that we have a shelter system. We have some supportive housing. We've got a lot of market rate housing. We need the layers in between so that we have all the right options for people that are coming out of our shelter system, that are working, that need to get into stable housing, that people who leave the tiny home village can get into housing that's affordable. And again, yes, it does take a while to get through, you know, the tax credit process in making sure that we've got the affordability built in, but really having the continuum of options for people at different stages in their life so that we're ensuring that we don't have people returning to the streets because we have it address that continuum of options. So for everybody who's been involved with this, I just want to say thank you to our our staff at CPD. Andrew, Jill, Tina. You guys have played an important role in, in shaping all of this and moving the needle as well. So I'm going to be supporting this tonight. I'm excited that we will have the opportunity to show folks that this really works. And, you know, we've got people in the Lincoln Park neighborhood who will be seeing, you know, something happened with the Burnham yards. And they're one of the communities that said, pick me. We'd like to have a tiny home village in our community as one of the options on this site, assuming she doesn't take the whole site when they're talking about, you know, creating some new route for the I-25 corridor. But I think this gives us the opportunity and the fact that we have so many large churches around our city that are being underutilized, that have huge parking lots, I think this creates tremendous opportunity for options all across the city where it's not just one neighborhood or one part of the city being asked to, you know, to do their part in helping make sure that we've got these opportunities here. And the last thing I'll say is. In Austin. I know when I've had a chance to travel to Europe and saw a tiny home village. These are communities that the larger community is very proud to have in their neighborhoods and to be able to say this is ours. And I think Denver has one and can have others, and it's not going to be for everybody. But having that as one of the options will give all those people who get to take advantage of them the opportunity to stabilize their lives. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Clark. You know. There's really no.
Speaker 6: Opposition.
Speaker 2: So congratulations on on a really robust community engagement process and want to support and acknowledge the work of the community first and foremost, because you do that work every single day. I want to also acknowledge, you know, Cole, Andrew, Jill and Councilwoman Kenney each and hopefully, you know, being one of the council.
Speaker 6: Members who attended the trip when we went.
Speaker 2: To Austin, Texas, and toured the community first village.
Speaker 6: You know, a lot of that.
Speaker 2: Education and experience will always stay with us. That being said, I think there's benefit to other city individuals or other council members going and visiting and kind of seeing that model.
Speaker 6: Because one of the things with their.
Speaker 2: Model was that they were also generating income for the residents. And that was so meaningful because you were validated that if you're creative or you make artwork or you make sculptures.
Speaker 6: Or you make jewelry or whatever it is that is.
Speaker 2: Your livelihood that you know in your heart is your life livelihood. They were able to really foster that. And I'm hopeful that with some time under our belts that we could look at more permanent solutions for these villages, because it's not unheard of that somebody might do improvements on a parcel of land that they never intend to own.
Speaker 6: They are only making those.
Speaker 2: Improvements so that they can operate and then someone else owns that land into perpetuity. It could be a corporation, it could be a developer. And right here in the permitted.
Speaker 6: Zone districts, we have churches, community centers and cultural.
Speaker 2: Facilities. And so what would.
Speaker 6: That model look like that.
Speaker 2: This investment.
Speaker 6: That is not a small.
Speaker 2: Investment could be valued for years and years to come.
Speaker 6: And I'm just curious as to.
Speaker 2: You know, following this trajectory and hopefully, again, we get a little bit of time under our belts and so that we can look at this maybe in another way after we see how this one works and where there might be others through the city. But, you know, it's troubling to me that we might have a significant initial investment that would be moved around every four years throughout the city without truly being able to realize and and really partner with maybe those churches or community centers or cultural facilities to support more individuals for a longer term duration. So congratulations again to everybody. Looking forward to seeing how this moves forward. And my one ask would be, please allow us. However, we might invite our registered neighborhood organization leaders, our community leaders in a respectful manner again. But just people need to see it and they need to meet individuals and really, truly understand. And so I make that ask and I'm here to always help and support. So congratulations again. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you all for coming, for being here, for engaging in the process and for sticking with us as the night gets late. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: CDEBACA I.
Speaker 10: FLYNT All right.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 4: Hinds High.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Kenny Ortega High. Sandoval High.
Speaker 2: Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close voting in those results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code.
Approves text amendment #6 to the Denver Zoning Code to add a new Temporary Tiny Home Village use and associated regulations and procedures, updates and clarifies outreach procedures related to Large Development Review, and amends regulations for an affordable housing parking reduction. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-20-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0921
|
Speaker 0: An amendment for a vote and amendments. All right. On 921. All right. Madam Secretary, I think Councilman Sawyer is stepped out for her proclamation. Can we do Councilman Flynn's first? All right. If you could put 921 on our screens. And Councilwoman CdeBaca, if you will, please put Council Bill 921 on the floor.
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 921 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I moved to amend Council Bill 19, Dash 921 with the following particulars on page two, strike line seven and eight, and renumbered subsection 24, dash 401. Accordingly, on page six, strike lines four through seven one, line eight, strike C and replace with B, strike lines 12 through 19 one, line 20, strike Perin three and replace with Perin two and on line 32, strike 422, Perin B Perin three and replace with 422 Parente Perin two.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: I can't believe I have to comment. Nobody understood that the the meat behind all those striking and additions and rememberings was that I fully support this bill's main intent, which is to make it illegal for retailers who sell tobacco products to sell to people under 21. Right now, the ages 18 to 21, I fully support that. I think I and a number of us were a little taken by surprise with some other elements in the bill, which may be which may be subject of a broader discussion, which should be subject to a broader discussion, but were included in this bill. And that's adding distancing requirements to the sellers of tobacco products. And if this were to pass without this amendment tomorrow morning, 84% of every store that sells Cigarets, every 7-Eleven, every King Soopers, every corner store and Diamond Shamrock will find itself in violation. We have a grandfathering provision in here. And we were told by the agency that while it's a simple matter to keep track of 84% of all the stores in Denver from year to year who would have to reapply to keep their grandfathered status when the principal goal is just not sell to people under 21. The goal isn't to to reduce the number of stores that sell to people over 21. At least we weren't told that was the goal, but that could be the effect of this. And the number of stores, particularly smaller neighborhood groceries and outlets like that, for whom selling tobacco legally to customers over 21 may provide a good part of their profit margin and and their revenue for the year. This is something I think this is a policy shift that really should have had broader discussion rather than being embedded in a an ordinance that says it's illegal to sell to under 21. Those stores will lose their license if they sell to under 21. And I think right now that's sufficient. And I would welcome a broader discussion subsequently. So what this amendment does is it takes out only two of those prohibited locations, daycares, because right now, the way it's written, if a if there is a corner store within a thousand feet of a daycare facility, remembering that daycares can be established in people's homes, they can be established from time to time. They can move around. I don't know many toddlers who are going in and trying to pass themselves off, as you know, 18 year olds these days. But daycare seemed not to be appropriate. And it also takes out the distancing between and among. The stores themselves. So if you have a store on the corner and right within 500 feet, there's a King Soopers, which is a category killer as far as sales of cigarets. Suddenly, that small retailer will find himself in a situation of being grandfathered and having to reapply every year for that status in order to keep it. I don't believe those are necessary at this time and there should have been a broader discussion rather than learning about this when it came to counsel in the committee process. We are. This amendment does not affect the distancing requirements that are established in the ordinance from schools, places where children 18 to 21 and under 18 are known to congregate. So rec centers, pools and schools. That's kept in the bill that distancing requirements simply takes out the daycares and the distancing among the retailers themselves. And I would ask members to please consider supporting this change and then engender a broader discussion as to whether this is a regimen that we should have. And let's have the discussion on that and not embedded within an ordinance that simply wants to stop selling cigarets to people under 21. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. If someone in. Here. Who could speak about the in someone here who's in favor of the the proposed bill and could talk a bit about distancing requirements. And demographics regarding cigaret vendors. Thank you. And also, I guess the first question I would have is about the stakeholder process itself. So if you could, you know, mention who you are and who you represent, if anyone. And and then I'll I'll I'll continue.
Speaker 10: You bet. My name is Tristan Sanders. I'm a public health manager in the Department of Public Health and Environment for the city. And I worked with a group across the city to develop this bill. We did do a stakeholder engagement process over the course of about six weeks, eight weeks. We invited every single retailer in the city and county of Denver that we know of to come to two open listening sessions where we discussed the main provisions of the bill and including the proximity restrictions. We took feedback from everybody. We had a lively discussion about the merits of the different points. And what is before you is what we came up with, given their feedback.
Speaker 5: And so I think I heard you say this. I just want to make sure that I didn't misunderstand. So there were retailers who were invited to the stakeholder process. And the stakeholder process did include the thousand foot setback, which includes daycares and other retailers.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so we invited all retailers. We originally had proposed a 1000 foot setback for all of the proximity restrictions, including from other retailers. And based on the feedback that that would be too restrictive as far as the commercial property available for new retailers, we did some mapping and we looked at the number of parcels across the city that would conform and not conform with those restrictions with a number of different scenarios, eliminating them altogether, looking at 500 feet, looking at a thousand feet. And again, what's before you is what was essentially agreed upon as a as a compromise to move forward with those distancing restrictions.
Speaker 5: So was the setback for retailers, is that a different number besides 1000?
Speaker 10: Yeah. So the youth facing facilities, the city owned rec centers, pools and schools is 1000 feet, the daycare centers is a thousand feet and the distance from other retailers is 500 feet based on our revised bill.
Speaker 5: So the 500 foot setback does that is still does that also include 84% of all sooner store owners?
Speaker 10: Yeah. With with those proximity restrictions, 84% of current retailers would be needing to be grandfathered into those proximity restrictions. And just to comment about that, everybody has to apply for a license. Everybody would have to apply yearly to renew that license. The grandfathering restriction is specific to their location. So as soon as we have the addresses of people that are grandfathered on July 1st of next year, that is the list of addresses that are grandfathered in perpetuity. That won't change.
Speaker 5: It. Oh, well, that's okay. Thank you for that. So if I am one of the grandfathered addresses and I forget to reapply a month late or a year late, then I still get my application renewed.
Speaker 10: Not if it lapses. So the location, as long as it's a continuous license, would be grandfathered.
Speaker 5: But everyone has to apply every year.
Speaker 10: Everyone has to apply every year.
Speaker 5: So it isn't as if some folks are having to remember and other folks aren't having to remember. Every business owner has to apply and has. Is this different or is this something that has happened like in the past as well? So like is it part of a part of the process everyone must renew their. Even in, you know, last year or the year before the year before that.
Speaker 10: This is fairly standard practice for licenses. It is an annual renewal and there's a process that exercises as license takes to notify people of when the renewal date is. They get notification, you know, a few months ahead of time, a few weeks ahead of time at the date that it's expiring. They get notified at the record, but the address, the email, the phone number, etc..
Speaker 5: So I think that at least three notifications using multiple communication methods.
Speaker 10: Maybe you. So I think we're working out those details of the license, but I think we can probably say at least two notifications leading up to the point of the expiration.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then would there be at least one additional notification after the expiration? Hey, did you forget since. Yeah, well before the. Hey, you've lost your license. Is there a a did you forget you don't have a whole lot of time to apply.
Speaker 9: It's on.
Speaker 5: Sorry. Yeah. Please go to the microphone if you're going to talk. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Sorry for the backseat chatter. I'm Eric Rogers from Department of Excise and Licenses. It does tend to vary by license type because we are moving some of our licenses online. So for example, our short term rental licenses get several automated reminders that your license is needing to be renewed. Some of our other licenses that aren't online yet get fewer than that. And so I'm sorry, I can't I'm not sure exactly how many each license type gets, but this license would be going online. So I would my understanding would be that it would get at least as many as short term rentals, which I believe is three
Speaker 5: . And would there be one more notice? You know, like you're you've lapsed. If you want to apply, you better do it quickly. Otherwise your grandfather status will be gone.
Speaker 3: I don't believe we have done that with other licenses, but that's definitely something we could look into.
Speaker 5: Okay, thank you. I want to go back to the 84% and the distancing requirements.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 5: Why is there so 84% of all the stores are located next to each other? That seems like a lot of stores if they're, you know, at all, the city is jammed up within 500 feet of one another. Is it can you tell me, are the and those watching can you tell all of us a little bit more about what those neighborhoods are like or, you know, fire? Why are all the retailers close to each other?
Speaker 10: So we we have certain parts of the city where there is a tremendous amount of density of retailers. It happens to correlate with the density of youth living in our city, and it happens to correlate with the number of violations in our compliance program of sales to youth. And there's a lot of research and data that suggests this isn't coincidence, that where there is more opportunity, you will have more lack of compliance with selling to youth. In fact, there are three sections of our city, I believe, in Council District one, seven and nine where there is a three mile square radius that has each one of them has over 20 retailers just in that three mile square radius. As opposed to that, there's actually an entire council districts that only has 17 total retailers. So it varies significantly across the city. And the only way that we can ensure that it doesn't become more dense after July 1st of next year would be with these restrictions in place.
Speaker 5: So I think I heard you say and again, I want to make sure that I that I understood it correctly. You said that the locations of cigaret retailers is highly correlated with locations where youth live.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 5: Is there a way you can statistically identify that as opposed to just the value statement? Is there, you know, like. Well, I mean, I guess you've you've got maps, but are there other ways that you can describe that in a numeric fashion? That's. That's fine. I'm going to get on the spot. No. Okay. Well, fair enough. That's all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for all of your hard work on this. As a parent and the city of Denver, I'm really grateful to you for all that you're doing to protect our kids. This is really fantastic. And so I really appreciate that. But that said, I also see Councilman Flynn's perspective on moving these motions. And for two reasons. I think, you know, when we were talking about the daycare centers come 2040 and Blueprint are really telling us, you know, that we want to have more local businesses in neighborhoods, in walking distance of our homes to get people out of their cars at the same time. Our our information is telling us that more daycare centers are moving into people's homes in our neighborhoods. And so it's sort of hard because we see these two these two trajectories they're going to cross at some point. Right. And so how do we how do we speak for future business owners? This is a tough one because we want more daycare centers. We need more daycare centers. I was talking to someone today who mentioned that down here there are only three daycare centers in the downtown area. I mean, there just simply are not enough. And so, you know, we need to be able to find a way to to to make both of those things work. And I think that by moving this amendment, Councilman Flynn has come up with a compromise that makes sense on on that perspective and that part of things. And then in terms of the the 500 foot between businesses, you know, as long as these businesses are maintaining their their the law. Right. As long as they're selling to people who are over 21, then then they should have the right to do that. As long as if they're not selling to kids, then, you know, we are already taxing our businesses at such incredible rate. We are already putting so much pressure on our small businesses. And now they're looking down the pipeline at, you know, having to keep up with minimum wage. You know, our our our cost of living has not kept up. And, you know, our our wages have not kept up with our cost of living. It's again, this to me. Councilman Flynn is reaching a compromise here with allowing law abiding businesses to provide, you know, people who are over the age of 21 who are making a terrible choice to smoke, do not smoke. People don't smoke. But if you choose to smoke and you're over the age of 21, you know, then then these law abiding businesses are making money at that and they should be allowed to do that no matter how far away they are from another law abiding business. So maybe so to me, even though I'm so grateful for this work that you're doing and I'm so happy that we and so proud that I get to be one of the people who votes yes today. On raising the bar and raising the age of smoking to 21. I also I'm going to support Councilman Flynn in in his motion because they make sense to me in striking a compromise here on some issues that our city is facing that I think are going to are going to be tough as we move forward. And so thank you for all of your hard work. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for also bringing this to the forefront. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. To our council, McKinney.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of questions before I comment. Mr. Sanders, thanks so much for the maps you provided me. You shared that you had a robust stakeholder process. Did you share those maps in the stakeholder process?
Speaker 10: We did not have these maps developed for the stakeholder process.
Speaker 6: When where they developed.
Speaker 10: They were developed prior to committee and after the stakeholder process. And after we receive that feedback, we've posted revisions on our website.
Speaker 6: When you came to committee A.O., if you recall, I asked you how much the noncompliance was. And do you recall at that time that you said you didn't know it, that you weren't able to provide that information during the committee meeting?
Speaker 10: The rate of noncompliance.
Speaker 6: Right. That how many nonconforming businesses with the rules create that you were unable to answer that at committee. So the other question I wanted to ask you about is you I appreciate you also shared, in addition to the maps, you shared some of the background information. I read what you sent me. Change labs, I think, was the source. Did you do a profile of all other cities that had similar restrictions to the ones you proposed in this bill?
Speaker 10: We did research on other cities. That had similar restrictions in the bill.
Speaker 6: Did you find a single city that had restrictions on schools, daycare centers and distance from each other?
Speaker 10: There are many cities in California that have similar proximity restrictions, if not more. And then there are many cities not in California that don't.
Speaker 6: I didn't find any that had daycare centers. Is that something that's not mentioned in any of the research that you sent me? So is that can you can you share if there's a gap between what you sent me and you did some other research that you didn't send me in daycare centers?
Speaker 10: No, there's. So we looked in totality of the three at what was available out there. And like I said, many had additional proximity restrictions. None were exactly the same.
Speaker 6: Yeah. I guess what I would say is, having followed up on what you sent me, I did not find a single city that included daycare centers, pools, recreation centers and all of the locations. I also and this is I'm going to move to comments. So thank you for your your time. I think that the appropriate way to proceed with policy is to say to the public, we have a desire to protect you from acts and here's what we're going to do and propose that in this case, I worry that we are creating a false expectation when we're creating an expectation that we're going to protect you from something. But then 85% of businesses will continue to exist. So, in fact, if you're a firm believer that people should not, you know, be selling tobacco in these locations, but that truthfully, it's going to be continuing to happen, then I think we're setting a false expectation. In my recollection, I do not recall a time when we as a city have in one vote created 85% noncompliance rate in one single vote. So to me, it's about one that the data was not matching up with the recommendations to that. I just don't believe it's it's good government to say to folks, hey, I'm going to make this thing illegal, but really it's not going to be illegal because everyone's going to keep doing it. And I think the other points that, you know, Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Flynn have made about small businesses and just the idea that we really we had we had a committee meeting on this, the council gave very strong feedback about needing licensing. I appreciate how much the department reluctantly agreed to go to that step, but then you skipped us in the process. And again, the data just doesn't match. So in my opinion, this is a prudent amendment because it's it's telling the truth that we're not going to create standards, that we're really not going to be in a position to enforce. So I'm no fan of smoking. No fan of of of youth tobacco use. I think the licensing is key here and I think the licensing going with the G 21, one of the things I'll just comment on real quick so I don't have to chime in on the bill is that we had a conversation, a committee about signage. Even though it's not a requirement in the ordinance. I think there was strong feedback that you need to have a sign that says 21. So I hope you achieve that through rules or regulations or model signage. I think it'd be very confusing to have a sign that says 18 and up when we're passing a law that's 21. So I hope you solved that and I'll be excited to support the bill if this amendment passes. If it doesn't, I I'm going to struggle. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 9: Thank you so much. I don't have any questions for you trust. And thank you so much for meeting with me in between committee and and today I am incredibly supportive of the age increase the licensing requirement also pleased that additional inspectors are being proposed to be added to the team to make sure that retailers are informed of the changes. The compliance is met. I have a couple of vendors in District three that appear to have historic violations. And so I appreciate that you'll be holding them accountable and and the incoming licenses accountable to that in Council District three. Just to echo one of the issues that Councilwoman Sawyer brought up, we have a number of childcare providers that operate in-home. And the movement is to actually get them licensed and to get them providing education and training to the children in the families that they serve. And and and that's the friend and friend and family and friends and family. Neighbor and neighbor care. Thank you. And it actually is a growing movement throughout the city, but we definitely see it in play in District three. And so some of the some of the mapping that was done doesn't reflect those in-home providers. And so our density is greater. The distancing between retailers was one that concerned me, but not quite for the reasons that were mentioned here. For me, it just has to do with who is providing other things in District three, like fresh food and groceries. To my neighbors, we can count on one hand grocers in District three to major and a couple smaller. And so a lot of my neighbors rely on Mart Corner markets. And other retailers for grocery needs. And so I really do worry as we try to and advocate for a grocer for more grocery options, that this might become a barrier. And I don't want that to be a barrier for our conversation for fresh food. And I hate that these kinds of things are pitted against one another. But I am grateful that the changes are being made in support of a higher age limit and better enforcement. That piece just makes sense for my district.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm going to go to Councilman Sandoval because should benefit.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in and offer my support. And I have a senior in high school and their ability to get tobacco products is real. I have this conversation on a daily basis. I find Jules and I have this conversation with 17 year old, 16 year olds, 15 year olds. And as I was thinking about this amendment, Northwest Denver is a bit different than Council District three in Councilman tours this area. But we share West Colfax and we also shared northwest Denver has more access to grocery stores. And so because as you sit up here behind the dais and you vote for all of city council and all of the city and county of Denver, I have to offer my support for this amendment, but I also have to echo councilman clenches sign. I think it's it's not okay for people to go into these stores and not see it's illegal to sell to 21. You have to same as a liquor store signage is really important and our teenage kids we're in the area era of instant gratification. If they want a song, they buy it. If they want to Google something, they are able to do it. And so with that, we have to keep up with the times. So they have to see that sign because if not, they won't know they're not there's no education going to be done about this amendment or about this bill for 21 and older. So thank you, Councilman Flynn, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinney, for bringing up the signage issue and thinking councilman. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Councilman Flint. Rebecca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just a quick question. Interested in the way the bill's worded? I want to make sure I understand how the grandfathering will work. It says that the distancing requirements do not apply to any location that has submitted an application. As of July 1st of 2020 and that these rules are effective January 1st, 2021. So I'm curious, how many locations are there? I'm trying to remember from committee there were 500 and some such proximately 586, approximately 586. I like that it varies, give or take. So how many of them are aware that they may be within 1000 feet of a daycare or within 500 feet of another seller of tobacco products?
Speaker 10: How many are aware today?
Speaker 4: Yes. I mean, do they know?
Speaker 10: Could not answer that.
Speaker 4: So they don't.
Speaker 10: Know. It was in our presentation and engagement with stakeholders. However, between now and the application period, our team will actually be visiting every single retailer personally and.
Speaker 4: They of those 586, give or take, how many came to your stakeholder meeting?
Speaker 10: So we had somewhere around 17 to 20. However, many of them represented multiple locations.
Speaker 4: Right. Okay. Like this.
Speaker 10: Several like a smoke screen. Like a 7-Eleven.
Speaker 4: That's right. Okay. So what I'm what I'm wondering is if and this gets to what Councilwoman Torres was talking about, if if there's a new retailer who wants to come in and they are after July 1st of next year, say, sometime in 2021, and at a store is going to open up and they want to sell cigarets to over 21 and they are not within 1000 feet of a daycare or within 500 feet of another retailer. They would be given a license, correct?
Speaker 10: That's right.
Speaker 4: If a daycare if they met all the other requirements.
Speaker 10: If they met all the proximity restrictions. Yes. And applied after July 1st. Yes, it would be okay.
Speaker 4: So if a daycare center then opened afterward. After that new store sometime in 2021. We're bringing in the lawyers. I'm really in trouble now.
Speaker 10: I'm bored.
Speaker 4: So if a if a daycare center moved in within 1000 feet of this new store in 2022, they're not, according to the bills written, they would not be eligible for grandfathering. Would we deny them their renewal the next year?
Speaker 10: So on sabbatical from the Denver City Attorney's Office, I work in prosecution and code enforcement and I advise the Department of Excise and licenses the way the bill is currently written. The standards of denial, the approximate locations our restrictions are located in. The standards of denial. Yes, those standards.
Speaker 11: Of denial apply to applications for new licensing. So in your.
Speaker 10: Scenario, if they applied for new licensing and they complied with proximity restrictions.
Speaker 11: At the time of application for that new licensing, and then they received a license.
Speaker 10: Then they would have the license that would not affect their renewal if a new daycare center opened up so they could keep renewing every year.
Speaker 4: Can I suggest then that this is not worded to actually accomplish that? Paragraph three says this subsection B, which is the the reasons for denial based on proximity, shall not apply to any application for a retail store license submitted on or before July 1st, 2020. Are you saying a renewal application doesn't fit under that?
Speaker 10: That's right. So that that the word application in that section is referring to a new license application.
Speaker 4: Okay. It doesn't say that, but it was. So a renewal is not considered a retail tobacco store license.
Speaker 10: A renewal would be considered a retail tobacco store license. But by the standards of renewal have are the standards of denial of renewal have different standards.
Speaker 4: Okay. I hope that you can appreciate that. I think I believe that that's unclear here, that it would not that strictly speaking verbatim it would not apply to. Sure.
Speaker 10: And so the language was copied from other ordinances that we have, for example, for marijuana. It works the same way in in marijuana as it says that any application should not be granted in these particular locations and that the.
Speaker 11: Grandfathering language is different for marijuana. But we've been interpreting it to say that application.
Speaker 10: That sentence refers to an application for a new license.
Speaker 4: And trust. And I think the only other thing I would observe in in reference to Councilwoman Sandoval's district, where you had a high concentration and a high concentration of violations, I think the way I read this, it's not the proximity restrictions that will winnow down the number of retailers. It's getting people on violations and then pulling their license, removing their ability to. To sell.
Speaker 10: If you're talking about narrowing the number of retailers overall, it's the compliance program that may do that.
Speaker 4: But this includes a very aggressive compliance program.
Speaker 10: Retailers.
Speaker 4: Right. Right. So the way to reduce the concentration, the proximity restrictions don't reduce the current concentration. Let's say what what does that in the in the instance of northwest Denver is aggressive enforcement and pulling the licenses. Okay. At what? How many violations would it take for a retailer to lose their license?
Speaker 10: Completely.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 10: So in a in a renewal application, that is one of the standards of denial, where if they have any violations, we can consider that. Oh, but also at two violations they would get a 30 day suspension notice at three they would get a 60 day. Okay. For and subsequent would be up to a year.
Speaker 4: Do we do that now with 18 and under sales? We do. And how many retailers have lost their license?
Speaker 10: I believe we are at 48 retailers across the city that have been restricted sales for up to 30 days that have been issued. Some of those might be an appeal. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So so I guess, Mr. Perez, what I'm saying is this amendment would not inhibit in any way the enforcement of that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines, if you don't mind, if you new people have jumped in. I'll get back to you in a second. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure if this is for Ansel or for Tristin, but I wanted to ask what restrictions there would be on any of the grandfathered addresses. Is it just on expansion of operations, physical improvements to the building? Help me understand what those restrictions would be for someone who is grandfathered in that maybe was thinking about, you know, expanding the business. They've got the physical space to do it. They want to do upgrades to the building. What what are those restrictions?
Speaker 10: So entrepreneur from the Denver City Attorney's Office, again, just for the record, the. So currently there's no there would not be any new application required if you wanted to, for example, expand the floor plan of your business. Use that for marijuana, for example, we require a.
Speaker 11: Modification application that's not required for retail tobacco licenses. So the only restriction right now on so there would not be any restriction on grandfathered locations down in the restriction would apply to applications for new licensing.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then on the restricted sales for people who had been, you know, identified for for having multiple violations, is the restriction on the sales just on the tobacco product or is it a restriction on them being able to operate at all if they're selling other food products, etc.?
Speaker 10: No, it's just not tobacco products. They're required to remove all tobacco products from their store and not sell sales of tobacco to anybody is not allowed under that suspension.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then when the public meetings took place. Was the input from them to include daycare centers, or did that come as a recommendation from your department?
Speaker 10: So we came with the recommendations of what we were intending on, including in the bill, and we asked for their feedback and we listed each proximity restriction specifically and asked, I will say the majority of comments that we got were about the distance from other retailers because as Councilman Flynn's noted, there's 84% that currently would not phone compliance. Without it, though, they would be grandfathered. We didn't hear much, actually, if anything, about the daycare restriction, though.
Speaker 7: Do you think they understood the implications, especially if you didn't have a map to be able to show, you know, where we have daycare centers across the city.
Speaker 10: So we we displayed the language that we intended on, including we did not have a map at that time. Okay.
Speaker 7: All right. I have no further questions. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll comment on now on the bill as a whole. And so I won't have that chime back in when we go go through whether or not the amendment passes or not. It's interesting because as I look at this, are we have a bill before us not counting the amendments. It's going to say we're going to stop selling below a particular age and we're going to create distance requirements for future retail tobacco licenses. And so we have a current standard that says only X number of retail tobacco license will be able to move forward based off of our distancing requirements. But we have an amendment that essentially wants to lower the distancing requirements. So we're going to say as a city, we're going to allow more. So we're saying we don't believe you should sell to above 21, under 21. Excuse me, but we're going to make an amendment that is going to allow us to put more store stores out in the city. And to me, that seems counter to the spirit of what we're actually trying to do. When I have spoken with constituents, I've not had one constituent say to me, I need more places to go buy retail tobacco. And so for me, supporting this amendment doesn't seem prudent because I don't believe that the statement that we're trying to make as a city, because you can still open a retail location, you just may not be able to sell tobacco. And I'm actually okay with that because there are certain parts of my city maybe you should sell fruit instead of tobacco. And my colleague, Councilman Hines, was asking about the notification process. I can assure you no one is going to let the tobacco license lapse. Why? Because they make a ton of money off of that product. They're not going to forget that. So I can't support the amendment moving forward. Councilman Flynn, I would hope my colleagues would not. I think it does send a mixed message. But I appreciate the colleagues. I appreciate the conversations and hear from one of my colleagues. Do thank, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Nine tobacco.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Mr. Hernan or excuse me, Councilman Hernan. There was no map. Retailers. I maybe this is for you. I would imagine that the retailers are aware of where the other retailers are. Would you say that to be the case? I mean, it's not me speaking. I mean, so they they know they know that they're in a location where they'll sell cigarets. Otherwise, if they were in a location where they wouldn't sell cigarets, they wouldn't be there for very long. I would imagine. Then I guess I'm hesitating because the nature of my question. I realize this call is calling for speculation that probably the department is not in the business of making. So is there a retailer here that that was in the stakeholder process that might be willing to speak tonight? Figured I'd ask. Thank you. Okay. So I guess the comment that I would make is. It doesn't take an MBA to know that you should know where you are in relation to your customers and where you are in relation to your competition. And while I respect that a map kind of drives that home, I'm not sure that a map makes the difference between. Whether, you know, whether a retailer does. I mean, I think at some point, if you if you aren't aware of where your customers and where your competition are, then natural selection will weed you out soon enough anyway. So I respect my colleagues in their reasoned decision. And I, I also I want to be very I want to be very clear that I want to make sure that we have transparency in government. And if there was no in fact, the reason why I was going to oppose the amendment is because there was this stakeholder process. And the stakeholder process had these you know, the language there from the beginning is that we didn't change the language at all in the stakeholder process.
Speaker 10: I mean, it was it was draft language that was taken to a PowerPoint. So yeah. Okay. So the revised to be 500 feet, that was the only change on that.
Speaker 5: Right. So stakeholder process was there. We had the information from the very beginning, the language. So I think what's what's giving some of my colleagues pause is the transparency around that stakeholder process. And. And yeah, there was the language. But maybe they could be posited or theorize that some of the people didn't really fully understand what the language was. And I guess my point is, I think that even without a map, I think that cigaret retailers would likely know where their, their customers are and where their competition are even without a visual display. So I'm sorry, I'm kind of working through this real time, but we're also getting information real time. So. So thank you. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Sometimes I don't see anybody else in the queue. I do have a few questions. This one, I think is for you or no trust. And if you could tell me on this task force, could you remind me, were there any seats set aside for council members to participate in their task force?
Speaker 10: No. This was city staff that worked on them. The bill we took the feedback from the first time we went to committee back in March or April, and we worked on the licensing component between then and when it went to committee most recently.
Speaker 0: Just a, you know, for future reference, appreciate if you give us a couple of seats on there. I do think that it helps if you look at things like green roofs that have task force and council members can speak to what happened to those those stakeholder meetings and some of the agreements that were reached and how they got there. Sometimes we speak our own weird language. Better to communicate that back. So just a recommendation for anyone considering task forces, I think I always think you get a better result when you include council member spots on there. Councilman Flynn, one of the things that you had mentioned was, hey, this wasn't really the intent. The intent is don't sell to anyone under 21. Setbacks weren't really robustly discussed. We didn't have all the chance in the data. But you're not proposing that we remove all of the setbacks? Only some of them. Can you walk me through some of your thinking on why? Why some of them? And why not just say no setbacks? Let's reset that and have that conversation and come back with that. Why keep some and get rid of others?
Speaker 4: Sure. Mr. President, I. I accept and agree with the observation that it is a good thing to keep new retail locations away from places where youth are known to congregate. And that is schools, rec centers and pools. I don't put daycare centers and the entire spatial relationship between the retailers themselves among among that category. Again, in that in that realm, the stricter enforcement and pulling of the license itself is what will reduce the concentration of retailers who are violating and are selling currently now to under 18 and after this passes to under 21. So I think it does make sense and it was persuasive in committee to have the thousand foot distance from schools, pools, rec rec centers, but daycare just didn't ring. Again, I mean, you don't have 18 year olds going to daycare these days. It's kids don't congregate. Kids who want to purchase cigarets don't congregate in the daycare. And plus, you have the problems with with the daycares being in-home and being having new daycares causing distancing problems with currently existing retailers. So it makes sense to me to keep the thousand foot restriction from schools, rec centers and pools, but not so . I don't see that reasoning applying to daycare or to or to. Among the retailers themselves. I am looking at when if I can expand on that.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, please.
Speaker 4: I'm looking at the presentation interest and made in March at committee and I don't see any mention of proposing distancing requirement in it.
Speaker 10: In March, we were only talking about raising legal fees to correct.
Speaker 4: And I think that's the intent and that's the purpose that everybody that I believe that'll pass 13 to nothing. Well, 12 to nothing tonight with one missing. I don't see anyone up here. I haven't heard of anyone opposing that and that that will be accomplished with or without this amendment. But because it wasn't brought to us in March, it wasn't even a topic of discussion. I first learned of it in the Safe House Committee when when Kristen brought it. I think that's a broader policy discussion that needs to be had separately and not muddle up the issue of selling to under 21 with these extra distancing requirements
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Councilman. And then, you know, I had this in my questions before. Councilman Herndon made a statement that I generally tend to agree with. I don't know if somebody from excise could maybe answer how many establishments with a marijuana license because we have a lot of grandfathered in there based on setbacks, have lost their license from forgetting to apply their rent a few people. You know the burden to remember. What if I forget? What if I haven't gotten them enough notifications? Councilman Herndon made the point that, hey, this is a big part of how I make money, so I know that's probably not likely. You know, I know in my district where we have a huge number of grandfathered marijuana businesses, I don't know of any who have forgotten to apply and lost their grandfathered status.
Speaker 10: So anti-tobacco from the Denver city attorney's office. I'm not aware of that happening. Marijuana licenses can be very expensive. And so they do keep track of those renewal dates. So I'm not aware of anyone who has inadvertently let the license lapse and then lost grandfathered in based on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And then I'll just as in the question, just another thing that, again, I do think I wish we would have really dove into this part of this, and I wish that we would have this as a broader conversation across marijuana, alcohol and tobacco, because I feel like sometimes we are talking about what seems like the same thing, but they are all stigmatized, are not stigmatized, looked at in different ways. And we're making different decisions not based on facts. I agree with, you know, Councilman Flynn's statement that there aren't a lot of toddlers coming in from daycares to purchase. I also don't think that and I could be wrong, we haven't had this data. There are a lot of kids at elementary schools who are trying to purchase and elementary schools. There are way more of them than middle and high schools and there are way more charter schools that can also move in and change how things are . Should we be talking about that? Should we be talking about all of these things and how they interact? And I worry a little bit of something similar happening to what happened with marijuana in my district along Broadway in particular, whereby grandfathering everyone and making new rules for everybody else. You now have an area that has a higher concentration of dispensaries than anywhere else in the city ever will. And if we're already are looking at a map that says these establishments are already added density, that research is showing is causing problems. Right. And not where we want them to be and where youth are. And now we're adding this in. It's it's it's protecting areas from ever becoming like that. But those aren't the areas. It's the same disproportionate effect. And I think what we haven't talked a lot about, I think looking at that mapping, it would be similar to marijuana mapping where we're going to see now we've institutionalized and added value to a license that's grandfathered has a higher value. If I can't get a new one anywhere in there, then where I can, that will continue to now institutionalized forever a higher density of these establishments in lower income communities, in communities of color than in other parts of town that will never now are protected from ever getting to that level of density. So I wish we were having a broader conversation about all of that. And what are the effects of a of these things and why are we treating setbacks for these things differently? And so I do think regardless of what happens today, the good news is we can change a lot of that across all of these things. And I do think that we should dove deeper into that and really have conversations that are data driven about who are we trying to protect, what are we trying to protect, and is this an effective way of doing that and what are the unintended consequences? So I just want to make one last observation and then we will vote on the amendment. I think it's very interesting that there's not a single retailer in here today. So as we're debating all this things and how it will impact retailers and losing their license and all this or not one of them here to speak up, which is unusual, I would say, when we talk about these things elsewhere, is when it's somebody who does feel like this is a real threat to their business. So just an observation. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call, we're going to vote on the amendment first. So this is on the amendment that Councilman Flynn has put forward. My secretary, Scott Flynn.
Speaker 2: I see tobacco. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon No.
Speaker 5: Hines No.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Kimmage Right. Ortega.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I know. Secretary, please cause voting in the results.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes, three knees.
Speaker 0: Minus three nays. Counsel Bill 921 has been amended. And now, Madam Secretary, unless there's somebody I know, a lot of people said they were going to make their comments on the bill as a whole when they made their comments on the amendment. But if there's anybody who was waiting to just make their comments on the bill speak now or we're going to do a roll call on the bill as amended. I don't see anybody. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 921 as amended.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca, I. Flynn. Hi Gilmore I Herndon.
Speaker 10: High.
Speaker 2: Tide.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman Kenny Ortega I.
Speaker 3: Sandoval, i.
Speaker 2: Sawyer I Torres, i. Mr. President, all right.
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please. Because voting in those results.
Speaker 2: 1212.
Speaker 0: Hours counts will 921 has passed. Next up, it. Could you please put. Well, did I miss something?
Speaker 3: No, no. Just don't forget to go back.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please put the item on our screens. That comes from Norman Sawyer. Called out, which was 965. Four questions. And, Councilwoman, go ahead with your questions.
|
Bill
|
Amends Chapter 24 and Chapter 32 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to persons under twenty-one years of age and require a license to operate a retail tobacco store. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-11-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0965
|
Speaker 0: Yeah. So, Madam Secretary, if you could please put the item on our screens. That comes from Norman Sawyer. Called out, which was 965. Four questions. And, Councilwoman, go ahead with your questions.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for going back. Sorry I was out of the room. I just had a couple of quick questions on 965, which is the contracts with the city and county of Denver and meet and hunt for environmental planning services in Denver. And then. Is there anyone?
Speaker 9: Talk to me about.
Speaker 11: North from Denver, but I can certainly try to answer questions.
Speaker 6: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. So, what are environmental planning services?
Speaker 11: So my understanding of this, did you.
Speaker 0: Grow and exercise yourself.
Speaker 11: First? Yeah, certainly. Thanks. Councilwoman Kevin Morgan, Mayor's Office. My undertaking this contract is to help for upcoming projects to make sure that the airport is in compliance with the FAA when there are NEPA requirements for construction projects. So making sure that if there are NEPA requirements involved, that they are being followed.
Speaker 9: Okay. Great. Um.
Speaker 6: So I was just looking through exhibit A, the scope of work of the contract and under Section two G, preparing affected environment and environmental consequences of analysis for two compatible land use and 16 energy supply and natural resources. I'm just wondering what those are. Can you just tell me what that means? And. People speak.
Speaker 11: I can't speak specifically to that scope. I could certainly see if Denver can get you some specific answers or Dan can get you some specific answers on that.
Speaker 6: That would be great if you could. I guess I'm just sort of. And then my other question was in Section two, under air quality, when air conformity evaluations and determinations be estimate, calculate emissions from stationary mobile sources using appropriate emissions vectors, emissions models, etc.. I'm I'm just wondering what that is yet again.
Speaker 11: I can see if I can get you more specific answers to your questions.
Speaker 6: That would be great. Certainly trying to figure out. A little bit more information and clarity around exactly what sorts of compatible land use and energy supply and natural resource information this contract is providing. Done. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Anything else?
Speaker 6: That's it.
Speaker 0: Think, Councilor said.
Speaker 3: I'm. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm also curious about this. Is is it possible for us to postpone?
Speaker 0: I believe this one is. Is this one a contract? So I think, Madam Secretary, stop me or legal stop me. But I believe any member invoking a rule number that I cannot remember off the top of my head may hold this over for a week. Is that correct? Or if we have sometimes we have a potential issue with contracts that they may hit the shot clock. So I don't know if we could get a determination from our secretary or legal on the process for a holding this over. Are you talking about just holding it over or to a date? Certain.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Yes. So Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council and one member could delay it. This is just to remind you all, if we have advance notice, we can get the proper staff here so that my apologies on that. Today was just a crazy day with budget and and the Lowry and everything and I got this request in Super Lakes. I didn't get it in time. This is all on me again. My apologies. And and so if we cannot.
Speaker 0: Can we do a quick check on the shot clock that this would just be approved if we don't take time, do we have time for a one week delay that wouldn't invoke that?
Speaker 7: Yes, we do.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we have time to take a one week delay that wouldn't automatically approve this. If a member would like to ask that.
Speaker 6: I would. Thank you. All right. I move to.
Speaker 0: Take a one. What official language do we need the councilwoman to ask for here, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Just the request to delay. The delay for one week is sufficient.
Speaker 6: I request a one week delay for 19 0965, please. With apologies for my super late requests for information on this.
Speaker 0: All right. And that is not something that we vote on. That is just granted to a member who asks for it. So it is been asked and is given. All right. Anything else we need on that, Madam Secretary? We are good.
Speaker 2: We're good.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, sir. That does conclude all of the items that were called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered, published, and we are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Cattleman's Advocate, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move that resolution. Resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 9539668 11 812 873951955911956961962 917 952963 1020 8835 900 and 902.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has been moved and seconded, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca I Flynt.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Hi.
Speaker 10: Herndon I.
Speaker 2: Heights.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman Hi, Carnage. Ortega Hi Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm secretary. Please cast voting, announce the results. 1212 ays the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 914 amending Chapter 30 Landmark Preservation of the Revised Municipal Code and a courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 776 vacating
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Mead and Hunt, Inc. concerning environmental planning services at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Mead and Hunt, Inc. for $900,000 and for three years to provide on-call environmental planning services to Denver International Airport (201844905). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-21-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-18-19. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilwoman Sawyer called out this resolution at the 9-30-19 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 10-7-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0914
|
Speaker 0: Council is now reconvened. We have two public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time and on the presentation monitor on the wall you will see your time coming down. 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. Councilman said Abarca, will you please put Council Bill 914 on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 914 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy hearing for Council Will 914 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Good evening. My name is Karen. I'm with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development and we are here to talk about the proposed updates to the Landmark Ordinance or chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Landmark Preservation was established in 1967 by Denver City Council with the purpose of designating, preserving and protecting historic resources. I Council noted at the time that it was the sense of the Council that the economic, cultural and esthetic standing of the city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historic architectural and geographical history of the city. The Denver landmarks vary from what you see in the upper left hand corner, which is a staged stop at Four Mile Park to something as modern as a hangar in Stapleton. They vary over what is significant for in the types of buildings that that we have. There are currently 344 individual landmarks and 55 historic districts, which equals about 6800 primary buildings in the city in county of Denver, or approximately out of the approximately 160,000 buildings. 55 historic districts make it seem like a lot, but it's really about 4% of the city. And through this process, as we were looking at other peer cities, we found that that's an approximate number of percentage of buildings that are designated for cities of our size. So for the proposed landmark ordinance, we convened a task force of 16 members. It was intentionally put together to include those who were supportive of preservation, those who are not supportive of preservation, and those who were neutral. It included residents from a variety of different neighborhoods around the city and professions that intersected with landmark preservation, including to members of council developers, architects, realtors and contractors. We also looked at putting, when we convene the task force to have people who are newer residents to Denver, as well as people who had lived here for a long time and those who are multi-generation families from Denver. So we got to do a diverse group of people who had lived in the city and county of Denver. They they met for a yearlong process and convened 11 different facilitated stakeholder meetings. During their initial two meetings, the task force did a problem identification and they looked at what were the area, what were the areas that they wanted to focus on. They talked about a lack of diversity in the designated prop properties. The complexity of the ordinance requirements. Conflict associated with designations submitted as part of the demolition process. And the lack of incentives for designation. So the goals and the recommendations that are being put forth addressed is each of these items that were identified in the task force. The task force looked at those problem statements as well as criteria that they established sorry, as well as criteria that they established to determine if they were successful, that the processes that were being updated were clear and predictable, that they were consistent with long held citywide practices and that they were based on best preservation practices. We as staff conducted a nationwide comparative analysis of 12 peer cities, and when we talked to them, we looked at standard preservation practices, best practices, innovative programs, and then we called and talked to them to find out what were things that didn't work. We didn't want to put forward ideas that they found didn't work. And after the 11 meetings and the other 12 month process, the task force reached a consensus on all of the recommendations that are put forward. And so one of our one of our last meetings, one of our task force members said that he was a little bit uncomfortable with this. And then he looked and said, but he thinks any Levinsky, who is the director of historic Denver, was also a little bit uncomfortable, which probably meant that we hit the right balance between making things. That was a good compromise. So the recommendations are to add a culture criteria to our designation criteria. So the task force is recommending to add three criteria to our culture, one on how the site was used by past generations. Could a site or property be a source of pride or cultural understanding to a community? And three, is it associated with social movements, institutions, or patterns of growth or change in the community? We looked at what would be the right number of criteria, and we expanded our 12 peer cities to 32 cities. We looked at other Colorado cities. We especially looked at two cities in Colorado that had paid professional staff of at least two members. There aren't any other comparable cities in Colorado to Denver, but we wanted to choose cities that were actually putting some resources towards preservation. As an understanding that that's an ethos of that city. So we looked at Boulder and Fort Collins. Then we also looked at other peer cities like Austin, Portland and Seattle. And we found a variety of ways of how people were how many criteria were needed in order to be a landmark in those cities. And we looked at it, and most of those cities had a list of criteria rather than the categories that we currently have. Only ourselves, Boise, Boise and Greeley, out of the 32 cities, had categories. So the task force is recommending to remove the categories and have criteria. So here are existing designation criteria of history, architecture and geography. And so the task force is recommending to remove the categories and then create a list of criteria that include culture. And as you can see here, there's a list of ten criteria. They are still associated with the categories, with the addition of culture, and that it would meet a designation would meet three out of the ten in order to be designated. That is still one of the highest thresholds in the nation. As we looked at some of those same 32 cities, 24 of them, or 75% require fewer than 30% criteria met to be a landmark or a designation in their city. So we're still maintaining a high requirement for designation, which was an important part of what the task force talked about. We also went and looked and tried different properties against the proposed criteria. This is the Macedonia Baptist Church. It's listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but it is not a Denver landmark. So there was research that was already associated with this property. And when we looked at it, we found that it would have been significant under the proposed criteria under architecture, as well as under two, under culture as a source of pride, as well as associated with social movements or institutions of pattern and growth. And so we found that this criteria worked for the culture criteria to allow for designated properties that represent the African-American community. We also looked at iconic buildings, things that are already designated and whether they still be designated today. So we took one of the most iconic buildings in Denver, which is Union Station, and found that it would meet six out of the ten criteria and would still be eligible under the proposed criteria. We also wanted to look at residential in addition to in addition to commercial properties. And so we looked at the Molly Brown house, which is one of the more iconic residential buildings in Denver, and found that it still met the criteria three out of ten and felt like that would be a good threshold number. And then we also looked at a property that we had reviewed for a demolition permit a couple of years ago. And at that time, we found that it didn't meet the existing criteria and categories that we have. And we found under the proposed new criteria, it would still would not meet the it would still not meet the criteria to would only be significant under architecture. And so we wanted to try out the proposed criteria under different for different properties and under different methods to ensure that we were reaching the right balance in the task force found that the three out of ten would be the appropriate criteria for designation. The other reason that the task force was primarily convened was to look at the conflicts that comes from properties that are come under demolition review and then a designation process is started through that. And so we talked extensively about ways to reduce the conflict in that we wanted to provide some numbers of the of what we have reviewed citywide. So if you can see the blue graph bar on the the largest numbers are the properties that landmark staff reviewed and approved for demolition. Then the much smaller purple shows the number of properties that we found had the potential to be a Denver landmark, and those were posted. And then the very small that you almost can't see the line, but you can see the number are the number of designations that were received from 2014 through midyear of 2019. And so we're talking about a really small percentage of properties that come forward, but understanding that when they do come forward, there is a lot of conflict that is associated with that. So of those designations that came forward, only one has been designated as a landmark. It's the Beth Eden Baptist Church, which was designated in 2014 or 2015. We have had three that were withdrawn by the applicant, three that were denied by city council. And then we have two that were denied by the Landmark Preservation Commission because they found that the applications were not sufficient to come forward. These owner opposed designations are very rare. And one of the things that we found in Denver and in our research with our peer cities is that we sometimes find a really good way of saving buildings that aren't necessarily through designation. And so while only one property has been designated through this process, we've also we've saved a variety of buildings through a compromise that didn't come through designation. And the task force talked about wanting to take this process out of the binary demo or designation process and turn it into some sort of collaboration between the community and the property owner. And so the task force is proposing to add a pause in the process. So the top line shows the current process that that a designation would go forward and a demolition review. And on the top one in green, it shows that there's a short seven day pause. What the task force is talking about doing is extending that pause from seven days to 39 days, which adds up to a grand total of a 60 day pause. Within that pause, there would be a required third party facilitated meeting, and it would be facilitated by a city paid facilitator. Landmark staff would who would attend these meetings to help provide information that would be needed. But the intent is to bring the property owner or any of the property owners, representatives together with community members, with members of the R.A., and bring in any outside expertize that could be needed on the cases that have come forward to city council. We have. On that. Sometimes you have asked questions about the stability of the property or was there a compromise that could be reached in this process? It would allow for bringing in outside experts who are structural engineers, who are used to working on historic properties, and that they could also provide input in this process if needed. One of the questions that we got in our public comment period is what happens if someone decides to skip the third party facilitated meeting? And so we address this by if the person who asked for the pause or submitted the notice of intent. If they don't attend the facilitated meeting, that demolition would automatically be approved the next business day. If the property owner or the property owners representatives do not attend the meeting, then the demolition is automatically denied. The next day the property owner would have the ability to start the process over again, but they would have to restart from the beginning. And so there's a reaction on either side if they don't attend the facilitated meeting. So those are the two major changes that are proposed in the landmark ordinance. There are a variety of smaller updates. The landmark ordinance has been updated about 20 some times in the last 52 years, and no one has gone through and looked for consistency within the ordinance. So we are clarifying, removing and streamlining some processes. The Internet was not in existence at the time we wrote this in 1967. So we've updated the email on the Internet existing. There are other ways to communicate versus just mail. We clarified how a few things were done. We have added or amended definitions, including temporary structures for which landmark preservation would not review temporary signage or structures. We have also added something to help provide consistency with other CPD boards and to to manage the agendas of boards. If someone submits a does or submits a design review application, they are taken in a first come, first serve basis. Based on if your application is complete, there are also recommendations to update the Lower Downtown Design Review Board. Changing the name from a board to a commission and adding two At-Large members. One of the other things we did for consistency is that both the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Lower Downtown Design Review Board perform design review in a very similar manner. But the ordinance does not talk about it in the same way. So we're just clarifying and making sure that the ordinance discusses their review process in the same manner. We are also proposing a few items that are not in the ordinance but were things that the Land Preservation Office is working on. The first is to provide clarity for proposed historic districts. So we're formalizing a process for city led community meetings on proposed historic districts. We have staff attend the community meetings that are put forward by the applicants at this time. We attend multiple meetings frequently, but there was a talk, especially from some of the neighborhood residents on the task force, about wanting additional time for communities that are going through a proposed designation. And so we would, once they complete application, would be submitted into landmark staff, we would send a letter along with an FAA cue to everyone who lives within the historic district or owns property in the district, and tell them that there is going to be a meeting in 30 days to allow the community time to talk about the process. Landmark staff would provide information, and then it's mainly intended to be a Q&A for members of the community to ask Landmarks staff what meet what it means to be a historic district. Once that meeting has taken place, we would start an online system to help map and track comments. We currently have a system of dueling petitions where people who are supportive sign a petition and people who are not as supportive or opposed sign a petition. And at the last large historic district that came forward, there were people who signed both petitions which made it difficult for us to provide information to you guys as to what was the community support for this. So this would be an online mapping system. It's the same system that we used to get comments for Blueprint. Denver So it would move away from neighbors going binary yes or no for neighbors, but that they could come and provide their comments online, that they would drop a pen as to where they are, that they would provide their contact information and address so that we could verify that they are actually the people who are filling out the survey and that they would have an area for free comment for anything that they wanted to provide written comment to us. This can also have the advantage of being able to be put in multiple languages to provide better access to it. We also wanted to continue to take comment from people who don't own computers or don't have access to the Internet. They can still call us. They can come in person, they can write a letter, they can email us. So we aren't precluding any other form of comment. But we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to help streamline the process a little bit. One of the things the task force also talked about is to explore ways to incentivize designation. We did not find a silver bullet or a magic pot of money somewhere, but we did find through our research that other cities have additional zoning incentives that we don't have or that we aren't using to the best that could be enhanced. And so we're looking to do zoning tools to encourage designation things like administrative adjustments or variances for recommendations. If the property and the changes that they're meeting making would be compatible with the character so as to reduce the barriers for people who are designated. And this is just a summary of some of the proposed updates that are outside of the ordinance, but that are things that we at Landmark Preservation are working on after the discussion with the task force. We had an extensive community outreach. We had a variety of meetings before the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Lower Downtown Design Review Board, Planning Board. We went and met with ANC a couple of times. We had community meetings that were out in the community as well as office hours, and then we had meetings that were one on one meetings with people, as well as meetings with organizations for the Denver Metro Association of Realtors Air. We met with Arnaud's when they requested it. We had a public comment period on the draft that was about a two month period, and we incorporated those comments into the final version. Into the final version before you. Oh, sorry. Public comments. We received 11 public comments from people during the draft period. And then on the final red line, we received comments, we received 16 emails. That was a form email that was in support of the proposed amendment that was not brought forward. And then we received two letters from one from History, Colorado and one from the Colorado preservation ink in support of this, as well as 13 letters submitted by individuals who were in support of this. And so the recommendations are to add culture and simplify the criteria that remove the categories and add three criteria for the demolition review process to extend the demolition review process and to add a required third party facilitation meeting to encourage collaboration and then a variety of changes for clarity and consistency. If this is approved, it would have an effective date of November 1st. However, any designation applications that are submitted by October 31st would be processed under the existing criteria. So there are a few designations that are in process right now that you guys would see under the old criteria. And anything that's submitted up through October 31st would be under the old criteria. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have nine, I think.
Speaker 0: That's nine people and everybody, if I'm reading this right, I think all nine in support tonight who are speaking, signed up to speak tonight. So I'm going to call the first five up. If you can come up to this first bench and then just step up. When I call your name, you'll have your 3 minutes start on the clock. Sheron not only Carla McConnell, Annie Levinsky, Rosemary Stoffel and Barbara Paul if you could come up and Sharon Nunnally, you are up first.
Speaker 13: Good evening, council members. My name is Sharon Nunnally. I live in Denver, Colorado, in the Humboldt Park Historic District. I am a past chair of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. When we had no design guidelines and our process pretty much was we would try to meet people as much as possible halfway. I am also the author of the Five Points Historic District, Cultural, Historic District. And that particular district speaks to what did not exist at the time that I wrote that application. It was written in 2000, 2001, and final designation was in 2002. And at that time, Jennifer Moulton was the director of planning and Wellington Webb was the mayor. And I think the only person on council at that time was Debbie Ortega, and that is still, still with us. So at the time that we proposed that application, the ordinance is was in its current state. There was no such thing quite as cultural. The word was used, but there had never, ever been an application brought forth on the basis of culture or quite frankly, on the basis of history of a people and a geographic location. So it took a lot of rereading on my part. Even though I had read that ordinance 100 times, I read it another 50 just to see how I could cause this application to take form in the current ordinance language. And it was very tricky, but we managed to get it done. After much explaining and many community meetings and people, everybody on both sides of the discussion were very confused. What do you mean? And why is it this place? And what about these buildings? There are only seven contributing buildings in that district, and so that was intentional and it was a way to recognize the most important buildings, because we also had a landscape that had a lot of add ons. However, the main piece of the application was about the district itself, the people, the business corridor at a time that we don't hope to ever repeat in history. And it was during the period of segregation total in this country from the twenties to the fifties. And we worked on helping people understand the process from beginning to the time of them.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your 3 minutes are up.
Speaker 13: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, thank you very much. Anyway, that's where we started.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Carla McConnell.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Carla McConnell. I live at 662 Ulster Way, which is in Lowry. I've been involved in historic preservation, both as a volunteer serving on the Denver Landmarks Commission, as a trustee for historic Denver and on the Colorado Preservation Board and professionally as an architect with the National Park Service. Tonight, I ask that you adopt the proposed revisions to our landmark ordinance. Denver's ordinance has resulted in the preservation of over 300 individual landmarks and predictable changes in our 55 historic districts. Our community has benefited from creative developers who have adaptively reused non-designated properties. But the strength of our landmark ordinance is in saving many qualifying properties, which may have been viewed as disposable. Earlier this evening, Lowry's 25th anniversary was celebrated. Thank you. Lowry is a great reminder of the value of proactive preservation planning at Lowry. Buildings that were first seen as white elephants, such as hangars one and two were protected before development began in a landmark district and are now centerpieces of the community. Affordable housing went into the Grand Lowry Lofts and many other examples of adaptive reuse on the one time base gives our neighborhood its unique character. LOWRY Success required collaboration between the city, the master developer and neighboring residents. In the 1990s, the certainty that grounded these decisions could not have been achieved without the tools provided by the landmark ordinance. These proposed updates ensure that we can continue to preserve places that tell Denver's story while attracting investment and meeting community needs. I thank Councilmembers Flynn and Ken each for their active involvement in the updating process for the time commitment of committee volunteers and especially wish to acknowledge the leadership of Denver's landmark staff. The staff both assembled a committee reflecting various points of view, extensively researched best practices from cities with equivalent preservation programs, and managed to end the process with a consensus vote of approval from the committee. No small achievement. Again, the proposed revisions to the landmark ordinance are worthy of your adoption this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, any levinsky.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of Historic Denver, Inc, a local nonprofit membership supported organization. I served as a member of the task force over the past 18 months, and we, as historic Denver, came to the table because we agreed that there was room to improve some of the landmark processes and specifically those processes related to how new historic designations come forward. I'll admit we were also a little trepidatious about what this might look like and what the outcomes would be. That said, everyone on the task force approached the issues thoughtfully and openly, and the city staff provided helpful research on how other cities were either successfully or not successfully handling similar challenges. In the end, the task force everyone on the task force did make compromises. I don't think everyone left the room getting everything they wanted, but we did leave the room in agreement that we had come to a place where the recommendations were solid, where they would serve our community well, and where they would resolve the core issues that we were commissioned to address. So I want to thank the other task force members, a number of whom are here tonight, because it was a really major time commitment. The two major recommendations of the task force relate to the designation criteria, which you've heard and the designations that result from the demolition review process, which are very rare when the property owners do not support them. We're very excited about the inclusion of the cultural criteria in the designation. We think they can help reduce bias inherent in the system and help invite recognition of resources that reflect the full range of Denver's history. And we look forward to building relationships in the communities all across the city to understand what places are meaningful to them as we get used to these new criteria. Often there have been a number of sites that have been underrepresented in formal preservation programs, and Sharon highlighted one of the challenges she faced 20 years ago trying to protect the Five Points District. But we also know that we needed to maintain a high bar for designation. And so I'll move to the three criteria on the designations that are more contentious, that do not have the support of property owners, which I think Carol highlighted. But it's less than 0.01% of all of the demolitions that come through. But still, we know that they raise contention. And we also know from our own experience that taking a little time to explore alternatives when those issues arrive can often lead to the win win outcome. And really, the value is not so much in the designation itself, but in the dialog that is generated by having the opportunity to engage. So we believe that the new structure for demolition postings, which really refocuses the time on dialog and mediation, will provide a better path toward resolution with either even fewer of those coming forward to this body. We do look forward to working on some of the incentives that the task force was not able to address because they're not in the ordinance and upholding the preservation legacy in Denver, which has saved places from the mine to LoDo, the Paramount to First Unitarian Church. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rosemary Stoffel.
Speaker 6: My name is Rosemary Stoffel and I live at 2275 South Monroe Street. My role on the Landmark Ordinance Task Force was as a community representative. I've been an advocate for preservation in my own neighborhood as well as in the city as a former historic Denver board member. Other task force members represented different points of view, and not everyone was always on the same page.
Speaker 3: But each of us did have the opportunity to speak up.
Speaker 6: We all had to compromise on some things, but in the end agree that we were all on board with the final recommendations. The process involved many hours of meetings and also reading a lot of information sent out by landmark staff before each meeting. Please respect the.
Speaker 12: Work of the task.
Speaker 6: Force and adopt these recommendations tonight without any changes or delays. I want to emphasize the importance.
Speaker 9: Of the pause period.
Speaker 6: For owner opposed designations in older, older neighborhoods like mine. We have lost many older homes in recent years, including two which were important enough.
Speaker 9: To be posted by the.
Speaker 6: City as potentially eligible for designation. One of these was an architectural treasure known to most of us in the neighborhood, an intact Queen Anne House, which had one of favorite Old House award in 2009. The new owner had applied for a demolition permit and was planning to scrape the house in order to build a brand new home . I talked to this owner over the phone several times about considering ways that.
Speaker 9: He could both.
Speaker 6: Save the house and get the kind of home he wanted.
Speaker 12: But the tight.
Speaker 6: Deadline in the demo review process made that difficult. We never.
Speaker 9: Met face to.
Speaker 3: Face or had the.
Speaker 6: Time or.
Speaker 9: Expertize available to look at possibilities other.
Speaker 6: Than designation, other than demolition or designation. Sitting down together with a neutral facilitator, with city staff available to provide facts and other experts. We would have been would have been much more neighborly and given us a better chance to hear each other's perspectives. I don't know if the outcome would have been any different in this particular case, but a longer timeline would also have provided due respect to one of our neighborhoods important assets.
Speaker 3: Please adopt this proposed.
Speaker 6: Ordinance tonight so these updates can happen sooner rather than later. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Barbara Paul and then Mark Bowman, Amy Cole, Dennis Humphries and Gregorio Al Caro. If you want to come up to the front bench, go ahead.
Speaker 9: Thank you. My name is Barbara Paul, and I'm the senior vice president.
Speaker 7: For Preservation Field.
Speaker 9: Services for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I work for the National Trust for 35 years, all the while residing here in Denver. I have been proud to have worked with the city, historic Denver and local property owners on the designation of the Lower Downtown Historic District in the 1980s and the downtown Historic District in 2001. Big, bold projects like these have demonstrated Denver's leadership in the field of historic preservation, leadership in particular that has benefited from the city's elected officials. As a result, as you've already heard, 300 individual landmarks and 50 stark neighborhoods, but that still only represents 4% of the city's built environment. But yet we.
Speaker 7: Are here to applaud your outcomes that.
Speaker 9: Will make it easier for Denver's diverse and culturally rich historic sites and neighborhoods to be considered for local landmark designation that will allow more time for property owners and community members to meet and consider alternatives to potential demolition. That is the forever loss of an historic property.
Speaker 7: And that will ease regulatory.
Speaker 9: Barriers and create greater flexibility for owners who want to protect their historically designated property. These changes represent best practices the National Trust has been promoting in other cities across the country, including in Miami, where we've been working with the city to protect the culture rich Little Havana neighborhood that was threatened by up zoning. And in Philadelphia, the cradle of America, where now the mayor's.
Speaker 7: Task force has included the creation of a new fund.
Speaker 9: To create incentives to encourage underserved communities to engage in the preservation of their neighborhoods. My colleague Jim Lindberg, who also is here in Denver in our office, recently sent you a letter in support of this bill, and he wrote the Landmark Protection Ordinance that has helped Denver achieve its reputation as one of America's most vibrant, livable and attractive cities, to which I would also add, culturally diverse. So as a preservation professional and a citizen of this city, I urge you to vote in favor of this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mark Bowman.
Speaker 4: Good evening, President Clark, members of council, thank you for your time and consideration. My name is Mark Bowman. I'm here on behalf of DeMar Denver, Metro Boss Board of Realtors, the largest realtor association in Colorado, representing 7200 plus members. In addition to a member of DeMar, I'm a contractor and a realtor that have worked on historic homes for over 45 years. I'm also an Air Force veteran and a Lowry graduate. I'm here to express our support for the amendment package that is before you this evening. I had the opportunity to serve on the Landmark Preservation Task Force and attended each and every meeting and had that we had over 18 months before devolving. Delving into my comments, I'd like to thank staff and fellow task force members for all their hard work and time they possessed. Dee Myers, in a support of the package, was filed for the following reasons. First, we are hopeful that the pause period will provide non owner applicants and property owners the additional time and dialog prior to application going to LPC or City Council. Second, we support simplifying the designation criteria and adding culture, which is an important criteria to consider and designation process. Finally, we appreciate small language modifications that make it clear to council in giving consideration to property owners position when facing owner post designation. One of my favorite expressions is all the best agreements are reached when everybody is a little bit uncomfortable and I think everyone will agree that we were all a little uncomfortable but came to a consensus on this proposal. With that said, in light of three recent and one still unresolved owner opposed designations, it's no secret that we would like additional provisions for property owners facing unwanted landmark designations. And to be clear, to correct the record for something that was said in committee. It is not DeMarco's position to oppose landmark designation. On the contrary, we believe landmark designation has an important part of shaping our city, is a tool, has been used appropriately to save some of the city's most venerated buildings and coveted neighborhoods such as the Mayan Theater and Curtis Park. Three years ago, some of you called for Chapter 30 update for two main reasons. One, you wanted to end the ugly owner oppose landmark in front of city council. And two, you wanted to see additional provisions for property owners that had their backs against the wall that were that had to be very lopsided process. Unfortunately, this process missed the mark and accomplishing the second goal. We'd like to thank Councilmembers Black and Gilmore for bringing forward their amendments, especially the amendment proposed raising the bar for owner post designation. And even though that is not a part of this consideration, we would like serious consideration for this moving forward.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Amy, call.
Speaker 9: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Amy Cole and I'm a 20 year resident of West Highlands. I live on 29th Avenue. In March of 2018, I was asked to serve on the Landmark Ordinance Task Force as a neighborhood resident. And over the course of 18 months, I attended all but one of the meetings and was an active participant, including providing regular reports to my R.A., the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. Our work focused on ways to encourage dialog between the city community members and property owners during the landmark designation process, the clarification of ordinance, language and reviewing the kinds of historic significance a property should have in order to be considered for designation. Following outreach to the community about these proposed changes, the task force work concluded in June 2019 and represents the collective effort of 14 Volunteer Task Force Members, Council Persons Flynn and Ken each and was supported by Mike Hughes and the landmark and CPD staff. Our task force reached consensus about the proposal before you tonight and agree, and the agreement of the group was that it be submitted to council without amendment. Therefore, I ask you to please vote in favor of the ordinance package as it's been submitted. Thanks for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Dennis Humphries.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Dennis Humphries live at 10th and Cherokee in Denver. I'm an architect. I was a member of the task force. And I'm also here to support the revisions to the ordinance as as proposed by the task force. As everybody has stated, it was a lively group and of bringing different opinions to the table, and it was one that was resoundingly of great success. It was the chair of the Landmark Preservation Committee Commission. When a young student from the University of Colorado at Boulder came and tried to designate the Gates property. At that point, we felt as though the commission did their work in skillfully navigating and overwriting that designation. Since that time, the ordinance has been revised, and as with any ordinance, it's always up for need for further revisions. So again, I support the revisions for all the reasons that all the other members of the task force have stated. However, I would like to point out that it has been addressed, that there are several incentives that need to be addressed that are not part of this ordinance and would not be part of the Landmark Preservation Ordinance . And those are incentives to encourage people to want to preserve their properties, whether it be through tax benefits or other financial benefits. We need to work beyond this moment to make sure that those happen. We also need to further fund the Discover Denver program that has been ongoing for five years. This program has been predominantly financed by the state. It's the city's responsibility to push this forward. The purpose of this program is to inform and allow property owners to really know the value in the potential historic value of their property. So I would encourage you as a as a board, a council, to make sure that these initiatives, these incentives are pursued aggressively after this ordinance is passed. So as an architect, I believe one of my favorite sayings is that in the end, our society will not be defined by what we create. But but why we but what we refuse to destroy. So I encourage you this evening to support this ordinance. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Gregorio Al Caro.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Members of City Council. I'm a Denver native. I represent a house called Casa Mayan at 10/29 Street and Tampa on the Aurora campus. I'm also an urban designer. I ask for your support in particularly the use of the word culture to be added to the updates. I particularly want to focus on social movements and culture as an example to better understand spaces through its social evolution. The Denver Landmark Commission in 1967 did not have the word culture they were use. They did hint, though, that buildings should not be frozen in time, that they needed to remain active. They needed to have a link to a memorable events. Using the word culture will prove successful, as I will give a successful case study with customer, an historic house in Denver, ninth Street Historic Park. We had a migration of many Mexican-Americans during the Mexican Revolution until the 1970s, a house that turned into a mutual aid society. It was a non religious non-governmental house that became a mutual ista mutual aid society. This house proved to be very important in understanding the Mexican-Americans and Irish-Americans importance of having spaces to preserve their culture. Music. Dance, food. Political gatherings. People like Betty and Vernita slaughtered. They had ETA. Richard de Castro found a place in a home to preserve their culture and engage in political discussions that would lead to the preservation of the alma Lincoln Park in the Chicano movement. In 40 years since the displacement, that house has been used for storage, for offices. But by using the word culture and bringing back a cultural narrative, that house has been brought back to life. Political discussions, cultural movements, historic design conferences. Culture is very critical. The students and the community bring life and spirit back to this house. This is not only an important tool for planners. Architects. Urban designers. Landscape architects. Public artist. It welcomes those to our country that have a particular heritage. They feel grounded when they know that cultural heritage, they feel welcome. And more importantly, they have a freedom to express their culture. This is a great design tool. It will lead to better urban design. Less divisiveness. And I strongly urge you to support. This amendment or this addition update. Good questions.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record?
Speaker 8: Gregorio Alcala.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. That does conclude our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council clementines?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. It's better when the microphones on. We have a ask a question about the Molly Brown house. From I. It doesn't matter that. Yeah. The question that I have is it looks like based on the presentation, three out of the current ten criteria are tied to the Molly Brown House meets three of the ten criteria, and we're moving from a 67% threshold to a 30% threshold. The Molly Brown House is a historic lead designated building now, correct?
Speaker 9: Yes. Correct. Historic. Never owns the Molly Brown house so I can speak definitively. Answer yep.
Speaker 5: So. But it also somehow met the 67% criteria threshold and now it meets only 30%. I guess that's that's that's my confusion.
Speaker 9: Yeah. We, I think spent maybe two whole task force meetings sort of trying to figure out this math piece around how do you maintain a high bar? Because it's not exactly apples to apples, because right now we require properties to meet at least two criteria out of three categories. And so that's where you get the 67 strip the categories. Then you could say it's 20% and we're going up to 30. So it's just essentially a different system. But as you saw, still maintains a pretty high bar.
Speaker 5: Okay. I was thinking I was pretty good with math, but that just wasn't enough for me. So thank you. That's that's all ahead. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 9: Thank you, President. Clerk Cara, can I ask you a couple questions, please? Um, let me see. On the task force. Slide slide seven. Um, could you give us a breakdown of the task force makeup specifically around race and then the area of the city that folks lived in?
Speaker 12: Yes. So it was a primarily white task force. There were two Latina women, one of whom did not attend as regularly as as the other task force members. We it was a very technical task force. And so in preservation as a field, as well as the architects, realtors and developers is a primarily white field. We did attempt to diversify the task force on Councilwoman Can. Each provided us with some good contacts. We reached out and asked members to join the task force. They initially said yes and then after a couple of meetings of not attending, when we got back in touch with them and they said that no, they didn't feel like the task force intersected enough with their work or areas that they were working on in order to be able to attend. So it is admittedly a pretty white task force in terms of where people lived. We didn't check the addresses of everyone, but we did try to make sure that the neighborhoods, the representatives of the neighborhood were spread out. So we had someone on the West, someone from the south, and then we had two neighborhood representatives from the Park Hill area.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. So you weren't able to get any residents, I guess, further east of Park Hill?
Speaker 12: No, there were no none of the neighborhood residents were. No. We did ask people to of the people that we asked, we asked someone who represented the little area in Swansea, a neighborhoods. And then someone from more the Montebello area. And those were the people who said initially said yes and then said no, that this really didn't meet the the needs of what they were working on.
Speaker 9: And so I guess the technical nature of the task force and what you were reviewing, I guess, for the four neighborhood residents that served on the task force. How did you get them versus other neighborhood individuals?
Speaker 12: We looked for people who had so so two of the neighbors from Park Hill where people who had lived in the proposed historic district that had been proposed for Park Hill, and they were two neighbors who were not supportive of preservation. And we really wanted to make sure that we got people who were familiar somewhat with the historic districts or the landmark processes. So it was one of the things we looked at. We were looking at people who were either supportive or not supportive. We wanted someone who was familiar with preservation to a little bit of a degree. And so we chose the two or we asked the two people from the Park Hill neighborhood two to come as residents who had gone through the process or started to go through the district process. So we chose or asked those two members to join, and then we asked for two other neighborhood residents who were more supportive of preservation and trying to make sure that they were from other, other neighborhoods. And we wanted to make sure that they were from different parts of the city.
Speaker 9: So would it be a true statement then that out of the 16 members on the task force, you didn't have at least neighborhood representation that was maybe against.
Speaker 12: LAMB We had to, yeah, that the two neighbors from Park Hill were not supportive of protesters in.
Speaker 9: Support of gender neutral. Okay.
Speaker 12: Not supportive or neutral? Sorry. Not.
Speaker 9: That's okay. All right. And then I guess it sounds like early on in the process then, since you were trying to backfill with additional task force members, did you ever reach out to the council officers? We asked them to recommend people or through our registered neighborhood organizations, faith based organizations, nonprofit organizations, to ask us for recommendations.
Speaker 12: We did not. We spoke with Councilwoman Kennedy, but we did not reach out to the other council district offices.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then on further in your slide deck, the community meetings that you held, as close as I can see, it looks like that would be open to the public. There were four of them that weren't, you know, kind of hosted by a different group. Were any of your community meetings held in the Montebello or Green Valley Ranch neighborhoods?
Speaker 12: No, they were not. We had one on the West Side. We had one in Virginia Village, we had one in. We did office hours in the Blair Caldwell Library. And there's a fourth one. And I'm sorry, I'm forgetting where that one was, but none and. MONDELLO No.
Speaker 9: Okay. Or North Green Valley Ranch? No. Okay. And then with the task force, I guess, where did the conversation go? Or around the process, especially in the importance of perhaps reaching out to vulnerable neighborhoods that are at risk of gentrification or involuntary displacement? I guess where did the task force go with that conversation? And yeah, where did they go with that conversation?
Speaker 12: We had some conversations about displacement, but we also talked about it was one of the things that was brought up in problem identification and then it was scaled back because we only represent landmark is 4% of the city and that wasn't we did not feel it was something that the landmark ordinance could take on. That displacement is a huge issue within the city and was not necessarily something that landmark preservation could solve. It was something that was brought up and discussed, but it was determined that the landmark ordinance maybe wasn't the place to have that full discussion.
Speaker 9: So there was. So it sounded like there was maybe never a conversation around looking at large parcels of land in neighborhoods that are mainly African-American and Latino and possibly vulnerable. But there was never an overlay or further in-depth conversation around if there was a landmarking of, say, for example, a church property that now you're the different criteria , opens it up to more availability for it to be landmarked. But there was never really a back and forth conversation of how might that affect equity in the neighborhood? How might that encourage, you know, just I guess, distrust, unrest when there might be especially around an owner opposed designation and especially let me add on to that. If that owner opposed designation was possibly a group of Caucasian residents that were trying to landmark perhaps an African-American or Latino property. Was that specific scenario played out, talked about how can we get to a win win solution?
Speaker 12: A That particular scenario was not talked about in the incentives discussion. We talked about adding are there ways to add density to traditionally one unit or to unit to unit zone districts and ways to if something is designated, could you add density to that neighborhood then or to that to that with that building that if someone designates the building, then you could increase the number of units that could be in the property. So an ability to add density to neighborhoods. But we didn't talk specifically about places of worship or churches in the task force or discussed the exact scenario that you had asked about.
Speaker 9: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Park.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me see who I need to ask this question. I wanted to inquire about the increase in the zoning incentives here, and maybe you can help me out here in terms of what what those might entail.
Speaker 12: So we looked at what other cities were doing and we looked at like. What Portland was doing and talking a little bit about adding density to a one or two unit zone districts, so increasing density that way. We talked about blueprint Denver has talked about you know is encouraging to use throughout the city are beginning to have that conversation. So we talked about would 80 use be allowed in any historic districts or individual landmarks? Could that sort of be the first place to add on to to add density and allow an incentive for designation? So that was one of the other areas we talked about. We also looked at there are other cities for lower parking requirements to allow administrative adjustments or administrative ah, variances for things like set back, open space, things like that. Those were sort of the zoning areas that we saw that other cities were doing. Some other cities did things like, if you're a landmark and you're going through the permitting process, some of your fees are waived through the building and zoning process. There are a few areas like that that we looked at as well.
Speaker 7: Okay. That's that's all very helpful. So when you talked about the parcel, it is really just if if your property is large enough to attach an additional unit on the property, maybe not necessarily attached to the structure. None of those include tweaks to the actual building, correct.
Speaker 12: Yeah. I mean, you could you currently can have what are either administrative adjustments for things like height or a bulk plane, or you can have variances that go to Board of Adjustment. And we currently recommend administrative adjustments or variances if the changes to the property would be something that would be compatible with the character of the building . So additions, something like if you have a gable house like a queen in and you wanted to use the attic space, and the way to do that would be to add some sort of gable or dormers on the side. You would pierce the bulk plane, but that you could get an adjustment for that. And so it would maintain the character of the building, but allow additional use within the building as well.
Speaker 7: Okay. So any I want to have you come up and just ask you kind of a follow up question. I know having worked on the old courthouse building at Colfax and Kellman, when the development team was looking at making a change to the staircase on the inside. So it wasn't even tinkering with the outside of the building because they were trying to secure some state historic funds. They couldn't do that otherwise. They had to forgo utilizing those resources. So how much do some of these tweaks impact a property owners ability to then access some of the state funding that might be available?
Speaker 9: Right. So the expectations and the regulations of the state historical fund or the National Park Service for folks using tax credits are are different than the local standards because in Denver we don't Landmark's does not review interior changes. You can get some relief and we've had this happen with local landmarks. If your historic railing isn't quite the right height, you can get some adjustments. And and we're talking about the task force to talk about other ways to remove barriers to adaptive reuse, things like that that can become investment hurdles that folks can't get over as they're trying to change the use of a building. So we think there is more that can be done to add flexibility. And then owners will have to make the decision about whether that added flexibility outweighs the the federal or the state incentive that they might get in a different manner. But yeah, so that both are sort of separate things. And in terms of the idea around sort of adding density to historic landmarks, we have some examples of that. There's a church on Sixth Avenue where the church was converted into residential and then a row of condos was built behind it on their adjacent land. And so we talked about ways that you could facilitate those kinds of solutions.
Speaker 7: Holy Ghost.
Speaker 9: Church. Right. Really creative.
Speaker 7: While you're there, let me ask one last question. Dennis brought up an issue, Dennis Humphries, about Discover Denver. Do you have any idea how what percentage of of completeness we're at on that project? I don't know, Carol. Maybe that's something for you to answer. But if you have the information, that would be helpful since you're up there.
Speaker 9: I think Kara and I were just comparing our notes here. I believe it is somewhere between 15 and 18% of the city that has been completed in the first five years. So there's a long way to go still.
Speaker 7: And that's among those that are still left.
Speaker 9: Among the what?
Speaker 7: Among those properties that are still left, because some of those that may have been surveyed might not exist anymore.
Speaker 9: That's true. Since we started discovered Denver, there have been 3000 demolitions in the city. So. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to. I buzzed in when Councilman Hines was talking about math, and I think Kara might know what I'm going to bring out here in my in my questioning of her. But on the chart where we we are one of the toughest to meet, two out of three criteria. I think Kara will will recall that at each task force meeting, I pointed out that that was not exactly true. It was two out of ten criteria. It's just that we group the ten criteria into three categories. And of the two criteria, you must meet. At a minimum, they must be in two of the three categories. So what the task force did and Kara, could you stand at the mic so that this appears to be a question rather than a comment? Thank you. What what we ended up doing on the task force was we just eliminated categories. But because of that, because it might be very simple to meet to if I can pull up the code, it would be very simple for a property to meet two criteria in any one category direct association with historic event and direct association to the person who had influence on a society. So in order to not lower the bar by eliminating the categories, that my recollection is what led us to say you need to be three criteria. But they could all still be in what used to be the same category. Correct?
Speaker 9: That is correct.
Speaker 4: And then adding, we added culture. And in doing that, in order to maintain the ten categories and not expand it to 12 or 14, we edited it. We did a lot of wordsmithing and we edited some of the create the existing criteria that appear to maybe have a lot of similarities and we would combine them into just one. So overall, by doing away with criteria, we're going from 20% to 30%, not from 67% to 30%.
Speaker 12: If you could, you could do the math that way.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. And that was for Councilman Hines at the end. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I see a representative from the Colorado Latino Forum here wondering. I didn't see you on the list, but would you be willing to come up and speak? Thank you. Yes. So I am curious about the Latino Forum's involvement or your understanding of how this change impacts the ability of diverse communities to either stay in place, stay in communities, or impact preservation themselves.
Speaker 0: Sure, I think.
Speaker 10: Of the people on TV. My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya, and this topic actually intersects along three groups that I'm involved with I.N.S. Zoning and Planning, the Colorado Latino Forum. And I'm also a trustee of historic Denver. So I think if I say this earlier, I'm in favor of this. I do think that adding culture allows more communities to have a voice in the process. With historic Denver and with Landmark. We've been working towards a cultural district just in West Denver, in the Lama neighborhood, and we've been able to put forward the idea that it's not always just about one built form, that there are several built forms that fit into a cultural context and trying to find that. In fact, I had a meeting last week. So as you go down along with me in hopes of gaining our support, which they did, to create a to seek a grant for a cultural context which will help align this all the way around. I will add that, you know, along this process, I was frustrated when the first when I first saw the landmark map, because there were parts of your district and all of West Denver where the key was on top of it. And as you know, in the Chicano movement, if you're not part of the maps, are not part of the conversation. And so we were able to actually work with them and the Justice Department to change that. I think part of the reason you don't hear about a lot of people on the task force who have the skill set is because there aren't any districts in our communities because we've been missing this component. There are very few landmarks in West Denver. It's something that I have put on the strategic plan for historic Denver, and I think things that were working forward. One idea that I've had is I think that during the MPI process we have a great opportunity to educate people about this and other conservation tools. This was in the Blueprint Plan and also to avoid landmarking disputes. We have a really unique opportunity as communities at that time to decide what landmarks are important in their community early on in the whole planning process rather than later.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And quick question for Councilwoman Ortega. I live in Swansea and I know that prior to the I-70 expansion, there were community conversations about making Elyria Historic District. Do you recall what the pushback was on that? Because I know we couldn't meet the criteria, but do you remember what exactly the pushback was about?
Speaker 7: I believe that was done under Councilwoman Monteiro at the time. It was not something I was directly involved in. And Councilwoman said, what were you working.
Speaker 9: For at the time of.
Speaker 3: My that.
Speaker 7: When that conversation came up? Because I'm not familiar with why that didn't happen. And I do know that in the application of the environmental assessment, it speaks to the neighborhoods, both the Lurie and Swansea, as historic communities because of the longstanding history and specifically the impact the I-70 project has had on those neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: And I ask this question really to emphasize how difficult it has been for different groups to preserve our communities. I believe that what I recall from that process was that we were told that none of the houses in our district, even though it was a historic neighborhood, were in in good enough condition to consider in a historic district. And I think that this is an excellent move in the right direction to make sure that we have some of those barriers eliminated. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, you back up?
Speaker 5: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to have the city come up again for a second. Thank you. So I live in Denver is perfect. Ten and I happen to represent it too. In Denver is perfect ten. I bet you can already anticipate the questions, but for the folks on the outside, there was a conversation around Tom's Diner not too long ago, and I am curious to hear the city's thoughts on how this might the new process might have have affected that that process.
Speaker 12: Yes. So I know that there were community members who were and still are having conversations with the Thomas of the property owner about is there a way to provide him with the with the appropriate recompense or the money for his property while also being able to preserve the building? And so I know it's a conversation that is still ongoing. I think that had the pause been there, there would have been a little it would have allowed a little more breathing room for the conversation to occur. Instead of feeling like it was being really compressed in to allow that conversation, which is still going on now, to have been able to do it without the the tight pressure and deadline. And I think it may have helped the process go a little bit smoother.
Speaker 5: Okay. I mean, I guess so. It's the city's opinion or you're through the stakeholder engagement process is the stakeholder engagement for this. The I'm assuming you guys talked about Tom Steiner or or had you already wrapped up by the time it started.
Speaker 12: The task force had already completed the work and it was sort of in midsummer. And so it had already gone out to the public for comment. The task force had already completed all of their work on when the Tom Steiner came in for the demo review and then the posting and then the subsequent designation application.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so the one last thing I would ask about Tom Steiner, I think Councilwoman CdeBaca mentioned in her neighborhood, none of the houses are in good enough quality to be preserved. I, I don't represent beautiful district nine and I'm not as familiar with it. Perhaps the city is more familiar with it. I think that one of the reasons why Tom Steiner was a better opportunity for historic preservation was, frankly, because it wasn't well, it wasn't as well maintained and preserved as as some other locations. So I'm going to guess.
Speaker 6: Sorry. Yes.
Speaker 12: So when you're looking to designate something, we look at integrity versus condition. So integrity is does the building convey the reasons for which it would be designated? Would someone who was at that building when it was constructed or when it was historically significant, does it look like that now? But we don't actually look at the condition of the building. Is it a little bit deteriorated? That's not something that comes into the conversation as to whether or not it's eligible to be a landmark. It's the integrity of the building, not the condition of the building.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so are the buildings in Swansea. Are they is their integrity just degraded or are.
Speaker 12: There there is integrity in those. I know that the Discover Denver has gone through and has recommended that there are areas or concentrations of buildings in Globeville, Illyria and Swansea that would be eligible to be Denver landmarks. And so we have surveyed all three of the neighborhoods and have found that there are properties that are worthy of designation that retain integrity, and that would be significant. And those were looked at under our previous criteria because we were there a couple of years ago during the survey. If we were looking at it now with the culture it may have, the areas may be slightly expanded.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable 914 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman can each.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I first just wanted to thank all of the members of the task force who participated along the way, as well as those who are here tonight and those who cannot be. Whenever we bring together the community and ask them to spend, you know, a significant amount of time grappling with an issue. It's a service you do to us because you breed debate some of the things that we're going to debate here. And so I. Q is disappointed by our inability to get more representative sampling of folks. We worked hard, we failed, and we are responsible for that and need to continue to reflect on the diversity of the fields and the the experience from which we drew. It is my hope, and we did have the most conversation about race and equity with regard to the cultural criteria and how getting beyond just the idea of a famous person where we all remember the name. I mean, history books are written by folks who don't always remember the name of famous people of color. And so the idea that you can know a place is famous to a community without knowing the names of all the participants who might have gone to that home or gone to that business, I think is an equalizer in a way to bring up more opportunities. And so it's my hope that in a generation when we have this conversation, you know, there are a broader array of properties that have come forward. So I think that the culture criteria piece was really important. I want to comment for just a second on the request or the statement that, you know, we came together with the directive from council to, you know, make it harder to designate. That was the directive of several members of council. That was their desire. That was not a vote of the majority of council to see to landmark task force to make it more difficult to designate. There were a diversity of opinions. And Councilman Flynn and I, for example, were appointed with different perspectives on that representative of a council that had a diversity of opinion. So I just want to clarify that while some members wanted that. Others like myself were more concerned about reaching a balance to achieve the goals. One of the debates we had is whether landmark is a neutral process or not, and I think the way to be honest about it is, is not it is about preserving a piece of the history. It's not neutrally evaluating and then mediating between two parties. It is saying it's important to us as a city that we have pieces of our past that are preserved for future generations. And that future generation piece is an interesting piece of this debate. Right. So are you preserving for the neighbor who lives next door so that nothing ever changes? Are you preserving for, you know, the property owner in terms of their value, which often frankly increases with designation? If you think about LoDo, I don't think anyone would consider that to be an area that has been financially disadvantaged perhaps by by preservation limited in what they can build in how tall. So perhaps on day one there's an economic tradeoff, but the future generation and the long term value. Right, I think in this. So that's what I think this ordinance does. This ordinance says we're in it for the long game and we're protecting some values, not for, you know, me or you, but for those who come way after us. Right. So that they can remember and learn, just as we do when we talk about properties that come through. So. So for me, that's the the vision or the, the values I brought into the process is how to balance that value with these competing interests. But to achieve a vision and a goal, which is what the ordinance preamble really sets out. And in a city that's changing as quickly is done as Denver is, I think that's an important piece. It's not just balancing each property owners interests with each, you know, neighboring interest. It's about balancing the overall rate of change in the city with the overall preservation. So so it's a big task and it's a hard one because then we do come down to individual property decisions. So I really I feel very proud. You know, we we could have chosen to do a majority vote approach, perhaps as a task force. I've certainly been a part of task forces where the goal is to get people's opinions and then the staff goes ahead and makes a recommendation leader. We call it stakeholder input. This process set out for consensus, and I will admit that it disappoints me a little that groups that advocated for tradeoffs during the process and got those tradeoffs now are asking for additional changes that they were not able to get to consensus at the table. That's hard for me because it feels like a little bit like you got half of what you wanted along the way and then now you're asking for the other half from a different process. But I get that this is democracy and that that's the right of groups to do. I am glad that we're here now with the ordinance we have. I hope folks will consider carefully decisions that try to go to extreme measures. I don't want to see our city mired in retaliatory ballot measure fights like we've seen in our neighboring communities who feel like if we're not able to preserve our history, then we should limit all growth, because that's the kind of conversation this could very quickly spiral into. I don't think that's helpful for us. I think each step forward, we work to get to this place of achieving the goals of the ordinance in a way that is most respectful and most considerate of the owners involved, but can't quite go to the level of saying we'll never do it without permission. Right? We would not have LoDo if we if we needed permission. And so I think that's a decision I can stand by. I can say my predecessors had wisdom and I'm sure my colleague can tell me how many kicks they took about private property rights. But history, I think, will smile on that decision. It's hard to sit in these seats and make the decision at the moment, but I do feel like this ordinance is the right direction, both for meeting the goals of this ordinance as well as for what the city needs today. It was an honor to be a part of it as a total inexperienced individual with no technical knowledge of building types and architecture. But and I appreciate my colleague, Councilman Flynn, who we had we were a microcosm of the debate and yet respectfully worked to find common ground, just like everybody who participated. So I hope this council will find that common ground tonight while we continue to strive for closer to perfection in terms of our inclusiveness of this preservation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Cameron CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank the task force and Annie and Ms.. Hahn for making sure that even without the representation that was necessary, equity was at the forefront of what you guys were doing here. I speak from personal experience when I say this really opens a door for a lot of opportunities in our community. Having known what happened when our community tried to preserve, to protect against the eminent domain abuse and the highway expansion, and then also watching my brother lose his house, a Victorian house to the national western and protests all along when the city was trying to take it that it was a historic property, it was a historic property. And to be told no. And then to see a sign posted up the week they were going to demolish it, saying that it was being studied for landmark and historic preservation really shows me how much you all have been doing to investigate what truly is worth preserving in this city. And so I appreciate it. And I hope to see many more spaces that reflect our contributions to this city preserved and landmarked. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to start by saying thank you to the task force members. Your work on this issue is really important. So over the last four years, we think Council District one, we had three nonlinear historic designations and one historic district. So this update is really important to Northwest Denver and important to the district that I represent. I'm excited about the addition of culture. A couple of years ago, we wanted to look at preserving Navajo Street as an Italian district and Italian area as the Italians had moved out. And there was no way to do that and there is no tool in the toolbox. And so now that is gone. And that said and done, and unfortunately it's a little bit too late for that. So thank you for adding the cultural piece. And I just want to talk about the pause. Currently right now in Council District one on 46th and Tennyson. There is a non owner historic designation application in the Q and what we did was we looked at this ordinance and I took advantage of this pause and I asked both parties to come together and have a third party facilitator. And a pause was agreed to. So we are taking a 60 day pause on that application right now. Last week was the hearing, and it's postponed to November 12th to try to find different different outcomes for that property. So I really do think that this pause can work. And then another issue has come up is last month I attended a city led community presentation about a possible historic district in northwest Denver. And it was the first time in all the years. Of working in city council since 2012, where the city led the process and the city sent out the invitation. And it was very informative. It was very neutral. Both everyone was able to come out. It wasn't the applicants, it was the city. So I want and then they're going to also take advantage of this survey without this ordinance being implemented. So Council District One is already taking advantage of many of these ideas that have come forward through this task force and these recommendations. And I'm excited for them because I remember sitting over the past four years, sitting in the council office, hearing hours of testimony and knowing the houses intimately that were up and watching, feeling very conflicted about what type of preservation was needed, and the fact that 13 council members get to decide the future of neighborhood character in northwest Denver. And it just did not seem fair. So I just have to say thank you all for working on this, because this is, as you all can see, northwest Denver has been the battleground because the one historic property that they mentioned in their presentation, Beth Eaton Church, that's once again in Council District one on law. So Northwest Denver really has been the battleground for the past five years with historic designation, the certificate of non historic status. And I've sat at the table during that 21 day time clock where a certificate of non historic status came in. As a council aide, I had to reach out. I had to get there are no I had to get everyone at the table. I had to negotiate some of them and some of the applications got pulled. And with the help of historic Denver, the applicant was actually refunded the $200 when they had when they pulled their certificate of non historic status. And I will tell you it is stressful, it is not proactive work and so thank you for being proactive and just I really cannot thank you enough for working on this and I hope that the pause works regardless. It's a form of communication and sometimes on the other side of conflict and uneasy conversations, good things can come out. So thank you for your work. Thank you, President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kelton Gilmore.
Speaker 9: Thank you, President Clark. You know, I want to thank Kara and Annie and the task force and of course, the important work and time of my colleagues, Councilwoman each and Councilman Flynn. And I am pleased with a majority of the additions and changes, including adding culture. That being said, I am always troubled when there might be a process, especially through the owner opposed landmark designation that private property rights would be violated or affected. And it's disappointing that the task force didn't look at at least raising the bar by either a vote of nine or ten members of city council to really encourage folks to come to the table and get to what was said here tonight, a win win outcome. And when Councilwoman Black and I had both proposed in committee to require only on the honor imposed designations a supermajority, we were unsuccessful in getting that support. And I honor the opinions and background of my colleagues. But I also want us to be looking closely at how this unrolls, how it plays out. I agree with Ian's comment about, you know, when we don't get to participate in this process in our neighborhoods, it makes it very hard. Were put at a disadvantage to be part of the process to understand items that are very technical that you said here tonight. If we don't get the opportunity to play in that arena, then we are at a disadvantage. And so I appreciate, you know, Kara reaching out, us having a good conversation and I will be supportive of this tonight. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I had my thanks to the staff and to the task force for the good work that they did. And I want to thank.
Speaker 4: My colleagues for.
Speaker 0: Continuing.
Speaker 1: To bring.
Speaker 4: Up the importance of equity.
Speaker 1: In everything that we're doing in the city.
Speaker 0: Just finished our budget.
Speaker 1: Presentations and for the first time, I think in the city's history, equity is.
Speaker 4: Is held up as a top.
Speaker 1: Value. We have an enormous.
Speaker 4: Amount of work to do to figure out how to actually address that. But but it's on the.
Speaker 1: Table and as it should have been for a long time. I appreciated what Councilman Kennedy said. As far as what we're doing here is an acknowledgment.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 1: Preservation of the.
Speaker 4: Important parts of our past is a community that, as well as equity preservation, have important elements of our past is an important value.
Speaker 1: I also very much appreciated Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilwoman Black's putting forth a couple of amendments. I have struggled over the issue of should there be a higher bar on owner opposed.
Speaker 4: And I was.
Speaker 1: Very convinced that there should be looking at the reality of how things have played out that we've had one owner opposed pass in six years. I'm wondering if, along with the pause that this new package brings forward, if we might have hit on what we need as far as that tool to.
Speaker 4: To better solve those contentious.
Speaker 1: Situations.
Speaker 4: There are enormously.
Speaker 1: Painful district one had a couple when when I first came on council and they are enormously painful trying to weigh the community's well-being with.
Speaker 4: Private property owners.
Speaker 1: Well-Being. I will be anxious to see how this latest tool.
Speaker 4: Helps resolve those.
Speaker 1: Tensions. I have a hunch that that it will do a great deal in that regard. The last thing I wanted to mention is, is the need, as it was talked about, for increased funding for Discovery Denver. You know, we have what was it, 18% of the city is covered and that's wonderful. But that even I can.
Speaker 4: Do that math. Councilman Hines, that's.
Speaker 1: 82% of the city that's that's not covered. And that's a potential tragedy.
Speaker 4: And we those of us who have been around Denver a long time, have seen a whole lot of important structures go away that I.
Speaker 1: Think would have made a wonderful education of of where.
Speaker 4: Denver has been and how we got to where we are today. So I would hope that as we go through the budget process, we can find some money to accelerate that the Discover Denver effort.
Speaker 0: So with that, again.
Speaker 4: Congratulations on.
Speaker 0: A lot of good hard.
Speaker 4: Work and I look forward to supporting this this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to share my appreciation to all of you who were involved in this process, in bringing to us what is very clear was a compromise document with lots of give and take on both sides. And so to Kara and Annie, appreciate your your help along with my colleagues as well for your input in bringing something forward. When we did the lower downtown historic district, not everybody was happy with that either. But time showed that after the second two year review, everybody came forward and said, Just get rid of it. Just get rid of it, because we're happy with the way it's working. And so I think and if it's not, guess what? We can bring it back. It doesn't mean we're locked in stone if it's not working. But I think we've got to give it a try. And I just have to say, I live in one of these old houses and they're not cheap to maintain, right, if you want to maintain the character of it. So being able to have access to the various incentives becomes really important, whether it's being able to add on a unit, if you've got a lot size big enough to do that or you know, if it's just accessing some of the historic funds from the state or the National Trust for Historic Preservation, that also makes resources available. So for people in our community who are wanting to do the right thing, I think it is important that we have those tools readily available to them where they don't have to like hunt all over town to find them, but to be able to go to one place where it's easy to access the information and then know what's available to them. To be successful in trying to preserve their property. The data alone shows that with all the applications that have been brought forward, they don't all make it to the floor of council. So the the work that is done by our city staff in historic Denver and in trying to lay out the information because oftentimes you guys are the go to place for for people to try to, you know, pull the information. Our library is great, but oftentimes you already have much of that history on Denver neighborhoods and properties. And so that that makes it a little bit, you know, easier for people to just pull their their applications together. So so I think the the process has worked. And again, you know, some of those that have come before this body, they have an all they haven't all been approved either. Some of them have. Some of them have not. But I wanted to speak very briefly to the Swans here neighborhood and the fact that during the time that the environmental assessment was was being put together, the state, when they looked at the mitigation issues, they did not want to tinker with the exterior windows because of the historic character of the neighborhood. And it's probably a lot to do with cost as well, but that's why they ended up only doing interior windows for the residents that were within 500 feet of each side of the highway. I appreciate the fact that culture is being added because I think that there are lots of things like if you look at Santa Fe and some of the buildings along Santa Fe, that played a big role, the Walton Street corridor that was spoken to earlier. You know, across our city, we have some areas of town that played a major role in the history of our city that oftentimes are never included in the history books that our kids learn about our city . Right. Or their community. They're getting Western history information and European history, but not typically their own local history. And the contributions that, you know, people from their own community made in in shaping the city of what it is today. So I think we've got a great roadmap in front of us and a tremendous opportunity to utilize the criteria in a in a different way that I think will create more flexibility for the applicants. And at the same time, I think having those incentives will encourage more people to look at trying to take advantage of saving. Part of the history of our city, because I live in a neighborhood that doesn't look anything like what it used to. And every day very nice brick structures are being just torn down. And if you live on one side, a zoo, nice street, you're in a protected part. If you're on the other side, you're in the neighborhood where it's drastically changing. So this is a good thing. Thank you. I'll be voting for it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the committee for all the hard work that you've done. You know, I'm new on council, not as new as I was a couple of months ago, but still new. And as I sit here on Monday nights and in committee, you get to learn a little bit more about my values . I also get to learn a bit more about my own values. I get a little bit of self reflection as well, and I think that's healthy for all of us to have this growing process together. But speaking of values, I talked earlier about stakeholder process and transparency, and I. I learned briefly, or rather I learned quickly about the importance of the stakeholder process. A lot of people talked about the climate change bill and how they were frustrated, frustrated with the lack of stakeholder process. Frankly, from my perspective, President Clark reached out to me the day after I won the runoff election. So he was all over it. As far as you know, as far as I knew that his stakeholder process was robust. But anyway, I really enjoy that this process had a robust stakeholder process and that it considered, you know, private property rights, it considered a supermajority. It decided to go with the the compromise that we see in front of us. You know, I, too, am interested in private property rights. When I heard about Tom Steiner, or rather when Tom Steiner came before us, you know, it also was in divorce. Perfect ten. We heard a lot about private property rights from people all over the U.S. and maybe some beyond. But certainly we had people from all over the United States writing in to the District ten office and and talking about private property rights. So I recognize that that's an important consideration for a lot of people all over America and including people in District ten. I also think that it is important for us to not. To be very measured when we arbitrarily limit City Council's power and a supermajority of nine or ten votes makes it more difficult for us to effectively represent the city because we are representing our districts. And. And if we go from a majority to a supermajority, I think that that makes it more difficult for for me to represent my district, even if the particular vote is in a different district. So I'm glad that we are at least taking this incremental approach and we're considering a straight majority. And the funky math is we are going from two thirds threshold to 30% or from 20% to 30%. And apparently both of those calculations work. But either way, I think it's great that we've had a stakeholder process that has come up with what we what we have in front of us today. So I will be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to point out that I reached out to my constituents when I was asked to consider the idea of a supermajority and with just a very nonscientific survey among people. And 57% of them came back and said that they supported a nine vote supermajority. So I think, you know, I think that I'm very supportive of the the ordinance as it's coming through tonight. I think it's a great ordinance. I'm really you know, I really congratulate all of you guys who worked so hard on this. But I do think that there is an element of awareness in our community that did not exist before this summer, when Tom's Diner happened, when when that situation came through, that has sort of woke in the community up to the issue of personal property rights in a way that maybe didn't exist before. And so maybe next time around, it's something that should come back up and be considered again. I definitely am supportive of tonight, but I just wanted to put it out there that when I asked and reached out to my constituents, 57% did support a nine person supermajority. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. So, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I, I, too, want to thank the staff and the members of the task force with whom I served and Councilwoman Keech for a very robust discussion and process that truly did land in the center where people on one side or another are always giving up something and never getting everything they want. I really do want to thank them for that. I did learn one thing in this process on the task force that surprised me, and that is that when we had those contentious, excuse me, landmark things up in District one, that all three of which were defeated. I realized through this task force process that it wasn't that necessarily that we were being harder and more strict on owner opposed applications. I realized that we were being much less strict, much more lenient, if you will, on owner supported. And one that came to mind in particular was in Councilman Cashman's district on South Adam Street. I think it was the I Love House or what was it, their very large property on South Adams Street where the owner came in and sought designation. And I, I realized that far from being harder on the ones that were owner opposed, we were sort of just being of the owner wants it. Sure, I can see how it fits all the criteria. And that was a real eye opener for me. The other thing that I really like about this version is the addition of the cultural criteria, because I believe, as I believe, Councilwoman Torres, I was the one who mentioned the lack of designations on the West Sides, particularly Southwest side. There's only one designated landmark in Denver, south of Sixth Avenue and west of the Platte River, and that's the field officers quarters in on Fort Logan on the parade ground. Well, thanks to the Loreto Heights plan that we adopted a couple of weeks ago, there will soon be more. The Loreto Heights Academy in the chapel, possibly Pancreases Hall and looking down the road to a district designation on the campus as well. But with the cultural criteria being added, I think we can look beyond these large, obvious landmarking options that we have and look to more that more designations that speak to the to the people who built this city and the people who made this city. And I'm looking forward to scouring perhaps with Councilwoman Torres scouring the West Side and looking for opportunities and to solicit more more applications from owners who are willing to do this. So I will be supporting this. Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega, did you have some quick things?
Speaker 7: I don't know why they're still up there. All right.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, I will just close this before we vote by saying one more time thank you to all the task force members for all the time they put in. Thank you to Councilman Flynn and Councilman Ken each for representing some different sides of the coin for us in this process and all the extra hours that took into our staff for going through all of this. I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: See the burqa. I flip.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Hi.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Can I? Ortega. Sandoval. Sawyer.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Torres. I heard they.
Speaker 1: Argument.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm secretary. Please. Cause voting in those results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 914 has passed. Councilwoman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 30 (Landmark Preservation) of the Revised Municipal Code.
Amends Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC), Landmark Ordinance to simplify designation criteria, add criteria associated with cultural significance, to extend time frames for demolition/designation review process, to add required mediation and to clarify language and ensure consistency throughout the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09302019_19-0776
|
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 914 has passed. Councilwoman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill seven seven, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It's. Same for technology to catch up. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council seven seven, six is open. Do we have a staff report for this one this evening?
Speaker 2: I think we have.
Speaker 0: Jason coming up, going to give us a quick, quick overview before we jump into our speakers.
Speaker 5: I think this is the most talked about vacation in the history of city council, so I'm sure you're all aware. Jason Clare of Denver Public Works. I just give you a little rundown that it's 6000 square feet at 2099 chestnut that an applicant requested that the property be vacated. It did not meet a utility need or a mobility need for the city in county of Denver. So the application was granted and we are here today to hear from those the applicant and those who live in the neighborhood and happy to answer any questions, if you have any.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. I think at 9:00 at night, nobody's going to complain about that. That length of staff report here. All right. So we do have seven people who are signed up to speak. I'm going to call the first five if you'll come up to this front bench, Steve Ferris, Jim Johnson, George Pazienza, Taber Sweet and Margaret Combs. If you can come up to the front seat and Steve Ferris, you're up first.
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Steve Farris and I'm representing the applicant. As we get into what's happened since we talked to you last week. I just wanted to give a quick overview that we as the applicant, the landowner next to the site are very proud of the work Mortenson has put into this project. They've really reached out and addressed the neighborhood concerns, and they did that because of your input and your concerns. And I think you'll like kind of what they're presenting and what's been done to date. I think this could be a model for future right away vacations, since there has been some serious concerns raised with all vacations. But because we're here only to talk about a vacation of land and not a project. I want to make a few observation. Many of you have questioned the state law around vacations, and there's a few observations that I wanted to make about that. One, you know, one thing we have to think about is that if this was just a vacation and there was no project and a few neighbors hadn't come up to object to the project, would you be treating this vacation the same way? And it's just I know some people think saying yes and some people know, but it's it's a question to think about because most vacations do come in completely separate from a project. Second, I want to note that, you know, right away, vacation requests do get refused by public works. I worked on one in Councilwoman Sandoval's district about a year ago that got shot down. I'm still perplexed why public works wouldn't allow it to proceed, but that does happen and you do not see this those situations. So I think in that context, it's good to remember public works does apply some evaluation and measures of these things . Finally, I wanted to note that we requested some information from public works about the total amount of vacations and dedications in the last few years. We found this data since 20 and this was provided by Public Works since 2014. 15.9 acres have been vacated, of which 9.5 acres were subject to a reservation or 6% of the total. The average size of that vacation was 6000 square feet. By the way, this vacation is actually 5074 square feet. For what it's worth now and the dedication side, the land that's been given free of charge from development. This is since 2015, so one year less. The city has acquired 26.1 acres at no charge. So my point here is to bring up that right away is always fluctuating in the city based on demand and needs in certain situations, and this is just another one in that whole scheme. So in some I just want, you know, that these circumstances do exist and this is simultaneously a typical right away vacation and yet it's a unique one. And I think because of your input, it's become a success story, which I'll let Mortensen and others.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jim Johnson.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is Jim Johnson. I am here on behalf of the developer, Mortensen. To talk a little bit about what's happened since first reading and the our efforts to reach an agreement with the community. So since first reading, we put together a draft agreement excuse me, and we circulated that to the camp, to the community members, and we met with them on this past Wednesday to discuss the agreement and what they wanted to see in it. We had some serious concerns and we heard those concerns and we incorporated, I think, all of their requests into a revised document. But what we're dealing with now is actually an issue that that Councilwoman Sandoval raised at the first reading, and that is enforceability. And the issue she raised, I think, is that the city doesn't have the ability to enforce these. So I approached the city attorney's office and asked if the city would be willing to be a signatory to the agreement so that they can enforce that. And that was rejected soundly. The second thing that that I've done is I put in the agreement third party beneficiary status so that the city actually could enforce the obligations of the developer without being a party to the agreement. So since the city is not a party to or won't be a party to the agreement, I expect we intend to leave those provisions in there. But more importantly, actually is an enforceability on the other side. We're dealing with a registered neighborhood organization which actually has not been set up and established by the Colorado secretary of state's office. So it's not actually an entity like, for instance, the Cherry Creek Neighborhood North Association is a is a nonprofit corporation and can sign a document and bind the entity itself. And we don't have an entity on the other side. So I think one of the things you'll hear from actually a representative from Mortenson here in my client later this evening is that we'd like a little bit more time to actually assist the community in forming that entity and finalizing this agreement. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jorge Pazienza.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name's George Pazienza. I'm the. You're in two roles. One is the Union Station. Ah, no president. One as the inker 29 brownstones h0 a president. So I'll split my comments as the ah no president. The neighborhood's sediment is obviously divided. Residents are supporting the vacation request. They're willing to give up the open space for a nice development. The residents that are opposing the vacation request are willing to risk what will happen to the dirt lot if we don't approve it. And they but they really don't want to give up the open space. The Arnaud's approach to this was to ask the highways to provide input on the objections and support from the community. This was somewhat successful. The Orono board did vote yesterday and by a 3 to 2 majority voted to support the vacation request. The hard data. In the spirit of transparency, the hard data that that was collected during this process did not outweigh the board's summary decision. The data showed that there were, as of this morning, 52 responses objecting from people that were hard data and six are supporting the vacation. Now, they were. Councilman CdeBaca His office provided some numbers this afternoon. She got another 24 objecting and seven supporting. So there's still a large number of the community that does not support this vacation request as a and I can answer questions about that later. The Inca 29 brownstones is is the president of that organization. There's 29 homes there. Our board officially objects to this. Then 79% of our owners object. The main issue there is access in the open space. The reason that we're bringing this up here and what our point is, is that those in CA 29 brownstone.
Speaker 1: Owners are 17 of the.
Speaker 4: Of the 20 adjacent landowners that the city defined as part of the process to create objections. So we have almost all of the adjacent landowners as defined by the city. And I want to bring up that there are guidelines. The only guidelines that are posted or available for evaluating this are state a number of issues in addition to it being available from a transportation viewpoint. Those issues are one of them is the adjacent landowners must agree those words and they don't they're limited or no impacts to the communities access services and enjoyment that has been that is we we don't agree with that this is not this is not an alley.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up is Taber Sweatt.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 5: So my name is TAVR, unlike the tobacco. Ah, that Councilman.
Speaker 0: Flynn was.
Speaker 10: Referring to earlier.
Speaker 5: So we're clear. I want to give everyone a little bit of background. So I started out my career as a land planner, landscape.
Speaker 10: Architect and urban designer.
Speaker 5: And when I look for opportunity and I look for sites to build on, I look for gaps in the urban fabric. And so that's what drew us to the site originally. I have trained, studied in Italy, studied in Denmark, Copenhagen. And you fill the urban fabric. And we feel like we have done just that here. I think some of you know, but I'd like to bring it up that this this site actually is is heavily encumbered by a stormwater line right down the middle of it. And so we have reached agreement. The public works. Public works has determined that none of the objections had technical merit that they received and that this storm line. I bring it up because not.
Speaker 10: Only does it greatly impact whatever a market value assessment might be for this property, but anything that you put on this property is subject to be removed and not replaced. So if public.
Speaker 5: Works has to come in and replace the storm line or service it, they restore the ground to level condition and they pay for it, period. And so there's a lot of risk that we were taking on to to do this, these enhancements that we're proposing.
Speaker 10: Another thing that I want to touch base on is that in our.
Speaker 5: In our discussions with the neighborhood, there's been a lot of concern and I've heard it here in council last week about future transportation, future transportation modes. And, you know, part of our proposal here is that we would actually create an easement for some of that right of way that would be vacated and donate it and grant it back to the city. So bicycle scooter racks, bicycles, scooter racks, parking, whatever need be. But we're more than happy to to accommodate that. As Steve said, it's a 5000 square foot 5074.
Speaker 1: Square foot, right of way. Our plan is to heavily.
Speaker 5: Enhance 3700 square feet of that with the remaining sorry, 37 square feet of heavily enhanced pedestrian improvements that could be selected and designed by the neighborhood. In total, we're proposing.
Speaker 0: To improve 7100.
Speaker 5: Square feet of right away. I want to bring it up because I think it's relevant. The hotel rooms that would go over this right of way. There's about 62 keys that we would be able to fit.
Speaker 1: Over the right of way. And I know this is a discussion about right away, but the taxable value on those 62 keys.
Speaker 5: Is roughly $1,000,000 a year. If the hotel is stabilized, so a $3 million overall project tax availability, and if we reduce the available land, we would we would reduce the.
Speaker 10: Taxes available are coming to the.
Speaker 1: City by about $1,000,000. So.
Speaker 5: More importantly, though, I want to ask everyone to do the right thing. You've asked us to come to an agreement with the city. We've worked very hard with two of the three main.
Speaker 10: Active board members.
Speaker 5: I feel like that we have made tremendous grounds in getting an agreement in place and I want to see this get built with community input and I want to see this happen with neighborhood support and feedback.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Margaret de Combs.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Margaret Dickens.
Speaker 6: I am here on behalf of ordinary people who take transit. I'm a multi-modal transit advocate. I specifically look at transit as it relates to human rights issues, disability and systemic racism, sexism, etc., etc.. I'm encouraging.
Speaker 3: You to vote.
Speaker 6: No on the vacation based on its technical merits because the parcel adjacent to 2099 Chestnut is already serving as a multi-modal transit hub, and it's necessary for current and.
Speaker 3: Future transit. There are no other.
Speaker 6: Areas in the neighborhood currently where transit needs can be met. For anyone who hasn't been in the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: It is packed and most of the.
Speaker 6: Streets do not go through to anywhere. So there are lots of trips that are under 1.2 miles, which it turns out is when people will forego car trips. Right. So this is why we've seen this rise in popularity among scooters.
Speaker 3: Bikes, ride sharing, all these sorts of activities. And right now, that plot adjacent to.
Speaker 6: Chestnut Place caters to those activities, and market based transit modes will use the space according to function. Right now in that neighborhood, bars and shops are at the intersection of 29th and Chestnut. That's where that plot of land is. And so that serves as the place for wagon walkers, joggers, people walking, other animals, anything that's wide. The sidewalks in that neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Are fairly narrow. There's sort of a standard.
Speaker 6: If you block them, they're blocked. I mean, access is done. And, you know, we've talked a little bit about future use. I know in the Land Use Transportation Committee, you talked about, well, where we're going to need it for the future or not. And the reality is probably right now that neighborhood is brand new and.
Speaker 12: There's a ton.
Speaker 6: Of people who are needing to get into town, into downtown. So things like expanding the 17th, 18th commuter bus line, that's the only place in that neighborhood you could turn a bus around or put a bus station that doesn't have to.
Speaker 3: Go all the way through.
Speaker 6: And I'd like to point out that although technically this neighborhood meets ADA requirements from a functional standpoint, anything that is removed from that corner quadrant ends up blocking sidewalks, other places. And like I've said, the sidewalks are not wide. They're tree lined for anyone who has been down there. So if it's if a scooter or bike is parked adjacent to one of those trees, it blocks the sidewalk and it's not accessible. I know that I can't walk through that neighborhood with my dog frequently because then the areas during high.
Speaker 3: Peak.
Speaker 9: Hours are blocked.
Speaker 6: Luckily, during most of the day they aren't blocked right now. But you can be sure that these really high use periods are going to be, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. Our last two are Oscar Hernandez and Bernard DeWitt. If you want to come on up. And Oscar Hernandez, you're.
Speaker 10: Hi. Good evening Council and thank you for taking your time to listen to us. So I live, I'm sorry to say, Oscar Hernandez I live on 29/16 Street. So just down the street from where this development will be done, I'm here to speak in favor of it. I think as has been said before, we really need more time to work with the developers. We've come a long way. They've had several meetings with us. We've come a long way from what they originally presented to where we are now. A lot of things that, for example, are no is actually not officially incorporated. So it's something that we also need to build as a community to just get that together and be able to actually work on the final agreement. There are a lot of points. I agree that that is one of the last open spaces that we have in the neighborhood. But at the same time, if we vacate this road to the hotel, they were actually going to incorporate that and make it a more valuable space for the community and the hotel guests in general. Right now, I think a lot of the opposition that we've we've felt from the neighborhood has been in the concept that a lot of people just feel like if we don't vacate, they're not going to build anything. And that is not really the case. We really know that that is a very valuable property. It's very close to Union Station, so we know that one way or the other something will get built there and at least with them we have the opportunity to work with them and really come together and find something that'll be valuable for both of us. I think the last point that I really like about the if we give them the row is that the.
Speaker 8: Entryway will actually face where the rest of the businesses are in.
Speaker 4: The current neighborhood.
Speaker 10: If we do it the other way around, least based on the designs that we've seen, the entryway to the hotel will actually face a parking lot and it won't really feel like it's part of that corner in the community there. Plus, the current traffic design system, if the vacated row is provided, actually makes the traffic flow a lot easier. Without that, all the traffic will have to come in and out of the same way as opposed to looping through with the vacant design. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 10: All right. So one last point. Thank you, Taber. We do have a neighborhood meeting set for October 16th to talk about the next steps to really incorporate our and get on the bylaws officially designate a board and move forward.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Bernard to it.
Speaker 5: He's gone.
Speaker 0: Oh. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Hines?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have public works. Come forward, please. Jason Miller of Denver Public Works. Hi. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Mr. Hernandez, who just testified, he mentioned that something will if if we choose not to vacate, that something will be built on this property. Question for you. As I understand it, the vacation can only be granted to an adjacent property owner and there's only one adjacent property owner. Is that other than the city, is that correct? That is correct. And I guess I asked two questions. So there's only one adjacent property owner, correct? That is correct. And you can only vacate two adjacent property owners? That is correct. Okay. So if we say no to this vacation, then this property or this. Sorry, this. 5000 or 6000 square foot, roughly, would just stay there as it is. That is correct. Okay. Do you are you familiar with the ADA, the pedestrian access in that area? I mean, not entirely. I do know that for that is under consideration when we talk about mobility. When we look at a whether we're going to be able to vacate something or not. That's why it was it was part of the bigger picture of, you know, whether it was needed for ADA issues or was it needed for mobility issues like bikes or anything else. So that that was all taken into consideration when it went through the process at Denver Public Works. That's why they still came up with this, the understanding that it was okay to vacate the 29 nine chestnut because it didn't meet any of those concerns. Okay. I mean, that's obviously a very busy area of town. Absolutely. And it was developed. I mean, there would also probably be another way where we would have to have sidewalks around there again and everything else, which means a dedication would probably have to come in form one way or another to make that capable. Okay. Good information. And, you know, obviously, I. Care a bit about it? Absolutely. Let's see the. Apologize. I guess it's getting late, and I can't read my own handwriting. That's. That's it for now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 6: Q Mr. President, one quick legal question. I was trying to look up, trying to find the state statute, but I'm sure someone is faster than me. Thank you. This question that was raised by one of the speakers about adjacent landowners, I think some people think of the word adjacent, like nearby, but I'm guessing the law is more specific. So when it says in the law that it has to be with the agreement of adjacent landowners, what does that mean versus what our prior speaker thought it might mean?
Speaker 5: For the record, Burton played assistant city attorney.
Speaker 10: With municipal operations. Are you? Yeah, I guess I'm a little confused by the question because we heard about we had an agreement with.
Speaker 6: So Mr. Pazienza. And he said that you have to have the agreement of adjacent landowners, according to the to the statute. Yeah. And he counted all of the buildings that were in the, you know, across the street as adjacent buildings and said this cannot he implied or the question was that this can't be granted because it violates the statute. So I need you to walk through what the word adjacent means in the statute compared to how a layperson might use it, like you or I, if we're just chatting.
Speaker 10: Yeah. A little bit. A little background. Well, Mr. Pansy, Enzo's referring to is not state statute.
Speaker 6: Okay?
Speaker 10: Where he's referring to is a document that's on the public works website. And he's referring to a section that says important issues that must be considered before submitting an application. They're not criteria. They're not standards. They're just factors to be considered before an applicant submits an application for a vacation.
Speaker 6: Got it.
Speaker 10: State statute requires. State statutes has codified that when a road or a right of way is vacated, the right to the title to that right away vests in abutting property owners, i.e..
Speaker 1: Touching, touching.
Speaker 6: Touching, touching the site in question. All right. Thank you. Correct. I think that probably clarifies it. So so the idea that someone else is touching the property, like where the hotel might be, the land that the hotel developer already owns or someone who's, you know, just across the street, the next property over doesn't count in the state statute.
Speaker 10: In state statute. That's correct.
Speaker 6: And then can you just clarify, is the language being quoted, as does the language in the public works sites say must agree? Is that a quote that's accurate? Uh.
Speaker 10: Yeah. That is a quote. The property owners are sorry. Yeah, property owners must agree. And then it goes on to say to all adjacent property owners, agree to vacate the right of way. If not, expect the process to be much longer, more expensive, and ultimately may not be approved.
Speaker 6: Okay. So the context is a little different. It doesn't say must agree or vacation will be denied.
Speaker 10: Exactly.
Speaker 6: Because it's the context of the quote matters.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 10: And it's not a criteria. Again, the.
Speaker 6: Big picture, I know what we're telling the public and what we're not telling. The sentence doesn't end Ms.. Degree or the vacation. I just want to clarify. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, Jason from Public Works. So according to your the documentation online for an Ali vacation, it says it was updated in March of 2017. Can you tell me the last time the fee structure for Alli vacations or right away vacations was updated from public works?
Speaker 5: Offhand, I don't know the exact date, but I think it was 2012. And we only do the fee structure to cover the cost of processing the request.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then according to the Public Works website, when it talks about vacating right away, it says some things to think about before proceeding with the vacation request. On bullet point number four, it says there must be limited or no impacts on the surrounding community or public at large. Right of way in the city is generally part of a roadway, network or grid that provides benefits to the public at large, including not limited to efficient access to various destinations. Removing a piece of that grid from public use could have various negative impacts for the community's access, service and enjoyment. The city will consider these factors before approving any request to vacate the right of way. So that's on your website, huh? And my question for you is these negative impacts. So I'm just going to ask you a question since 2012, and I know you haven't been here for 22 since. So I'll get you slack and your fee structure with updated in 2003. Okay. That's a you know, it wasn't updated in 2012. There have been numerous negative impacts when it comes to vacating right of way in northwest Denver. I'll just speak for myself and I think this has a negative impact for this community. How come that is on your Web site and how come that is not part of your PDF documentation online when it when you somebody would go to vacate and out alley right away. I feel like that that sentence should also be part of that PDF.
Speaker 5: Understandably so. So Councilman Sandoval, Jason Glare of the Public Works our process at Denver Public Works. We try to keep it very in the utility aspect of it and the mobility aspect of that right away when it gets into the other stuff that we're we're giving this information to them that they need to consider because this has to come before city council. And city council will make a political question on this. This is not what Denver Public says when we actually want to vacate or two to allow a vacation to go forward. This is a question that will be asked you. And we are prepping them on the website, which it says important issues you must consider before submitting an application, including several things, because there are things that they're going to have to work through with the community and with city council.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. So can I have one of the property owners come up? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yes. Hi.
Speaker 3: Can you tell me when this property was purchased?
Speaker 1: Actually, I cannot I understand it was part of a trade in the early 2000s, but I don't know the exact date. It involved negotiations with the predecessor of the Central Park Ballet Development.
Speaker 3: So you you're representing the owner and you have no idea when they purchased this real estate property?
Speaker 1: I don't. There's an engineer for the owner. We could ask him here. He might know.
Speaker 4: Jim Fitzmaurice with engineering representing the applicant. Our understanding is pretty much what Steve said, that it was involved in a trade for some property that somebody else near to Platte Valley wanted to buy, and this was a property that they traded as part of that transaction. I believe that she's owned it at least 15 or 20 years, but not exactly how long for sure.
Speaker 3: Okay. So the reason I'm asking is when this came to ludi, a lot of times what I'll do is I'll go to the the property record. Right. And there's no in Denver you can find the chain of title. This property has no chain in title. And so I brought that up during the Ludi committee and I asked act during the Ludi Committee if somebody could come back and ask that group, get that question to me about when this property was bought or when this LLC 2999 chestnut was formed. And I still don't have the answers. So I find that concerning that. I asked that months ago about ludi and here we are tonight. We've postponed this and I still don't have an answer. So just in the future, if we could have those questions answered, it's really helpful when we're up here making those decisions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, apologies. I wasn't at that meeting.
Speaker 4: We did do a survey on it and I think the LLC is 1917. Chestnut, I believe, is the ownership name. I can look at my ALTA survey in a moment. I've got it with me.
Speaker 3: I can take down the Denver Property Records. It's 29, 20, 2099 Chestnut.
Speaker 4: I believe that's the address of the property. I think the LLC is a different number.
Speaker 3: It says Owner Chestnut Place, LLC.
Speaker 10: Okay, let me.
Speaker 4: Look at my survey. We did I know we did a survey and had a title for it.
Speaker 10: I may be able to give you a little more information.
Speaker 4: I didn't know that was a question until just now.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Either Jason or the city attorney.
Speaker 1: So I'm interested. Drove by the site again today.
Speaker 4: And there is a B cycle station on there. Were the mayors committed to 125 miles of bike lanes in the city in the next five years. To me, it's a clear form of transportation. I'm just wondering how we get to where that.
Speaker 0: Doesn't meet the definition of a transportation.
Speaker 4: Usage.
Speaker 5: When it comes to a bike or bike ramp that's movable and we can put it in the area to still fill the needs. And we don't consider that as the, you know, the stake that says this is used for transportation. So, for example, if we had a bike rack that was there that we could also put into another part of the neighborhood that would be useful for the surrounding neighborhood in the same effect. Then we don't require that as the the the reason why we would deny a vacation.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Sure you have one.
Speaker 10: Dad, son. I wanted to ask.
Speaker 5: If you'd step up to the microphone, please. Again? Taber Suite with Mortenson Development as part of our.
Speaker 1: Site development plan process as well. On this.
Speaker 10: The representative from B cycle also was involved on relocating the bicycle rack and it was part of.
Speaker 5: I would say, the requirement for a site development plan. So they were including that B cycle station to be there.
Speaker 1: In perpetuity, which we obviously agreed to. Right. Thank you. While you're while you're up, you're going to have to stand up again. I don't know how good. All right. Don't know how good it feels. Good. So as as your current design is set up.
Speaker 4: You want to put some pillars.
Speaker 8: On the.
Speaker 1: Area you would like vacated. And what, another 62 rooms would overhang that area? Correct. Okay. How moving past that out into open space, how much space would would that plan leave uncovered? I don't have the exact number on uncovered.
Speaker 5: What we show is kind of the overall heavily enhanced plan, if you will, is about 3700 square feet. I off the top of my head, I don't know what of that is covered. My guess is going to be it's about 800 square feet maybe.
Speaker 4: So. Whatever you do.
Speaker 1: On that parcel, all that would be left uncovered for the community is.
Speaker 4: 800 square feet.
Speaker 1: No, no.
Speaker 5: No, no. The part left uncovered is probably closer to 33,000 square feet.
Speaker 1: On the immediate corner.
Speaker 0: On the very.
Speaker 10: Hard corner itself.
Speaker 5: Part of our discussions with the neighborhood has also been the realignment of the curb on Chestnut and to push that curb out a bit, which I think there are some diagrams in the in the package we sent you. So all in all, it's a and I believe it's about 3100 square feet on the actual corner itself.
Speaker 1: Right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And the the the.
Speaker 4: Roadway the elevated.
Speaker 0: Roadway there.
Speaker 5: The 20th Street.
Speaker 1: Right? Yep. That runs right by there. How far will your building be set.
Speaker 8: Back away from that roadway?
Speaker 5: We're going to be about 15 feet set off the face of that road.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Cashman asked my big question, but I do want to ask some more questions of Mr. Pazienza. I'm curious about. So I'm hearing for the first time about this new R.A. that's not officially an R.A. with less people than required by your typical R.A. process, and then hearing from multiple associates or representatives of the developer and the project, but not specifically from any of the residents who were of the 71% as close to as Jason as possible. Do you are you aware of any of those those surrounding 71% that flipped out? Who can you tell me a little bit about what's been going on?
Speaker 4: So the there is part of the process that the Department of Public Works goes through whenever they ask for objections is they have a category of they call them adjacent landowners within 200 feet. And you know, the difference between a budding and adjacent, what I've been told is abiding means that has to touch an adjacent means there can be a river or right away or something between that those two properties. But at any rate, they sent out special letters to 21 people. Now, one of them was a double and it's part of our organization. I'm also one of the adjacent landowners. I am also representing the board is part of one of the adjacent landowners. None of those, Jason. Well, to say.
Speaker 1: They haven't changed their mind is not correct. More of them object now than.
Speaker 4: Objected when this process started. All of the objections have increased.
Speaker 1: There have been more. We've gotten more.
Speaker 4: Letters in terms of support through our organization. We've asked to be copied and tell us what's going on.
Speaker 1: But we, you know.
Speaker 4: The adjacent landowners, I mean, we read that document. It's got a name and got a number. It's, you know, words have meaning. That's I don't I don't know. I guess in law, words are supposed to have meanings. They have all these libraries and books. And that's you know, you saw what the word said. And we objected. And we object because we think that it creates utility value, transportation, as we've talked about. And it also, you know, is part of that enjoyment. But, you know, if those words on that document that has a number by the city don't really mean anything, I don't you know, that's our fault. I guess we shouldn't have.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Quick question for Mr. Gallardo. So you you say that this bicycle does biking fits as part of our multimodal transportation and our transportation goals. It's currently being used for a bicycles station. I'm curious about how the city decides to make these accommodations with developers. We made the effort to figure out how to relocate of bicycles station for a developer. What what triggers that process?
Speaker 5: Um, let me see if I understand your question. Jason Miller of Denver Public Works. You're asking what triggers the. What process for us to remove something?
Speaker 3: What triggers our attempts to accommodate a developer? It feels like the immediate checkboxes that you would go through for technical merit would be is this currently used as a for transit purposes checkbox? Yes. You don't go further than that. What triggered CPD to go further to figure out how to relocate this bicycle station?
Speaker 5: So. So DPW in the. So what happens is there was an agreement that was done that I didn't speak to before with the developer and b cycle to continue to have it in the area it was going to be permitted through them on their I think it's on private property that it will be on. And so when that agreement was made, it's no longer an issue for that to be part of the process of saying they were going to lose that aspect. That aspect was going to stay after the development occurred. So they weren't going to actually lose the cycle there. And when it comes to bike ramps and stuff like that, those are movable. And we're able to see in different areas of how we can make it work for the entire community.
Speaker 3: So so in that.
Speaker 5: Area, in all vacations, just sorry to interrupt. All vacations are not developer's vacations. Vacations happen from private homeowners as well and everything else. We make those same accommodations across the board.
Speaker 3: So with all of the constraints that were mentioned tonight about that area of town, the smaller sidewalks, the limited walk space, the limited space for docking scooters and bikes, where are we thinking? Why would we give up space like that?
Speaker 5: So I think that there is a bigger question you're asking there that we do not ask that public works. And when it comes to a specific piece of land, that's something that I think that is the reason why it goes through this process so that you guys can have this conversation and discuss the whether we should vacate it or not. But for for us, the Denver public works. We look at a right away and say, does it have a utility need or a mobility need? And if it doesn't, if the adjacent or the budding property owner requests for a for us to vacate it so that they may develop it or do something else with it, then we we consider it under those guidelines only the rest of those questions are questions outside of our scope, because there's it's a hard question to answer. We've been here for three nights because it's a hard question to answer, and I get it. But that's not something that would be part of our process on that. That's, I think, more in the hands of city council and the neighborhood and whoever is asking for the vacation.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate you passing the ball to us. But this could have simply been taken care of by checking off that first box because it is used as a current transportation access or use. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hernan.
Speaker 10: Hey, Mr. President. I was the one who asked for this first delay, and I might be regretting that decision. Now, I say that. And just so my question first, public works is, Jason, is there any expectation that public works that this vacation is denied, that public works will do any improvements on this parcel?
Speaker 5: At this time. We in our current system and our current guidelines that guide us for right away. No. Okay. But that. Many things have happened. But no, I.
Speaker 10: Understand you can be encouraged to do so. Okay. Oscar. You said this at the very end. What is happening on the 17th? So Oscar announces again on the 16th. We're going to have a general meeting for the neighborhood to incorporate the actual R.A. At the moment, the R.A. has been working unofficially. There is no actual incorporation. We have no bylaws. We don't have any terms for the board of directors or anything like that. So as part of this process, we found that out. Several members of the community found this out. And so that's why we were asking for more time, so that we can get to that. And whether we vacate or not, at least we get the opportunity to have that discussion as an official board internally for our community and which are now just so the Union Station north of the Union Station, Arno. So this so that I will use the word. Arno recognizing that you're not official yet. So you have been the ones that have been in conversations with the adjacent property owner from the very beginning of when the first delay was made, these conversations. So I believe Georges, as the has has started that process, I only got involved a little bit later, but then through that process is when we found out that it wasn't officially incorporated. Got it. So, George, a question for you. So you have you have been a part of these conversations so you can verify there is another meeting on the 16th or 17th that you incorporate as Nana.
Speaker 4: I was not aware personally of a meeting.
Speaker 10: On the 16th or 17th.
Speaker 4: I have been part of this process since Tabor.
Speaker 10: We met in January.
Speaker 4: So it's been going on for quite a long time.
Speaker 10: Okay. So, Steve, I'm just going to pull different people up. We we published this last Monday, and so there was a meeting on the following Wednesday last week. What happened at that meeting?
Speaker 1: Steve Erskine. Well, there was a presentation by Taber and his team to the neighbors again, and they talked about they gave him a draft agreement early on, I think it was Tuesday, and that was discussed in more detail on Wednesday. And there was essentially a understanding that their general idea of the agreement was, okay, I want to paraphrase here, but they wanted more details to be resolved on the Good Neighbor Agreement.
Speaker 10: I understand. And so there is we have two people say there is there is a meeting, again, that you were going to be a part of. I'm assuming that there's going to be another meeting in October because we're not in October yet. Yes. Okay. So in essence, the conversation is still continuing.
Speaker 1: That's a fair summary. I would ask Taber if he wants to embellish that further, because they're the actual people working with the neighbors on the agreement. And I represent the landowner and they're the developer working on the agreement.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm good. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to skip to some people who I don't think have been up yet. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions probably for Jason. Public Works. What was the conversation in public works that no future need for utility or transportation would be required in this neighborhood? And I'm just figuring that has seen pretty rapid growth and expansion that you wouldn't need that land. Was that part of the conversation? Or is it only are we currently using it for that use?
Speaker 5: No, it's a future. Need is is part of the conversation. We do look at the property that is in question and determine whether is currently being used for mobility or if it had a future need for mobility based off of our current understanding of which direction we're moving. Obviously, that can always change and these aren't perfect guidelines, but that is the guideline we use. Yes.
Speaker 9: And then if it does not get vacated, what can the city do on it?
Speaker 5: Right now, nothing. There's no pathway or process for us to do something different than leave it as right away. So I can only speak of to the what kind of process we have in place right now. It would stay right away.
Speaker 9: So how is a B cycle installation? It was only through the funds of B cycle itself that actually installed the station there.
Speaker 5: Yes, they were probably permitted in a process. I'm not totally sure on how that process ended up. There you.
Speaker 9: Okay. So it can't look any different than it currently looks right now.
Speaker 0: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to look at a couple of different areas as quickly and concise as possible, maybe for the attorney. And to follow up on Councilwoman Conchas question. Now, this the right of way is not technically city owned real estate. It's a dedication. Of all of a public passages that basically were dedicated right away as.
Speaker 10: Martin played the city attorney, city attorney's office. Yes, the right of way is not like your typical real estate.
Speaker 4: It's not like a city park.
Speaker 10: Exactly. When the city has titled two Right of Way, it has a limited interest. And that interest is that the city holds title to the right of way in trust for the benefit of the public for right away use. Right.
Speaker 4: So essentially George Hoyt and William Robinson in 1871 platted this area. And what they did was they laid out the streets and this is part of the intersection of what was Hertford. Now Chestnut Division Street and Stanton Avenue, which is now 29th Street. And that is how it came to be part of the street system of the city. And it was taken from the adjacent parcels. This gets the councilwoman each his line of questioning. He was parceled out half and half from the adjacent parcels. So if this corner is to be vacated, it can only be returned to the property from which it was parceled out in the first place.
Speaker 10: Yes. And that's what's codified in the vacation statute.
Speaker 4: And that is that is why we don't charge my market rate or anything like that. We were given this as a dedication. And if we don't use it anymore, our obligation is to give it back. But we charge a processing fee of $600.
Speaker 10: Yes. In Colorado, courts have held that the city doesn't hold the right of way for profit.
Speaker 4: Right. Okay. Okay. The let me ask one of the owner representatives. I don't know if it'll be Steve or Taber, but on what was shown to us includes what was shown to us today. And as part of this agreement that you're negotiating with the neighborhood is you would build over part of the existing right of way. You have to leave the big swath in the center because there's a six foot storm drain buried underneath it that you can't build over. And and part of the building would then be canceled, not cantilevered, but would be supported around the perimeter, but not all of it. About 3000 some odd feet would be delighted. And I'm just making sure I understand this correctly. And again, maybe one of you could stand at the microphone. So this looks like a question. And it is and it is a question. What I saw in that in that document was that you would then rededicate part of what is being vacated would be rededicated back as part of the public right of way. In other words, you would extend the curb to narrow and channel traffic more efficiently or effectively or safely and slowly, we hope correct to come around and then enter through a portico, share sort of arrangement on at the hotel that would use part of this right of way. Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. And now let me ask either Oscar or George, because this is confusing to me. And that's the last the last thing is rather Union Station North is not registered with the secretary of State, but I don't I have RINO's and my council district that are registered to the Secretary of State and I see that you are registered. Union Station North is a registered neighborhood organization in Denver and Mr. Pazienza is listed as the contact here. So I'm kind of confused with why. Explain to me why this meeting is coming to involve a filing with the Secretary of State. Why that's necessary. Because you are in Reno right now.
Speaker 10: Oscar. And and this again. Thank you. Yeah. So what we came to find was that, yes, it is registered. We found it on the website as well. George is listed as the president. However, it is not officially incorporated. So when it comes to making the agreement with the developers on what we decide if it is vacated, we don't have any legal standing.
Speaker 4: Or you don't have legal standing to sign a document. Right. That's the crux of it. Okay, I get it. But what we have here is we have the makings of an agreement with the neighborhood. Correct?
Speaker 10: We are working with.
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Gallardo, I chat with you again for a second. I think I heard someone say this earlier. I just wanted to make sure I heard it right. The hotel rooms. If this were to be approved and developed as is conceptually designed, there's an elevated roadway. Is that right? No elevated roadway. No elevated roadway that I know of. Next to it. Oh, you mean. Oh, yes. You mean the train? Oh, there's elevated train tracks. You guys can't speak to that more.
Speaker 0: Please. If you're in the audience. The councilman call on who he would like to answer.
Speaker 5: I could. I could definitely get somebody for you to answer that question better than. Okay. Yes, I apologize. Okay. Let me let me just. Is there a bus stop on this vacation? No. There's currently no. Yes, there's no bus stop there. Google Maps shows that there's a bus stop on that. No. No. Okay. No, Buster. And I think to your comment earlier, I think basically what you were saying is that public works is purview is more narrow than city council's purview in this situation. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Pazienza, may I? Ask a couple of questions about so. The Arno. How many? Approximately how many members are do you have in your Arno?
Speaker 4: Well, the no, we think there's about 3500 people in the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: Okay. And in one of your meetings you found, can you go back over the number of HANO members that voted for and against? It's like 130, 170, something like that.
Speaker 4: No, no, no. There were a total, if you include what was passed on to Councilwoman CdeBaca is 76, objected and 13 supported.
Speaker 5: And the R.A. board also took a vote. Is that correct this morning? Is it?
Speaker 4: Yes. The board made three members of the board voted.
Speaker 5: That I thought five members of the board voted in favor.
Speaker 1: Two against the two members did not.
Speaker 4: They were not available and abstained. So three members voted for the for the to support the vacation.
Speaker 5: So there are three members on board members and support and no one opposed and two abstained.
Speaker 1: Correct. Well two weren't.
Speaker 4: You know, that weren't there.
Speaker 5: Okay, that's fine. I don't want to dig too much into your business. I guess I'm a little confused as to why if you surveyed the members and it was overwhelmingly negative, why the board would then vote in support, I guess. Does the board have information that the that the members don't have?
Speaker 1: Not to my knowledge, no.
Speaker 5: Okay. Um. Thank you. From the developer. A developer representative. Would you answer the same question? It does. So there was a board vote today which seemed to be counter to the vast majority of the of the members. So does does the board have information? Did the board have the information this morning that the members did not have? I can't speak to this precise information that a board member may or may not have had. But I can tell you that the other members that Mr. Pazienza were referring to had been at all the meetings, and Mr. Pazienza has not. And those other board members have been fully engaged in trying to negotiate the developer agreement.
Speaker 10: And Mr. Pazienza has not.
Speaker 5: Okay. Um. So I don't know if that gave them more insight, I guess is my point, councilman. Okay. Fair. Fair enough. And. You're Mr. Sweet, correct? Correct. TAYLOR But the good tipper. Okay. The earlier in your when you came up before, you'd mentioned that you had come to an agreement with two of the three board members. I'm guessing that those two were voted yes today. Correct. This morning. Okay. And also I again, I think I caught this, but I wanted to make sure you mention that there is that you talked about how the developer is taking a lot of risk because you may have to return. The VA vacation back to its existing. You know, you might have to do because of this five foot storm drain you might have to. Rip it back out. Correct. And put it all back. Yep. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 776 is closed and we're going to move on to comments by members of council. Councilman said Abarca.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would like to thank all of you who spoke tonight and encouraged my colleagues to vote no on this vacation. I stress last week some of the manipulation that was happening. And we have we have received a steady flow of people who continue to be opposed to this project and are refusing, as Mr. Pazienza said, to attend these meetings where they feel that they are being coerced to support it when they've already expressed their discontent and disapproval. We've heard tonight that this is very valuable land according to what square feet of land are going is going for here in Denver right now. This is worth over $2 million of land. We recognize that it is currently being used for a transportation use and could potentially be used for other different transportation uses and transportation uses that are in alignment with our mobility goals. And so I don't think that it makes sense when 71% of the surrounding neighbors oppose this to to approve it. There is technical merit. And I believe that it should remain a right of way. And we should vote no on vote no on it. So thank you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman.
Speaker 10: Councilman Herndon name is president. I am. I'm sitting here with a struggle because the initial reason for the delay was for the to the different parties to come together and have this conversation. I feel as if we're not there yet because there is a meeting that's going to happen in a few weeks so that the Register neighborhood organization can be official and sign a document that would take the two parties. It would be an agreement. So it seems that we though. Though I'm I'm past comments so I'm not going to comment. I don't know if that's going to be able to happen in one meeting. So I am I am torn on that. But I will just say, it seems as if you have an option of allowing the community to have a voice and a parcel of land and one option which the conversations that have moved forward. But it also seems as the vacation is denied, then they're the property owner. We'll just move forward with the development on their own parcel and the neighborhood won't have a voice in that conversation. And then the reason what was important to me, because I'm curious if DPW would develop this parcel in any capacity and the answer is no. And if the right away is going through, the community is going to get this integrated into the a part of their community. So I will be interested in seeing other colleagues speak up how they feel about a potential delay so that we can get past this October meeting that the Union Station, you are official. You have the capacity to sign a document and you can speak for the you can say, hey, we have a we have an ironclad agreement that if you have to move forward in this capacity, that to me seems as if that would be the end of a smart way to move forward. But I will certainly be interested in hearing how some of my other colleagues feel. Thank, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I I'm in some ways the same situation as my colleague, Councilman Herndon. It's the Chris effect, maybe. But part of what factors into my confusion or my quandary, I suppose, is, you know, Councilman Sandoval asked for information in Luti and didn't get it. And I asked for it again tonight and and didn't get it. So that makes it a little tougher for me to say, Oh, we've got all our questions answered. Another quandary that I have is the Erno Ford says yes, but the Arno members say no. And that's confusing to me as well. And it's difficult for me to reconcile that to Mr. Sweet's comment about, well, we've come to an agreement with two of the three board members. We did what you want. Actually, I remember last week saying that I wanted a good neighbor agreement and I wanted there to be some document commemorating it, commemorating the relationship between, you know, what the neighbors wanted and. And I don't see that. And I recognize that there's also some work on a developer agreement which requires a legal entity. So I recognize that that's also a challenge. But that's, again, the quandary that we're in. Another quandary is we've already delayed this a month and. You know, whatever tonight is like today's the 30th and we delayed it until the 30th and and we deleted a month. And so I'd be okay with another extension. I'm a little frustrated that we're. Already delaying, and we're delaying more. I just don't want to. Yeah, it's it's just a little disheartening that we knew that we were going to meet today, and we're still not. I don't think we're quite there yet. Um, I also unfortunately had a meeting with one of my state contacts that had to get rescheduled when I was going to ask about the state statute. And that's totally my, that's, that's not anything that would happen here. But, but I wanted to learn a little bit more about the vacation process and the thought process as well. So I would likely be a no just because there are a lot of a lot of moving parts that just I can't reconcile right now. And and so I'm just sharing my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank, Mr. President. In response to Councilman Herndon, I'd be willing to entertain another delay to allow this to occur, because it seems to me we had asked for not just a good neighbor agreement, which is unenforceable, but a development agreement which is enforceable. But that requires this meeting to take place. If that meeting takes place and the neighborhood organizers and they say no, then we can vote no. And if they organize and they sign the agreement and say yes, then we can say yes. And but I think to just outright kill it tonight before we get a chance for this to happen, which is what we wanted to happen, is is not what we want to do right now. So I would support another delay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Herndon, you back up?
Speaker 10: Okay. Well, we can just see how this goes. I so my understanding is there's a meeting on the second week of October, the week of the 13th. If we delayed for three weeks, I would go until October 21st. But I think maybe the prudent thing would possibly give them an additional week. And so I before I say this, you have heard the questions that council has asked, and there really is no reason to not have council and council members ask this. But so I will I will make this and we will see how the will of the body goes. Mr. President, I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1977 six to be postponed to Monday, October 28th.
Speaker 0: A check in with our Madam Secretary and see if the councilman has followed the protocol needed to make that motion.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: And let's see it on our screens and we're going a little off script here. So if someone want to verbally second that or.
Speaker 7: I didn't show up.
Speaker 0: Oh, there we are. Thank you. So that motion has been moved and seconded. Are there comments on the motion to delay, Councilman CdeBaca?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that we've delayed once we've had this discussion last week, and we allowed it to move forward from last week to give them the time to go through the typical process anyone else would go through. I think we've heard community's voice and we're not listening to communities voice. There are several documents uploaded in your files of people who are protesting this. You're not talking to the same people. We're talking to an a three member faction of this group that has.
Speaker 9: Somehow.
Speaker 3: Commandeered this process. And we're waiting for these three people to establish, establish themselves, to sign for an entire neighborhood that has already spoken up that we are choosing to ignore. And so I don't think that this motion is appropriate. I think that this is a slap in the face to their participation. If this were a rezoning, this is beyond the 20% that would be required to protest a rezoning.
Speaker 9: And so we're we're really.
Speaker 3: Changing the rules and moving the target here with our threshold for community participation. And we're deciding which community.
Speaker 9: Members we want to listen to.
Speaker 3: And I don't think it's appropriate to listen to.
Speaker 9: We only saw one.
Speaker 3: Representative here who said he is making a decision for a group that the other representative who opposes.
Speaker 9: Is the president up. So it's.
Speaker 3: Very confusing.
Speaker 9: It is really.
Speaker 3: A testament to what I mentioned last week about the manipulation involved in this. Process. And I don't think it's appropriate. I think we've given enough time. It's run its course. It's followed the typical process. And I think we should be voting on this tonight, not delaying it any more. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other comments, we are voting on the delay. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: See tobacco? No. Flint. I Gillmor. I heard it. I hate cashmere. I can eat. I. ORTEGA Hi.
Speaker 3: Sandoval No.
Speaker 2: Sawyer No. Torres No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and note the results.
Speaker 2: Six eyes, five knees.
Speaker 0: Are we missing somebody? That's only 11.
Speaker 2: Ortega.
Speaker 10: Okay, you.
Speaker 7: Just let me vote right now. I was looking.
Speaker 2: For a good design. Seven eyes. Five knees.
Speaker 0: Seven eyes. Five nays. Uh, council bill seven, seven, six has been delayed. So I think that anything else we need to do, do now and then. All right. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0776
|
Speaker 0: And Councilman Flynn has called out Council Bill 921. Did I miss anything? All right. Under final considerations are insiders when called out and pending no items called out. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And Councilwoman Suarez, will you please put council bill seven, seven, six on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 776 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This is on first introduction today, but it was actually postponed back a month ago. And so I'm urging my colleagues to vote no on this vacation. A little bit of background. Is that the fee? There's a fee for 6000 square feet of land, which is 1600 dollars. The plan for this location is an eight story hotel. You all might have gotten notice of the issue in the media. I believe one of the news outlets reported that public works gets between two and three dozens of requests like this per year. Some are tiny, others are thousands of square feet. So according to state law, if the right of way is not being used for transportation or other factors, an adjacent property owner can request that the city vacates the area. The Department of Public Works oversees these requests, charging.
Speaker 3: 1600 dollars in fees.
Speaker 2: For review. Public Works pulled all 21 adjacent property owners asking if they objected to the vacation request. 71% objected and 42 total objects objections were submitted from the neighborhood. This will increase chestnut place the developers land by 50%, increasing buildable square footage from 12144 to 18094 square feet. While DPW states that none of the protests have technical merit, I believe that the protests, in fact, do have technical merit. It is currently being used for transportation as there is a bike docking station located there. I believe as we meet our modern transportation goals and get more people out of cars, transportation uses will be much different than they have been in the past, and they will have to accommodate our different uses of transportation, including walking, biking and scooters. That area specifically is the only public space where bikes and scooters can be parked without blocking access for people who are mobility impaired. As we grapple with the scooter issue, I don't think it would be responsible for us to relinquish an area that can become a docking area for modern transportation uses. And therefore I urge you all to vote no on this developer giveaway of 6000 square feet for less than it costs to live in 800 square feet apartments for a month. I urge you all to think of our climate and transportation goals and have the prudence and foresight to hold on.
Speaker 3: To land.
Speaker 2: For our current and future uses of transportation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 7: Hey. Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor of chairing the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where this right of way vacation came to committee about six weeks ago or maybe two months ago. And I was the one that requested the for the four week delay as the applicant approached me and said, hearing all the concerns about the right of way vacation, we wanted to reach out to the community. And so I actually would like to have the applicant come forward just to hear the progress or the applicant representative, excuse me, to speak to what has happened over the course of the four weeks, just so that council could be made aware of how the conversations have moved forward. And while he's coming forward, I would also like to invite my colleagues. We'll be having a conversation on the right of way in general. I believe that's going to come the last week in October so that council members can share their concerns and hear the reasons that we do move forward in the direction we do with right away. But if you want to come on forward, say introduce yourself. And if you could just speak to what has happened over the past four weeks during the course of this postponement we had earlier. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. My name is Steve Ferris, and since we you last consider this, we have met with the neighbors three times with with this input. We have developed a plan for this area that we sent you in a video earlier today. This takes a bear and patch of land with a bike docking and moves it to a location that works for the neighborhood and creates an attractive place in this with this right of way land. This will be locked up in a neighborhood agreement this Wednesday. In a meeting, we're meeting again with the neighbors. We believe we have support from the neighbors and the neighborhood VPP from their neighborhood organization. Mark, homework is here tonight. If to speak to that, if you want him to. So really, our ask is simple tonight. Don't kill this tonight. Give us time to make this neighborhood proud. We can and will improve the right of way with the neighborhood input. And just a little time from you. Thank you. And Steve, just so I make sure you've had you said over the course of the past four weeks, you've had three meetings with the neighbors and you have scheduled another meeting on a Wednesday. And what is this? What is the purpose of that meeting? We are presenting a good neighbor agreement that will commit to the plan that we have sent around and shared with them to date, which involves improving the right of way in the intersection of Chestnut and 29th to such an extent that it opens up public space and allows people to mingle and enjoy that area and keeps attractive and busy. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Colleague, I say that. Could you come forward with. You came and spoke during the public time, but I want to afford you the opportunity. If you could just introduce yourself and say your connection to this parcel right away. Sure. My name is Mark Hall. I'm a board member of Union Station North and a resident. I've been there six years. Okay. So you've been a part of these conversations over the past four weeks with the applicant? I have been involved. Okay. So would you say that the applicant is interested in hearing the concerns of the community and and whether we agree on the right away vacation or not? There have been over the past four weeks that you have there have been conversations and there's a meeting on Wednesday to discuss a possible good neighbor agreement. Yes, that's my understanding. There are two more meetings scheduled. Okay. And you said this during public comment, but I want to make it a part of the record. It's something that you would wish council would allow to happen. I think for the benefit of the residents in our neighborhood, I would recommend more time for them to figure out what it is that they truly think. We've had a lot of people flip and it's been impactful. Okay. Thank you. Sure. And I would just say this to my colleague, I'm not here to speak to the spirit of the ride away. Whether it's appropriate or not. However, four weeks ago, we agreed to allow more time to be done. And this is billed as on first reading. So the question tonight is, should we publish the bill, not do we vote on the merits of allowing the ride away to happen or not? So if we were to vote down the Bill of the day, what was the point of allowing the four week delay? Because next week, next Monday, it's going to come right back to this body. We can look to the applicant. We can look to the the board and say, do you have an agreement? And if there's an agreement, we can have a conversation about that. And if there's not, we can have a conversation about that as well. But to not allow this to move forward so that a scheduled meeting for Wednesday, to have a possible good neighbor agreement, which would tell me that the community is in support of it, I think would be unfortunate to not allow that to happen. So I'm not speaking on the merit of the ride away, but I want to speak to the spirit of allowing an applicant and the community to have a conversation. And I would hope we would allow the bill to be published so that can continue and then discuss the merits a week from today. Thank you, Ms.. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Is there anyone here tonight who is opposed to the 2999 chestnut vacation? So we do have at least one person. I don't necessarily want to hear from you right now. I do want to the applicant's representative, would you come back for a moment? Thank you. And I apologize. I didn't. I didn't get your name. I'm terrible with names.
Speaker 7: Steve Ferris.
Speaker 6: Of course. Which makes me even more embarrassed. But anyway. At any rate. So I'm assuming that in those meetings that you had with the neighbors, they were they weren't 100% in agreement or disagreement.
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 6: Is it would you say that you had a reasonable conversation, that there were people who were for and against and they were, you know, having a like a reasonable discussion in general sometimes. Yeah. I guess just answer that question.
Speaker 7: Yes. There was a lot of reasonable discussions. People felt strongly in some cases, other people volunteered right away to say, I'd like to retract my initial opposition. It was an ongoing back and forth.
Speaker 6: Is there more than one person who is opposed to the to the the vacation?
Speaker 7: Yes. I mean, we don't have exact counts, but we.
Speaker 6: You know, I guess. Yeah. And thank you. I guess the nature of my question or the line of question is if we allow this to continue, I think that there are some people who are expecting to come to speak, probably in favor, but also in opposition. And they were not expecting to come tonight to speak in opposition. They were expecting to come next week or, you know, the 30th. The 30th, which which is next week. So, at any rate, I think that I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca on her points. I would also say that I'm somewhat frustrated by state ordinance or state law excuse me, state statute. That kind of makes it more difficult, as I understand it, more difficult for us to make decisions. But I would be in favor of letting us hear this next week so that we can have more people opposed and, you know , voice their thoughts if they want to. So thank you for your time. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Is there anyone here who can just explain a little bit about the state.
Speaker 8: Law and and what that does.
Speaker 2: To play into this just in a little bit more kind of clarification.
Speaker 1: On that if.
Speaker 0: We're looking for public works staff or legal staff.
Speaker 3: Congratulations, Jason, again.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Hello. Jason Gallardo, Denver Public Works. Yeah. So state law kind of controls how we deal with dedications and vacations because it's it's kind of tricky. You don't want to require when a permit comes through for us to be able to require them to dedicate a right away to us and then turn around and sell it back to them for, you know, whatever market value.
Speaker 7: Would be for that square footage of.
Speaker 6: Land. So vacations come.
Speaker 9: In and we.
Speaker 6: Vacate it if we don't have a utility use to it or a mobility use to it. So we try to balance it's kind of a system to watch vacations on their own, doesn't do the whole system. Servicers, dedications and vacations eventually vacation. I mean, a dedication could be required to be vacated. And we don't charge they don't charge us for the land they're dedicating, nor do we charge them if there's no utility use or mobility use to it for us to vacate it. So that's kind of the process that the state laws hovering over us to make sure that cities don't try to make profit off of these type of agreements back and forth.
Speaker 2: So is there any.
Speaker 3: Kind of policy.
Speaker 2: Discussion around.
Speaker 3: Not being in this situation again in the future.
Speaker 1: Happening right now, or is.
Speaker 6: There? I think there there is. We're having internally write down. And I think that, you know, as Councilman Herndon stated, that we're going to have a more broader with city council as well. But I also want to make it clear that the dedication and vacations are just always going to be a part of this. You know, when we we we lean on developers who are developing an area to be able to make a sidewalk. And that's a good thing for the city. It's an asset that we get to use going forward. So it is complicated. And this particular vacation is about 6000 square feet, as Councilwoman CdeBaca stated. But it's also we get, you know, dedications that are just as big as well. You know, we've had dedications that have come through that have been upwards to 20,000 square feet. So it's it's kind of a we win in some areas in as you feel you're losing in an area right here. But the reality is is is this is how the entire system works so that we can continue to dedicate in and vacate. And like you said, we only do about a few dozen dedications, I mean, vacations at hubs every year, so.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I find myself agreeing with Councilman Hines and with Councilwoman CdeBaca and and actually also with Jason in that I believe that we should give this due course and move it forward to publish it. But if there is no agreement next week, I will vote with Councilwoman CdeBaca to to kill it if there is an agreement that's acceptable to the neighborhood and it involves the transportation aspect, the in the video that was forwarded to us, we we saw the relocation of the cycle dock and in a public plaza in green space that I think we need to give it the chance to move forward. But just to expand on what Jason had to say, we require a subdivide ers when they plat land to convey to us for free the public rights of way. And so the principle in in a vacation is that we don't sell it back to them because we didn't buy it in the first place. And the 1600 dollars is basically the the the processing fee. I noticed that tonight we're also doing a dedication of a right of way on is it rain or Utica or. Xavier Xavier a down by a down by Lakewood Gulch. And and so I looked up the subdivision and that area has never been subdivided. So I have no idea how we had the right to pave it in the first place because it was never conveyed to us as right of way. But that that illustrates the give and take that Jason was talking about. But when this first came along and I saw that it was a 6000 foot vacation, my first thought was that's that's an awful big plot of land. And it reminded me of some of the Mid-Block Alley vacations that have occurred up in District one over the years that former Councilman Espinosa used to be so concerned about. We wanted to talk about it then and resolve it, and we did not. So now it's back on our plate and I'm glad we'll have the opportunity to do it again. But agreeing with Councilman Hines, I believe that we should move it forward to see if the neighbors and the property owner can agree. And if they do not, then I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca and kill it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman CdeBaca, you back up?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Just wanted to thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to really highlight some of the calls that have come to us about the persuasion tactics in trying to flip that 70% that was opposed. I think that dragging this process on puts. The neighborhood through the undue persuasion tactics. And I would I will work really hard to make sure that they come and expose what has been.
Speaker 3: Going on throughout.
Speaker 2: This process. But I think that right now, if we know that on principle, giving away 6000 square feet of land when it is being used for a transportation use and it falls into the technical merit, it has technical merit. I think dragging it on is not necessary. But I understand where my colleagues are at. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask one of our city attorneys if you could just clarify if state law totally prohibits us from being able to, you know, extract anything from these parcels. In terms of, you know, market value of the land. I understand, you know, we ask developers to dedicate land that oftentimes is used for additional, you know, curb cuts or for sidewalks or whatever that, you know, oftentimes that's land they give to the city, if you will. But when we have a parcel and, you know, we have various types of of ways that some of these parcels come into our coffers, it's not all from, you know, landowners dedicating the land to the city. And we've had this issue with some of our alleys, for example, where in throughout northwest Denver, we've got a lot of carriage lots. And we saw one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood where that land was actually given to a developer that furthered the ability to demolish a historic property and add a lot more density to the area. So there's there's again, different ways we acquire or they come into our city coffers. But on these types of parcels, are there restrictions from the city being able to sell the land?
Speaker 7: For the record, Martin Plate, Assistant City Attorney, Minneapolis. The answer is yes, there is. The state statute deals with vacation, and the statute states that when a local government no longer needs right of way, that there is a process for relinquishing, if you will, or vacating that right of way. And it does not include the ability to sell the land.
Speaker 3: Do we know the reasoning behind that?
Speaker 7: I don't. But I know the vacation statutes that are around since the early 1900s, possibly before that.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: I saw state senator two weekends. I was in the audience and wanted to acknowledge her. Maybe this is something some of your colleagues would be willing to help us take a look at, please. Thank you for answering that question. I want to request that I'm in agreement, that I want to see if there is actually an agreement that's been worked out and if it has not. I'm not sure I would be willing to support this moving forward, but I want to request a public hearing. And it is not unusual for this body to have had public hearings on vacations in the past. So I want to request that when the bill comes back to us next week.
Speaker 0: Thank you, because I.
Speaker 3: Will support it moving forward for publication.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And that is actually something I was going to point out. But should this move forward? No one has requested that and yet and it is not required. So thank you for getting that checked off because I know earlier there was some talk about work to come back, people coming to speak, and that does require someone to request it. So thank you. Councilman Hines, you back up.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, louder now. I also wanted to acknowledge Senator Gonzalez. She is my state senator. And and one other thing that I want to do. I mean, just because she came in after I started speaking. The other thing that I would say is I think this might be interesting for us to ask our state legislators to review before we continue to grant vacation requests. Should there not be a compelling story next week that that that includes a good neighbor agreement and and strong agreement from the neighbors. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to speak up because in northwest Denver, we've had many Ali vacations come through and we've had many good neighbor agreements come through. And the good neighbor agreement puts it on the owners of the neighborhood. And I just want you to know that we were here. I was here in 2015 as a council aide working for Councilman Espinosa. We had a Ali vacation come through. We took it through. We took it through this process. We had a good neighbor agreement come up. And I got a phone call last week that that good neighbor agreement is null and void. Nobody is enforcing it on the city site because the city is not part of the good neighbor agreement. So I just want to bring that to everyone's attention that as good of intentioned as these are, they are not enforceable by the city and county of Denver. And so for years here I am as the councilperson dealing with a good neighbor agreement on alley vacation in Julian. And so if you need more information on any of these, I have been working on these alley vacations since June of 2012 when I started as a council aide. One of my first assignments as a council aide was to go to mediation, get a good neighbor agreement for an alley vacation around the corner from the house I grew up on. So. And I've talked to Senator Rodriguez about looking at this on the state side and actually part partnering with Senator Rodriguez, because this needs to stop and this needs to actually be fixed at the state level. So look forward to that coming up. This is something that I've had a conversation with him about a couple weeks ago. So thank you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman City barking back up now.
Speaker 8: That was earlier.
Speaker 0: One of those earlier on. All right. So seeing no one else. I'll just add that, you know, I've had some concerns about the technical merit of this. That from committee. I share a lot of what councilwoman said. Like I said earlier on that that being said, you know, I do I personally prefer when we take things through the process, order it published, give it time. And especially now with Councilman Ortega requesting a hearing to have a chance for us to to have democracy at work here and hear from people. So I would ten I think I'm going to lean towards supporting this to move forward. But I have serious concerns even if an agreement is reached on the technical merits of the future transportation use that I'm you know, I'm going to have to let sit, I think, well, we will this one carries over for a week for me personally. So with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: See tobacco. No black eye.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 7: Herndon, I.
Speaker 6: Hines All right.
Speaker 2: Cashman Can each. Ortega. Sandoval, I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in the results.
Speaker 3: You live in is one.
Speaker 0: Name. 11 Eyes one day Council Bill 19 0776 has passed. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman BLOCK, go ahead with your comment on 914.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0914
|
Speaker 0: Name. 11 Eyes one day Council Bill 19 0776 has passed. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman BLOCK, go ahead with your comment on 914.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm commenting on the first reading of this bill because I won't be here next week for the public hearing. This is the landmark ordinance. I'm very supportive of the new ordinance and the efforts of the task force, and I'm very pleased at some of the changes, including simplifying the criteria, adding culture and allowing additional time for discussion and negotiation as part of the bill. Historic preservation is very important to me. I am a Denver native and I'm a historian. I have a master's degree in history, and I've seen a lot of our historic buildings tragically destroyed over the years. I have supported every owner initiated historic designation that's come to council as have 100% of the council. That said, I have always been concerned about owner opposed landmark designation efforts that impinge on private property rights council has been put in the very uncomfortable position of having to preside over some pretty awful public hearings when some owners were having to defend their property rights. Recently, Tom's Diner brought the issue to the forefront for a lot of residents. I've heard from hundreds of constituents and residents who were shocked to learn that Mr. Messina's plans for his property and his future could be undermined by strangers. I was disappointed that the task force did not recommend a higher bar for these types of hostile designations, putting the burden on council to strike the balance between property rights and the public benefit of designation. In these controversial owner opposed cases, I believe, along with some of my fellow council members and many residents, that there should be a higher bar and near consensus, not just a simple minority majority when an owner is in opposition. I know that truly historic structures should and will garner that near consensus support. Councilwoman Gilmore and I had hoped to amend this bill to require a supermajority of ten or nine votes to approve owner opposed designations. The amendment would have simply raise the bar when owners are not in support to ensure that the property very clearly meets or exceeds the criteria. Unfortunately, we don't have the votes tonight to amend it, but I do hope that our fellow council members will reach out to their constituents to gauge their feelings on the issue and that we can discuss this proposal in the future. It's also important to note that I have heard that there are some residents who feel strongly about the property rights issue and are considering a citizen initiated ballot measure that would require the city to compensate owners when their property is designated without their consent. This proposed ballot measure could have a chilling effect on future designations. In the meantime, I do hope that the ordinance will prove to be successful, resulting in more owner initiated designations and better outcomes for our neighborhoods. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hood.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to say Tom Steiner was in Denver's perfect ten and still sorry. And the last I checked, at least, and that was one of the first things I started dealing with as a as a council person. I look forward to the conversation next week, and I look forward to learning more about the the stakeholder process that was, I think, a year in length that came up with the current for the current proposal that is contained in House Bill nine or excuse me, in City Council Bill 9142. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Flynn, you want to go ahead with your comments on 921?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 30 (Landmark Preservation) of the Revised Municipal Code.
Amends Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC), Landmark Ordinance to simplify designation criteria, add criteria associated with cultural significance, to extend time frames for demolition/designation review process, to add required mediation and to clarify language and ensure consistency throughout the ordinance. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0921
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Flynn, you want to go ahead with your comments on 921?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a bill that I think has the underlying purpose of prohibiting sales of tobacco products to persons under the age of 21, the raise the age from 18 to 21. And I think everybody up and down the dais, I don't want to I don't think I'm out of line saying that. I think it would pass here pretty easily when it came to committee. However, it had something that none of us had been briefed on or expected, and that was an entirely new policy area, which was to start. Putting distancing requirements between retailers from between retailers of 500 feet and from retailers to certain prohibited locations, including daycare establishments . I understand the reasoning behind putting a distancing requirement of 1000 feet from places where young people who are mobile and can go into stores and might be able to pass for 18 or 21. But a daycare center is not one of those sites. And daycare centers are things that we encourage more and more to be located in neighborhoods, and they can be licensed almost anywhere. You can find one coming in your neighborhood tomorrow. I hope I get some down in my district tomorrow if if I could encourage that. But this was an entirely new policy area we weren't prepared to to fully examine in the committee. So some of the members up here have I've put together an amendment and gotten support from some members here that would delete the distancing from daycare centers and then also delete the distancing between retailers, because the data show that was at 84% of all current licensees, 7-Eleven supermarkets, grocery stores, you know, little neighborhood markets that currently sell cigarets along with groceries and other things. 84% of them would be in violation of the distancing requirement, and they would be grandfathered, of course. But in the backup material we were sent, it was noted that, well, we want to do this because over time maybe some of them will forget and lapse and not apply, reapply every July for that license to preserve their grandfathering, and then they will have to stop selling cigarets. And while that's a laudable goal, the purpose of this ordinance was to prevent sales to people who are under 21. It wasn't to prevent sales to anyone at all from these locations. And so I think there needs to be a broader policy discussion on that aspect of it. But, Mr. President, I wanted to I had a lot of outreach today from the administration and from other backers of the amendment. And I decided that I will hold on to the amendment tonight and offer it next week if that's if that's the course that we decide to do. But I'll be talking with some of the agency folks over the next week and contacting my colleagues with the results. And and we'll see what happens next week at the is there a public hearing on this? Also, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I'm looking at here, Madam Secretary. We do not have a public. Okay.
Speaker 4: We'll just we'll just have a call out then.
Speaker 0: Yet requested for this? No.
Speaker 4: I'm not requesting one.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Shaping up to be an exciting week for those of you who want to tune in next week for our next episode. All right. Seeing no other comments. That concludes the items to be called out this evening.
|
Bill
|
Amends Chapter 24 and Chapter 32 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to persons under twenty-one years of age and require a license to operate a retail tobacco store. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-11-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-0913
|
Speaker 0: If there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess. All right, Councilwoman Torres, will you please vote council bill 913 on the floor.
Speaker 3: And move that council bill 913 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sandoval, your motion to postpone?
Speaker 2: Yes. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 19 does 0913 with its public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, November 12th, 2019.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any comments by members of Council or Councilwoman Sandoval?
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. So this is a bill for a non owner historic designation in Council District one on 46th and Tennyson. And the owner and the applicant have found a compromise to come to a 60 day pause to find a buyer for the property. And I'd like to honor the work of the neighborhood and ask that this ask my colleagues to please vote in favor of this postponement so that the neighborhood continued to seek other alternatives for this site.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. I black. See tobacco, I swear.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 7: Herndon, I.
Speaker 6: Hi. Hi.
Speaker 2: Cashman Clinic. Ortega. Hi. Sawyer, I.
Speaker 3: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm secretary. Please voting in US Results.
Speaker 3: 1212.
Speaker 0: Outcomes. Well, 913 with its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, November 12th. We have do have an executive session tonight. So I will move that council enter into an executive session session for the purpose of receiving legal advice.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09232019_19-1006
|
Speaker 0: Outcomes. Well, 913 with its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, November 12th. We have do have an executive session tonight. So I will move that council enter into an executive session session for the purpose of receiving legal advice. If I can get a session moved and seconded. Per Section 2-34a of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, a two thirds affirmative vote is required to enter into executive session. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black CdeBaca I.
Speaker 5: Flinched. I heard it. I hands.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 2: Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I.
Speaker 3: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting announced results.
Speaker 5: 12.
Speaker 0: Hours, 12 eyes council will now enter into executive session. When we return, then we will return to adjourn the meeting. Thank you. You know.
Speaker 3: Bank. And then their bank actually said, Yeah, the check is good and the person lost money that way. So that's a good warning. But the other the other one that I want to just play at the end of the refund from the company is that you may be told you're virus protection software. The company contract is being canceled. You are going to get a refund on this. And what they the caller will then see is that they have accidentally transferred too much into your account and will say, oh, no, I'm going to lose my job. But, you know, would you help me out here and we'll ask you to go get the balance so they'll say they've transferred more. So, for instance, if if you're getting to $200 or so, they'll say, well, actually, you know, I've I've transferred $10,000. Could you pay me 9800 back so that I don't lose my job? And again, that's you know, that's one that can easily in an urgent situation can can easily fox people.
Speaker 8: In Nigeria.
Speaker 3: You know the Nigerian prince I'm hoping he'll come over here some day. I'd like to meet him. The funniest thing was I did some research into that and I discovered that that's a really that's like a really old scam because I guess some of these have been circulating for hundreds of years. Right. And they had some letters about a Spanish prince. So a long time ago, it was a Spanish prince who was imprisoned. And you could help help help him regain his fortune by contributing to his his release. So, yeah, we'd all like to meet him, sir.
Speaker 4: Yes. I want to share with the community in terms of coming from a real estate perspective. If you know of anyone who's buying a home, you're they're getting scammed by wire fraud in terms of what they need to bring the closing. And you have scammers out there that has that will capture the home buyers email and send them an email saying that the title company is instructing you to wire your closing funds to this account. And it's not true. So I don't know if you've been seeing that, but in real estate, it's been that's one of the highest levels of scams right now is to wire fraud for a closing settlement. And so I encourage if you know of anybody who's look who's buying a house and at closing, call the title company themselves. They will tell you how much they need to bring to closing. And since I'm in real estate, I just got to say this.
Speaker 3: No, please do. I think these are great tips for.
Speaker 4: Working with senior homeowners that the scammers you will get mail. You get mail at your house and it looks like it's coming from your mortgage company, the graphics, the logo and what's been happening. They're seeing they know that you're paying a mortgage and they were saying, now your loan has been transferred. You pay us at this address. Please don't do that. Call your mortgage company to verify if your.
Speaker 9: Loan has been.
Speaker 4: Transferred.
Speaker 7: So it's it's incredible. It's a lot going on right now.
Speaker 3: There really is. And thank thank you. Great tips as well. You know, I don't know how much time we've got left. And I I apologize to folks who are watching on channel that I know we've been skipping around with lots of people adding to the discussion. But I think it is really important and I really appreciate it because I think it's only by hearing from other members of our own community that we really know what's happening in our neighborhood, that we really know what's happening in our city, and that we we work to best protect ourselves. So I'm I'm just going to finish up here by just just letting letting, you know, I guess, finally what what we can do for you. So we do have folks who we've I put some resources on the table here and we have folks who actually answered the phone. Real people, not a phone tree. Isn't that amazing? So we have real folks who are there to deal with your problems every day during the week. And if you have concerns that something's a fraud, then you can check it out with them. If you're sure that you've been defrauded, you can call them. Obviously, you can also call local law enforcement. Maybe sometimes you want to talk to somebody who's in the DA's office who's a fraud specialist. So we're there to do that sort of work for you. Also, we can sometimes get rapid solutions to situations. So I can I can promise that happens in every case. But I will tell you that when we look in, when we start looking into a situation, it's amazing to me that that will sometimes resolve things very swiftly because they know that we're looking at the situation. So, you know, we are super motivated to meet with the community. So for any of you who also are members of other groups and you would like to invite us to come work with your group and to come talk to your group. We love to do that. We really would love to do that as you can. You might not be able to see, but I think I've only got through about a quarter of my presentation this morning. But I think it's really more important, as I said, that we we talk we talk about things. But there is a lot more, I guess, where this came from. And it's sad, right? It's sad that there's so many different scams that we are we're needing to take more than than this time simply to get through the most frequent ones for people. So just once again, thank you to Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you to all of you for coming out. I hope it's been something that's been useful to you and it's been a delight to be here. Thanks. Well, thank you, Jane. We really appreciate you being here. And Mr. Paul. Yes, I think you have a microphone right right there.
Speaker 4: I don't need my. Okay. I just like.
Speaker 7: Your office for putting this on quite as.
Speaker 3: Well. Oh, I. I think they still want you to use the microphone here so we can make sure that and that's always okay to repeat.
Speaker 4: I just want to thank you, Councilwoman and Gilmore, of you and for putting this on with Mrs. and White Vermont below 2020 because this is needed more of this is needed because it's all I mean you know, it's amazing. I was just listening this lady here talk about, you know, the game this man pulled and I asked, is he alive yet? She said the lady didn't have a gun. Well.
Speaker 3: Well, well, we definitely thank you, Mr. Poole, and thank you for everybody being here this morning. And I would be remiss if I did not sincerely thank my Bello 2020 and Montebello Walks and the Golden Age Club for getting you here and getting the word out. Mark Bello 2020, is a registered neighborhood organization and very active in the neighborhood. And I know that there's other groups out there as well that we just need to get this info out to the broader community. And then the Colorado Trust also provided our breakfast and refreshments this morning. And Montebello Walk is an organization that also is very active in the neighborhood and they get seniors out and keep you active. And so at the end of the day, when we start talking about what our next steps are, I what I got out of Jane's presentation is you need to verify if someone calls you and nothing is ever that urgent. And it's okay to take those folks information down and hang up the phone, don't give them any information and turn around and call the district attorney's office. Call our council office, call the non-emergency police number and start asking questions. And so verify, verify, verify. And this is the first of a series of Montebello Speaks speakers bureaus that we're going to be facilitating in the neighborhood. And so look for other topics that we're going to talk about. If you have ideas of topics that you would like to have an expert come in and share information and we want to keep this a conversation. So always back and forth. Because what you're asking today and the answers that are being recorded, this is going to go out on Channel eight and get out to the broader community. And so I thank you for being the leaders that you are in the my fellow community and District 11, and we will keep this going. So thank you.
Speaker 7: From the District 11 Council Office and Montebello Leadership Cabinet present. The second edition of Montebello Speaks in partnership with the Office of Financial Empowerment and the Denver Office on Aging.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Stacey Gilmore, and I'm the councilwoman who represents District 11. And I'm honored to welcome you tonight to a Montebello Speaks Speakers Bureau event. We have been working for the last three years with community members in the Montebello neighborhood to talk about the effects of gentrification, involuntary displacement, what we really need to have in our neighborhoods to make sure that our seniors can age in place, that you have the financial planning and resources to make sure that you're able to transfer your asset on to your children so that we're looking at generational wealth building as well. And so thank you so much for being here tonight. And at our second event, we started these recorded events to make sure that we were getting the information out far and wide throughout the community. We know that sometimes you can't come to a neighborhood meeting and so we wanted to have these available on Channel eight. We're going to post them on YouTube and we would like you to share them with your friends and family and other folks as well, so that they've got this information. And so tonight, we're going to be talking about financial consumer protection. There's a lot of folks out there that are maybe not on the up and up. And so we want to make sure that you have the tools to make good decisions. And I would like to first thank the Montebello Leadership Cabinet. It's a group of registered neighborhood organization leaders, community leaders who have been so committed to this work. And when we sat down and started talking about our changing neighborhood, the top things that came up were affordable housing, allowing our seniors to age in place, but then financial empowerment and financial literacy. And so through your voice and your advocacy, we're able to do these events. I also want to thank the Office of Financial Empowerment and the Office on Aging. And we also have Perla Geisler, who is here tonight. And she brought out the Denver Connex mobile van, which is a brand new resource that's in partnership with the city and county of Denver and Mayor Hancock's office to make sure that you have the resources right in your own neighborhood. And so it's a mobile van, and it's for older adults. It provides resources and real time advice to you. And so hopefully we'll get a chance to, after this taping, go out and check out that resource as well. With the Montebello Leadership Cabinet. We are always trying to grow the membership because there are so many different topics and so many opportunities for people to learn more that we want to make sure that you get involved as well. And so if you are watching this on television, if you're here tonight, please get involved with Montebello Leadership Cabinet. You can contact me or any of my staff members. And with that, we're going to go ahead and get started. The presentation is Financial Consumer Protection and is presented by the Denver Office of Financial Empowerment. And the two gentlemen that are going to be with us here tonight are Alvin Tafoya. He's the program manager. And Ron O'Hara, the Consumer Financial Protection coordinator, again for the Office of Financial Empowerment. Here you go, Alvin.
Speaker 9: Thank you. How's everybody doing this evening? Doing good. I just want to go through a quick exercise just to kind of get a feel of the room and just to really engage you. How many of you receive some kind of banking credit score or loan training or class when you were in high school? Okay. Got one here. How about while you were in college? How many of you learned these about these things through your parents? Do they systematically teach you all that when you're grown up? We got a few more hands up. So basically the Office of Financial Empowerment really wants to take all the guesswork out of that. It shouldn't be an organic process in which you grow up. You start learning about banking and you start learning about checking. You start learning about how important your credit score is and how that could impact you financially. So. You know. So that's really what we're engaged in and what we do. We serve families, we serve individuals. We actually serve small businesses as well. We want to empower them to be able to make sound financial decisions so that they can become successful. And so with that, I'm going to go ahead and move forward with the presentation and give you a little bit of background about how we started and where we came from. So Mayor Michael Hancock supported us back in 2013, along with our council members. City council members supported us and they have been supporting us ever since. Basically what we have been able to do since then is grow our program from what it was to what it is today. Today we're serving about nine. We have nine coaching centers throughout the city and county of Denver. You can walk in or call them and set up an individual appointment. They'll provide you coaching sessions and teach you about all the banking type of products and how to get your arms around your finances. Some of the things that we do or we'll help people better understand their credit, will help them to reduce their debt. We'll also provide them small loans if they need to. And we're also working with other financial institutions, large banks and small credit unions to develop banking products that help support low to moderate income families. And so we're really working on helping individuals at any place in their life span to move forward and kind of discuss what you talked about, get to a place where you can do some wealth development and transfer wealth onto your family so that they can kind of go through this too gen process and move that forward. Like I said, Mary Hancock supported us back in 2013 along with city council. Ultimately, you know, our job is to work with residents economic mobility, stabilize families, individuals and small businesses. We forgot that in this PowerPoint, but I wanted to throw that out there. Develop solutions through programs, policies and practices to stabilize families and individuals. And so one of the things we worked on was Prop 111 to help reduce the amount that a lender's payday loan centers can charge an individual for a payday loan. And so today, because that law was passed, they can only charge up to 36%. And we still think that's a little bit high. But we're working on an alternative product so that we can work with individuals, which is ultimately the goal, to get them into banking products that they're eligible for. So you guys are probably the first to hear this in the community. We used to be the Office of Financial Empowerment, but now we're the Office of Financial Empowerment and Protection. And the reason why we moved to protection is because Ron's going to come up in a little bit and discuss the consumer fraud and protection division that we we're putting together right now. So you guys have actually kind of learned about it the first time we met with you. We're continuing to move that forward and we're going to roll that out here pretty soon. And so a little bit about the program, the ecosystem here, the five pillars of financial stability.
|
Executive Session
|
The Council will meet in executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice. Rachelle Hill, City Attorney’s Office
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0913
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out. So, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item on our screens and Councilwoman Sandoval, please go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just wanted to provide an update on this landmark application that is moving forward. It came to Count Committee last week on the Land Use Committee. And at that committee meeting, we had both stuck both parties at the table. And for those of you who may not know, this is a designation in North Denver where it's non owner opposed. So the applicant is the community, although the owner does not want the landmark designation. So I should have started with that. And right before council started, probably 25 minutes ago, I had confirmation that both sides, the applicant and the owner, have agreed to a 60 day pause. So tomorrow at the Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, this will be on the agenda and all sides will be there. And hopefully what we get is the Landmark Preservation Commission in proposing that or voting in favor of the 60 day pause. So the 60 day pause brings this back November 18th. So I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew this because this will publish it for a public hearing, which then we need to postpone the public hearing once that goes from the Landmark Preservation Commission tomorrow. But that process needs to happen first. So if anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact my office.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 4345 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0863
|
Speaker 7: hearing once that goes from the Landmark Preservation Commission tomorrow. But that process needs to happen first. So if anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact my office.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilman Sawyer, will you please put Bill 863 on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 19 dash 0863 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black, your motion to amend.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I move to amend Council Bill 19.
Speaker 3: Dash 863 in the following.
Speaker 7: Particulars on page 197, strike article two and replace with Article three.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Has that been. We need a motion in the second, or did we get it, Madam Secretary, alone?
Speaker 2: We haven't.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose.
Speaker 7: Of this amendment.
Speaker 3: Is to clarify.
Speaker 7: That use tax is under Article three of Chapter.
Speaker 3: 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Speaker 0: All right. So nobody else in the queue at the comment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 1: Black. I said about that. I swear.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Gillmor, i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman I. Coinage I. Ortega, I. Sandoval.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please cause of voting announced the results.
Speaker 2: 1339.
Speaker 0: As council 863 has been amended. Councilwoman Sawyer We now need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 19 dash 0863 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comments by members of council. I don't think we need to go through this again. We'll just vote. Secretary roll call.
Speaker 1: Black Eye. CdeBaca. Eye for an.
Speaker 8: Eye.
Speaker 1: Gilmore. Eye.
Speaker 4: Herndon Eye.
Speaker 1: Haynes Cashman. High Carnage. Ortega Y.
Speaker 7: Sandoval Eye.
Speaker 1: Sawyer Eye. Torres Eye. Mr. President, I am.
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 is comfortable. 863 has been ordered published as amended. Final reading will be on September 23rd. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman Sawyer, will you please for Council Bill 874 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the City Retail Sales Tax Article, Article II, Chapter 53 of the Revised Municipal Code and the City Use Tax Article, Article III, Chapter 53 of the Revised Municipal Code to exempt the passthrough of the federal excise tax imposed on trucks, trailers, and tractors from taxation.
Amends Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to exempt federal excise tax from being included in the taxable purchase price for heavy trucks and trailers. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19. Amended 9-16-19 to clarify that “use” tax is under Article III of Chapter 53 of the D.R.M.C.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0874
|
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 is comfortable. 863 has been ordered published as amended. Final reading will be on September 23rd. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman Sawyer, will you please for Council Bill 874 on the floor.
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 19 0874 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Just one block.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. The administration is requesting that this bill be voted down because the National Western Center program has sufficient resources to meet the obligations of the monumental rail settlement agreement that City Council will consider next week. While this may require the National Western Center team to adjust scope somewhere else in the program, relocation of the rail lines is critical to achieving the goals of the master plan and fulfilling the desire of two voters. The National Western Center team will continue to provide regular financial updates to council and should, on overage on the rail project compromise the ability to achieve the National Western Center vision. The team will bring forward a request during the annual budget process.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Black. Councilman Cannick.
Speaker 3: I just want to say thank you to the administration for taking this route and for allowing us to get further in the project before determining whether additional funds are needed. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can you seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Oh, and council members, just a reminder that the request is to vote this down. A no vote. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 1: Black Knight. CdeBaca No.
Speaker 6: Flynn No.
Speaker 1: Gilmore Herndon, No. HINES No.
Speaker 8: Cashman No.
Speaker 2: Kenny.
Speaker 1: Ortega No.
Speaker 7: Sandoval No.
Speaker 1: Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting against results.
Speaker 1: 13 nays.
Speaker 0: 13 is comfortable. 874 has failed. That does conclude the items to be called out this evening. Our bills for introduction are ordered, published and were now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Councilmembers.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a rescission, a cash transfer, and a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund.
Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,450,000 from General Fund Contingency to transfer to the Other Agency Capital Project Fund to provide sufficient budget capacity to fund a settlement in support of the National Western Center Office in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0970
|
Speaker 1: It's too late to do that. 970.
Speaker 0: Nine, 70. I was like, Can you put 97 on our screen? And Councilwoman Tory, can you. Nine 7970.
Speaker 1: Let's just move that for adoption.
Speaker 0: 970 for adoption.
Speaker 3: You want me to move it for adoption?
Speaker 0: Yep. You just move.
Speaker 3: Nine seven cell bill 19 0970 he placed for adoption.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Any comments beyond what you've already made?
Speaker 1: Just that I didn't get the benefit of getting the briefing to understand this in executive session, so I'm not familiar with what it entails, so I'm going to abstain.
Speaker 0: All right. I see no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 1: ORTEGA Abstain. Black Eye. CdeBaca Abstain.
Speaker 6: Flynn Abstain.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 4: Herndon, I.
Speaker 9: Hinds Abstain.
Speaker 8: Cashman I.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 1: Sandoval, I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer I.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting and not the result.
Speaker 1: Nine eyes and four abstentions.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes, four abstentions. This one has been nine. Seven has been adopted.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 0: All good. Nothing else to call. All right. Now, all bills for introduction are ordered, published and are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. So, Councilman Sawyer, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move the resolutions to be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final consideration and do pass and a block for the following items. All 19 Series 07570758075908570896089708930894895096908190892089808560861086905030678. And that is it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Those are the moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 1: Black Eye Seat. Abarca I.
Speaker 8: Flynn, I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I. Herndon.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Hines. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Hi. Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 3: Sawyer, I.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939. 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 818 approving and accepting the Loreto Heights small area plan and a required public hearing on Council Bill 577 Changing the
|
Resolution
|
A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the total sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($500,000.00), made payable to Killmer Lane & Newman COLT AF Client Trust Account: (Tax l.D. No. 43-106-072), in full payment and satisfaction of all claims related to the incident on January 26, 2017.
This item was approved for filing at the mayor-council meeting on 9-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0818
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvened. We have two public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium. State your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. 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. Councilman Sawyer, will you please for council vote 818 on the floor.
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 19 dash 0818 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded before we get into the public hearing. Councilman Flynn had asked for a quick moment of privilege.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. As we begin this hearing on the future of the Loretto Heights campus, I just wanted to take a moment of personal privilege to make note that on Thursday last week, the very last sister of Loretto who served as president of the campus passed away at the Motherhouse in Kentucky. Sister Patricia Patricia Jean Mannion, who was the president of the college from 1967 to 1972. And I think it's just remarkable that that and her funeral is today. And I understand that the sisters over at the Harvard Center got to watch a live feed of the services. And in fact, I believe President Clark, your mother, who was an alumna, was among those who watched. And I just think it's remarkable that today, as we discuss the future life of this campus, that it's done under the watchful eye of the last sister of Loreto who reigned over it. And if it's appropriate, we could just take a few moments of silent reflection on that and the remarkable women who made that place for more than 100 years. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. All right. The public hearing for accountable eight on eight is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jason Mawson and I'm senior city planner with Community Planning and Development. I'm the project manager for the Loreto Heights Small Area Plan. This is a very exciting planning effort that has been taking place in Southwest Denver. That's really the first of its kind for the community at one of the most iconic and unique areas in all of Denver. On the heels of the recent sale of the 72 acre former Loreto Heights campus, CPD has been working with local residents and stakeholders since the fall of 2018 to create a community vision for this important piece of southwest Denver. Our agenda tonight focuses on three objectives. I want to start off by giving you a little background on the plan. Next, I want to walk you through the structure and the content of the plan. And finally, we will present the review criteria where we will document the following how an inclusive community process was used to develop the plan. How the plan is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040. And finally, how the plan demonstrates a long term vision. The Loreto Heights planning area is located in southwest Denver. And I'll get into the specific boundaries of the plan here in just a moment. But generally speaking, the area is located near Federal Boulevard and Dartmouth Avenue. The area is unique in that the city of Sheridan is directly adjacent to the south of the planning area, and the city of Inglewood is just southeast of the planning area. The planning area falls within Council District two and Council District seven. When considering the boundaries of the planning area, we had two choices Take a master plan approach and focus primarily on the development parcel or think outside of the box, so to speak, and consider the surrounding neighborhoods and how they may be impacted by or influence any future redevelopment. We chose to do the latter. We wanted to acknowledge the predominantly single family context to the west and to the north of the planning area, and also anticipate what changes may occur along Federal Boulevard to the East as a result of redeveloping the site. We understand that this is a community draw and it's important to get feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods as well as other jurisdictions like the City of Sheridan and the city of Inglewood. It was also important for us to look outside the boundary for things like bike and trail networks and larger infrastructure impacts, such as drainage and sewer . There are several existing buildings and historic resources on the former campus that have served many roles over the years. The site contains everything from the iconic and towering administration building completed in 1891 a cemetery, an indoor pool and a theater. These buildings were constructed over a period of 100 years and illustrate a variety of architectural styles designed by well-known architects, notably John Monroe and Frank Edberg. As you can tell, the former Loreto Heights campus has a very rich and storied history. And for this reason, and for the first time, the project team included a Denver landmark preservation planner who has been helping to facilitate the conversation around these historic resources. So why are we doing the area plan and why now? Simply put, CPD wants to ensure that there's a plan in place ahead of any redevelopment to ensure decisions such as rezoning are done with current policy guidance in place that reflects the community's vision for the area. This area of the city has no neighborhood plan, and we want to make sure that there is planning direction ahead of any type of change. The adopted plan will provide policy recommendations based on community input that will help guide the coming redevelopment. The framework for this area plan follows the six vision elements contained in the recently adopted comprehensive plan 2040. Those six vision elements are on the screen here. This area plan uses these vision elements to guide the plan and ensure each recommendation or strategy applies to at least one or more of the six vision elements. Keeping this in mind, a 17 member steering committee refined these ideas and concepts within each element based on the relevancy to the Libretto Heights planning area to create vision statements. The result is a series of statements within each element that is consistent with the citywide vision, while at the same time defining what each element means specifically for the Retro Heights planning area. Similarly Blueprint, Denver identifies three elements that form a complete neighborhood. Complete neighborhoods are accessible to everyone, regardless of age, ability or income. Three and Teredo related elements form the foundation of a complete neighborhood, and those are land use in built form, mobility and quality of life infrastructure. The planning process has used these three elements to shape conversations and evaluate feedback throughout the process. The Area plan also uses these three elements to provide structure to the draft plan and create sections for the recommendations and strategies. One additional element that informs every part of the Laredo hide small area plan is that of equity. Equity means that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they are from, can thrive. Blueprint Denver introduced three equity concepts that inform this plan. The first is improving access to opportunity. Second, reducing vulnerability to displacement. And third, expanding housing and jobs. Diversity. These concepts are interlinked with all the elements of a complete neighborhood. Most importantly, the plan calls for any equity based recommendations and strategies to be given priority during implementation to ensure that the redevelopment of the former the former campus helps Denver achieve its vision for an inclusive, complete neighborhood. For example, integrating affordable housing throughout the planned area to accommodate households of different ages, sizes and incomes. Minimizing involuntary displacement and gentrification. Creating a complete pedestrian network. And finally, increasing fresh food access, availability and affordability. At this time, I would like to introduce Brandon Shaver, senior city planner, who will walk you through some of the key recommendations within each topic.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Jason. And good evening, Council. I'm Brandon and I'll be working through the key concept, key concepts of the small area plan. The first section of the plan is land use in built form. From day one. The community has consistently voiced that they want to live in and visit a plan area that does a number of things. Plan recommendations seek to encourage a mix of land uses, including office, commercial retail and a variety of housing types for different demographics and income levels. The community also wants to ensure that new development doesn't negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods and that new buildings are well designed and constructed of sustainable materials. Of similar importance are recommendations that speak to affordable housing, the threat of gentrification and involuntary displacement. The plan recommends incentivizing affordable housing for households of all ages, sizes and incomes. In a nod to some of the historic buildings on campus, the community has recognized the opportunity to explore reusing some of the buildings for affordable housing. One such example is Pink Crystal Hall, a former resident, a former residence hall, which will include 60 plus units of affordable housing as announced earlier this year by the developer. The community has had the opportunity to weigh in on these recommendations. And as you can see, there is a great deal of support. Results show us that 96% of survey takers strongly agree or somewhat agree with the land use recommendations, 95% strongly agree or somewhat agree with the historic preservation recommendations, and 88% strongly agree or somewhat agree with the economy and affordable housing recommendations. Throughout the planning process, there were a number of topics that warranted future conversation and work with the community. These are topics of utmost importance to the community. The first being the height of any future buildings in the plant area. It is important to note that the Ruby Hill View plane, enacted in 1969 guides the building heights that can be achieved on the eastern side of the campus. The plan supports varying building heights of up to eight storeys, but as redevelopment occurs on the campus, it will be important to maintain these sheds to and from it due to the topography of the site and height restrictions imposed by the view plane. Not every portion of the eight story maximum area indicated on the map in front of you allows for buildings to reach that level of intensity. Additionally, the plan calls for design standards and guidelines that further restrict the number and placement of any building over five storeys to one single location with the limited footprint to protect the views. It is equally important to transition from higher intensity development in the center of the campus to lower intensities that are compatible with the existing residential areas where the viewpoint does not cover the western portion of the campus. The plan further imposes height limitations that speak to this transition. Finally, the plan contains recommendations that speak to supporting and enhancing public transit in the plan area, especially along Federal Boulevard. Some of the most defining features of the Libretto Heights campus are the sweeping views of downtown Denver in the front range of the Rocky Mountains. As such, plan recommendations note the importance of maintaining these view sheds. Historically, there was a grand view of the administration building from Federal Boulevard, and the community finds this view said to be one of the most important attributes to preserve. Therefore, the plan calls for zoning regulations, design standards and guidelines, and other regulatory tools to ensure that the height and mass of new buildings are not only compatible with the existing historic structures, but also protect and frame the key view sheds. Furthermore, the plan identifies key open space areas identified by the community and specifically calls for a publicly accessible open space area or promenade in front of the administration building. As I touched on historic preservation and the re-use of historic resources is a central concept within this area plan. And as such, there are several recommendations that speak to this topic. The history of the campus, coupled with the preservation and re-use of existing structures and features on the site where some of the top community concerns and desires. A consultant, written inventory and survey report along with community feedback provided direction on which campus structures and features should be prioritized for preservation and re-use. These include eight historic resources the administration building in Chapel Pancreas, the Hall Cemetery, Matchbook Hall, Pool, Library and theater. Similarly, the community agreed on using multiple tools to achieve its vision in both the short and long term, including historic designation, preservation, easements and historic covenants. These options allow for the best tools to achieve the preservation and re-use of historic structures, including local historic designation of the resources as individual structures and or historic districts. The second section of the Small Plan of the small area plan deals with mobility. There is a strong desire to improve streets by making them more connected, safer and more comfortable. This includes making streets more functional for pedestrians with amenities like enhanced crosswalks and medians, street trees and lighting. The need for intersection improvements, especially along Federal Boulevard, is critical to create a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Additional multimodal recommendations include connections to and from the Bear Creek Trail, the South Platte River Trail, and making it easier and more comfortable to take bus and light rail. These detailed recommendations can be found within the plan and in the staff report. Again, the community had an opportunity to weigh in on these recommendations. And you can see there's a great deal of support. Results show us that 96% of respondents strongly or somewhat agree with the mobility recommendations contained within this plan. The proposed Street Network calls for a variety of street types, which will help improve north, south and east west connections and acknowledges the strong voice of the community to not have Dartmouth Avenue punched through. From Federal Boulevard to Irving Street. To further strengthen this recommendation, the plan calls for the implementation of necessary street improvements, operation enhancements and traffic calming measures along South Irving Street to help mitigate traffic impacts and to improve connectivity in the area. The plan also encourages a new street connection extending south from the Denver School of Science and Technology as a way to relieve traffic congestion along Dartmouth Avenue. The community has also specifically called out South Julian Street and West Amherst Avenue as needing traffic calming measures as redevelopment occurs. The plan further outlines pedestrian and bicycle priority streets with the maps on the screen right now. In addition to investing in pedestrian safety, comfort and accessibility, the plan recommends both on street and off street trails and facilities throughout the planned area of equal importance as the need for equitable access to the regional trail system, which has been lacking up until this point. The final section of the plan is quality of life infrastructure. This includes recommendations for addressing access to healthy food parks, recreation and open space, green infrastructure, and how the how the built environment affects health outcomes. The plan puts a focus on new tree plantings along streets to improve walkability and comfort for residents and visitors. In addition to trees, the community has also recommended creating a system of green infrastructure which will improve water quality, reduce stormwater runoff and minimize the urban heat island effect. Similar to the recommendations found in other sections of the plan. There is very strong support for these recommendations as well. With 97% of respondents strongly or somewhat in agreement. Couple of things to highlight in this section of the plan. First being the connection to Loreto Heights Park, not just in terms of infrastructure such as sidewalks, bike paths and the potential Hoch signal, but also with open space and recreational opportunities such as a multi-use trail that runs from the park to the center of the campus along the existing irrigation ditch. I mentioned green infrastructure earlier and it is important to note that the plan area is located within the West Harvard Gulch and Bear Creek Stormwater Basins, both of which have been identified as priority basins with a greater need for water quality improvements. Green infrastructure, both natural and engineered, will be necessary to make the site a sustainable model for future development. Blueprint. Denver identifies three types of implementation actions regulatory and policy, public investment and partnership. Examples of this include historic designation, Denver Zoning Code, text and map amendments. Infrastructure improvements associated with development and requirements regarding open space. Public investment strategies are those involving public funding of public infrastructure. These examples include street reconstruction, park improvements and the installation of bike and transit facilities. Lastly, partnership strategies come in the variety of forms that require an investment from the city property owners, private developers, or a combination thereof. Examples found in this plan include partnering with historic Denver to implement appropriate short and long term protection mechanisms for the historic resources identified in the plan. Also partnering with the cities of Sheridan and Inglewood and Arapahoe County to study and implement transit, bike and pedestrian improvements to West Dartmouth Avenue and crossing improvements at U.S. 285 and Knox Court. Having gone through the key aspects of the plan, I will turn the presentation over to Jenny Budden Burke, who will walk you through the review criteria.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Brandon. Good evening, council members. I'll take us through the City Council review criteria for the evaluation of this area plan. As Jason had previously mentioned, the three criteria asked that City Council consider if an inclusive community process was used to develop the plan. The plan is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040, and the plan demonstrates a long term view. The Loreto Heights small area plan is based on a year long engagement process designed to be authentic, fair and inclusive. This inclusive committee process was carried out in three phases visualized, strategize and realize. Each of the phases included multiple steering committee meetings, community meetings and other public outreach to inform the plan's vision and recommendations. At the final steering committee meeting in July during the realize phase, the Steering Committee agreed to move the plan forward for review and implementation. Key organizations represented on the steering committee that endorsed the small area plan include the Sisters of Loreto, City of Sheridan, Vietnamese American Community of Colorado, Southwest Denver Coalition and multiple registered neighborhood organizations. The steering committee was comprised of 17 members representing neighborhood and community organizations, nonprofits, businesses and major property owners. It guided and informed the plan over ten meetings that were open to the public and attended by over 150 community members. This work built upon what had been previously started by local leaders and neighborhood groups in anticipation of the redevelopment for community meetings, including a meeting conducted in Spanish, illustrated the strong community participation for this area plan with an average attendance of 100 people per meeting and a total attendance of 450 participants across the meeting series. Two online surveys were also made available for those unable to attend the community meetings or who preferred a different option for sharing their comment. The first survey mirrored content from the first and second community meetings, and the second survey provided an opportunity for the community to comment on the draft plan. Paper versions of the survey were also made available. Over 750 community members participated in the online surveys, providing 2300 individual comments. In total, more than 1300 individuals participated in the community meetings and online surveys. CPD staff also attended additional community events like registered neighborhood organization meetings in a cabinet, in the community meeting at College View Community Center. Promotion of the Laredo Heights area plan, process and advertising of meetings, surveys and draft plans was conducted by CPD Communications Staff Councilman Flynt's office and Steering Committee members and produced very strong results. Over 25,000 fliers were distributed and districts to and seven to promote community meetings and a thousand fliers were taken home by public school children, all of which were bilingual English. Spanish which contributed to the robust attendance numbers. Via social media, we have nearly 5000 Twitter followers and more than 400 email subscribers. This plan also experienced more media coverage than comparable plans put out by CPD. The Denver Post, CBS for seven News, Fox 31, Denver eight and a Duke of Radio Denver in Spanish all carried stories on the plan. I do want to note this plan did strengthen CPD's relationship with the Duca, so that will benefit us moving forward with all of our future planning efforts. Lastly, reflecting the demographic diversity of the area, Spanish translated material was provided in all marketing efforts as well as at every community meeting and online interpretation. Services and child care were also provided at all public meetings. Based on this engagement and outreach staff, find that the Loreto Heights area plan was developed through an inclusive public process. The Loreto Heights small area plan is consistent with several goals and strategies in each vision element within comprehensive plan 2040. The goals and strategies met for each vision element are indicated here on the screen and detailed in the staff report. Because this area plan refines blueprint. Denver We have also address its consistency with the land use plan policies and strategies. In general, this area plan contains content, specifically addressing each of the minimum standards outlined and blueprint Denver related to the opportunity to create area plans citywide via the Neighborhood Planning Initiative. In other words, area plans provide more specific guidance than Blueprint Denver, which is what this plan achieves. The plan is also consistent with several Blueprint Denver policies and strategies noted on the slide and detailed in the staff report. In summary, the Loreto Heights area plan is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. The Syria plan provides a comprehensive, long term vision for growth within the plan area over a period of 20 years. The vision, as reflected in the plan recommendations, respects existing historic character and development patterns while promoting sustainable growth within the plan area. Staff finds that the Loreto Heights area plan establishes goals, recommendations and strategies that will guide change in the plan area for the next 20 years, thereby meeting the criteria for demonstrating a long term view based on the finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Staff recommends adoption of the Loreto Heights small area plan as a supplement to comprehensive plan 2040. We thank you for your time and are happy to take any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. It looks like we've got 44 sector people signed up to speak this evening. So I'm asked staff, if you don't mind if we get clear this front bench, I'm going to call five at a time up. If you could come up to this bench and be ready to step right up to the microphone when I call your name so that we can get through everybody. So I'll cover the first five. First five are John Moore, Sochi, gate ten, Gail Bell, John Olsen and Karen Calamity. And John Moore, you're up first.
Speaker 8: Hi. Am I good to go? All right. My name is John Moore. I'm a east tie graduate class of 2000. I live in Dartmouth Heights, and I'm the president of the Dartmouth Heights. R.A. We're also in. I was our neighborhoods representative to the small area, to the Loreto Heights small area plan process as well. I'm here to speak in favor of the plan. Our neighborhood has gone through three phases with this project so far. At first we were fearful and anxious. When the sale was first announced, we imagined huge volumes of traffic coming through. Our quiet neighborhood, blocked views of the historic admin building and other terrible visions. The second phase started when Councilman Flynn outlined his vision for the campus, and we realized we had a partner who understood our interests. The third phase was the longest and continues today. It began when we started to get to know Mark were kept, which I'm sorry I messed it up. I practiced earlier and I still messed it up. Excuse me. We slowly built trust and his devotion to preserving the history and character of the campus while also activating it and making it into an asset for Southwest Denver. The fourth phase is yet to come. We're excited about the additional open space shops, restaurants and future events the redevelopment will bring. But we also remain very concerned about the increased traffic. Volumes are quiet, neighborhood streets will see. So I'll close with the same requests we have made throughout this process, which I also outlined in my letter to the Council. Number one, Dartmouth Avenue between Federal and South Irving Street should not be made of Three Street. We've had very consistent support from the City Planning Department on this, and it is very critical to our support for the plan. Number two, the residential alleys between the extension of Bates Avenue and South Irving Street should be designed to serve local traffic only. And number three, traffic calming and traffic deterrence measures be implemented across the area. Plan to minimize the impact of traffic on existing neighborhood streets. These are all things that are contained in the plan and some that Brandon even called out specifically in his slides. I just wanted to emphasize our our interest in seeing them happen. I think in the future, it'll probably involve Dartmouth Heights being here, continuing to work with Councilman Flynn, because I think there's a funding element to this as well eventually. In closing, thank you to Councilman Flynn for his leadership and thank you to the other members of the smaller you plan process for your thoughtful contributions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sochi Gay Town.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Sir Chili Guyton, president of Hip Co.
Speaker 7: The Harvey Park Community Organization, voted to oppose the Right of Heights Area Plan and the Metro.
Speaker 3: District Service Plan. Zip Codes five Concerns of the Area Plan.
Speaker 7: Our number one it must be a landmark historic district designation. So rather than having weak language about it being a possible tool, the developer agrees to apply a historic district designation period. Number two, we need strong language indicating that Dartmouth Avenue will not go through taking traffic into the elementary.
Speaker 3: School, which is only four blocks away. Number three, mitigation of traffic.
Speaker 7: Must be stronger.
Speaker 3: Language for other streets and avenues heading in the southwest direction of that region. Number four.
Speaker 7: The maintenance of the pond, waterways, wildlife in the southwest region has been nearly ignored and we need to address this in a very sustainable way. Number five, limit the building heights to five storeys and not going higher because we lose adequate view planes of the admin building.
Speaker 3: We all know that the.
Speaker 7: Higher the penthouse, the higher the prices. Hence, causing unaffordability and gentrification. As the Denver City Council continues with their training on a renewed commitment to racial.
Speaker 3: And social justice.
Speaker 7: Help me understand how you.
Speaker 1: Plan.
Speaker 3: On.
Speaker 7: Preventing the gentrification outcome. If you.
Speaker 3: Support this area.
Speaker 7: Plan.
Speaker 3: And Metro District Service Plan.
Speaker 7: In your commitment to racial and social justice, would it not make sense.
Speaker 3: To work towards dismantling racist structural systems such as metro districts.
Speaker 7: Within Denver and question the consequence of property taxation doubling in the district and question using a financial.
Speaker 3: Tool that causes gentrification. We elected you to hold developers accountable to those you represent.
Speaker 7: You have given the power to corporations. You hold the greatest latitude and power to disavow what.
Speaker 3: Is within the state law. Title 32. You are the last line of defense. Only 8 to 9% of the housing affordable housing is affordable housing units. So stop the scam of having developers, bond investors and special.
Speaker 7: District management companies benefiting from pushing black, brown, indigenous people out. City Planning.
Speaker 3: And Development did a poor job of.
Speaker 7: Authentically engaging with black brown indigenous community by not informing.
Speaker 3: Us of metro districts being the financial tool the developer would use, not informing us of how this tool would negatively impact the property owners within the district and cause gentrification and not authentically.
Speaker 7: Engaging with the Latino community. Only 10 to 12 people at the Spanish speaking community is not.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, Gayle Bell.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Gayle Bell of Denver, Colorado, and I am an administrator at City College View High School, directly adjacent to the Loreto Heights campus, Colorado Heights campus. And its future is of great significance to the DST community. Yes, because of proximity and traffic. And we appreciate those needs being addressed in the small area plan. Perhaps more importantly though, it is significant because the campus is a place that our students and families have moved through and connected with for years. It is a space that they see, at least in part, as their own. For several years, our students have wandered through the signature Laredo Heights quad on their way to eat lunch and match before Hall with its stunning views to the West. And even as of today, our students spend their outside time playing and chatting on the small field that sits at the foot of the iconic admin building. When I speak to our students about the Laredo Heights campus and its future, they speak of it is a space that feels uniquely theirs in some way. This space matters to them deeply and as such. It is critical that the DACA community continue to be engaged deeply in the changes happening at Loreto Heights.
Speaker 7: DST College View appreciates the.
Speaker 3: Efforts made during the small area plan to engage our community by keeping us informed. We were recipients of many of those fliers hosting Spanish speaking opportunities, both in-person and online and as.
Speaker 7: Staff at College View. We shared the input.
Speaker 3: Opportunities with our students and families and encouraged them to engage however they could. Tonight, DST wants to urge the City and West Side Investment Partners to continue to engage the DST community both deeply and by including alien dedication to be used as a soccer. The old division of the small area plan is one of inclusion, diversity and placemaking. It is a truly beautiful vision and the students and families of diversity college view are critical stakeholders in bringing that vision to life. They already see Loreto Heights as their place. Engaging them in the way their place changes and dedicating space for them to use will continue to keep Loreto Heights their space. How beautiful would it be for our 12th grade students to be able to celebrate their high school graduation at the theater that they walk past every single day? How wonderful would it be for our soccer teams to be able to complete, compete and build school and community pride on a soccer field right on the very site. Throughout the small area planning process. The city made strong efforts to engage the diversity college view community, and we have value that immensely. Our urging is to not stop there, keep engaging us, keep providing engagement opportunities in Spanish and other non-dominant languages. Connect with and draw in the incredible community assets that are the diversity community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Olsen.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name is John. Also, I'm the deputy director of Historic Denver.
Speaker 8: Participating in the steering committee for the world height. Small area plan was one of.
Speaker 9: The highest priorities for our organization.
Speaker 8: And our board. Given the historic and architectural heritage.
Speaker 9: Of the campus.
Speaker 8: We believe that this plan of the future.
Speaker 9: Redevelopment is a unique opportunity to build on the site's legacy as the cornerstone of the Southwest Denver community. Throughout the planning process, during both community wide meetings and steering committee meetings.
Speaker 11: Participants and.
Speaker 9: Stakeholders emphasized and prioritized the preservation of the unique assets and qualities of the campus.
Speaker 8: We appreciate that the.
Speaker 4: Plan has responded with the inclusion of many positive elements.
Speaker 9: Related to historic preservation.
Speaker 4: Which recognize the campus's iconic nature.
Speaker 8: At the core of the vision. We also are pleased to see preservation strategies and sensitivity to historic.
Speaker 9: Resources reflected in several parts of the plan.
Speaker 4: As preservation cannot be an action taken.
Speaker 9: In isolation from other key decisions. While the included.
Speaker 4: Recommendations in the small area plan for.
Speaker 9: Individual designations and the explore.
Speaker 4: Exploration of tools.
Speaker 9: Such as historic.
Speaker 4: Districts for the campus are very important. I want to.
Speaker 9: Emphasize statements we've made throughout the process asking for greater.
Speaker 4: Certainty regarding.
Speaker 9: The future of the site's most significant assets, like the administration building the Chapel Cemetery and Pan Rachel Hall.
Speaker 8: Including addressing how they will be protected in the short and long term. We have been working with the master developer.
Speaker 9: West Side Investment Partners to solidify these and remediate.
Speaker 8: Protections so that the goals of the small area.
Speaker 9: Plan, as expressed by the community, can later be best achieved.
Speaker 8: We now hold a commitment letter and it's right.
Speaker 4: Here in our hand from the developer that those assets will soon be.
Speaker 8: Protected under perpetual easement. Agreements with historic Denver easements are also a tool indicated in the small area.
Speaker 4: Plan and prevent demolition of historically important buildings. They run with the land and offer a.
Speaker 8: Review during the rehabilitation.
Speaker 9: Process to make sure historic integrity.
Speaker 4: Is maintained. It is a tool that can be applied immediately and protect the property until such.
Speaker 8: Time as this designation moves forward. This allows for a balance in the community's desire for property protection, while allowing for a flexibility in the owners.
Speaker 9: Timeline for rehabilitation.
Speaker 8: We are especially excited for this will involve and create a hall since it will be one of the final first opportunities.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 8: The first properties developed on the site. And it will be a showcase for the opportunities that historic buildings.
Speaker 9: Have for affordable housing.
Speaker 8: We thank Mark Markovich of West Side. We thank the Community and Planning and Development Department. We thank all of the.
Speaker 4: Community members and the steering committee.
Speaker 9: For all of the work they have.
Speaker 8: Done. And we thank Councilman Flynn for his his work as well. And we hope that this continues for.
Speaker 9: All the people that have contributed.
Speaker 4: And that it continues now.
Speaker 8: For all people to.
Speaker 9: Continue to contribute as we go through this plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Very much. Thank you. Next up is Karen Calamity. And I'm going to call the next five to come up to this front bench Jim Carpenter, Martha Kirkpatrick, Bonnie Gilbert, James Hawksworth and Jim Gibson. If you could come up to the front row, that would be. Appreciate it. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Karen Laverty. We were asked to state our addresses in the past, I've I've brought up that I no longer live in Denver, but I grew up in Denver and I care about this property just as I care about many properties, I. I write letters about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge that's.
Speaker 3: Meaningful to me, even.
Speaker 1: If I don't live there. These special spaces need to remain special and to be treated well. There's some concern. I mean, Sister Mary Nell, her friend Ruth and I visited with Jason Morrison. I have nothing against Jason Morrison.
Speaker 3: But in our.
Speaker 1: Conversation with him he mentioned that he meets with the public about once a month, but he met with a developer every two weeks. And I'm sorry that I in the small area plan, I see more reflection of what the developers would like to see than what when I attended many of these public meetings, what the what the community would like to see. The words are all very nice, but the plan graphics are really what dictates the kind of development that's planned. And I'm very concerned. There's no reason why we should have eight stories in there at all. That's not what the community wanted.
Speaker 3: This view plane thing, you can barely hit the View plane with eight stories, so they feel as though that's their.
Speaker 1: Level of height requirement, no height requirement. And the open space requirement, those are.
Speaker 3: All those are something that can be created in the small.
Speaker 1: Area plan, not dictated by other other kinds of plans. This is the opportunity to make this the best site that it can be, not in relation to some random priorities or programing in other spaces. This place, this area lacks some parks and open spaces is a beautiful open space area. And to me, beyond the historic buildings, the open space is the most important criteria to keep intact. And I don't think this small area plan does that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jim Carpenter.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you.
Speaker 8: My name is Jim Carpenter. I'm the executive director of Choice and planning at Denver Public Schools. I'm here to briefly comment on the progress of conversations between DPS.
Speaker 4: And the master developer in regards to school needs at Loreto Heights. I want to first of.
Speaker 8: All say that DPS was grateful to be brought in early into the process. We had a member on the steering committee and have been able to participate in the process throughout the throughout the past year. And while your focus tonight, of course, is on the small area plan, our eyes are on that, but also on.
Speaker 4: Further steps in the approval process. As you're aware, at the time of subdivision, developers are required to account for school needs from.
Speaker 8: Their developments in the form of land allocation or fee. And Lou. While I cannot stand here tonight and say that we have an agreement that we've reached, I can say that we have had the experience of working constructively and positively with the master developer to date as we work towards towards that agreement and try to of land allocation or fee in lieu to respond to to school needs.
Speaker 4: We want to just take the opportunity tonight to thank city staff for bringing us in early into the process and also to thank the master developer for the positive approach they've taken so far in these conversations. Encourage both groups to continue to work closely with us as we attempt to to respond to the likely school needs from the development. And we have every hope that when this comes back before you, hopefully in the future look for subdivision, that we will be able to report that we have an agreement and to support that without reservation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Martha Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 3: My name is Martha Kirkpatrick, and I live in Englewood, Colorado. My name is Martha Newland Kirkpatrick. I am the alumni alternate for the Small Area Plan Steering Committee. I'm a 1982 graduate of Lauretta Heights College, where I received my Bachelor of Arts degree. I grew up in southwest Denver, the Harvey Park and Bear Valley neighborhoods, and I currently live in Inglewood. Loretta Heights has been part of my life for my entire life through community and alumni groups. I became very involved and of course concerned about what the future held for Colorado Heights. When West Side purchased the property in July of 2018. Things took a decidedly positive turn. West Side agreed and welcomed the small area plan process so that they could dove deeply into what the community wanted and needed. Through a well thought out and methodical approach in appointing people from adjoining neighborhoods, alumni, the Sisters of Loreto, community leaders and others, Jason Morrison and his team have joined hands with us through ten plus months of meetings, insights, discussion and debate for community meetings on the campus have hosted over 400 people lending their support, their voices and their concerns for what is to become of a beloved piece of history and a touchstone for many in the southwest Denver area. While most of us understand that not everyone will get everything that they want, most of us will get something that we do. And what this larger community wants is a gathering place somewhere to find respite and either a good meal, a street fair, less greenspace, an outdoor concert, a comfortable home. The words that come to mind our respect, reverence, reuse, reclaim, and the other word that many don't wish to utter. Redevelopment. However, this redevelopment is being done in a different way. By respecting the wishes of the community that will be using it and living nearby, by revering the past and letting it inform the future by reusing or reclaiming what was once grand and bringing it back to a full, colorful, vibrant life. There are some who would have you believe that more time or a different plan, effectively putting a bell jar atop that campus is the best strategy. But what that campus is is now a ghost, a shell, quietly crumbling and fading, moldering away. It will never be what it once was. That time has passed. Let it be rewarded for waiting. Let it be rewarded with voices, laughter and a new legacy. Dedication to this process and to the community seems to be foremost in the minds of the city planning team. I personally feel that every one of the team members have gone above expectations to deliver a vision that we can all build on. The community has been brought together through this city led small area plan process is truly the seed that will begin the new life that is being envisioned for the Loreto Heights campus. In closing, I fully support the Loretta Hite small area plan. I am greatly and deeply appreciative of the partnership which has been created with those on the city planning team, the community and with West Side. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Bonnie Gilbert.
Speaker 3: I'm Barney Gilbert and I have lived in Harvey Park. He lived in Harvey Park not far from Loretto Heights for the past 30 years. I am disappointed about the lack of community engagement in the process of the small area and special district plans. Questions about gentrification. Affordable housing. Increased traffic. Historic districts, including view planes and open space were not adequately addressed at the community wide meetings. It would have been helpful to have an open mic where we can have a give and take with other participants and talk out our concerns. There was also a Spanish language meeting that had very little attendance, leading us to believe that there is not much outreach in this heavily Latino community. The lack of outreach was disappointing. When asking questions during the area plan meetings. The community had been told over and over that certain topics would not be addressed because it was too soon in the process. Then we found out just a week after the summer, small area plan meetings were over by accident that the service plan was released and including many of the answers to our questions, but still not about the but still there was no answer about the amount of affordable housing other than with Pam Hall. Another major concern an historic, historic district designation in open space, which specifically includes views in Denver. We, what identifies us as Democrats and what people talk about when they come from outside is the views in the mountains. That's the number one thing that make this a special place visually. So that brings me to The View planes at Loreto Heights. Do we want to have row after row of buildings that block views of the beautiful administration building and block views from the administration building? These views and the buildings on the campus are treasures. The plan also does not allow for enough green space. There needs to be more, which complements the historic feel of the campus and helps to keep the area's original feet, feel of natural beauty and magistrate protected from the densely populated city that Denver has become. The campus should be designated a historic district, which would protect the character defining features such as the views and the buildings for future generations. Because we don't want Denver to become just any big city, and specifically, we don't want Loretta Heights to become just another dense housing development which may not be affordable. I request that you do not pass a small area plan until we have assurances about historic districts, including views, affordable housing, open space, gentrification and suitable information on how the increased traffic will be handled. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, James Hawksworth.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is James Hawksworth and I'm a local pastor and member of our community who has a deep interest in the future of Loreto Heights. I had the privilege of leading a special Christmas service in the historic chapel in December of 2018, in partnership with Councilman Flynn, who I commend his singing to anyone as well
Speaker 4: . All right, Father Joseph Dang, chaplain for the.
Speaker 8: DPD, as well as a member of the Vietnamese community and a great leader there. And at that event, we saw approximately 300 members of the community come out in force to celebrate Christmas in such a beautiful and sacred space. The evening for told the potential of the renewal of the campus for the sake of the entire community. And I would argue again, it was a beautiful evening. Well, Representative, the community, after looking over the small area plan myself, I believe the plan.
Speaker 4: Will accomplish the dreams of the city and the community as a whole. I believe this plan will help create a deeper identity for.
Speaker 8: Southwest Denver and will seek to be a community that engages people from all walks of life. I believe the history of the campus will be honored by repurposing it with integrity for such a beautiful space. As we've even heard tonight from even the historic Denver gentlemen. Contrary to what some.
Speaker 4: May say this evening, the process was transparent, well-received and broadly open to the.
Speaker 8: Diversity of the area. I believe the process is truly.
Speaker 4: Created a consensus that allows the process to move forward in good faith. Few individuals may have attempted to create a bit of disruption to an overall what I would argue, beautiful process. And I commend the city.
Speaker 8: For managing disruptions with integrity and.
Speaker 4: Utmost professionalism. In conversations that.
Speaker 8: I have had with West Side, other members of the community and members.
Speaker 4: Of the steering committee.
Speaker 8: I have been encouraged by how sensitive, particularly the developer, has been when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the area by giving it new life for long term use and enjoyment. I personally attended many of the steering committee meetings and I found the process thorough and well-executed.
Speaker 4: I would like to encourage council to approve the plan as submitted.
Speaker 8: And that planning board that has brought forth this in such great effort, and that I would recommend once again that you approve this. The process, again, I would say, has been filled with integrity and hard work, and I hope no further delays would hinder the progress that has been made.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jim Gibson. And I'm going to call the next five to come up with the front row. Paul Fea, you know, Carl Christianson, Bonnie DeHart, Jim Hartman and Kathleen Kind. Wait. Good. Okay.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Jim Gibson, and I live in Harvey Park. I lead the Laredo Heights Community Initiative, a project of the Harvey Park Community Organization. Our group has been working on this project since late 2016, when Tokyo University sadly announced it was closing and putting the property up for sale. I had the honor to serve on the Loretta Hyde small area plan steering committee. I'd like to thank Councilman Flynn for the opportunity to serve our community. Unfortunately, this area plan is filled with specifics of what the developer wanted to be included, but has very little details about what the community needed to be included. The response from the developer to many of the community community's questions was always the same. It's too early to address those issues. Then one week, exactly one week after our last area plan steering committee meeting on July 23rd, a service plan to create a metropolitan district for the property was presented by the developer to the City Council's Finance and Governance Committee. The document clearly worked on during the area plan process provides many of the answers to the questions the community had been asking. Unfortunately, those answers were never provided and the community never had an opportunity to more meaningfully weigh in on the issues. As a result, the area plan, while well-meaning, is simply too broad and does not provide a roadmap to meeting the goals that I think we all share. When the site planning process occurs, these provisions will need to be significantly strengthen the plan and provide what we need. Placing a historic district designation on the property before any redevelopment takes place will go a long way toward preserving the unique, historic and esthetic character defining features of the property. The site needs stronger and more specific protections to preserve the iconic views to and from the campus. The site also needs more open space and more details on the size and location of these open spaces. Finally, traffic should be more thoroughly addressed because the project at Resident and Daily Visitor information provided by the developer right after the small area process was completed is now available. I hope you understand our strong feelings about this beautiful site and why we're asking for these additional specifics. This place has been a big part of our community for decades and it is near and dear to our hearts. Please help us save this important south west Denver treasure. Thank you very much for your time this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next to Paul for your you know.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel. You know, it's interesting. I'm here with Eli Hartman. We met at Ridge Counsel about two years ago, maybe three years ago, trying to get a performing arts center in the Fruitvale School out in Rio Ridge, which would have been a fantastic facility for education in its proper. If you've never been out on 44th out there, 44th and Oakridge area. Go out there and check that out. But the building is now homes. I don't know how affordable they are, but the idea of the fact that another public facility is now housing never again to serve the children or adults or anybody for that matter. You know, we're going back to October 12th, 2017, when the Florida Heights Redevelopment Community recommendations came out and that the number one was develop a comprehensive cultural, historical, topographical, environmental esthetic assessment report. And that's all that's it. There's nothing about housing or anything of that nature. And on the second point, plans and designs need to ensure ensure the continued usefulness and integrity of the cemetery or a place of reflection and contemplation. Now, in order to ensure anything, you need a deed. Now we have offered the developer a quick claim deed and that still stands. As far as a quitclaim deed, the city and county of Denver could put it together. And I have five quitclaim deeds here for five parcels. If nothing else, number one should be for the cemetery. And I'm asking for you to tonight to put this off until the cemetery is insured. And is safe for not the dead nuns, but the living through Jesus Christ nuns. Okay. We're not dealing with a situation that of course, I'm about the arts and I've given you a proposal. All the new council people have a proposal from 2017. Check it out. We are number one in arts and humanities in the nation coming from zero.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry about your time is wiped out. Next up, Karl Christiansen.
Speaker 8: Evening Council. I'm Carl Christianson. My wife and I are both Denver area natives. My wife grew up in the Bear Valley area. I grew up in the Green Mountain area. We purchased a home in Harvey Park, just west of the Laurel Heights area 26 years ago. And we love our neighborhood. We love the Laurel Heights campus. We've enjoyed being neighbors with that for so many years. And when we saw that particular our heights was failing, we kind of dreaded what might happen. And so we were really excited to see the development plan come forward. We were really pleased with the community engagement and we felt like we had a lot of opportunity to give input into the plan and what that area would become. We feel like they were very respectful of looking at the things we valued in terms of historic preservation, open space and also thinking in terms of economic development. I don't know how.
Speaker 4: Many of you think.
Speaker 8: That we can preserve the beautiful buildings on campus without some kind of revenue stream? You know, they're not going to fix themselves. And so I think it is a very sustainable plan in our view. And we're really looking forward to all the potential that's going to be on that site for a community gathering place, for cultural development , for different kinds of housing. And so my wife and I are just very excited to see what the next 26 years will bring for us in that neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Bonnie DeHart.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Bonnie DeHart. I lived in Harvey Park, just north of Yale Avenue since 1989. And I'm hoping to age in place there if I can. And although I share some of the concerns of the Harvey Park Community Organization concerning future impacts on the area, including traffic congestion, possible gentrification, higher taxes, possibly small businesses currently in the area being unable to compete once the new development occurs. I also believe that West Side Investment Partners have made an extensive effort to include the community in in the planning effort. And I.
Speaker 4: Believe the plans will in all.
Speaker 1: Likelihood move forward at this point. So I'm here today primarily to add my voice to the historic preservation plans for the area. And I want to preface those comments by saying I'm neither a sister of Loreto, Nora co member, I'm not a graduate of Loretto Heights, not even Catholic. But but I say all that to stress that there's a broader support for the historic preservation pieces of this plan beyond those who have a long term and specific.
Speaker 4: Engagement.
Speaker 1: With Ladera Heights. The sisters in Loretto have contributed to Colorado and to this community for over 100 years and continue to be a force for justice and peace in this very divisive world we're now living in and to advocate for the most vulnerable members of our society. I stand with them and I want to see their legacy continue. One small way we can do that is to ensure the preservation of some of the icons of the Loreto Heights campus. I'd like to specifically see not just a verbal assurance, but a firm written commitment in place for the care and maintenance of this cemetery at Loreto Heights into perpetuity. You're into perpetuity, not for five or ten years, but forever. I'd like that commitment to be made in writing before plans move forward. I'd also like to see stronger language and about the preservation of the administrative building. And whatever is the strongest assurance that we can get. I, I support the historic district designation and again, would like to see that happen sooner, not later. Regarding Pan pre-show hall. I'd like to see a commitment.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jim Hartman.
Speaker 8: Good evening, counsel. My name is Jim Hartman. My partners and I are the Pan Croatia Hall redevelopment team. We've been passionate about historic preservation and affordable housing for almost the past 40 years, working on several projects throughout metro Denver. We were invited first to get involved in a lot of heights a couple of years ago by Councilwoman Sally Daigle from the city of Sheridan. We were fortunate to attend a community meeting that Jim Gibson had put together, and Jim's led many good community meetings. And we observed the change in some of the tenor and some of those meetings. In general, we believe that this has been a very inclusive public process. We've observed it over the past year, and we think it's really representative of what the city should do on all of the types of plans that were before you tonight. We urge you to accept the plan as recommended tonight, and we think it's been as good, if not better, than many other planning efforts around Denver. The library community is one that we've been involved with and we think it's a really great example of historic preservation and community reuse. So we're excited to be involved. We urge your action tonight to approve the plan. And thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Kathleen Conway. And I call the next five to come up to this frontbench where you will have Susan Leigh, Christine O'Connor, Adriana Pena, Larry Ambrose and Thomas Sanders. If you could come up to the frontbench.
Speaker 1: I hope I don't sound like a broken record, but my concern is for the cemetery on the property that contains the graves of about 62 sisters of Loreto, some of which died over a hundred years ago. These women took the arduous journey, journey from Kentucky to serve the people of Colorado and New Mexico. They experienced all the discomfort and fears that occurred along the way. They and other women religious really helped settle the West. The Sisters of Loretto found schools all over the area from Trinidad, Colorado to Denver, and every place in between. My sister in law, a German immigrant, graduated from Lauretta Heights. The sisters of Loretto taught her in Illinois and she won a scholarship and pursued her education here. My husband and children went to Saint Philomena School and I went to Holy Family Great and high schools, all run by the Sisters of Loreto. We owe it to these women to preserve their final resting place, and I think we need a historic designation for the cemetery and perpetual care. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Susan Lee.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Susan Elliott, Boulder, Colorado. I'll keep my comments really brief, but as a member of the development team working on the redevelopment of Pancreas Hall into affordable housing, I've witnessed the inclusive process used to develop the small area plan. I fully support the adoption of the plan as I believe it is.
Speaker 1: An appropriate.
Speaker 3: Sustainable and long term vision for the future of Loreto Heights campus. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Christine O'Connor.
Speaker 1: My name is Christine O'Connor into foyer and I co-chair the RNC Zoning and Planning Committee. And I'm going to let Ian talk about our resolution in a minute. We thought he could go first, but that didn't happen. I'm here tonight both as an ANC rep and as an individual. We're not here to oppose the plan, but to make it better, to strengthen it. And I don't think that's obstructionist. I'm aware that there's extensive discussion in the plan because I've read the whole thing about historic preservation. I'm aware of the recommendations. I just heard something about one of the tools, protective easements being put on, but I don't have enough information yet to know how that's going to play out at the site development and large development review phase. But the takeaway is that preservation will be addressed some time in the future as development unfolds. And I'm here to tell you that that sounds great. But to ensure the desire of the community to preserve the historic site as re-use unfolds, we believe it will be more prescriptive to ask for historic district designation at the front end. This historic district designation does everything that the other tools might do at some time in the future might. Depending on how the developer and historic Denver choose to work together, this campus may well be the most historic site in Denver today, and it makes sense to use the most comprehensive tool. I am going to describe Jim Hartman and Marcus Packer and maybe Brad Buchanan if he's listening. Well, know this example in Lowry where historic district designation saved hangar two in 2007. The owner and Brad Buchanan is the architect and Marcus partner as the promoter. He's also helping these developers came forward to demolish Hangar two. They said, oh, we have to demolish hangar two in order to save another historic structure. What happened? They both structures. Both were in districts that had been designated in 1995 before development started. As a result, it had to go to Landmark. It was defeated 8 to 0. At Landmark, we still have one or two and a beautiful dining district. I am asking that you think about the importance of putting this upfront. This step of district designation is not specifically called for in the plan, and it is our position that the plan should include the more specific recommendation that it be. Come to that designation be recommended under large development plan review and section 12.4 12 point 12.6 EA to be implemented prior to rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Adriana Pena.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is had an opinion and I met. I am a member public school member of the Loreto Heights Steering Committee. Also, I'm here on behalf of the board, the director of DPS for District two, Angela Corbin, who is not join us today due to a school district board meeting at this time. For the context, the public schools on the land where the assisted college view middle school and high school are currently located on the already to heights. We are thankful for the consideration that our community partners gave to the success of our students and their families as we work together on this project. This work includes multiple community meetings, surveys and other information, such as draft of these plan blueprints and guidance in progress. All were provided in English and Spanish to our community. We were particularly excited by the all Spanish language community meeting that we hosted on Saturday, March 16. We provided support with the community outreach through multiple outlets such as announcement during the community calendar in Univision, in Telemundo, Hispanic television networks Dipset Educate Radio and television in the Rodolfo Cardenas radio station. We distributed players in libraries, libraries, community centers and rec centers and community organizations as well. As well as emails to DPS parents and community members. Support from our school was particularly crucial during this process by them not only providing fliers in this student folders in their network, but also provided more information at any time they needed. We are so grateful to have been able to help convene and support our community, had several opportunities to provide our input on the plan in the planning process at different levels of our community. We engaged our DPS parents, students and overall Southwest community to make sure all their voices were heard. The process has been inclusive, clear and well-organized. The school district listen to and consider all comments, feedback and concerns. And they were included in the draft plan. Our top priority is our students. For this reason, the mobility proposal was crucial for this project. The study for a new street connection extending south from the SD campus towards the Floyd Avenue. With this proposal, we minimize the exposure of our children and families to heavy volume of traffic on the school route. This is important for the safety and security of our students. We want to create a safe and inclusive environment for all Denver students, current and future generations. Denver Public Schools is committed to meeting the educational needs of every student, and we look forward to working together to provide support resources to our students and ensuring that this neighborhood reflects our time as a community.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Larry Ambrose.
Speaker 8: Good evening. I'm Larry Ambrose. I'm here tonight as an alternate representative to Tony Hernandez to the Loretta Hyde Steering Committee from the Loretta Heights Community Initiative. I am on the LHC, I representing the Southwest Improvement Council. Swick has a 30 year history of community advocacy through its mission to advance human rights and improve living conditions of the residents of Southwest Denver through civic engagement, health and Human Services programs and affordable housing. Loretta Hyde site is the gateway to Denver from the Southwest, the iconic hilltop site with its rich history, magnificent buildings, landscaping and panoramic views. It's not only the most distinctive, landmark and source of pride for Southwest Denver and all of its residents, but perhaps is currently the most significant and vulnerable historic site in all of Denver. It should be a source of pride for the entire city and the region for centuries to come. As a representative of LHC I on the city's steering committee, Tony Hernandez and I have been relentless in advocating for historic district designation for parts of the site as the most comprehensive manner in order to protect and preserve those features which the community holds dear to its hearts. There is not much to criticize in the plan. It is what is not in the plan. That's a problem. Saving buildings and surrounding them with large scale development is not what people expect, but it is what they could get. Southwest Denver is now beginning its journey into large scale, potentially displacing and gentrifying development. Planning process for the site will serve as a precedent for future development in the southwest quadrant. It should be done correctly, consistent with recommendations given to the steering committee and a city funded study. We are here tonight to continue to advocate that historic district designation, be recommended not just mentioned as the correct process to ensure preservation of the key features of the Loreto Heights campus. The area plan mentions several preservation tools. However, it does not specify when any of these tools could be implemented. Therein is the obvious floor. To preserve something, you have to do. Do it before it's changed. It would be impossible to preserve the important parts of the campus once they have already been redeveloped. Please amend this at the either at these or the large development review stage or in the site planning process that reject that recommendation. And those requests are reasonable and time timely. History will look kindly upon us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Thomas Sanders and then McCaul. The next five up to come, please. Up to the front bench. Mary Nell Gage, Brant Kirkpatrick, Andrew Chapman, Dmitri Fortney. I'm sorry about that. And Norma Browne, if you could come up to the front. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Tom Sanders. I'm a long time resident of Inglewood. I'm a retired architect and a member of Historic Denver and historic Inglewood. I support the redevelopment plans for the Loretta Heights campus. I believe the city of Denver has a unique chance to come together with the other neighboring municipalities to create a special place for the citizens of southwest Denver, as well as the metropolitan area. I want to focus my comments on the plans and the developer. First of all, the plans publicize a significant story of Denver's history and landmark buildings. The plans provide attractions and event places for the entire city, as well as outlets for artistic and cultural expressions. Also, residential diversity is created and retail and commercial opportunities are accommodated. The plans include open space, mature landscaping and recreational areas. Finally, a unified community center and identity for Southwest Denver is established. I feel the area plans are a win win for all. The developer Westside Investment has a proven track record and importantly is committed to the project. They have participated in a lengthy, encompassing planning process open to the public at large and the city's adjacent to the campus. All types of interests and ideas are incorporated through a wide ranging, innovative study, and I believe the developer is dedicated to doing what's best for the community, all the while making it a profitable investment. In my experience, it's rare to have a developer who is not solely focused on the bottom line dollar to determine the outcome. In closing, the redevelopment of the campus will revitalize and enhance Southwest the Southwest Denver area for many years in the future and extend the life of the campus beyond the 128 years since the Loretto Heights Academy began on this site. I say the plan is here and the time is now. Denver is a leader in the country of historic preservation, recognizing neighborhood identities and establishing cultural destinations. Loretta Heitz Let's Denver bring this legacy to Southwest Denver. I urge you to support the Loretta Heights area plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Marie Nell Gage.
Speaker 1: I'm Sister Mary Nell Gage.
Speaker 3: I'm a sister of Loreto and an alumni of.
Speaker 1: Loreto Heights College.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I have a lucky number, seven.
Speaker 7: Points to share with.
Speaker 1: You. The Sisters of.
Speaker 3: Loretto have been in communication with West Side regarding the cemetery. Our priorities are the proper maintenance and the.
Speaker 1: Perpetual care of that sacred.
Speaker 3: Space.
Speaker 1: Where 62 sisters.
Speaker 7: Are buried.
Speaker 3: Number two feeds mores culture.
Speaker 1: Faith, morals, culture.
Speaker 3: The motto that is engraved above the main entrance. May those values faith, truth and.
Speaker 7: Beauty be enshrined.
Speaker 3: Forever on the campus. Number three.
Speaker 7: In the area plan there is reference to.
Speaker 3: Live, work and.
Speaker 1: Play.
Speaker 3: Please modify that phrase to proclaim, to live, to learn.
Speaker 1: To work, to pray and to play.
Speaker 3: Those have been the life on that campus for 125 years to live.
Speaker 1: To learn, to work, to pray and to play.
Speaker 3: Number four, ample open space, open green.
Speaker 1: Space.
Speaker 3: To enhance the quality. Of life, learning and playing on that space. Number five, the height and density of new construction must maintain the prominence of the Academy building. Number six, the view plane must allow.
Speaker 7: The unobstructed.
Speaker 3: Views.
Speaker 1: Of the tower building on the hill.
Speaker 7: And the majestic.
Speaker 1: Mountains to the west.
Speaker 3: Number seven Please lend a watchful eye to ensure the historic designation.
Speaker 1: That the proper tools be employed at the right time to preserve. Sorry for your.
Speaker 3: Time at Sea of Loreto Heights.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, Brant Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 8: Good evening, City Council.
Speaker 6: My name is Brant Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 8: I'm a long time resident of Inglewood, Colorado.
Speaker 6: And have lived and worked adjacent to Loreto Heights property, which is in the process of being repurposed. I am speaking today in support of Denver's process, described as the small area plan for Loreto Heights from the.
Speaker 8: Beginning of West Side.
Speaker 6: Partners, ownership of Loreto Heights property in July of 2018.
Speaker 8: They and the community.
Speaker 6: In and around the former Loreto Heights campus have worked and collaborated with the City of Denver to achieve the most reasonable and revisioning.
Speaker 8: Of.
Speaker 6: This important property. I have attended and participated in several of the community meetings which have been held as part of the small area plan. I found them to be inclusive and sensitive to the desires of the community residents and also dedicated to the visionary repurposing of the iconic structures and natural beauty of this area. I believe the collective efforts will add value to the community of Southwest Denver and its surrounding neighbors. And again, I support the collaborative process between the city government, community members and property development partners who have worked so hard to provide a new and bright future for Loreto Heights. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andrew Chapman.
Speaker 8: Good evening, counsel. Thank you for this chance to give support to the small area plan. I've been to all the public meetings, including a few before the small area process began, thanks to Councilman Flynn. And so I want to thank Jason and his team for putting that on and opening the doors. They're very interactive. I was able to ask questions as well as see them interact with other neighbors and residents. My wife and I and four children bought a house on Grove Street near Amherst in the small area plan seven years ago. Sadly, we cannot buy that house today because it's doubled in value. So, you know, gentrification and home prices are already an issue. And I don't think it has anything to do with the proposed redevelopment of the right of heights. It's another issue that I think requires other solutions, but one is we need more housing. And so that's one reason why I support this plan, is it encourages more housing of all kinds and hopefully a variety of types as well as income levels can be included in in the future redevelopment as well. Having lived there for seven years. My wife and I will walk the neighborhood, take evening walks, and we walk around a park that's already existing. So this the idea of a lot of green space, I don't know, makes a lot of sense. There is a neighborhood park right next to the right of heights that my wife and I and our kids already enjoy. But we do want a walkable neighborhood, a place that we could walk to. We've talked about Pearl Street, Gaylord Street, other nice neighborhoods, Tennyson Street, that that have amenities that people could walk to small scale. It doesn't need to be huge like dome or anything. Just something with a coffee shop, ice cream restaurant, things like that that my wife and I could take our kids. And also we go out for a date night. So we're excited. We see the small area plan encourages that type of walkable neighborhood. My few interactions with the developer gives me confidence that he desires the same kind of walkable neighborhood, that it's a sense of place, a destination that the community proud of. And so for those reasons, I strongly support the smart plan.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record? What's that? Could you state your name for the record? Oh, sorry.
Speaker 8: Andrew Chapman.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Dmitri is Xavier Rodney. I hear earlier Norman Brown and are going to call in the next five up to the front bench Claire Harris, Grant Bennett, Richard REPP, John Joseph Nieman and Tara Durham. You could come up to the front. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm Norma Brown and I'm a graduate of Rada Hinds, class of 1959. Makes me a little awkward. And I'm also the representative of the Spirit of the Hero Association, which is the Alumni Association. I am pleased to say a representative on the meetings that we have held. I live in the area. 2200 south her away. So that's not very far from the heights. I see it nearly every day. The stockholder committee had been meeting with the City Planning Department and working on the small area plan for the past year with much discussion. Pros and cons and a lot of input. I feel that the West Side has been very helpful in speaking what they needed and what they might do. Our work will bring this area of old, beautiful buildings, along with some new buildings alive. And this is what we need in that area. This project has brought the community together. All of the area's developments have been represented at these meetings. I am in favor of the small area plan. I have this written. We have worked hard on it this past year. I am looking forward to seeing you. Vote yes on the plan as written so we can begin to see a beautiful, historic and thriving community in the southwest area. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Claire Harris.
Speaker 1: My name is Clare Harris and I live four blocks from Mirada Heights and this is the third house I've had in this area in 50 years. So I've lived near Lorenzo Heights for 50 years. I graduated 1978 with a degree in nursing. I also hosted Japanese students Take You in the nineties. I used to take my kids swimming and to the theater for plays. So and I represent college view, which is the whole neighborhood across the street. As you can tell by our name, Loretta Height's management man matters to our whole neighborhood. I'm totally in favor of the plan. We've had a unanimous vote at the College View Neighborhood Association Board. Many of my remarks were covered by Martha Kirkpatrick. She did a great job and I've also seen the project. Jim Hartman is done in Northwest Denver, so I'm looking forward to pay increase your hall being developed. I want to mention that the group that met together, I went to every meeting, every community meeting. I went to see every site visit for the for the group that we worked with that many, many people were represented at that group, including all the neighborhoods, all kinds of other interested parties. We had many people behind us who gave input. What I noticed was the people that had negative remarks and things to say or questions about the plan. We were open to hearing all of them. One striking thing to me was that the developer was essentially just a member of the group. I didn't hear him take over any meetings. The city employees ran the meetings fairly every month. When we got back together, they ran a summary of the previous meetings comments. So positive comments and negative comments were raised again and again. I felt that we debated all those publicly. Some of the people you've heard speak tonight against the plan raised the same issues over and over. We discussed them, we debated them. We came to conclusions. No one seemed to be leading us. They seemed to gather our input and put it all together. So my feeling is that the process was very open. I know people have spoken about how many people didn't attend that fliers were sent out in all in Spanish. I will note that many people in my neighborhood of College View don't show up for these meetings. So I don't think it's about the outreach. I think it's about a lack of participation by citizens. So I am in favor of the plan as it stands and hope it is soon.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Grant Bennett.
Speaker 9: Good evening, council members. Thank you for your time tonight and president of council. I note that, um, my name is Grant Bennett. I am a resident 40 at 30 East Alabama place in Denver and my councilman stepped out of the room. But kudos to Councilman Cashman and he lives a block away. I was introduced to the Alert Heights Steering Committee as I'm part of the Pink Racial Hall Redevelopment team. We're pretty excited to be working on that project, bringing affordable housing and historic preservation to that project. And I can just tell you that it is complicated, very, very complicated. And so you've heard a lot about historic preservation tonight. And it's not straightforward. It's not simple. It takes two years and layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy to get a project done. And so I just want to start by saying that's what I'm working on. That's my connection to the steering, the small area plan process. So we were invited and sat through those steering committee meetings listening the whole time, and we were impressed by what we saw because of the conversation. Welcome back, Councilman Cashman. I noted that we're neighbors and you're District six. I called you out or you're gone. Sorry. And so we were excited to see the process unfold. Brandon, earlier, the staff member mentioned about the historic resources and the inventory that was done and how really there was a robust discussion about the historic inventory done for the buildings on the campus. And obviously, I very much care about paint creation on that project coming together. But really the city had a great process in place and allowed for that robust discussion to occur. I have a background in real estate development and in sort of city planning. I worked for six years in the last decade for the Denver Urban Renewal Authority and came to many council meetings to watch this process unfold. And I was impressed by how the city really got a plan in place before development activity is happening. I know being a resident in Denver and seeing certain development projects unfold, I don't always like what I see. But the fact that a planning process is happening now, not six months from now, not a year from now, but well in advance of even the project I'm trying to promote means that we're doing something right. So he's excited to see that play out in this stead. And to just really listen in to that process. So with that, I support the plan. I encourage you to all do the same. And I will add on that. Sister Mary No, I like it. It's wordy, but live, learn, play, pray, work, work. Oh, darn it. I forget the work part. Okay. Good job. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Richard repped. Good evening, City Council.
Speaker 4: I've been in Colorado for 33 years and I've lived in my.
Speaker 0: House in southwest Denver for over 20.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 0: Raised four kids, son in Denver public schools. Ran a small business in southwest Denver.
Speaker 4: They joined all the sports clubs, did all after school activities. And in that time, I met a ton of people from my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. And I see those people at Belmar.
Speaker 0: Southwest Plaza because that's where we have to go. We don't have anything like that. We don't have.
Speaker 4: A jewel in southwest Denver.
Speaker 0: If Loretto Heights gets redeveloped, as is, that might give us something to come visit. It's in our own neck of the woods and people are willing to travel from our neighborhood to these destinations. I think about the people outside that will travel to our destination if it gets developed properly. Let's give ourselves something to be.
Speaker 8: Proud of in southwest Denver. It's a beautiful place and I love it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Could you state your name for the record? Yeah. Rich rep. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Joseph Newman.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel. My name is John Joseph Neiman.
Speaker 10: I was born and raised in the north side of Denver, and I'm a current resident.
Speaker 4: Of the Harvey Park neighborhood. I want to start off by thinking of you guys for your service as council people and for your dedication to our wonderful city. I'll switch it up a little bit. I'll do a little allegory. There was an old elderly man who was walking down by the ocean after a big storm and the beach was covered in starfish. And he saw a little boy who was by the ocean grabbing starfish one at a time and throwing them back into the ocean. And he wandered over and he told the young man, What are you doing? There's thousands of starfish in the on this beach. There's no way you can save every one of them. And the young man picked up the starfish and he said, Yeah, I may not be able to save them all, but I can save this one . He threw it back in the water. I've been participating in a small area plan and I speak to Matt for myself for over two and a half years. Our initial idea of what we wanted to see happen with Florida Heights was one of the good result. We wanted a historic appreciation for the history of Florida Heights. We wanted to maintain open space and that campus feel that Loreto Heights has. And we wanted a vibrant and diverse community because that's what we already have in Southwest Denver, and we wanted to help maintain the really high quality standard and way of life that we have in southwest Denver. This small area plan is the community driven vision that matches those desires. It was led by Councilman Flynn, who I think led with an exemplary effort. And I want to give him thanks for that. I'm former president of the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation. And in that time as president, I heard a lot about the problems that came from the West Coast Facts Area plan. And I heard about the disagreements and contentions that came from the Gates area plan. And I can tell you after this year long process that I think this letter had similar to plan, is the best summary of plan the city has ever created. And so I'm very happy with the results. I think it does have the community voice and it actually did include the developer, which I was concerned with in the beginning, because in the north side developer's kind of a dirty word. But I think the problems that we have with gentrification as a city, the problems we have with growth problems we have affordability are not problems in this plan. This plan actually helps to address those issues. It tries to give the community voice upfront and tries to give us a chance to show the developer what we care about . And this plan does that. It'll help avoid gentrification. I heard something about 7 to 8% for affordable housing. I think that's a guaranteed low. That's that's the part we've heard definite. And I know from hearing others that we're going to see a lot more. This is a very important plan and I'm really.
Speaker 8: Glad to be a part of it. So thank you all very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Taro Durham and I'm going to call it the next five. Glenn Durham, Renee Moffat, Mark Upshaw, Brad Will Wilkin and Sherman Sekou. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Counsel. My name is Tara Durham. I live in Chatham Park, which is adjacent to the Loretto Heights campus. I am a secretary for our R.A. It's Sharon Park, South Marley in Brentwood. Arno. I also was a steering committee member on the Loreto Heights small area plan. I think it was a very community driven process and I was very thankful to be a part of it. And I would like to.
Speaker 1: Thank Councilman Kevin Flynn as.
Speaker 3: He was tremendous.
Speaker 1: In getting all of our community.
Speaker 3: Involved and to be a part of this multi-year plan. And I do support the plan in full favor.
Speaker 1: And I ask you all to as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Glenn Durham.
Speaker 8: Thank you for hearing this out side by side. My wife and I are passionate about history, architecture, and we care deeply about our neighborhood. Kevin helped us organize our registered neighborhood organization.
Speaker 4: South Marly, Brentwood. Sure.
Speaker 8: Sharon Park. We also participated in other meetings and organizations as well as HCI, and that that was helpful when Catullus was interested in purchasing this property. A little history lesson. They would have brought everything this this community fears.
Speaker 4: I used to call them, can't tell us.
Speaker 8: Because they couldn't.
Speaker 10: Give us a straight answer on anything.
Speaker 4: I think West Side has been generous, understanding, flexible in hearing us out. We we literally live five houses from the cemetery. We back up to the open space.
Speaker 8: I'm a little nervous right now because this is a big deal. I fully support this plan. I believe it encompasses everything that we've worked for for these last three and a half years. Thank you for hearing me out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Renee Moffitt.
Speaker 8: Good evening, handsome. My name is Renee Moffett. I'm a songwriter and art director and homeowner in Harvey Park, which borders Loreto Heights. I approve of this plan and I'd like to share three reasons and a.
Speaker 9: Prepared statement why I.
Speaker 8: Highly encourage you to approve the Loreto Heights plan as well.
Speaker 4: This process has been sound. I've attended numerous meetings over the past year and have found the entire process to be inclusive, engaging and transparent. Community voices have been heard.
Speaker 8: Hopes, wishes and concerns have been expressed, and the majority sentiment has been well captured by this plan. Where side partners have been present throughout this entire process.
Speaker 4: And have shown themselves to be ready and willing to personally connect with our community. Councilman Flynn and his office have gone above and beyond in creating a new.
Speaker 8: Model for public and private collaboration. I've met more neighbors, community leaders and city officials because of this very process. We are all working towards the same outcome and this process.
Speaker 4: Exemplifies that work. That outcome we all desire is my second point. We need a true gathering place for our neighborhood. Denver is growing and that includes.
Speaker 8: Its communities to the Southwest. To keep up with that growth, we need better infrastructure. That means roads, sidewalks, bike.
Speaker 4: Paths and housing. But to grow a true sense of community, you need a gathering place to relax and convene and increase the day to day interactions with our neighbors of all ages. When the recommendations and guidelines in the area plan are followed, I believe it will create this gathering place that we can all call our home and share with the city. Lastly, the redevelopment of the right of heights will create a regional anchor. Once established, I believe residents will begin to notice concentric.
Speaker 8: Circles of progress and rehabilitation and revitalization throughout the surrounding areas. I've witnessed this this this effect firsthand in other cities.
Speaker 4: That I've lived in. Approving the Loretta Heights area plan won't improve the livelihoods.
Speaker 8: Of just me and.
Speaker 4: My neighbors, but has the potential to increase the quality of life for the entire region of southwest Denver for generations to come. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mark Upshaw.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, members of council. My name is Mark Upshaw. I live at 3492 West College Avenue. I support the plan. I live in the Dartmouth Heights neighborhood, a homeowners association of 72 homes. I've lived there for 17 years prior. I lived in the College View neighborhood for over 20 years and was active in its leadership. I am very familiar with Lauretta Heights campus and the surrounding communities. I remember fondly my experiences on campus of attending theater productions, workshops and especially running around the Campus Loop Road. I have communicated frequently with the stakeholder members who are part of the planning process. It's a good vision plan. It is founded on much good work. City staff, led by Jason Morrison, has done a highly professional job of distilling and assembling all that was gathered and presented. The community outreach was beyond anything that I have seen. The community, the developer, Loretto alumni and other related individuals.
Speaker 4: And community groups were engaged and.
Speaker 8: Represented on the stakeholder team, stakeholder group throughout the process. Here's here's what stands out for me. I always felt heard. This was especially true of the developer and owner Mark Markovich of West Side Investment Partners. He answered every email and phone call and was remarkably timely and thoughtful in his response. He attended community meetings that he was not required to attend or did not need to attend, and some of them were not friendly. He was present. He listened and he gave input where he could. I acknowledge and thank Councilman Kevin Flynn for the forethought of convincing the city administration that we need this area plan now. We need it now. I simply don't know what we would do without a big vision and long term guidance that that it will provide for the phased development and related zone change request that will come forward over the next two years. One last important thing that stands out to me as I know what the citizens and organized groups, neighborhood groups of Southwest Denver love and care about our corner of the city. We know its history and value, its history, its beauty, its vital neighborhoods, the inspiring open space, the parks, the greenways and natural areas. We know what schools and thriving commercial areas. However, Loretta Heiss campus, with its storied history and sacred purpose, is more than an icon for Southwest Denver. Rather, it is a high among the great cultural gems of all Denver. This plan gives Denver an opportunity to enable the greater heights to be an important part of Denver moving forward. I ask that you support and adopt this plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brad Wilkin.
Speaker 9: Hi, my name is Brad Wilkin and I'm a Denver resident and also work as a project manager with Thrive Homebuilders. We're a healthy, local and efficient home builder, and we create communities where families can thrive.
Speaker 4: I feel really, really.
Speaker 9: Privileged to be a peer assessor, especially after Sister Mary now just really eloquently described the site. So I feel privileged to be able to work on this site. We're working on a portion with West Side. I also feel privileged because I've worked on a couple of other developments before, and this one is the most community for community centric process I've ever been involved with. Specific specifically.
Speaker 8: One example is in January, there's a community meeting.
Speaker 9: In March of Hall and I thought it was so cool and maybe I thought was cool because my wife's a teacher just down the street.
Speaker 8: And they handed out grade cards.
Speaker 9: And everybody got a grade card and they could grade how well CPD and Councilman Flynn and the developer was doing and everybody got to grade that and they didn't just put it into a folder then they, they published it on online. So I just want to say thanks so much for CPD. Kudos to you guys for a really transparent process. So we are so much in support of this plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman CQ and I'll call the next five to come up with the front bench. Tony Hernandez, Gene Myers, father Joseph Deng National and Donna Rapp.
Speaker 4: Good evening, ladies. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues and. Folks coming.
Speaker 6: Here for this very.
Speaker 4: Important legislation. I was born and raised in Colorado and attended schools here, including college. Do you. And one of the signs that we had a deal was that if you are looking for a rich, sexy girlfriend, you'll find her at the U. And if you're looking for a wife, you'll find her at Loreto Heights. And that's kind of how this thing is work in the United States, this legislation. So you guys are sort of do you want to get a girlfriend or do you want a wife, though? Because once permanent was temporary. All right. And so what we have here really is the first step toward a happy union. One of the things that's a tragedy is that these zoning hearings pit neighborhoods and neighbors against each other so that developers can slide in on the down low like they did with this one. And all of a sudden, hey, there are things.
Speaker 6: We can't address now, but we're addressing them now.
Speaker 4: Anyway because everybody's like, and we're getting this. Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, yeah. It's sly. It's like it's wicked. And yet. Councilman Flynn. It's kind of like the cop on this. Is this is this Jack? He let this one get messed up. He's fired.
Speaker 0: Chairman, please, please refer to the council as a whole, not individual members.
Speaker 4: Okay. So what we have here really is an example. I need your community to pay attention. What happened to my community on this side? They ethnically cleansed us. There are now very little or no black people on each side. None. And then when you look out there, I mean, black people usually are dead. Look how many? Zero. None. Where there was outreach. Did you go look for. Hmm. And then we went to the Christmas program out there looking out for my friend, who I.
Speaker 6: Didn't know he could play an.
Speaker 4: Instrument.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. But guess what? Next up, Tony Hernandez gets you.
Speaker 4: The going gets you because they line up there and they go to tell. Care to discuss?
Speaker 6: Hi there. My name is Tony Hernandez, and I would like to thank Kevin Kim, my city councilman, for your leadership in bringing the area plan to our side of town. We've needed an area plan for a very long time, a neighborhood plan. So thank you very much. I also want to thank the city staff for their outstanding facilitation of these meetings. These are hard to do. I've done there was in my past that was appointed by Kevin Flynn because of my expertize in affordable housing and community development across the country and in Colorado. So I'm very excited about the redevelopment. I support the redevelopment. Unlike at Colorado Heights, what we're trying to do is make sure, as the system talked about the preservation and protection of the buildings, the views, those are the things we're looking for. The vision plan that we have in the area plan really provides a vision which is about 100,000 feet. That's what visions are supposed to do. And that's why we're looking for the next phase, which we call the Large Development Review Committee, which will help us pin down what we need is certainty in protection and preservation of the buildings, open space and view plans. That's what's not been done yet. And so what we're asking for is continuing a process that really protects.
Speaker 4: The last iconic building and campus in Denver. But to do that, we're.
Speaker 6: Encouraging the city council to ask those tough questions. When do we preserve those.
Speaker 4: Buildings and views?
Speaker 6: Well, we have to do it before they start the construction, because once they start the construction, things have changed and the protection is less. So when you have a horse in the barn, you close the door so the horse doesn't leave. You don't open and let the horse go and say, We'll get a new door pretty soon. So I'm encouraging the large development review committee to really certify and give us some certainty in the preservation of the views and the protection through a historic district designation that is so important. Last thing I'd like to share with you is the importance of looking at the metro districts. It's a great tool for financing. As a financier, I've brought over $21 billion in the state of Colorado and have used the metro districts to do that. There is concern with Metro District. That means the Metro District becomes the local government. They have the board, they do the votes without input from the citizens because they're out there votes on the board. So I encourage you look at it because if you do not do a designation at the large review committee, developer can do whatever he wants. And I believe Mark will do good things. But I've been with lawyers and developer for if you don't put it in writing, it's not certain. So encourage more certain powers. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Gene Myers.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Jean Meyers. 1875 Lawrence Street in Denver.
Speaker 8: I'm the CEO of Thrive Homebuilders.
Speaker 4: And as a local builder, we are very grateful to have.
Speaker 8: Been selected as one of the builders of Loreto Heights. So thank you to West Side and to Mark and to Andy. I was going to talk about my first day as a freshman at DU in 1969, but the chairman still stole my thunder. I think I was told on the first.
Speaker 9: Day that Loretto Heights is where the pretty girls were. I would just like to compliment the collaborative.
Speaker 8: Process that has been undertaken. You've heard heard that from numerous people. I think a kudos needs to go to the city staff for genuinely investing in this inclusive and genuine process. I have to admire Councilman Flynn. I've never.
Speaker 9: Experienced anybody quite as engaged.
Speaker 4: As he is in this issue, and.
Speaker 8: I spent a couple of hours in his presence and very impressed with his command of the issues. Thank you for listening. And we we very much support the project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Father Joseph De.
Speaker 4: Boy, you guys are holy today because we have priest, we have minister, we have rabbi, we have sisters. Hallelujah. My name is Father Joseph. Dang, I. I'm on behalf of the Vietnamese-American community of Colorado. I'm honored to participate in the Loreto High Steering Committee and the creations of the area plan for the Loretto Heights campus. I have attended monthly at the steering committee meetings, public input, open houses and worked closely with Jason Morrison, Councilman Flynn, sister of Laredo's sister Mariano, and mostly with Mark. And yes, I have a problem to spell that is pronounce your name to icon. W I am super impressed with the astonished students with it. Very impressed of the level of input and collaborations with the community planning and development process. The Vietnamese-American community of Colorado is fully supporting the area plan for lower out of height. We are looking forward to seeing Loreto Heights development to kick in as soon as possible. The building has been vacant too long and vandalism has been a nightmare there. We believe the future of this great area will be a hub for the Southwest community where it can serve a multicultural center. I will continue to do my best to work with the city councils of Denver Councilman Flynn, West Side Investment Partners in any way I can to support this implementations of their Laredo height area plans. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, national.
Speaker 4: Name's National and I live here in Denver. I currently work for.
Speaker 11: Harris Cooker Smith, that's a consultant.
Speaker 4: For West Side Development and I fully support this development.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right, Don, a rep and I'll call the last four up Daniel Craig into for you Nora Jack was and Marc were quick go ahead.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Donna Noble Rep 4850 West Colorado Avenue two and nine. I'm president of my neighborhood organization and an alternate to Terry Tara Durham on the Loreto Heights Steering Committee. When they bought Loreto Heights, West Side Investments could have started building right away without even seeking a rezoning. But they made it abundantly clear from the beginning that they wanted to understand the pulse of the community. So the steering committee was formed a huge win for the Southwest committed community. The committee didn't always agree, but the steering committee members, most of them were respectful and collaborative. We also had some bumps in the road by agitators who tried to knock us off our focus by creating confusion and doubt. But in the end, we had this wonderful, guiding, visionary document without any amendments that I am very proud to have played a role, and I hope you adopt it. The process was transparent and communication flowed freely to and from city planner Jason Morrison and staff. We met monthly and throughout the process there were far for large community meetings for people to share their hopes, ideas and concerns. Some of my favorite things about the plan are the developers asking for a down zoning. I've heard it said The higher the penthouse, the higher the price. Which is exactly why I'm excited that down zoning puts a cap at eight storeys rather than the 15 story of this, the current zoning allows for the first time ever, Loreto Heights will be open to all people to enjoy all that it has to offer. The development will be an inclusive community and will be welcoming of all ages, ethnicities, abilities and backgrounds. It will offer a variety of price points for housing, including affordable and attainable housing. Not to mention opportunity for jobs. This is what our neighborhood needs, and it's what we asked for. We have a developer that heard our desires as a community, and now it's time for you to approve this plan. So the legacy of Loreto Heights can continue. It's such a shame that as time goes by, more windows and those wonderful buildings are shattered by rocks or bullets. Graffiti is sprayed on the buildings. A dumpster is set on fire. That's happened. A vacant Loreto Heights 72 acres is not good for our community. We need to begin breathing life and love back into that wonderful space that the Sisters of Loreto first loved. Thank you for your consideration and thank you so much for all you do for Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Daniel Craig.
Speaker 8: If you need counsel.
Speaker 9: Thank you for your time. My name is Dan Craig. I'm a resident of the city of Denver.
Speaker 8: I followed the law out of Hyde small area planning process closely over this past year. And as a resident, I'd.
Speaker 9: Like to voice my support for the smaller rate plan. I'd also like to note.
Speaker 11: That I'm an.
Speaker 8: Architect with.
Speaker 9: Shares Adkins Rockmore Architects. We are consultant to West Side Investment Partners.
Speaker 8: And in this capacity we were tasked by West Side with attending.
Speaker 9: Each and every.
Speaker 11: Steering committee meeting and public meeting to ensure that we would have heard.
Speaker 9: Firsthand the community's goals and aspirations for Loreto Heights. I personally attended each one of those sessions, as did.
Speaker 8: Many other folks from the consulting team. And as an architect, I would like to say to all the folks involved in the Loreto Heights similar plan process.
Speaker 11: Thank you for offering this.
Speaker 9: Opportunity to listen to your goals and aspirations for.
Speaker 0: Fuller.
Speaker 8: Heights. I applaud your efforts for your thoroughness, for your inclusivity.
Speaker 9: We appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, interfaith.
Speaker 10: Hello. My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya, and I'm the duly elected co-chair of the Zoning and Planning Committee for the Denver Area Neighborhood Cooperation. Denver I c is an association of nearly 100 organizations in Denver. I'm also a trustee of historic Denver, and I want to be clear that I'm not speaking on their behalf tonight. In fact, you heard comments from John earlier. I also live in District two. I see in particular, our ZAP committee has been watching the redevelopment of Loretta Heights close for many years before this concurrent developer and before this small area plan. We regularly discussed updates, shared promotional materials from community planning and development and directed our members to attend meetings. I myself attended the last meeting and had the opportunity to engage with city workers and even held a design forum on the site. And we'd like to once again thank Mark and his company for opening the doors for this forum. And we'd like to thank the city employees for their hard work at our monthly meeting. This last August, we hosted an open dialog for the Loretta Plan, during which a resolution was brought forward asking for a historic designation district. Our committee members believe historic designation is the best way to ensure protection. And apparently so. Too many of the people that came here tonight, we forward this to council for the official record. And I do want to note that the 90 we made it in the resolution, we made it clear that we agree that this plan should this area should be redeveloped with a focus on attainable housing. Our members are requesting strong commitment to historic districting, and amendments to improve plans are something that we shouldn't discuss. A recent example is Councilman Cashman's. Climate Change Amendments The Comprehensive Plan. I want to be clear Hastert's historic designation shows the importance of the campus to the city as a whole. To designate or not is not a courtesy zoning issue. Typically, we would move this forward to a vote of the entire ANC member delegation, but due to a shortened window we were unable to bring it to the entire body for discussion. And so our Executive Board had us testify on behalf of the committee of which my co-chair, Christine O'Connor, added additional comments. If there are additional questions regarding our process, we're both willing to come back and answer them. I do want to repeat what Christine's point was, that upfront historic designation was the thing that required more scrutiny for all the buildings within the district, even if they were not individually landmarked. And without this process, hanger two would have not been preserved. I am pleased to hear that two of the buildings were committed to easements only mere hours ago, and I believe at least three are committed to. There is still work to be done to ensure that other assets are protected and approved tonight. It is our hope that our members will this is our hope of our members that this will be addressed in the planning stage, but know that the stronger the plan is, the more certain the community can be. At Preservation Agency is committed to hosting a community conversation with city officials Westside and historic Denver about how best to ensure this amazing asset is here for my grandchildren to enjoy. Now I want to add, I had heard from local community members that only a handful of folks attended the Spanish meeting despite a concerted effort. There are many Latinos in this community. Look at this room now. There are more consultants than there are people of color. Where is the Spanish media? I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: But your time.
Speaker 10: Is up. The outreach for this vote. And is this something that came before your time as a neighborhood planned?
Speaker 0: Next up, Nora Jacqui's.
Speaker 1: I'm not orcas. And I did my undergraduate work at Laurel Heights. I was a resident of Creature Hall during my stay at Laredo. And I want to say that I am very impressed with the plans for Creature Hall, where all 68 units will be designated affordable housing, and more than half of these are 2 to 3 bedroom units suitable for families. I am impressed also with the effort that has been made for community input for the small area plan. I understand that more than 1400 people had their voices heard either on in community meetings or in online surveys. I want to thank the development teams and the city planning group for their efforts for that and also the Denver Public Schools. May I particularly note the effort that was made to reach the Spanish speaking people in the community? I might say that if the return on the Spanish input was less than expected, it might have nothing to do with your efforts, but more the fact that some of these people.
Speaker 3: Are having.
Speaker 1: To stay under the radar in today's world and cannot come out to public meetings and give their name. I support the small area plan and I urge the Council to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mark or cabbage?
Speaker 11: Good evening, President Clark and members of Denver City Council. My name is Mark Ward Cavic. I'm a principal of West Side Investment. The owner of the Lauretta Heights campus at 3001 South Federal tonight, the Florida Heights area lead, Loreto Heights community led area plan is in front of you for adoption. West Side purchased Florida Heights campus in the summer of 2018 only. And I said this before only after all avenues to continue the 130 year legacy of an educational facility were exhausted. For the past year, we've been on the pause button and I have to say that initially I was apprehensive about the process, but I can tell you that I have nothing but wonderful remarks about what we've gone through, and we've been working in collaboration with the community and we've been also working with the city on this area plan process. And the results, as I just indicated, are overwhelmingly positive. I am honored to be a part of this process. I'm honored to have heard every comment, both in support and in opposition. The process has been beautiful because everybody's voice has been heard. We heard loudly that Southwest Denver has been overlooked for many years. It is clear the community is seeking a place to call their own. A community that envisions a mix of use, a mix of incomes, and a multi-generational development which honors the spirit of Loreto, celebrates the existing culture, embraces the campus characteristics and preserves the historical legacy. And that includes the cemetery, while at the same time the community is not seeking to move forward under the current zoning, which is incredibly dense. In closing, it is my wish to think about the future of Loreto and not be sad. So let's rejoice. Let's get together and breathe life back into this campus just as the community led area plan envisions. On behalf of the community, I ask for your support and approval of the Right of Heights Area Plan tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council Councilman Flynn?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask Irene Aguilar to come on up, who's the head of our Neighborhood Equity and Stabilization Team? Because I, like many of the speakers, I'm very concerned about the potential for displacement and gentrification. And I think a lot of us have the same goal, but we view differently how to get there. My view of this is that it is currently vacant, so new housing there displaces no one, in fact in any places people. And the plan that's in the area of the mapping in the area plan has a range of housing from Pancreases Hall and others to come under the affordable housing program, but also affordability by design from thrive builders with price points that start actually below the average values in some of the surrounding neighborhoods. So Senator Aguilar, I would like to ask you, what is your view on the potential for development at Loreto Heights to either help prevent gentrification, to provide a defense against gentrification or the opposite?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 3: Flynn, and thank you, members of the committee, for your attention this evening. And to.
Speaker 1: All my neighbors who are here, I do live.
Speaker 3: Across the street from the vacant.
Speaker 1: Property. I actually, as you know, I've been doing research into gentrification and what can cause and what can exacerbate it.
Speaker 3: Interestingly.
Speaker 1: The the placing of a development being placed in areas that are largely minority is a mitigating factor against gentrification. And if you look at the area maps of southwest Denver, this is a largely Latino population. I think the analysis of the small area development plans show that it was 63 or 68% Latino. The other thing.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 1: Tends to be mitigating is if there is a large percentage of affordable housing and in addition to the housing that West Side Investment Partners has committed to, it at this point is only pancreas. While as part of the large area development plan, we will be having our housing people. Actually, Melissa Tardy was here earlier meet with to talk about deeper affordability and larger units for the area. Loreto Heights.
Speaker 3: Is right next to a Catholic Health Initiatives project.
Speaker 1: And it is across the.
Speaker 3: Street and are surrounded by.
Speaker 1: A lot of multi-level, very affordable housing buildings, which actually actually again tend to protect against gentrification. The further you are from downtown, the less likely you are to gentrify. And one of our complaints to Councilman Flynn constantly is how difficult it is to get from our community to downtown. And so there are a number of factors here. Yeah. You were on that RTD board. I remember that. But I there so there are a number of factors here that I'm speaking to you as your constituent now.
Speaker 3: Not as an employee of the city and county. That my apologies.
Speaker 1: That will actually potentially help mitigate this. I think.
Speaker 4: I think the largest.
Speaker 1: Thing that will help, though, is if we do get a true commitment written on paper as part of a development agreement for affordable housing in this area, it presents a unique opportunity to potentially build, as you mentioned.
Speaker 3: Attainable housing for.
Speaker 1: Many people in our workforce, including our teachers. It is a big barrier to recruitment in.
Speaker 4: Our city, is that many.
Speaker 1: Teachers cannot afford to buy housing. And so if there is a potential to by force to put for sale housing here and the 300 to $350000 range.
Speaker 3: That could really help to stabilize the community in general.
Speaker 1: I am hopeful that the amenities that the developer plans will come to fruition and will.
Speaker 3: Be sustaining and will help to create some jobs in the area. There are a lot of schools nearby.
Speaker 1: And around the area who would benefit from partnerships and employment and certainly economic development and opportunity could work with.
Speaker 4: Them around.
Speaker 1: Work force if that was the desire of the developer as well in terms of ensuring that we had utilized some of the city's development goals around.
Speaker 3: Redevelopment.
Speaker 1: And so I think done correctly, there's a lot of potential here. I think interestingly, areas in which the city has had high levels of investment are more likely to gentrify. And as we've been telling you for years, you have not been investing.
Speaker 4: In southwest.
Speaker 1: Denver. So I think we're protected.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Senator Jason Morrison and Mr. President. Oh, Madam Pro-Tem, sorry, I. Know that there are others in the queue. So I will just ask some rapid fire questions maybe for Jason and then for Mark and then I'll I'll defer and then come back into the queue. Jason, could you describe after we had the first community meeting in January where we had 230 people come out on a very cold night Thursday night in January. I came to you and I said, you know, we're not getting outreach or we're not getting turnout from the Latino community. We need to do more. And so I asked CPD to take on a monolingual Spanish meeting. And could you describe the outreach that was done for that?
Speaker 9: Sure. Absolutely. So great question. So as Councilman Flynn mentions, and I think Irene touched on this earlier, the very beginning of this process, we did our due diligence and want to kind of understand the demographics of the area, the planning area. And we did discover that over 60% of the folks that do live within the area identify as Hispanic or Latino. So in working with Councilman Flynn, we realize there's a great need to engage these folks. And, you know, we from day one, from that first community meeting, we had the bilingual fliers realized we weren't getting the turnout that we wanted to see. So we wanted to partner with Councilman Flynn to have this particular meeting. And so we sat down as a group. And rather than hold that meeting in the evening, we really wanted to kind of think think through this a little bit more and really kind of identify avenues and ways to get folks to these these particular meetings. So we decided to have the meeting during the Saturday morning. So traditionally, we do typically hold our meetings in the evening, but this particular meeting was held at first thing in the morning on a Saturday actually to get folks to to come in in the hopes that we can engage these folks. But in working with Councilman Flynn, we, you know, tried a lot of different avenues to get folks to come to these particular meetings. And so we we did everything, as, you know, not only distributing fliers through a company, but walking up and down Federal Boulevard and putting these fliers on businesses, apartment buildings to try and engage the renters and then even marketing the vendors more. Just kind of get to know your neighbors, you know, complete with breakfast burritos supplied by a local vendor. We actually had a communications team that went to a Zumba class. Believe it or not, I was not at that Zumba class. But there were folks that went to a Zumba class at College View Rec Center to try and try and get folks to to show up. So we really tried to get, you know, just be innovative and, you know, really work with Councilman Flynn in the community. And Adriana Pena was up here speaking about our outreach with Denver Public Schools and working with the Duka and Univision to really kind of promote this particular event. And we were very happy. You know, we did end up with 30 folks that did show up to this particular meeting. Did we want more? Absolutely. But we I think we learned a lot through this process. And we worked with our steering committee to kind of identify ways to continue the outreach moving forward. And I would encourage folks to work with CPD in the future to really, really get folks to think over this.
Speaker 6: I think I mentioned to you also that the Saturday before the meeting we held this at a neutral at a church at All Saints church on a Saturday morning. And I think I mentioned to you that the Saturday before that I personally drove up and down federal and post to those fliers. Correct as well. And that I also approached CPD because of what Mohawk has said. The second the last person to testify that there was great concern in the community about what what's going on at the national level with with immigration raids and things like that. And I asked CPD to develop a protocol, should we hold this meeting that we advertised pretty widely so that what our response would be if ICE showed up at the door at All Saints and we did develop that, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. And now very quickly, Loretta Height's community initiative had about you sent me the spreadsheet today for comments on the final draft. And by my count, with your resolution of them, 14 of them were incorporated into the final draft. 14 Those comments, eight of them involved such specific requests that actually come later and will occur after area plan is adopted but are more site plan oriented. Two of those were beyond the scope of what area plans do I think one of them wanted us to measure demographics with a five mile radius, including the city of Littleton and things like that. And that was determined that that's not something an area plan does. And the only one that was actually not accommodated was one that you heard here that the rest of the steering committee would not agree to. And that was an immediate, historic landmark district designation as the only tool on the table for preservation. And wasn't it the determination of the steering committee other than LHC and Harvey Park, that we should leave all the tools on the table and use the ones that produced the best result at the time they're needed?
Speaker 9: That's absolutely correct. Yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And just a couple of questions for Mark before I defer my name for a time, Mark McCarrick. Because you have been talking with a strike Denver for quite some time.
Speaker 11: I have been talking to historic Denver for quite some time.
Speaker 6: Okay. And those talks were aimed at determining the timing and the sequencing and the application of whatever historic preservation tools we want to use to save these buildings.
Speaker 11: Yeah, the talk has always been about preservation and, you know, preserving the buildings that are very important on that campus.
Speaker 6: No one, including West Side, but no one in the community has ever said we should tear down the academy building.
Speaker 11: That has that has never been in any conversation. As a matter of fact, to take it one step further, when we purchased the property, the property.
Speaker 6: That was our next question.
Speaker 11: Put on a covenant that prevented demolition.
Speaker 6: Tokio Group When they sold the campus, they would not even entertain a an offer from any buyer who would not accept that covenant that runs with the land. Correct.
Speaker 11: That is a true statement.
Speaker 6: Okay. In fact, how many minutes do you think it would take me to file a hostile landmarking designation bill? Should you or anyone in your group even breathe the word demolition.
Speaker 11: To the administration building.
Speaker 6: Or Pancreases Hall or the chapel or reload or relocating the cemetery?
Speaker 11: Yeah. I mean, I think we all know the answer to that question quickly.
Speaker 6: Okay. And finally, what's up with the cemetery? Tell me the status of your talks with the. Oh, I'm sorry. Before I leave that you've you did send a letter today to historic Denver, because although you're not finished and Mr. Olson is still here, I assume, although you're not finished with the instrument that accomplishes this, the intent and the committed intent now is that there will be permanent preservation protection on the I call it the Academy Building, people say administration. It was built as Loretto Academy, the Chapel, Pancreases Hall and protection for the cemetery. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: It is true. And let me take a minute to explain that letter. It is a true statement that today I did send a letter over to historic Denver, which was I think John used the word a commitment letter. The commitment has always been there. You know, I come from the Midwest. You know, my handshake is worth a lot. I know people don't necessarily believe that here in Denver, but it does. We have always said in all of the steering committee meetings that those buildings would be preserved. Mm hmm. You know, there there is already a covenant on the administration building where you can't tear it down.
Speaker 6: And chapel.
Speaker 11: And the chapel as well. And the way that the rehabilitation and the adaptive reuse of those buildings are going to work, you absolutely have to have historic tax credits. The historic tax credits are governed by a very strict guideline by the Department of the Interior, you know, which does the exact same thing, to be honest, that those easements are going to do. So the reason why the letter came out today is that we were trying to get an easement done beforehand. We're having the easements reviewed by our financial advisors just to make sure there's not a problem. But again, it's completely redundant to everything that we're already doing. Okay. You know, it's like belt and suspenders.
Speaker 6: Last, last, last question before I defer. What's up with the cemetery? My impression is that you have offered to facilitate whatever arrangement is is acceptable to the Sisters of Loreto.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I've been meeting with Sister Mary now and Ruth for a long time, maybe almost a year. And, you know, their relationship is going beyond the cemetery. You know, they've taught me a lot about the history of the campus. We've spent time up at Regis in the archives digging through boxes. In fact, Martha was there with us and on all the journeys as well. And at this point in time, we have offered many solutions to the cemetery. And at this point in time, we are waiting for the sisters to let us know which solution that they like the best. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, with 41 speakers, it gives us an opportunity to rack up a couple questions, so I hope it won't take too long. May I chat with CPD for a minute? Just some about some of the data around the, you know, in the surrounding neighborhood. So we had Senator Aguilar say it was about two thirds Latino, 63 or 68%, I believe was her stab. Is that. And I think you said you felt that was approximately correct. Yes. Has the do you know if the demographic composition has changed much in the last decade or two? So I don't personally, I don't. No. I think my assumption would be that it's it's mermaid pretty consistent and it's in line with what Senator Regular said. Correct. In line with and also in line with all of the investment that we've done as a city in southwest Denver, as in not much. So there's not really a whole lot of need, I suppose, or a lot of opportunity for change, I suppose, just from natural evolution. The how many other do you know if there were other potential suitors for this property? I think there there were there were few companies or organizations that I considered purchasing, but those all fell through. Is that is that right? I believe so. So the one that comes to mind is, I believe in metro state was offered, but they did not they did not want to move forward with the purchase. Other than that, I thought my head I can't think of any others. I'm sure there may have been more and I don't know if someone else and that purchase was like for a dollar or two or less. Yeah. So that I guess in my mind kind of speaks to again to the opportunities in southwest Denver that have not really materialized and also speaks to perhaps the difficulty in doing something with this property. How many other culturally significant structures are there in southwest Denver, do you know? So what do you mean by culturally significant if you had to put a definition on it? That's a fair statement. I'm so I'm new to council two months as of and a couple of days. And I'm starting to realize that the questions that I ask people want to be very careful with their answer. And so when I ask vague questions, I understand that that's difficult. You could give vague answers, but I guess are there other community centers in southwest Denver as in like placemaking, where people go to to collect, they go with their neighbors and they you know, they that does that is that may be a bit more specific or . Yeah, that helps. So to my knowledge, I know Bear Creek Shopping Center, which is kind of located south and west of this particular planning area, is most likely, I think, you know, probably known as kind of that, that main kind of commercial, you know, destination place type Federal Boulevard has a lot of local shops and restaurants and small businesses. So that's another area I know. You know, Councilman Flynn would know the area, I think, a lot better as far as, you know, southwest of the actual planning area itself. But those are kind of two areas that I think come to mind for kind of a destination where folks can actually shop and experience retail and have kind of that community gathering. Okay. And I guess he does live there and represent District two. So I would hope that he he understands the neighborhood. May I also ask you a couple questions of Mr. Miscavige, please? So think thank you for coming and and thank you for presenting and being available for questions. We've had we've heard from a lot of people. I it seems that in my unofficial estimation, we probably had more people in support of the conversation than than opposed. There are a couple of things that I want to try to wrap my arms around. And and perhaps you can help me help me do that. Some of the folks who were against said that the community wasn't in favor of the plan and that but then once we looked at the surveys, you know, when CPD presented, the surveys were overwhelmingly positive. Do you have any sense of perhaps why, you know, the people who were against the plan felt like there wasn't community support, but then the surveys and obviously there were other people afterwards that said there was plenty of support. I just I guess I'm I'm not understanding exactly why there might be opposition to support.
Speaker 11: You and I both I don't understand either. I can tell you that the process, you know, has been very inclusive. I can tell you that when I first started, I was apprehensive as well as you can imagine. I think that the insight that we have learned from the community through this process has been absolutely amazing. I have personally tried to have conversations with some of the individuals that are in opposition, and all I can tell you is that the answer is no. When I talk to them.
Speaker 9: As in they. Daniel.
Speaker 11: I just. I don't understand. I wish I had an answer for you, because if I did, this conversation would be a lot easier.
Speaker 9: Okay. And so zap the ANC zoning committee, I believe, mentioned historic designation. I think Councilman Flynn had mentioned it's smart to keep all the options on the table instead of moving forward with one can. Can you help me understand a bit more about the, you know, keeping all the tools in the tool belt, why that's important. Specifically with regards to the idea of historic designation first.
Speaker 11: Sure. Like with anything you want to begin with the end in mind. And I think we're 100% aligned with what the end in mind is. The end in mind is creating a great community gathering place, maintaining the spirit of Loreto. And included with that is preservation of a number of really iconic buildings. So if the goal is preservation and there are a number of ways that you can provide for the preservation, why would you want to eliminate all of them? But one, why would you not want to take the best tool in your toolbox and use it? You know, we have buildings that are going to be very expensive to repurpose. Just by way of example, Pan Croatia is going to cost $22 million to renovate. The administration building is probably going to be in the upwards of the neighborhood of $40 million to renovate. One of the very most important tools that we have got to have in our toolbox is through the historic tax credits. And the historic tax credits will absolutely provide for preservation of not only the exterior of the buildings, but very important interior components as well. So I'll ask you again, if you were in my shoes, why would you want to get rid of a tool that you could find useful in the future?
Speaker 9: I know that's rhetoric. I am in the very wonderful position where I get to ask the questions. So the so because I'm not a developer or an expert in development after this, say we were to vote for it today, you know, start breaking ground tomorrow. Right. That there is there the large development review, is that another necessary step before you can do anything with the property?
Speaker 11: Yeah, absolutely. And that's a great point. I'm glad that you brought that up, Councilman. This is the first step of a of a number of steps that need to happen. You know, we do have the LDR process that has been referenced a few times here tonight. You know, after the LDR process, there's still zoning documents that need to be done. There's a development agreement inside the development agreement. We'll have the affordable housing components, the open space components and all. Yeah, the historic preservation components. And then beyond that, we also have to have site plan approvals and then there's things called construction documents. So there are a lot of opportunities for input still.
Speaker 9: Okay. So the the comments about displacement or, you know, effect of pushing out communities of color, we still have opportunities to weigh in on that in historic preservation before ground is broken. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's true statement. But nobody lives on the campus yet.
Speaker 9: But if you're not pushing out, all the people are vandalizing the place. Oh, no, you're not going to displace them. Okay. So I think that's that's all I have for now. Thank you, Mr. Councilman.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Joyce.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Jason, can I ask you a couple of questions? And this trails off of the last comments that were made just in terms of what the community can expect next, in terms of steps that either they will see or that this body will see. And it sounds like a large development review, zoning process, development agreement, site plan approvals. At what point are you plans determined?
Speaker 9: Sure. So great question. So as you know, it was in our presentation, we've heard multiple times this evening that the views of the campus to and from the campus actually just incredible. You know, having grown up in southeast Denver, I didn't spend a lot of time in southwest Denver. But the fact that I've been able to, you know, participate in this process and be on that site, you know, since we've started, this has just been fantastic. And to be able to see those views, I would highly recommend it. So the views will actually continue throughout the LDR process, where when we start to get into things like the development agreements, you had mentioned that that something like that, that's where the views would potentially live. So what would happen is within the development agreement we would work with the developer, continue to work with the community to make sure that the development agreement adequately addresses the concerns surrounding the views. The plan goes as far as to make reference to specific locations, so to and from the administration building from Federal Boulevard, the sweeping views from the top of the campus to the southwest, the Rocky Mountains, the front range, and then also to the northeast, to the city of Denver. That's the skyline. So those specific plans or scenic views are called out in the plan. And now it's up to us as we move through implementation to make sure that we capture those and it would be in the development agreement.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Is it possible to do a traffic analysis of Dartmouth at this stage?
Speaker 9: Not not at this particular stage, so not at the visioning stage. However, we have obviously we've heard the concerns. You heard the concerns tonight, particularly with Dartmouth Heights, where we worked with them to actually the language that lives in the plan now was crafted by Dartmouth Heights. And we worked with them to get make sure that, you know, the vision was captured. But it's a little too early right now to have that traffic analysis. But one is coming. The traffic study is coming in order to make sure that we address those concerns.
Speaker 3: Is it at a particular stage that we mentioned before?
Speaker 9: So it would be within the, I believe, the site plan, site planning process? I believe that's correct.
Speaker 3: And then my third question for you is the outreach and engagement for Latino Spanish speaking communities. It was mentioned that parent engagement took place at DPS. So everything independent of the of the single single meeting. What kind of input was received through that engagement?
Speaker 9: So I believe so what we did is we worked with Denver Public Schools and Adriana Pena, who was our kind of liaison, and we worked with her to not only distribute fliers but also, you know, incorporate feedback if she was hearing anything from those folks. And then at the particular meetings, we would have the sticky notes and we would have, you know, pages and pages of feedback that we received from those folks incorporated into the plan. And then we would bring that back to the steering committee, bring that back to the other community meetings in order to make sure that we were listening to these folks and we we had everything covered. So I can't speak specific to the engagement that Adriana Pena did, but she was instrumental in us, first of all, asking us to print thousands and thousands of fliers that were distributed in backpacks of children in area elementary schools. And I know that she did have engagement with some of those folks throughout the process. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just one question for Mark. Now the increase to haul affordable housing units are already set. At what point would anybody know that additional affordable units are being considered?
Speaker 11: We are considering them so now.
Speaker 1: Okay. And do you know.
Speaker 3: What that will be?
Speaker 11: I do. I have some ideas of some concepts that we're working on. It involves some pretty heavy lifting on one particular project of another adaptive reuse of a building. It would be potentially gauge towards seniors. And that is my next target that we're working on right now.
Speaker 3: Is there a point where community will know exactly when they'll be able to either hear what those unit numbers are, what the percentage of the overall plan will look like, anything that indicates to them it's going to be more for sure than increase the whole.
Speaker 11: Yeah. Part of our LDR process as a community outreach, there is a community public meeting I think is the technical term for it. That meeting is already scheduled. It's on October 1st over and match both on the library. So those that want to come, you're welcome to attend in that meeting. You know, it's where our plan is to unfold more, you know, talk about more ideas. We are expecting fact expecting is the wrong word to we are wanting to do more than just penetration on this project.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman and Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: Just a few questions for Jason. Can you come back up?
Speaker 1: Jason, I have a quick clarification there.
Speaker 3: Were you what was the partner or partner groups role in the development.
Speaker 1: Of this site plan?
Speaker 9: So I believe the partner company served as kind of a consultant to the development team.
Speaker 3: So they were they consulted with was side. Did you come from partner.
Speaker 2: Before coming to the city?
Speaker 9: That's incorrect. No.
Speaker 3: What was your relationship to partner before coming to the city?
Speaker 9: Sure. So in graduate school. So I went to University of Colorado, Denver for two years of graduate school. And in 2012, I believe I, of course, you know, was was trying to find a job in planning. And there was a presentation that was done by the partner company working with one of the professors. I applied for an internship. I was an intern with the partner company for I don't even think it was six months back in 2012. And so again, that was, you know, so six, seven years ago.
Speaker 3: So you didn't work on this plan before coming to work on it?
Speaker 9: I didn't.
Speaker 3: And so can you. You mentioned that 30 Latinos showed up to the meeting that was designed for the Spanish speakers. Are any of them here?
Speaker 9: You know, it was so long ago. I honestly, I, I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 3: Did you guys receive any support from any of those.
Speaker 1: Participants for this project?
Speaker 9: So support is in.
Speaker 3: Letters of support statements.
Speaker 9: So we did receive. Sorry. Just sorry to cut you off there, Councilwoman. We did receive a letter of support from Cassandra Ornelas, who is with the Southwest Denver Coalition. And so she works she works with this community, and she was also a member of the steering committee. And so she was instrumental in helping us without that community meeting. So we did receive that letter of support that represents that organization.
Speaker 7: Okay. All of them.
Speaker 3: So I heard a lot prior to this meeting from people who had participated that there was a very clear separation between the site plan and discussions about how to finance it. Is that typical of CPD processes where you keep it separate, siloed?
Speaker 9: Yes, absolutely. And so I know it is a little confusing because I know that the Metro District was in front of council, gosh, a few few weeks ago now, I suppose. But the Metro District was identified in this small area plan as a financing mechanism or a tool that could be used. I know Marc and I think others spoke to the constraints on getting that particular measure on the on the ballot at a certain time. So that's kind of why that leapfrog. But you're absolutely correct that it is separate from from the process.
Speaker 3: Why do we keep those conversations separate?
Speaker 9: I don't know if I can answer that question.
Speaker 1: Does the financing mechanism ever.
Speaker 3: Factor into the ability of the plan to meet the goals of equity and inclusion?
Speaker 9: I believe it does, yes. And if I know that Andrew Johnson is here to speak a little more specific about the metro districts, I did not work on the metro district and I don't really know the ins and outs, so I'm a little worried. I'm not going to speak eloquently about that. So if we can bring up Andrew, I think you might be able there to answer that.
Speaker 3: Well, we can save that one.
Speaker 1: But do you know off the top.
Speaker 3: Of your head what you guys spent to do community engagement, outreach from your office and then perhaps from you.
Speaker 1: All mark my work.
Speaker 9: So I do not have a specific dollar amount, but I can tell you that we spent a great deal of time with the outreach. And again, I just want to reiterate the you know, the avenues that we went to try and come up with innovative approaches. One thing, Councilwoman Torres, I did forget to mention is all of our spin or excuse me, all of our surveys were also in Spanish. So, you know, we actually went outside of the planning realm and work with our community folks that, you know, are specific with community engagement and develop these types of surveys. So a lot of time and effort went into these and I don't have a dollar amount for, you know.
Speaker 3: Do we ever monetize it?
Speaker 9: So we do. I know that it is part of our budget. I don't know off the top of my head what what is specifically allocated for that. But we we do have kind of a chunk that is used for that and that that involves the outreach, that involves supplying, you know, food, things like that. Some of these particular meetings as well.
Speaker 1: Is, is there's no.
Speaker 2: Dollar amount attached to that chunk.
Speaker 9: So there is a dollar amount. I do not know what that dollar amount is.
Speaker 3: And one question before I ask us a couple of the same questions to my mark. How do you define inclusive?
Speaker 9: I think that's that's a great question. So I think, you know, inclusivity is it's where, you know, I always think back to that definition of equity that it's it's to make sure that everyone has a chance. Right. Everyone has a chance to participate. And I think that that involves. Proper engagement that involves thinking outside of the box. But I think that's how I would you know, I would define inclusive, is that everyone can participate and everyone has a say moving forward.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mark. Can you tell.
Speaker 3: Us a little bit about what your budget was for outreach and engagement?
Speaker 11: We didn't have a budget for that, councilwoman. Our goal was to get out to as many meetings as possible. And I think that you heard from a lot of individuals that every meeting that I could possibly attend, I was there. There was no budget set aside where I had to spend X number of dollars or once I spent X number of dollars, I was done.
Speaker 3: So what did you spend?
Speaker 11: I have no idea. I really don't.
Speaker 3: And so when you guys were firing haphazardly throughout the area, was there any consideration.
Speaker 1: For the fact that you have.
Speaker 3: Yes, a majority Latino community, but.
Speaker 2: In college.
Speaker 3: View, 76% of homeowners are Latino. In Mali, 44% of homeowners are Latino. And in Harvey Park, 23 are 29% are Latino. Was there any. Consideration to maybe sending postcards to their.
Speaker 1: Houses to let them know or engage them.
Speaker 11: With all due respect, this is a city led area plan. This is not a developer led area plan. The outreach program was through the leadership of the city and me. Mark with Cabbage and West Side as the developer participated. We went to meetings, we answered questions and we engaged with the community. But we specifically didn't do the outreach.
Speaker 1: So with this.
Speaker 3: Majority Latino neighborhood and 44 people who spoke tonight, I think there was one Latina who lived in the area, one who participated on the group, and then one who was a representative of DPS.
Speaker 2: Does that feel inclusive to you or does.
Speaker 3: That fit with your definition of inclusive?
Speaker 11: The answer to that question is they weren't. It wasn't that they weren't reached out to councilwoman. I think it's the question of why aren't they coming? And do I think that that's inclusive? I think the outreach was there. The question, and I think somebody asked it earlier, is why are they not coming? It wasn't for a lack of trying, and I can assure you of that.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that. Just just.
Speaker 1: A little.
Speaker 3: Piece about inclusion, though. It's an acknowledgment. Inclusiveness is an acknowledgment of the injustices.
Speaker 2: That have gotten us to this point. And it's not actually a favor that.
Speaker 3: Those of us with privilege do for those who have less privilege. It's a partnership and intentionality behind what we're doing to make sure that whatever those barriers are, we're not explaining them away later. We're actually addressing them. But thank you for your questions.
Speaker 11: I'm sorry, what was that last point?
Speaker 3: Thank you for your questions. You can rewatch the video. We'll need it for the next parts of your your process.
Speaker 0: Are you alone? All right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me start with. I want to ask Jean Moore, are you still here? Gene? Jane Myers. I'm sorry. Jean Myers, is he still around? No. He's out in the hall. They're getting him. Sorry, Jane. I'm calling you up to the podium, if you don't mind. So I just want to clarify, are you going to be developing the affordable units in reshuffle?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: Okay. Are you intending to do any development on the on the site at all? Yes. Okay. And will that be affordable units?
Speaker 8: We're in the midst right now of working that overall project plan out for the development agreement. Okay. So we're counting up pancreas creation units, units that would occur elsewhere and then arriving at what we need to be doing on our site.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I just wanted to ask you if you could just talk a little bit about some of the affordable housing projects you have done within the city?
Speaker 8: Well, I think the big one is Stapleton. And I think between Thrive, we're a for profit company and Northeast Denver housing. I think we built all of the for sale housing, affordable housing in Stapleton. I think we've done three or 400 units and continue to build out there.
Speaker 1: Great. And we're is was that a mix between for sale and rental?
Speaker 4: It's all for sale. Okay.
Speaker 8: So we're a homebuilder, never done rental, never done any historic preservation northeast. And we have enough trouble getting.
Speaker 9: What we do right that we aren't trying a lot of new stuff. So I'm getting too old for that.
Speaker 1: So what you're looking at is for sale affordable?
Speaker 8: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And I am familiar with the work you've done at Stapleton, which I think has been outstanding housing for folks that are at a lower price point. So appreciate that. Let me move on to have a couple of questions for the city attorney. I have a copy of the letter that was written to John Olsen by Mark. And I'm wondering if that is something that we can just incorporate into the record and what is the the most appropriate way to do that?
Speaker 3: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council in yes, you can put that into the record. And I would suggest, I think that you give a copy to medication. She can make sure it's part of the record.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay, great. And just make sure that, Mark, you have no issue concerned with that being part of the record since it's already been referenced on a couple of occasions.
Speaker 11: As I mentioned before it, we're doing it anyway. Yeah. So it's completely redundant and I welcome it to be part of the record.
Speaker 1: Okay, so while you're up, I have a couple of questions for you. Can you tell me? So I know you're just focusing on what the financing is going to look like for this project. Had to get through sort of the the planning and trying to understand where the roads are going to be and, you know, what buildings are going to be preserved and what other types of development to include on the site. But do you anticipate the use of tax increment financing at all at this point in time as you're sort of brainstorming what those different financing tools might be?
Speaker 4: I do.
Speaker 1: Okay. And do you intend to own and. Maintain the development or do you are you looking to master plan the whole site and have other developers come in and do other components of it?
Speaker 11: Yep. Great question. My vision for Loreto is to find the best. Developer for each component of the project. There are some things that I know that we can do well, and there are other things that I know other people can do well, like Jean behind me. We brought Jean into this process early because I wanted the person who was going to be doing the for sale to also be at every community meeting and listening in the background without tainting the process, which was a little bit challenging to do, but just to keep them in the background and listening and to continue to have us, you know, regurgitate what we heard. And so the plan, as we're working on them, can incorporate what the community is asking for.
Speaker 1: So my next question is kind of focused on what those additional reviews are that still need to be brought forward for approvals. Some of them will be done by the Planning Department and some of them will be done by city council. Obviously, if if TIFF is one of your financing tools that will come before this body. Yep. The large development review. The zoning. And the historic preservation rate as well as the TIV. So those would be the additional opportunities where the community gets to have additional input before this body on those various components of this development.
Speaker 11: Right. Yep. I'll be up here a lot.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um, my last question is back to the city attorney, and this has to do with the Metro District. There were some questions, and I think Andrew came back into the room. If there's a need to have you weigh in, Andrew. So I want you to clarify. There have been some comments or concerns expressed that a metro district gets to completely do language that waves them out from having to participate in TABOR. And I just want to clarify that. The city of Denver still gets the bass mills from the development. And Andrew, I don't know if you or Kirsten want to speak to this issue. So can you just clarify that this doesn't completely waive all taxes, collected property taxes, and exempt them from from TABOR entirely? So can you just clarify that? So we know this project has 50 mills, but that's on top of the RTD DPS. So can you just speak to that?
Speaker 4: Right. My name is Andrew Johnston. I'm with the Department of Finance. I work on special districts. I was here a couple of weeks ago talking about the metropolitan districts. And so I'm. I'm a little.
Speaker 6: Confused by the question, so help me understand it a little.
Speaker 4: Bit. But. Metropolitan districts the question.
Speaker 6: To can they waive.
Speaker 4: The right to impose taxes is that.
Speaker 1: No can can they. Not. Not opposed taxes, but. The The Tabor. You know, the taxpayer bill of Rights cannot be just completely ignored. But in terms of the bills that are collected on any metro district project, the metro district funded project, the city still gets those base mills. Correct?
Speaker 8: Correct.
Speaker 4: So the Metro Pass metropolitan mill levies are on top of their additional taxes because there are special taxing district areas. So DPS, the city and urban drainage, which constitutes about 77 mills across the whole city, are impacted by the activities of the Metropolitan District.
Speaker 1: The project will still collect that. Those will still be remitted back to the city. The additional mills are what they get to use to offset the cost of the infrastructure that's being built to do the project. Correct.
Speaker 4: Correct. And I just would like to clarify that, like the city treasurer and assessor.
Speaker 6: You know, impose all those.
Speaker 4: Impose and collect those taxes for each of those taxing entities, whether it be the city or DPS and the metropolitan district is a special taxing district that overlays the area. And so just on that, what areas are.
Speaker 9: In any special.
Speaker 4: District? They get only those taxes that they impose.
Speaker 1: So my last question is, have you seen that where we have met districts where it's layered on top of the base that's collected for every other property that it has? Created more challenges for a developer in either building affordable housing, attracting either buyers for housing or tenants for the commercial spaces. Can you just speak to that? I mean, obviously, it's a little, little more costly to be in some of these developments.
Speaker 4: But yeah, so I can't exactly speak to the answer to your question, but I think just if you think about economics in general, right. So if you have additional taxes in an area, then that's a burden that's just in that area.
Speaker 10: But the theory for.
Speaker 4: Metropolitan.
Speaker 6: Districts really.
Speaker 9: Goes to.
Speaker 4: Is there's also additional services and benefits being derived in that area, which is what those taxes are being used for. So it does sometimes provoke propose a challenge with affordable housing or trying to bring certain businesses in there. But usually the offset is the desire to, if it's a commercial business, that they want to be there because there's additional placemaking going on and things that drive people to that area for affordable housing. It's hopefully not too much of an impact, but when we do affordable housing programs.
Speaker 9: And bring those units to.
Speaker 4: The site, there's usually compensating factors besides the metropolitan district.
Speaker 1: And the state legislation that allows the creation of metro districts. Does it really give local government the tool for us to use that financing mechanism as a vehicle to mandate affordability and some other things that are not within the list of allowable things? Can you just speak to that?
Speaker 4: Sure. You are absolutely correct. You're talking about metropolitan districts, which.
Speaker 9: Are Title 32.
Speaker 4: Special District Act districts. They are an infrastructure financing tool. And actually.
Speaker 9: Creating.
Speaker 6: Affordable.
Speaker 4: Units themselves is not part of the purview of a metropolitan district.
Speaker 6: However, they could provide, let's say, the infrastructure.
Speaker 4: To help make give like, you know, roads and sidewalks and water.
Speaker 6: And light and dri utilities to those affordable units. So it's not a direct relationship. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I have no.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn, you back up?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. And at the risk of, you know, we've been at this for two and a half years in the neighborhood, and I apologize to my colleagues for the length that we've gone on. But this is such an important issue to us. So I'd like to have. Tony, could you come up for a second? I'd like to do some maybe Rapidfire questions before we go on to the next person in the queue. Tony, I was. Tony reached out to me because I was very concerned about the fact that the steering committee was coming together and it was not it was very low on representation from our Latino community. So what we had was, if you recall, Tony, we had Jim Gibson from Loreto Heights Community Initiative representing LHC, HCI, and J.J. Neiman over here represented Harvey Park. None of my neighborhood presidents were appointing or designating Latino members for me. So you reached out to me, I think, through Larry Ambrose. Is Larry still here? That's correct. Larry had suggested you and I've known you for years. You're former state representative, which we should acknowledge your service in the legislature. And and you also had this deep background in affordable housing. I said, perfect. So I feel like a baseball manager. And we we did like the double switch. Right. And you took Jim's seat on on as the LHC person? Correct. That's correct. And Jim moved over. And so. Q You designated Jim as the Zahavi Park representative, and that's that's how you came to be and your input. You had a do you remember all those meetings that you came to? I know some that you missed. And Larry Ambrose was your alternate. And you remember those. And I remember you as you and Jim, frankly, as two of the most active contributors to making changes and tweaks to the language and things like that. Is that your recollection? That's correct. My whole goal was trying to make sure that the vision actually represented with the citizens wanted, and that's why they stressed so much. A historic district's affordable housing. Mixed income. Mixed use. Mm hmm. And not having traffic going through Dartmouth, those are things we stressed, trying to make sure that we'd hold that vision. But at the same time, we've been trying to find ways to have more certainty in those same areas to protect. Because a vision is a vision. It's the execution documents that are so important. So that's why the next phase, the site plan and the large development review committee allows us hopefully to put more certainty, say this will be protected and the toolbox that you helped us create. And I want to thank you for helping us do that. Try to make sure we have the right tools. The key is using the right tool at the right time. And we've been pushing to use historic districts sooner, not exempt beside something else, but trying to get it at the right time. And so my representation of both Latinos, as well as affordable housing has, I think, added value to trying to make this a better vision. More importantly, the execution of it that better meet. One of the questions we're going to be asking more in the next part is will there be a covenant for affordable housing because the prices of the housing on Loreto Heights will grow so fast. So if you build affordable housing now or attainable housing, you may have to consider what the covenant where you put on there to retain those and still have people move up the escalator for rental to townhomes, to single family homes. You have to have an escalator, but you have to have some strategy to make sure that happens. And let me ask you, we can count on you to stay involved in this. Yes, sir. Thank you. And thank you. I saw that you were leaving. That's why I wanted to bring it up. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. I don't think you need to leave, but thank you for staying. Jason, on again, just to not to belabor, but to amplify on the Latino outreach, the question was raised about flowering and outreach. And actually my council office supplemented not the developer because the developer putting money into this is something we actually did not want. But I my office supplemented CPD's outreach. You recall on one occasion for one of those community meetings, we leaflet it 13,000 houses. That's correct.
Speaker 9: Apartments, door to door.
Speaker 6: Door to door. We hired a service and we covered, I believe, every address and RV park, RV Park, South College View, Brentwood, Sharon Park. I think Donna we even did Marley and we also I talked to Sally Daigle, the councilwoman from Sheridan, and I got her permission to to leaflet in the city of Sheridan as well. And you recall that we did that for three public meetings, and those fliers were in English and in Spanish, and we had every door in college view and in the north. West corner of the city of Sheridan.
Speaker 9: That's correct. Yeah. And I believe it. There was for meetings. It wasn't just the three. It was all four of them.
Speaker 6: Oh, all Spanish. Now, we didn't flier for that because we targeted we we used the Univision and Adriana Pena. We went to the to the backpacks in college view and Dust Elementary to reach the the Spanish speaking community that way.
Speaker 9: So in that particular meeting, though, we we did actually flier for that. So that's when my team printed fliers. We work with Adriana to get those fires into the schools. Okay. But then my team actually went door to door along Federal.
Speaker 6: Boulevard real quickly. Then our view sheds addressed in the plan.
Speaker 9: Yes, they are.
Speaker 6: Okay, including from Loreto Heights Park looking toward the campus.
Speaker 9: Yeah, correct. From Lora Heights Park, looking southeast to the campus and.
Speaker 6: From the campus looking to the southwest toward Fort Logan Cemetery in the front range. Correct. And from Federal Boulevard, looking toward the.
Speaker 9: Administration.
Speaker 6: Building. The administration building. Correct. And actually from the northwest, also looking toward downtown and looking toward the building from the northwest.
Speaker 9: That is correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. On heights, we described that in the campus core, there is a maximum building height of up to eight stories. We revise the area plan at the suggestion of LHC Mr. Gibson and and I think Larry Ambrose was part of this. We actually did a site tour on a Saturday and we walked the campus and that led to West Side agreeing to language that says there will be one and only one such building of up to eight stories with of a limited footprint, correct?
Speaker 9: Yes, that's.
Speaker 6: And is it true that the Ruby Hill view plane covers the entire campus that is subject to an eight, eight story limit?
Speaker 9: That is correct, yes.
Speaker 6: So if that one building of small footprint were to be built closer up the hill toward the campus, it could not be eight stories.
Speaker 9: That is correct.
Speaker 6: In fact, the view plane mandates that no structure ever, ever will exceed the height of the dormers on the Academy building. The dormers that are on the the the the low roof there.
Speaker 9: That's correct. Yes.
Speaker 6: No building.
Speaker 9: No building.
Speaker 6: Okay. Did you do Mr. Chapman, an inch of Sharon Park spoke of wanting various wanting various housing types and price points. Does this plan enable that to happen?
Speaker 9: It does. That was something that was made very evident and very clear at the very beginning of this process, was to have a variety of housing types for a variety of incomes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. We heard some testimony that the recommendations in the plan favor it gives the developer everything he wants. And my impression is actually the opposite, because I saw all I saw 230 people from the community come out to the first meeting and we had about 120 at the second and 100 at the third. We had 30 people at the at the monolingual Spanish meeting, and everybody got to put their marks on the maps, including the steering committee. There are 28 major recommendations in the plan, and in them I counted a total of 193 specifically recommended strategies. It seems to me that they all originated from public input.
Speaker 9: It was 100% community driven.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mark. Real quickly. Can you explain the relationship the West Side developed with Thrive builders? And just to preface that, your teams, your architect, your planners were in the audience specifically so they could start to think about how you can comply with this area plan. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: That is a true statement. I wanted to have them all hear what the community was asking for so they weren't getting it regurgitated through me, through the city or through reading a document.
Speaker 6: Jason, I'm sorry. I should have asked you this real quickly. An area plan is not a site plan. Correct. So when when we hear talk about the fact that West Side was developing a metro district with a service plan and they had some mapping, regardless of the fact that the mapping was totally consistent with what the steering committee was saying and what the public was saying. They are always kept separate, are they not?
Speaker 9: That's correct.
Speaker 6: I said you did not know that they were doing this.
Speaker 9: I did not. As a as the plan states, it is a mechanism that's used to finance. So we knew that it was in the plan, but I was unclear. I did not know that it was going forward.
Speaker 6: In fact, if the area plan process became more of a site plan process, we'd be meeting for three years, trying to site every building and design it and whatnot. Correct. So this is an iterative process. The area plan says, here's the vision and then we have the large development review. Then we have rezoning, we have site planning. We even have a subdivision plan that comes to us. Correct. Okay. I believe.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 6: That is all on Open Space LLC. LSI wanted at first 10%, but I see that they've asked for 15%. And maybe I should ask Mark this like you only asked Mark in the Metro District Service plan. I looked at the open space plan and there seems to me when I measured on my map, there is an excess of 1.1 acre in front of the academy building LHC. I was asking for 1.1 acre. I believe that's slightly larger than that as well.
Speaker 11: At the time we put the Metro District plan together, which we needed to do as part of the service plan, we we took the best information we at the time and put it down.
Speaker 6: So I know that you don't have a percentage yet of open space, but 10% is the maximum that you're required to provide. The open space plan mapping I saw on the service plan actually has substantially more than that, doesn't it?
Speaker 11: It does.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clark. Jason, I have a couple questions for you. So Mark had mentioned and I just want to make sure I understood correctly. So it sounds like there's a community meeting that is already scheduled for October 1st for the large development review process?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's correct. So that's the required community meeting. That's part of that process and it has been scheduled for October 1st.
Speaker 1: So I.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Because I understand what Mark was saying was that this wasn't a developer led process. But I guess, you know, with that meeting being just a little bit well, about two weeks away and we're just hearing about it now, I guess I want to understand what is the the the agreed upon time frame in which CPD sets meetings ? Because, you know, when we did the far northeast area plan, we told city agencies, don't try to schedule anything out unless you give us at least 30 days so that we can be.
Speaker 3: Respectful.
Speaker 1: Of working families, families with children. And so could you talk a little bit about your internal policies on scheduling?
Speaker 9: Sure. Absolutely. So within the early hour process, when we do notice for that community meeting, it is a 30 day notice. And so notices went out 30 days to the property owners in the area. The code actually specifies that it needs to be within 200 feet. And the developer, you know, we communicated to him that, you know, within there's another process coming along. I believe it's the I think it's the tiny home village. Tiny home village is actually looking to amend that that hasn't come in front of you yet, but that's to bump that requirement up to 400 feet. So he told the developer that that was coming and it would it would be a good faith attempt. I think that, you know, we encourage him to do so. So he did notice up to 400 feet of property owners that live within the boundary. There were also postings that went out and I believe and so postings in terms of actually posting the property. And I believe there were nine, maybe ten signs that were posted along the Colorado Heights property and various locations, strategic locations. But to get back to your initial question with the notice on the notice was satisfied within 30 days. The developer got that out in time.
Speaker 1: And then are those notices also at least bilingual in Spanish?
Speaker 9: They are correct. So we worked internally to make sure that it actually it is more like a postcard and that it is in English and in Spanish.
Speaker 1: And are you open to work with other agencies, other community organizations? I mean, we have a really great agency, you know, human resources and community partnerships that might have some different outreach, some different ideas, maybe faith based ideas. Are you open to working with them to increase the Latino involvement and engagement in the LDA our process if this passes tonight?
Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely. And again, I want to extend the invitation to councilmembers and also folks in the audience that if there are other mechanisms that you think you should look at in terms of engagement, I know across the board we are open to that. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Jason. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, are you back up?
Speaker 9: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. So may I ask and thank you, counsel, our president pro tem for the question about engaging Latino, because I guess I'm confused about that, too. So, Mr.. We have each affiliate got your name right? I think I did. Um, are you intending to encourage people in the surrounding neighborhoods to purchase or invest in Loreto Heights? You know, purchase a home or.
Speaker 11: That has never been part of any discussion. I mean, if they want to talk to me, I'm more than happy to talk to them about it. You know, the process up to this point has not been about selling houses, though the process has been and only been about what is the vision that the community is asking for
Speaker 9: . Okay, fair enough. Mr. Tafoya, may I ask you your thoughts on. Yep, yep, yep. I figured I'd ask the question as you were making your way.
Speaker 8: So you question.
Speaker 9: You live in District two, correct? So how far from Loreto Heights are you? Are you pretty close.
Speaker 10: Or you live in Bear Valley, which is a couple of miles to the west.
Speaker 9: Oh, okay. So maybe you're not the best person. I'll ask you anyway.
Speaker 10: Since you're co-chair of the Colorado Latino Forum, though.
Speaker 9: So we've heard that there are 13,000 fliers issued, you know, cut some of Flynn personally, did some firing. CPD, did a lot of outreach. Do you have any thoughts? And I know this is somewhat speculation, but but with your connection to the Latino community and living in District two, do you have any thoughts as to why more Latinos didn't participate in the process?
Speaker 10: Well, I can say a couple of things. One, if flowering worked, I would have won city council. It takes a lot more than just putting fliers on people's doors to get people to turn out. A lot has to do with process. And this is something that I see. The Colorado Latino Forum people are trying to take a look at before the West Side MPI processes, which I got cut off on. I can't speak 100% to why people didn't participate. I can say that there is a supreme distrust of processes like this by people in our community, particularly people of immigrants and dreamers. You know, there's also recent examples where Latinos did voice their opinions like I-70.
Speaker 4: Where they were completely.
Speaker 10: Run and shot over despite the fact of participating at every step. So if I had a magic bullet to it, I answer it. I you know, part of the reason the comp plan and the Denver plan were slowed up is because of the supreme lack of engagement that had occurred. Something like 12% of the people who had participated were Latino. Despite we make up 38% or so of the city, African-Americans was even drastically lower. I think it was 2%. Even then, they make up 11%. I know that the equity training that the blueprint people in CPD went through CBD. I'm having a meeting with them on Wednesday about Latino engagement. I think they're trying. I don't think we figured it out, though.
Speaker 9: Okay. And I guess in some ways it's a chicken egg thing except the other way around in that perhaps the Latino community feels not heard. And so then they'd say, why bother? Participate. So then they start participating and then they're not heard. So, Mickey Guyton, may I ask you the same question as so? And again, I understand this is speculation, but but my thought is how really the nature of the questions that I'm asking here is how can we get engagement? I don't I don't I don't want to.
Speaker 7: Do you want me to do the job of the CDP? No, because I can give you an invoice if I do the job for the CDP. How many Latinos are on your team? And why didn't the Latinos tell you that.
Speaker 3: You don't flier, that you go to their communities, that you go to their school, that you go to their place of worship and you sit with them.
Speaker 7: And you feed them and you have a conversation and you ask the questions and engage. And you have people that look like them engaging with them. So do you want me to do the job of the CDP?
Speaker 9: No. I mean, I don't I don't I don't really have any thought either way. And if you invoiced me, I couldn't pay you. So sorry.
Speaker 3: But I've heard. Yeah.
Speaker 9: But thank you. Thank you for your for your commitment to the Latino community and for your thoughts. I just want to make sure that if it's 63 or 68% of the community surrounding this plan are Latino, that the Latino community is engaged. And it sounds like there's an attempt and perhaps.
Speaker 3: An appropriate attempt.
Speaker 9: Yeah. And so perhaps I would just say.
Speaker 3: If they asked.
Speaker 7: People of color on how to engage, they would have known.
Speaker 9: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So you know other questions. The public hearing for accountable 818 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank everybody for staying here and participating. By my count, we had 32 speakers in favor, four opposed, and eight who took neither position. The developer owner hates when I say this and he knows exactly what I'm going to say and he's grimacing right now. But he would do a lot of the community outreach meetings by asking people, If I could hand you a magic wand and you could wave it over the campus, what would you make it be? And for the life of me, my only answer, my gut answer was if I could wave a magic wand, I would have found a way for the Sisters of Loreto to have. Financially secured the future of that as a college, as a university that would rival at the south end of Federal Boulevard the success of Regis University at the North End. And it would still be a functioning educational institution that we treasured for 125 years or 130 years. That magic wand didn't exist. Tokyo offered to give that the real estate to give it free. To Metro State a couple about a year or so before they put it on the market to give it to them. Metro hired Jones Lang LaSalle, the national firm, to do an assessment, and they turned it down because of the immense cost of restoring these buildings. $60 million just to get them up to be useful as an educational institution for for higher education. I think that would have been tremendous. But we have achieved preservation. We've achieved it thanks to take you by there. Selling it with a covenant that requires preservation of the of the academy and the chapel and through West Side, reaching the deal with Hartman Ely to preserve pine crucial hall with the certain certain preservation. Although we don't yet know the perpetual care mechanism, but the certain preservation of the cemetery, not a single soul. I use that term advisedly, has suggested that we relocate the cemetery. All I have heard from every party is we want this to be beautiful. We want there to be a buffer around it. We want it not to have development encroach on it. And we have a plan that says it will not happen. We we have a plan that addresses affordable housing values across the spectrum, 30% to 80% AMI workforce housing, three bedroom units. How many times have we sat here and approved affordable housing projects that are studio and one bedroom? How does that work for a family? Southwest Denver is about families, so I'm very happy to see multi, multi bedroom units. Some of the homes will be sold at prices less than what the houses in the surrounding area already sell for. The goal is to have a mixed income multigenerational community. The goal also no one talked about this. We hinted about it. But I want to hammer this like I did a planning board. The goal is that when you come here 50 or 100 years from now, you will always know that this was a campus, that this was a special place. Therefore, this is not just another quarter or quarter section of of Brownfield. This is a sacred site. It's not the highest point in Denver, by the way, Mr. President, because if you think about it, there's Ruby Hill, apparently. No, no, it's not Rubio Heights. I look down on Rubio from my vantage point because the agricultural ditch flows into it from the West. So it's it's not the highest point, but it does sit on a promontory that is very important to us. So when you come here 50 or 100 years from now. Not me, but anybody, you always want to you always will know that this is a campus. And the only way we achieve that is through the plans direction that this is a place you come to and not drive through. Very important that our transportation planners at the city pay very close attention to the direction in this plan, that there's no cut through traffic here. A couple of speakers mention the importance of not having that traffic funneled past save an elementary or even college view DST which is on the campus. Come see Dartmouth Avenue when it passes through the campus. It's only about this wide. It's about 30 feet wide. And it goes between the DST school, the DPS school and the Catholic Charities, Section eight apartments right next to it. There is no way to widen that into a thoroughfare and this needs to be recognized. So therefore, the Street Network here is meant to be designed for 20 mile an hour speeds that we prioritize the movement of people. First, the pedestrian and the bike networks are very robust and we are trying to design streets that that encourage 20 mile.
Speaker 4: An hour traffic.
Speaker 6: And if you try to cut through Loreto Heights campus, you're going to get lost or you're going to be sorry you did that, but hopefully you'll stay and attend a show, the theater. So I will I will finish with just to make note, chairman say who mentioned this. So I'll say that maybe for me, the most embarrassing moment of the entire two and a half years was when the chairman and Jesse Paris showed up at the Christmas service and heard me sing Silent Night in German, and my wife sang it in Spanish and Father Dang in a Vietnamese choir singing in Vietnamese. And then we sang it all together on the 200th anniversary of the composition and first performance of that song in Austria. And it was such a moving moment, but. But very embarrassing that you saw me singing in German. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, if you stick around till we're all the way done tonight, which might not be till 1:00 in the morning, Councilman Flynn has promised to put on another show. Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So this evening, as we sit up here, we heard from 44 public speakers this evening, and I would just like to say thank you all. I do not think it's easy to sit on that side of the of the dais. I do not think that those chairs, the pews you're sitting in are made to be very comfortable. I do not think that this process is very easy on anybody. If you're a single mom, you're not able to be here. If you're a parent whose kids are young and you want to read them books, you're not able to be here if you're hungry, you're not able to be here because you have to leave. If you don't feel like going through security, you're not able to be here. If you have to pay your pay for your parking meter, you're not able to be here. So I just want you to know that I see that and I hear that. And also, my mother graduated from Loretto Heights in 1961. She has been a co member of the Sisters of Loreto since 1994. Currently she is a grandma and she works Monday, Tuesday, Wednesdays at for the sisters of Loreto. Like literally right now my mom is in Saint Louis with the Sisters of Laredo's and goes to the mother house. So my entire life I have heard about the Sisters of Loreto and the impact that they have on this community and in Denver in general. And I also heard that gentrification is real. I also understand your anger and your frustration at some of the processes that the city undertakes. It can feel be can feel like you're disenfranchized displacement has already happened in the Northside. So I feel your pain. I really understand what you're going through. And yet I also know how important a neighborhood planning process is. I also know how important it sets the future. It's not going to set my future. I'm in my forties. It's going to set my kids future and the future generations after that. And so these processes are not easy. Democracy is not easy. Democracy is messy and it's angry. And all of you would not be sitting here tonight if this wasn't your home, if it wasn't something. That you've really believed in, whether we agreed or we don't, it's your process. And so I just want you to understand that I hear you. And I also hope that you all understand tonight that this is not the end of the process. Use this energy that you have to come back to our council and talk to us about the preservation. I hope that in the next four years before there's another general election, that these applications about the preservation of this historic site come forward. You will have open ears. People will understand. We will remember being here until 936 at night. Hearing from you all tonight. Come back and talk to us about the rezonings, about the Dartmouth traffic issues. Don't let this process end. A lot of times the city leads these processes and then we forget about the people and you forget about the energy. And you go back to your daily life and you go back to work and you go back to your kids. Continue this process. You have a new council here in front of you and we are listening and I understand your pain. Northwest Denver. When I was growing up, it was 60% Latinos. When my father started Lacazette's in 1972, we were a Latino neighborhood and we are no longer. And so I understand what you are saying. And yet at the same time, I understand this planning process is real and it's important and it's important that we do it right . So thank you to all the task members who gave up hours, hours after hours after hours to make sure that this plan ended up in front of us. Thank you to the critical thinkers who pushed beyond and thought beyond what was normally presented in front of them. We need you. Thank you. To the land use people who think critically and push these issues. It's your your voices are invaluable. You. It's priceless. So I just want to start by saying that. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for showing us what a what a neighborhood process with having 450 people looks like. That does not happen in northwest Denver. It just does not. So thank you for your leadership on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of things. I know that we were sent a number of recommended languages for amendments. And even my own appreciation for the number of processes that are coming up has made clear that there are a lot of those decisions that are going to be made in the LDR, the zoning plan, the development agreement, the site plan. So I look forward to capturing each of those pieces through each of those processes, including the number of affordable and deeply affordable and multifamily multi individual units. One of the things that I just wanted to say was the way that we think about community access for everyone, everyone has a say. That's equality. That's not equity. Equity means we're deliberately going out of our way, making it a part of our effort to capture historically underrepresented voices. And that's equity. And that needs to be 60% of a community process if it's 60% of the community. So I really do want to and I look forward and it was one of the reasons I'm I wanted to be in the seat right now from my prior job. That's that's where I want us to get to as a city. And I worked hand in hand with CPD a number of times who, in my experience do want to do better and do make efforts to capture intentional information from the community members themselves. I've done those projects with them. Everyone, every single project is not always the same. And so we've got to create an entirely different mechanism for community engagement. And I absolutely agree with Ms.. Guyton that it is through relationships, it's not through emails and fliers. And so all that to say, we have a lot more work to do and I'll be in it with you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Torres actually said what I wanted to say, but better. So thank you. The only other thing that I wanted to say other than equity and and that we're in the middle of the process, we're not at the end. And so I would strongly urge exactly what Councilwoman Torres had said about if it's 60% of the neighborhood, it should be 60% of the process. The only other thing I'd say is I live in Denver's perfect ten, which is obviously I'm partial. But when I campaigned, I talked a lot about the 20 minute neighborhood, as in let's get beyond cars and let's get everything that a neighborhood needs to survive and thrive within a 20 minute walk right or role as in no cars. And I see this as an opportunity for a 20 minute neighborhood in in southwest Denver. And the reason why I like the 20 minute neighborhood is, first of all, climate change is real and we need to get out of our single occupant vehicles. The second is this It's good for physical health for us to walk around and see grass and see the the buildings around us instead of see the the dashboard in front of us and the steering wheel. And then the third is it helps community. It helps us grow as a as a neighborhood. It gives us a place to go and meet our friends and meet our neighbors and hold hands with our partners and walk her dogs. And and it sounds to me that Southwest Denver doesn't have that. Denver's perfect ten, has it? I'd like for it to be even better, but frankly, I would like that for everywhere, including District two, to have a place where there could be a the concept of a not the concept, but the reality of a 20 minute neighborhood. And so I, I like the the plan. I like the idea. I want to make sure that the community is is included and engaged. And so, again, what Councilwoman Torres said, I would echo. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hawkins. All right. Seeing no other nobody else in the Q. I'll just end by saying thank you to all of you for coming for sticking with us, and thank you also to the people who are here for the next one that we're doing after this. I really want to say thank you to my colleague, Councilman Flynn, who really, I think, went above and beyond for our community on this process. And just just.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 0: Just thank you for everything. As I say, thank you to Clara Harris, who is one of my arsenal presidents. And as was stated, literally the name of the neighborhood is College View. And that's how important this site is to my community. And so for a year, just being in there at every meeting and involved and reporting back to the community and representing, you know, our community, thank you for that. I also want to say thank you to staff for all the hard work on this. This was not an easy process. And thank you to Mark for pushing pause and not developing. Just saying, hey, used by right, I'm going to go start building and building something that would not have been what the community wanted or would not have been good for. Denver So thank you all around. As I've mentioned before, this is a very special place for me. This is the spot that brought my mother to Denver. It's the place my dad, Chairman Sekou, mentioned earlier. My dad literally went to the right of way heights and found his wife and picked her up.
Speaker 8: For their first.
Speaker 0: Date there. And so this is a very special place for me personally and to, you know, to go through this process and to see and to see, you know, my mother's eyes just completely light up. When she found out that Pan Krisha, where she lives, was home for.
Speaker 4: Her.
Speaker 0: Her first home outside of the Midwest, where she came from, that it was going to be turned back into housing and affordable housing at that. So it's just been really great to see and I'm so excited to take this next step. I think it's a great plan. It's creating a community driven plan. And thank you to everybody who who got us to where we are. I'm excited to vote yes tonight. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye. CdeBaca. No.
Speaker 4: Flynn I.
Speaker 1: Gillmor I Herndon Hines.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 7: Cashman.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 1: Kenny Ortega I.
Speaker 7: Sandoval, I swear I.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, I'm Secretary. Please close the voting in US Results 11.
Speaker 1: I is one name.
Speaker 0: 11 I was one accountable. 818 has passed if you. For our. You are welcome and invited to stay with us because we're still going. If you're not going to, I would ask that you please exit as quietly as possible in respect for the people who are still here for the next one.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Loretto Heights Small 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.
Approves the Loretto Heights Small Area Plan, as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-20-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0577
|
Speaker 0: 11 I was one accountable. 818 has passed if you. For our. You are welcome and invited to stay with us because we're still going. If you're not going to, I would ask that you please exit as quietly as possible in respect for the people who are still here for the next one. And take your conversations out into the hall if you have a conversation. Councilman Sawyer, will you please put Council Bill 577 on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move counts will 19 dash 0577 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: The public hearing for Councilor Bill 577 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Theresa may, Sarah with community planning and development. I can get to the right place. So this is a map amendment. It is an application to.
Speaker 8: And again.
Speaker 0: Ask if you are not staying for this next item, we are into it already. So if you could please continue your conversations until you're out in the hallway, please, and exit quickly. Thank you.
Speaker 1: And can we ask that the doors be closed also?
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: All right. Should I start again?
Speaker 0: Let's give it a try. Go for.
Speaker 1: It. So, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a map amendment application to rezone property at 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard. The request is to rezone from urban single unit and urban house three storey to urban main street to and Urban Main Street three. So this is in City Council District one in the West Colfax Statistical neighborhood. Again, the request is to rezone from single unit and row house three to Main Street two and three. The urban context is characterized by one and two unit residential embedded in with some commercial uses townhomes, shopfront buildings from 30 to 35 feet or 30 to 45 feet. And this is intended to promote pedestrian scaled commercial streets and typically located along our collector or arterial streets. So existing zoning to the north is Sloan's Lake Park. So open space and to the south is the Rowhouse. Three story to the east is a single unit and row house three and then across Sheridan is Edgewater, which has a I'm sorry, I'm finding my R two, which is a two family zoning and then a little bit of Lakewood, which is RMF, which is residential multifamily. So the existing land uses a mix of duplex and single unit, mostly single unit surrounding to the north of the park, a mixture of single unit and two unit to the east and south and then actually the same in Edgewater Cross Sheridan Boulevard. So informational notice on this application went out in April of 2018. A revised application notice went out in February of 2019. Planning Board held a legally posted public hearing and voted unanimously to support this application or recommend approval of this application. We were at Liberty in June of this year and then of course, we're here today with a legally notified hearing. So there are several RINO's in the area. There is one letter of opposition from the Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association, primarily objecting to the heights above the base plain and then several, well, one letter of support and 44 letters of opposition. Now, this doesn't count the letters that you received in the last two days from the applicant. I my understanding is, I think 12 letters of support, one of them containing several signatures. So existing form, building scale in form. These pictures kind of show you the top four. Are the properties being considered for rezoning the middle? In the middle row is Sloan's Lake Park. The middle right is the property to the south on Sheridan. The bottom two on the left are on Zenobia Street on properties directly adjacent to to the subject property. And then the bottom right is the some properties in Edgewater across Sheridan Boulevard. So the criteria we will go through the plans that apply our current plan 2000, Blueprint 2019 and the West Colfax Plan, which was adopted in 2006. Plan. Details in your staff report. Some of the policies that the staff believes apply building housing as a continuum to serve residents across a range of incomes and needs. Creating a greater mix of housing in every neighborhood, a mix of housing types, encouraging infill development that's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and promoting development and infrastructure where services are already in place. Blueprint Denver This is an urban context. I again small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas embedded with one and two unit residential uses in residential areas, low scale multi-unit buildings also sometimes embedded. A future place is residential, low, medium, which is a mixture of low and middle scale units, residential interspersed in single and two unit areas with a building scale of three stories or less in height. The street types for Sheraton Boulevard, a mixed use arterial for 17th Avenue, a residential collector for any place to the south, a local street. Fifth Future Growth Strategy Blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city, which is anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment. Land use concept in the West Colfax Plan is Main Street, which is a linear and oriented to the street. The plan calls for a height of 2 to 5 stories with a mixture of land uses and creating that comfortable pedestrian environment on a main street. The framework plan recommendations that apply are rezoning commercial properties on our main streets, including Sheridan Boulevard. For these kinds of uses, promoting a range of housing types and costs at higher densities in our town centers and main streets, supporting infill development and focusing both structural and use intensity on our main streets, transit stations and town centers. The West Colfax Plan also has district plans which speak to the character of an area. They called this area the Main Street Pig and Whistle District and consider said we should consider the impacts of this main street on the future adjacent residential and with deeper parcels should consider Main Street two and three, which were a former Chapter 59 Main Street, which translated into five and five and eight actually in our current code. So staff believes this is consistent with the applicable plans that by using a standard zoned district, we're furthering the uniform application of our regulations by implementing our plans and allowing character that's in development with the area, we're furthering public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances is changed conditions. This is an area seeing a lot of change with the West Line, with the redevelopment of St Anthony's and staff believes this is the appropriate justifying circumstance. And we did talk a little bit earlier about the context and staff believes this is these two zone districts that are intended to promote safe , active, pedestrian scaled commercial streets are the appropriate zoned district and with that, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have 23 individuals signed up to speak this evening. Thank you so much for sticking with us late into the evening here. If I can ask if we can free up this front bench for people because I'm going to call five at a time up here so that we can get through everybody quickly. So the first five, if you'd come up to the front bench, Corey Manders, Annemarie Manders, Ricky Lang, David Weber, Bruce O'Donnell. I mean, that's five. Yes. So go ahead. Cory Manders, you're up first.
Speaker 11: Hello, city council members. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of rezoning the 1634 to 1680 block of Sheridan Boulevard. My name is Cory Manders. I am.
Speaker 4: The owner of 1634 Sheridan.
Speaker 8: Boulevard.
Speaker 4: I have lived at this residence since 2004 and have welcomed the growth and.
Speaker 11: Positive changes that we've seen in recent years. While watching those growth, we owners realized that combining our properties to offer multifamily apartments would allow the most and best use of limited space with the smallest carbon footprint and decided to pursue rezoning to comply with Blueprint.
Speaker 4: Denver and the West Colfax Plan. When discussions began.
Speaker 11: The city requested.
Speaker 4: That we donated 16 feet of the sidewalk. We eagerly agreed, being that.
Speaker 11: My wife, dog and I walk through the neighborhood daily based on community opposition and the request of then Councilmember Espinosa. We entered into mediation to work to resolve the majority of the neighbors concerns.
Speaker 4: During the 16 month process. The following.
Speaker 11: Modifications were made based on the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Feedback. Initial proposal had a.
Speaker 11: Five story building and was supported by Blueprint, Denver Draft and West Colfax Plan. Throughout the course of mediation, it was reduced from five stories to four stories to three stories, and ultimately, at the request of the neighbors, a combination of two and three stories.
Speaker 4: In.
Speaker 11: Accordance with a revamped.
Speaker 4: Blueprint, Denver and West Colfax Plan. We have also recorded a.
Speaker 11: Covenant to ensure input from the neighbors as reflected. This includes requiring two separate buildings.
Speaker 4: Height limitations that are lower than allowed by code, for example, behind my house.
Speaker 11: Building height is limited to below 30 feet, which is less than 35 allowed. And as you zoning.
Speaker 4: On Zenobia.
Speaker 11: Blueprint down very correctly identifies this is an area that is underutilized in.
Speaker 4: Decay and in major.
Speaker 11: Need of reinvestment.
Speaker 4: And closing.
Speaker 11: Ask City Council.
Speaker 4: Vote to approve the rezoning of 1634 to 1680 shared and to you.
Speaker 11: AMS two and.
Speaker 4: UMass three. Thank you again.
Speaker 11: For your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Anne Marie Manders.
Speaker 3: Good evening, city council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the rezoning.
Speaker 7: Of the 1634 to.
Speaker 3: 1680 block of Sheridan Boulevard. I'm Anne Marie Manders, and along with my husband, Corey, I'm the owner of 1634 Sheridan. I've been a Sloan's Lake resident for the past ten years. During this time, I've witnessed much positive change in the neighborhood. The most recent being this past spring, with the addition of a sidewalk at Sloan's Lake.
Speaker 1: Along both 17 excuse me, both.
Speaker 3: 17th Street and Sheridan Boulevard. I love living here, mainly because of its walkability and proximity to everyday.
Speaker 1: Resources and of course, the park.
Speaker 3: I truly want what is in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Speaker 1: Which is why I believe redeveloping this block makes sense and is smart change that will continue to enhance.
Speaker 3: An already thriving and growing area. What I personally feel to be the most beneficial change the rezoning can offer is the creation of a much needed sidewalk on Sheridan.
Speaker 1: Currently, there is no sidewalk, just an uneven.
Speaker 3: Sloped dirt path.
Speaker 1: It's extremely unsafe and nearly impassable.
Speaker 3: Especially when there's any type of precipitation.
Speaker 1: As a result, were forced to walk down the alley, which is often riddled with trash and overgrown weeds. Residents of the Zenobia BLOCK.
Speaker 3: Do not use the alley for vehicular access, so its care is often neglected. The only alternatives to the alley route are.
Speaker 1: To risk our lives navigating the treacherous terrain or playing a deadly game of Frogger across Sheridan Boulevard.
Speaker 3: Members of the community who use wheelchairs must also.
Speaker 1: Take the alley.
Speaker 3: Or worse, utilize the streets, because sidewalks in the neighborhood are only 32.
Speaker 1: Inches wide.
Speaker 3: Maintaining the front of our home is dangerous.
Speaker 1: And an unwanted.
Speaker 3: Unwanted job. We can only do in the early morning hours when traffic is light for fear of being hit by passing.
Speaker 1: Cars, traveling up to 40 miles per hour, just feet away from us. Installing a proper sidewalk and tree line would allow.
Speaker 3: Easy, direct connectivity to Sloan's Lake Park and safer access to daily necessities like bus routes.
Speaker 1: Bike lanes.
Speaker 3: Grocery stores, doctors, etc.. In addition.
Speaker 1: Approval would give the community a complete sidewalk for the entire block at one time versus piecemeal. If and or when homes are redeveloped, we owners.
Speaker 3: Entered into the mediation process with the intent to work with our fellow residents to craft an offering that not only incorporates.
Speaker 1: Their input, but also runs in accordance with Blueprint Denver and the West Colfax Plan. This rezoning does exactly that. So while I understand the opposition's fear of change.
Speaker 3: Because with any.
Speaker 1: Change comes the potential for risk.
Speaker 3: This is smart.
Speaker 1: Necessary change that makes sense.
Speaker 3: And these perceived risks will be.
Speaker 1: Easily outweighed by the benefits our community will gain.
Speaker 3: In conclusion, I request that.
Speaker 1: City Council vote to approve the reasonable rezoning of 1634 to 1680. Sheridan to you must.
Speaker 3: Too, and you must three in conjunction with the vision of.
Speaker 1: Blueprint Denver and the West Colfax.
Speaker 8: Plan. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, recalling.
Speaker 8: I am Rick.
Speaker 6: Lang. I'm the owner of 16 a property at the corner of 17th and shared. I brought along the masters of the petition that we turned in. Never should have got it. This these petition has 102 signatures that support the rezoning. And we captured those from many of of the people around town. And we did it all in four days. We got that many. If we would have had more time and started up this had this idea earlier, we probably captured several hundreds of them. So anyway, the three of us or the three other associated parties or property owners, along with myself collectively formed an assemblage to pursue this rezoning and to have all the properties developed and sold as one assemblage. As such, we all participated in the mediation in response to neighbors input to reduce zoning. We honor the requests by compromising from our original five stories to four, then from 4 to 3, then to a combination of 2 to 3. Two and three stories to ultimately cross. Compromising to. Um, as to and um. As three which is an exact fit and complies with plan, recommendation and blueprint. Denver, 2019 and the West Colfax part. A 16 storey building was rezone on 17th and Meade Street with absolutely no mediation. They did not care what the neighbors thought. However, we did work with our neighbors and gave many concessions regarding height parking and rooftop rooftop limitations. And despite that, we weren't able to achieve an agreement and support from the local neighbors. Our assemblage did submit and recorded covenant to ensure input from neighbors are reflected for the following lower building heights that are more than allowed in zoning. Guaranteed 25% more parking that is required in zoning place limitations and restrictions on use of rooftops. And it's very important to note that this project goes if this project goes through and the rezoning is approved, absolutely no one will be forced from their home. Lastly, homes concerns because this is not desired, desirable because there is not a desirable much needed tree lined sidewalk along Sheridan frontage arterial for a safe pedestrian environment. The alley is routinely used as a transit corridor between Colfax and Sloan's Lake Park by the homeless. Because of all the neighbors across the alley on this block have six foot high fences and never use the all except for trash. There are totally oblivious to the excessive problem of the homeless.
Speaker 4: Routinely.
Speaker 6: Using their trash.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time. Your time is up.
Speaker 6: And storage area for clothes.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, David Weber.
Speaker 8: Okay. I am David Weber, the owner of two houses at 1640 and 1650 Sheridan Boulevard. And I'm one of the home homeowners who are applying for the reason I've owned these properties for 17 years and lived in the neighborhood for 26 years. I grew up in Denver, taught high school geography for DPS for 25 years, and I'm well aware of the issues dealing with Denver's growth. As far as the rezoning goes, the neighbors of Zenobia and others have multiple complaints that can be boiled down to three main issues. Size of the buildings, parking, loss of community. In my opinion, these issues have been addressed during a lengthy period of mediation where we went from a five story proposal to a three story proposal under the old blueprint Denver. And when we did offer this compromise, we were rejected by the neighbors. Then in the advent of the new blueprint, Denver, we compromised again and went to a two building proposal. So two separate buildings, zoning to UMC two and UMC three. We also added 1 to 1 parking, lowered the height of the building roughly equivalent to row house three. Then we limited rooftop and retail uses of the building and would add three bedroom units. And of course, we would have a 14 to 16 foot sidewalk built on the block. These compromises were also unacceptable to the neighbors, even though all of these compromises were well within the framework of the Planning Board's guidelines. It's obvious that true compromise is nearly impossible to attain unless we had offered row rowhouse zoning, which to me seems completely incompatible for a busy street like. Sure. It's understandable that people dislike change. In fact, most of us, including myself, yearn for the good old days. However, this isn't the reality of the situation. The world isn't a static place. As I've seen, Sloan's Lake in the last 26 years become revitalized and vibrant in its outlook. However, it is also now debilitating, expensive, and this is causing established residents who live on a tight budget to move out. Surprisingly, the struggle to rezone our land has been met with many claims of the neighborhood's demise. We are miffed as to why we can't share the resources better or share again on Sheridan and adapt a new era that's facing the city with better transportation and less expensive housing. Denver's currently considered one of the greatest cities in the United States, and that's partly because we have a forward looking planning board. I just hope our city is agreeable to sensible change, and I hope the city sees this. Zoning change will help preserve our diversity through mixed use, smart use and the best use to create more complete neighborhoods. The 20 minute neighborhoods, so to speak. And I believe we can continue to make Denver right again. I'm sorry, but your.
Speaker 0: Time is.
Speaker 8: Up. Neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Yes. Next up, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. Good evening. I Bruce O'Donnell at 770 Sherman Street and I'm the applicant's representative on this rezoning request. My old friend Jennifer Moulton, the former city of Denver planning director, taught me that cities never stay the same or remain constant. They are always changing. Cities either grow or shrink. Both growing and shrinking come with challenges. Cities that continue to shrink begin to die. Look at the aptly named Rust Belt cities. Denver's a growing city. Our city plans recognize and plan for inevitable growth. The most important of these plans is Blueprint Denver, which is adopted a short five months ago by city council with substantial neighborhood input along this stretch of shared input from immediate neighbors, many of whom are here tonight, resulted in a blueprint. Future land use designation of urban residential low medium with building heights up to three stories. The community's voice was heard and has now adopted city policy. The requested combination of UM's two and three zoning is an exact fit for this blueprint prescribed future land use and is an appropriate implementation step of blueprint. The combination of UM's two and three was crafted in direct response to neighborhood input, keeping the overall scale and future development compatible with the surrounding context, especially when compared to our original application for five story zoning over a year ago. In addition to honoring the community input to reduce building heights through zoning, we have also been responsive to neighbors by directly incorporating their input into a protective covenant and deed restriction that has been recorded with a Denver Corcoran recorder and runs with the land. The Covenant reduces building heights below. What is allowed in zoning, requires two buildings, requires a parking minimum, prohibit specifically requested and unwanted uses, requires three bedroom units in limits the uses on rooftops. These restrictions and requirements assure better compatibility with the neighborhood and surrounding context. An unfortunate result of shared and being a jurisdictional boundary in Denver's edge is that shared and has long been ignored, making Sheridan a forgotten place to include not having a sidewalk on a blueprint identified mixed use arterial in an RTD bus route. This rezoning can correct this, bringing eyes on the street along with amenities. This rezoning creates a chance to bring this block of share and it into Denver rather than continue the edge condition that backs itself up to Denver because Denver can't stay the same and it will continue to grow. And because Blueprint tells us what type of growth should occur here, and because this rezoning meets the criteria established in Denver, Denver's Zoning Code Section 12 24.10. And because the recorded covenant memorializes the applicant's responsiveness and commitments to community input, I respectfully request the City Council vote yes in Approve Council Bill 19 0577 rezoning this property to USM two and three. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, so I'm going to call for the next five. We have her mine, Blough, Ephraim Buelow, Joel Unger and DeWitt and five old Dawn Gaillard. If you come up to the front. And. Her mind. Wow. All right, you're up.
Speaker 7: I'm on my way. I'm Hermione mind.
Speaker 0: Can you pull the microphone down so we can hear from her? Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: I'm from in Blount. I live at 1656 Zenobia Street. For the last 46 years, we have enjoyed our life on the West Side. We put my glasses on.
Speaker 1: I can see where.
Speaker 7: So I want us to see. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. It was very interesting to listen to you earlier on.
Speaker 1: With the different discussion.
Speaker 7: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here tonight. Two years or so ago, I stood here as well and left this room with a city in my heart. Tonight, my hopes and expectations are flying as high as a kite because things have changed. And no one needs in this neighborhood a different than the way a few years ago. But I'm here tonight in the hope that your values, your intelligence, your wisdom will guide you to make the best decision and vote against.
Speaker 1: A much too large.
Speaker 7: Project with not enough parking spaces. Yes. We need sidewalks. One day, I hope an entire generation of West Sider, as we call ourselves, young people, will point to this city council on every one of you. And thank you.
Speaker 1: For your.
Speaker 7: Wise decision to preserve a neighborhood established many years ago. And to preserve it for many more years to come. Please, please vote, as they say in French at their club.
Speaker 1: But I'm a bottle conscious.
Speaker 7: With your soul and your conscience. I also want to add I have a few more seconds. My husband and I have enjoyed living at 1656. These days. My husband is no longer skiing. He's 91. He's a Holocaust survivor and he's a Korea war veteran. His only joy is to sit in the back on the porch, and every single evening when he feels good enough, look out to the west side and look at the sunset. It is beautiful.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 1: Please don't take this opportunity.
Speaker 0: All right. Next up from Buffalo.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Hi.
Speaker 8: My name is from Buffalo. I live at 4634 West 14th Avenue in the West Colfax neighborhood.
Speaker 4: I'd like to say that we live we have lived in.
Speaker 8: The neighborhood for about 19 years. And what we live in is the historic remnant really of what this community was. This community was a very vibrant Jewish community and a very vibrant Latino community. And when we moved in 19 years ago, there wasn't a Saturday that would go by that we wouldn't hear mariachis playing and, you know , people celebrating and having parties and things. This community has now been gentrified to the point of non-recognition. The the our young people can't afford to buy houses. There are our community is is has been destroyed. And I look at this and say, this is this is the last piece that we have the last chance to preserve the I think, the oldest historical Jewish community in in in Denver. And the last chance to preserve our way of life as a family community. And, you know, I've got four grandchildren who live in this neighborhood. And the increased traffic density that this will bring makes it more dangerous to try to cross the street, especially if you're a little guy and a row of parked cars along the streets means you can't see what's coming until you dart out in between them. It's frightening. And this this idea of.
Speaker 4: Bringing in all this density of units.
Speaker 8: Along Sheridan and the only access won't be from from Sheridan, it'll be from Zenobia.
Speaker 9: And from.
Speaker 8: Any place. So you're going to have this enormous traffic jam on those streets. You're just going to have all these these cars trying to get in to this area. And although I know people are saying, no, people don't really need so many cars these days, the reality is, and you'll forgive me, but the kind of people who can afford to live in these kind of housing units, people who are coming into our neighborhood, they've all got cars. They have two cars per person, per per couple. And there's a lot of traffic and there's a lot of density. And it makes it a place where you cannot safely let your children play. And that is a shame. I raise my children in this neighborhood and my daughter is trying to raise her children in this neighborhood. And I'm very afraid that without you to stand up and protect us and our community, that that will not be able to continue.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And next up, Joel Unger.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Joel Unger. I live at 4930, West 17th Avenue, Corner Yates, a block away from the property under properties under question. Our family has lived there since 1969. I'm here to speak against the application. And primarily because this property is a substandard, defective property. And I'll explain why. You can access it on foot or by parachute, but it's hemmed in on all sides. Sheridan with its traffic, with its noise and its fumes as on the West Side, 17th Avenue, which is now overburdened with traffic. If you have an idea how bad 17th Avenue can get, just think of what it looks like after a Bronco game. Well, the 17th now, all the people running to King Soopers and target and the population increase on the east side of Sloan's Lake AV overburdened 17th Avenue. So you can't really access the property to or from 17th Avenue, particularly with all the traffic turning in from Sheridan, Zenobia is blocked off by the residents, so the only egress or entrance is any court, which is a small street to the south end of this property. That street, if you come out the alley on to Annie Court, if you make a right, turn your right into Sheridan, you can't go from any court, the Sheridan, without losing your front end. Cars are whizzing by at 35, 40 miles an hour. The only choice you have is to make a left turn and go to the Zenobia where you can't go north, because that'll take you into 17th. So you can go south to Colfax and in Colfax you can't get across Colfax. It's an obvious you can only go west. If you want to go east, you have to wend your way across till Wolf where there's a light where you can access Colfax and go east. This property is ill suited for high density. It's not that high density is a bad idea, but this property will create all kinds of difficulties and consequences. And therefore I.
Speaker 6: Urge the council to reject it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up in a do it.
Speaker 1: Good evening, City Council.
Speaker 3: I'm on a date with a teacher and Denver resident. Today I'd like to discuss the super majority vote. What's undoubtedly necessary for this rezoning to pass.
Speaker 1: A super majority, I feel, is a tool that allows.
Speaker 3: Affluent property owners more power than less affluent property owners. So what is a super majority? Well, its very nature is, I believe, classist and racist. The voices of renters are.
Speaker 1: Completely left out.
Speaker 3: And a renters opinion isn't even taking in consideration.
Speaker 1: In this process.
Speaker 3: And because of historical injustices.
Speaker 1: Black and black.
Speaker 3: And brown residents are far less likely to be homeowners in Denver than white, affluent residents. Moreover, more than half of Denver's residents are renters. Renters outnumber homeowners, and their numbers are growing. So when a neighborhood disperses, a supermajority petition whose voices are taken into consideration. When you dig even deeper, you realize that the term neighboring property owners.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean the amount of people. It means how big the property is that that owner.
Speaker 3: So, for example, in order to push a supermajority, you need signatures of 20% to 20% of the total land owners within 2200 feet of the property. Meaning that if I own a larger property than you.
Speaker 1: My vote matters more. So not only the supermajority not taken to the point I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Not take into consideration the voices of renters, people who are typically younger and less affluent.
Speaker 1: It takes into entire another step and listened to the voices of large landowners more. America was founded by white landowners who gave only a vote to, shockingly enough, white landowners. The supermajority policy.
Speaker 3: Does the same. It is vile and it must end.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Black, I applaud you for bringing this very topic to council.
Speaker 3: I'm saddened that you weren't fully supported, but I understand there was obstacles that were in the way. So I'm asking the council.
Speaker 1: Move those obstacles. End this practice once and for all. And to all of us here, I know the change.
Speaker 3: Can be frightening. But if you think change is scary, consider the status quo. We are destroying our earth for our children, and we must change our ways. One way is to reduce our carbon footprint as an entire city. We must have density in our cities and mass transit, or we will continue to destroy our earth. This year, I attended.
Speaker 1: A.
Speaker 2: Passover Seder.
Speaker 1: When we read the Haggadah.
Speaker 3: I couldn't help but think to myself what plagues, how we brought upon ourselves. We are currently running an insane experiment on our earth.
Speaker 1: Building more and more highways.
Speaker 3: Driving more single passenger cars from even farther distant neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: All because we oppose new density.
Speaker 3: In our.
Speaker 1: Cities.
Speaker 3: When will it stop?
Speaker 1: I have a three year old child.
Speaker 3: And she's precious to me. To everyone in this room who is more precious than you do. Our children do not care about the world.
Speaker 1: They will live in. Please approve this.
Speaker 3: Rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Five old. Dawn colored.
Speaker 8: My name is five Gaylord. My wife and I are 27 year residents and property owners on the west side of Denver. And before we moved here, we were building contractors for 20 years in another state. I am the Treasurer of Congregations Abraham of 132 year old congregation on the west side of Denver. And contrary to a popular rumor, I am not one of the original members is my personal opinion and my professional opinion that the proposed zoning change is extremely out of proportion and will be damaging to the adjacent neighborhood and threatening to other single family residential neighborhoods is a recognized fact, particularly in the current market, that there is a need for additional housing and that is indeed a moral imperative. But there is a conflict of moral imperatives. Operating here is also a moral imperative to address those needs in the context of orderly and esthetically compatible architecture and density and consideration of the adjacent neighborhoods. And there are long term residents. Previous discussions with the city were consistent with this principle regarding the appropriateness of, quote, a low scale multi-unit residential mixed with one and two residential uses, unquote. This is much more in-keeping and compatible with the adjacent established neighborhood spots. Owning this strip with its most difficult and limited vehicle access is really quite unnecessary in light of other vacant properties closer to the light rail, which are already zoned for higher density. It would be a very damaging precedent to rezone single family lots to a high density development. This would establish an economic pressure that will diminish the number of single family residences and increase the value of those that remain, making them even less affordable. This would seriously damage our neighborhood of large families of very modest income. Our congregation is more than 50% underpaid teachers. The large number of families surrounding Colfax Elementary School, also of very modest means, would also be threatened by setting this precedent. We would sincerely hope that the esteemed members of the City Council will review and reject this request in light of these very strong conflicts. It is our hope and expectation that you will have the best interests in mind of both the existing residents of the neighborhoods and any new residents of the proposed development who will be much more comfortable in a lower density setting with two or three bedrooms similar to the previous application that you just overwhelmingly approved. Thank you very much for hearing me out.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next five, if you come up to the front, Ryan Keaney, Kelly Anderson, Dimitris Fortney, Aaron Wasserman and Adam Astrof and Ryan Keeney, you're up first.
Speaker 4: Join. My name's Ryan Kenney. I live at 112 on Northampton Street in Capitol Hill. I'm going to speak off the cuff today. It's late. I think my dedication to staying here, the whole council hearing, kind of speaks to my the magnitude of my support for this rezoning. I mean, it's three.
Speaker 6: Stories on an arterial.
Speaker 4: Road, and I just think it's a no brainer.
Speaker 6: So I urge you all to support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kelly Anderson.
Speaker 4: I of.
Speaker 0: You can hand that when you're done. When you do 3 minutes, then you can go over our secretary inhibitor.
Speaker 9: Kayla Anderson 1655 Zenobia Street. I ask you to vote.
Speaker 8: No on the current application. Let's look beyond the typical M.E. arguments and rhetoric.
Speaker 9: And give a thought to this historic.
Speaker 8: Community that is affected by this.
Speaker 9: And also pay attention to our adopted plans, which would not be so long.
Speaker 8: If the formula.
Speaker 9: Were as simple as busy street big apartment. The new blueprint emphasizes the need for quality transitions. It designates a strip.
Speaker 8: Along Sheridan as a low, medium residential.
Speaker 9: Place type with max height of three stories, but also says the tallest building.
Speaker 8: Heights may not make sense.
Speaker 9: Where a site is providing transition and where they occur. Multi-unit buildings are low scale. On page 100, it presents an infographic that highlights a situation just like what is being proposed here as an identified problem. By definition, Main Street zoning is the.
Speaker 8: Most extreme.
Speaker 9: Build to requirements, and when applied here, it would result in a larger than normal three.
Speaker 8: Storey building.
Speaker 9: With zero setback from the shared.
Speaker 8: Alley with the Zenobia.
Speaker 9: And because of the 25 foot slope to Sheridan would result in actually four floors above ground near 17th and 50 feet in height. Even with the proposed deed restrictions. This is a low density residential neighborhood at the edge of Denver. And in this context, a block long 100 unit building is not low scale. Yes, it borders Sheridan, but throughout the area, the commercial and residential properties along Sheridan are shorter buildings. The 26 West Colfax Plan did say mainstreet zoning may be appropriate, but directed it to respect the variations inappropriate scale, ensure appropriate transitions and bulk height mass as mainstream buildings approach residential structures. If these criteria are not applicable in a situation like this, then ask when are they actually applicable? It rationalizes Main Street zoning for deeper parcels in proximity to more intense residential structures called Sheridan, a street attractive for pedestrians, bicyclists that can have on street parking that is not applicable any more shared and cannot have on street parking today. Finally, the scope and intent of Main Street zoning is is clearly not just to build an apartment with the leasing office yet that is the concept the applicant presented to the neighborhood for apartments. In this residential neighborhood, there are better conforming multi-unit residential zoning codes and the planning board agreed with that. But there is no developer here attached to this and the applicants told us they were not even entirely committed to sell the properties together. This would be granting significant extra entitlements, but with no plan for what comes next. This is an idea that members of this Council have specifically rejected in the past. During mediation, Mr. O'Donnell boasted he would get this passed without any neighborhood or R and or support if he needed to. But I stand here with the sincere hope that the City Council of Denver has higher standards and the votes to not approve this and send it back to the drawing board. It's not just a few neighbors who oppose this. It is an entire community.
Speaker 8: Of homeowners who renters, rental.
Speaker 9: Property owners and institutions alike united in their.
Speaker 0: Sorry, but your time is up, but thank you very much. Next up, Dimitri Zandvoort zawadzki so close.
Speaker 11: My name is Dimitri Xavier Romney. I live at 1950 North Logan Street and I'm here on behalf of myself as well as Yimby. Denver. I think if you've heard of arguments, I can go on about a number of them. I could talk about, you know, why dense urban housing is good for the environment, that it decreases the overall footprint, allows people to live close, sort of work closer to where they shop, make more trips on foot by bike and be close to transit, especially on a arterials such as Sheridan. But I think, you know what? What comes to mind is our housing shortage. I would rather have stood here in favor of a five storey building, and that's not happening because of compromise, you know, and I think we all have to do that. And so I'm.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 11: You know, not ideal for me, but I think it's still a push in the right direction. I don't. In terms of affordability, it's a drop in the bucket. But what I think about is what happens when this doesn't get resolved, because I think inevitably these houses are going to get scraped and they're going to be replaced with 4000 square foot McMansions going for 800 K or higher. You're going to have plenty of parking and plenty of cars. You're going to have people making most of the trips that way. And the folks that could have been living there are now living 1 to 3 or four, five miles out, probably not living in Denver, you know , taking our highways or through our neighborhoods into the city to work. So I think, you know, this is kind of a microcosm of a bigger issue. But, you know, at the end of the day, we need to support even the smallest. It's in the right direction. You know, I think it could have been better, but this is what we have. And I think it's better than a bunch of single family homes along a major arterial. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Erin Wasserman.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of Council, and thank you for your commitment and for your time. I'm Aaron Lawson, 1670s Novia Street and also president and CEO of ISSUE Veterans. Hi, I'm 53 year old institution on the west side of town. I like to voice my strong opposition of the zoning plan being proposed at 17th Avenue and Sheraton Boulevard. As the resident, there is no idea of Zenobia Street, one block east of Sheraton Boulevard. My family and I are directly affected by the proposed changes. I believe that the added density and traffic congestion and excuse me with resulting safety concerns will have a decidedly negative impact on the quality of life of our family. Furthermore, visual changes to a neighborhood are worthy of consideration as well. Our calm and peaceful neighborhood will be disrupted in Europe, irrevocably changed by a proposed zone rezoning through oppose. New changes do not take into account the historic nature of this established Denver neighborhood. I'm a longtime resident of Denver's West Side neighborhood, and I was born in neighborhood on this block, actually, and have lived there over 46 years . And a member of the Jewish community and our children have grown up down the block from their paternal grandparents. The proposed housing caters to a transient population. Given the size of units, I fear that these new housing developments will displace a stable, long standing community. As we see already, so many have been displaced and are moving away due to the size and price of housing. I fear that these new and I'm sorry the Jewish community relies on the infrastructure of religious institutions that have existed in this community for over a century. We don't have the option of just picking up and moving. While I understand that nothing stays the same, I strongly objected to gross abuses of developers who leave neighborhoods unrecognizable and overpopulation in their wake. They are not stakeholders in our community, and many of those who spoke tonight are not either. The stakeholders in our community are coming from other areas who don't really understand what not that we're against density or change, but what each piece of change, what that does to our community. Their greed and desire for more of what drives their wishes for zoning changes is what's going on. As was mentioned by Councilman Flynn earlier in the last proposal that what we need more of is larger homes, is larger apartments, three bedroom and so which has which has an idea of multi-generational. And that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing studio apartments, small apartments, which again caters to transient community and displaces the larger families and the family oriented community, which we have now. And we see many of the the Latino community that's been in a way driven out, I think, due to the pricing and the raising of homes which they've been living in at this time. I respectfully request that you consider the position of the stalwarts of the neighborhood and community and make appropriate zoning decisions accordingly. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Adam Castro. No, Adam. All right, next five. If you'd come on up. Erin Steinberg, John Rickey, Murray Darrow. Uh, Chairman Sekou and Tovah Zuckerman. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel. My name is Aaron Steinberg. Rabbi Steinberg. I'm the rabbi, a congregation, Santa Abraham, located at 1560. Wenonah, our congregation, Sarah Abraham, has been on the west side of Denver since 1887. Our community appreciates a newly adopted plan which establishes goals to preserve the authenticity of Denver's neighborhoods and celebrate our history, architecture and culture, unquote , and to, quote, embrace existing communities and their cultural assets, unquote. We are a community geographically rooted here because of our institutions. Yet, as high density development increasingly expands from Colfax Avenue into the adjacent low density residential neighborhoods, it threatens to dismantle this lovingly established century old community. When in negotiations with the applicant, we discussed a plan, an idea in which we could have the applicant work with us to meet our housing needs. It was suggested by the councilwoman who organized that meeting to consider 25 to 20% of the apartments. That would be three or four bedrooms. Meeting the need of the current community. The response by the applicant, which was termed as a compromise, was 3%, three bedroom housing. That's not compromise. That translates as one or two units of three bedrooms. That's not a compromise. That's insulting. The adopted plants identify this neighborhood as both vulnerable to displacement and lacking in the missing middle of housing options. It calls for the city to, quote, diversify housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate missing middle housing into the low and low, medium residential areas. Let me be frank. I'll skip the notes. Our community is not going to survive this. We are consistently seeing our community fall apart. Our young families are moving away. Young families which seek to move to our community. Don't they come to visit and they see they don't have a place to live? Single family homes are regularly razed and multi-unit structures are put in with one or studio one. Bedroom apartments, studio apartments. They can't live there. They move away. I ask the zoning board. Consider and please trust me on this. Consider.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, John Rickey.
Speaker 13: Good evening. My name is John Ricky. I live in a district three and a councilperson towards this district. Thank you very much for having me. Sorry if I'm a bit punchy. It's been an evening and I. As it happens with most people, I think I started paying attention housing when I bought a house. I started paying attention in the streets at the same time. You know, how do you get in between the houses and the places you want to go? I became passionate about cities and how they work. This rezoning that's being requested at the up to 2 to 3 stories of Main Street, I believe, is a really good idea . I urge you to vote for it. 2 to 3 stories. Main Street zoning is the most pedestrian friendly we have. If you're going to try to encourage mode shift, this is the way to do it. Forcing more parking into it isn't the right way to do it. But like was said earlier, compromise. I know it's difficult for people to imagine that cars aren't necessary to get things done, but when you live across the street from a park and a grocery store and hardware store and a home goods store and a beer store. Heck, I don't. I wouldn't. You don't even need a bike at that point. You can just walk across there and get everything that you need. The the the the I mentioned the way cities work. 86% of Denver is dedicated to single unit residential. And that form of zoning requires well, it doesn't require, but it makes it really difficult to live without a car. And that's too much of our city to try to force people into cars. There's no more room on the streets if we are to get the mode shift we need, we need the density to support the transit . It helps that this particular rezoning is along. Sheridan and two blocks off of Colfax are the main Premiere. I consider a transit way and hopefully will be upgraded one day, but we have to be able to to to have the population to support that transit. I find it curious. The last speaker said that he wants young families to move into the neighborhood, but you have to have a place to move them into and there are no more single family houses being built there. You can't, you can you can only replace them. So if you want a place for young families to be, you have to have units for them to move into. Not to mention that, you know, couples and singles and transients need housing, too. And we keep falling further and further behind. Every year in Denver, more people move here, and we still aren't building enough housing in order to house everyone. And we need to do something about that. We keep trying to scrunch it all down into a smaller space as we can, and you can see what it's done to, you know, the city and everyone's really great attitudes. Thank you very much. I apologize for rambling. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Marie Durrow.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Maureen Darrow. I live in an apartment on the 1500 block of Xavier Street in Denver. I'm here today to express my opposition to the rezoning of the properties located on the 600 block of Sheridan Boulevard. Denver has worked hard to put into place various plans for redevelopment in order to meet the demands of a rapidly growing population. Within these plans, one focus mentioned is equity. Our society today spends a lot of time talking about inclusion and diversity and protecting minority or at risk segments of the society. I would ask the Council to take into account one such minority community located in the West Colfax neighborhood where the proposed rezoning would take place. The West Denver Jewish community is made up of over 100 households, all within a geographic area of a mere half square mile. The cultural practices within this community include active involvement in the various organizations belonging to this segment of the population, including multiple daily services and classes, the local synagogue, ongoing classes and services at the Adult Learning Center, two active high schools that draw students from around the globe and many others. There's a prohibition of driving on the weekly Sabbath and holidays, which prevents this community from being able to look at housing options outside of this small geographic area. There is much infrastructure in place for this community, which has been active in West Denver since the 1880s, along with the needs of housing close to these Jewish community centers . The housing needs of this population requires larger units than the average requirement of the surrounding area, although the average household size in this zip code is 2.9 persons. Over 11% of the households in this area are made up of six or more persons. With these larger household sizes being average within the Jewish community. Because of the intergenerational focus of this community. Many children desire to remain in the neighborhood near their parents when moving out and starting families of their own. However, these families need more than a studio one better two bedroom apartments in order to remain long term. Despite this need, less than 1% of units in this neighborhood are larger than two bedrooms with the proposed units. If the rezoning goes through, allowing for a mere 3% of units to be three bedroom. This ignores the needs of this minority population while adding to the traffic congestion and lack of parking that already characterizes this section of the neighborhood. The concern with this rezoning is not only the houses that would be torn down, but the precedent that would be set allowing other low density housing needed by this minority population to be resold and replaced with high density housing. I'm a single woman and currently rent an apartment two blocks from the properties under discussion. I have rented in over a dozen neighborhoods in the Denver area in the course of my adult life and can testify to the unique nature of this neighborhood. In addition, my family has been in Denver for over 100 years, so I have a vested interest in seeing this neighborhood retain its character and to make sure that I.
Speaker 0: Heard that your time is up. Thank you. I don't see Chairman Sekou. All right, Tovah Zuckerman. And then I'll call the next five. Okay. Next last three. Dan Schorr, Jesse Paris and Daniel Krauss, if you want to come up to the front. Good.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Tova Sussman. I'm here to speak as a member of the Orthodox Jewish community of West Colfax. Several members of my community are here and many more would be here, but have been busy with their families or evening prayer and study sessions. It's hard for me to be here too, and I thank my daughter for putting her younger siblings to bed. Our community is a unique one. We live in a geographically small neighborhood because of the infrastructure that's been in place for a very, very long time. We do not drive or ride in any vehicles on the Sabbath each week, so we need to be within walking distance of the synagogue and other Sabbath observant families for our children to play with my husband and I. But our home on Tennyson Street two years ago, it was very hard to find because the prices have gone up so much over the years and there are so few houses available for sale. I have many friends who would like to be able to buy homes but have been unable to do so because of the prices and limited housing stock. Some of my friends have moved away because of the housing situation. We are not a wealthy community. We are interested in living in single family homes in order to have space for our families. My husband and I have a relatively small family of four children. Some of my families, some of my friends who have managed to buy homes in the area have eight or nine children. We need the arts for kids to play in and streets that are not overly full of heavy traffic and will be safe for children to cross. Apartments do not work for us. I have heard that building more smaller units will make the price per square foot in the neighborhood even higher, causing the prices of homes to go even higher. Rezoning single family homes for apartments will cause. A number of single family homes to go even lower. I am very proud to be living in the neighborhood where my husband's great grandparents and grandparents lived. If rezoning in our neighborhood continues as a trend, our community will be displaced. In conclusion, I opposed the rezoning of the properties on Sheridan Boulevard. Please protect our community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Dan Schorr.
Speaker 4: Hi, I'm Dan from the West Colfax Business Improvement District. So I'm here for the West Colfax bid.
Speaker 8: And we we did vote the board voted to support this rezoning.
Speaker 4: You know, largely for the reasons that it's you know, it's it's within plan precedent, you know, well, within a blueprint, it supports more intense development on arterial.
Speaker 8: And main streets. And it really works toward completing a complete.
Speaker 4: Street network that we're is is painfully absent, particularly in this location with no sidewalk. And we're also afraid about the lack of of attainable housing, especially as you've heard about this neighborhood. Gentrifying does not, you know, is dwindling. And this would, you know, at least provide some opportunity for some of that stock to come back. And then, of course, we're a business improvement district. And we believe that building a vital pedestrian connection and creating a broader network of infrastructure.
Speaker 8: To serve, that.
Speaker 4: The entire community, commuters, everybody who's living and walking and shopping is really beneficial and not just for the business community, but really for everybody in the community. And in fact, you know, many of the speakers here opposed tonight are very much you know, we've been working on making Colfax a safer place to walk across and beyond. And of course, that's something that a lot of people here, even opponents of this rezoning also are seeking. So there's a lot there is some commonality there. I think that what we are seeing tonight is that change is difficult. And unfortunately, I think that sounds like there was an effort to make this housing, this potential site, a this site a potential place for the Jewish community, you know, to accommodate the Jewish community by, you know, housing them there. And that didn't work, unfortunately. And so I think that it's a difficult thing. And then we're seeing that actually broadly in the city, that change is difficult. There's a lot of tension about development and housing. This is an example of one where there's not a developer, which is kind of unusual. And but what I come back to is that on this in this location on Sheridan Boulevard, and some people have already referenced this, it's a somebody mentioned it to you did. So, you know, it's just a very it's not an easy site to to develop and build on. And so I just don't think that there is a realistic solution.
Speaker 8: To this.
Speaker 4: That involves townhouses, which would really be the option. So anyway, for all of those reasons, I do want to see something happen here and.
Speaker 0: You know, take your time. Thank you. I don't see Jesse Perez. All right. Daniel Krauss.
Speaker 14: Hi, my name is Daniel Prowse and I need to first say I'm here on personal business as a neighbor. I'm also senior architect for in CPD in the building side, not in the planning or the zoning side, but I live at 1339 Range Street and they also my parents have a home just as a direct neighbor to the property. And I was there for at some of the meetings, mostly observing in the in the mediation. I have to say that that did not include the community that was for neighbors directly, you know, the ones who petitioned, I guess, in protest formally. But the community concerns are legitimate. There is a very different dynamic and you're hearing about it. There are people ready to buy families, ready to buy homes. I can tell you very specific examples of, for example, a couple with a woman with multiples with M.S. and they want to buy a cross from the synagogue. And the home was advertised as a red brick Tudor with the original fireplace and wood floors, etc., and it was being marketed for a family to move into as a, you know, a number of bedroom home. Like it's typical in the neighborhood. There was typical in the neighborhood. And because of the four plex zoning, which was not intended, that was the duplex zoning that went awry that people were building these four plex. And largest concentration, as far as I know, is in the West Colfax neighborhood. And those are displacing actual housing. In this case, that was an offer well beyond the expectation of the of the seller. And they're like, well, wow, a developer wants to buy this will raise you know, they'll raise the house and put four small vertical units. Of course, someone is not going to live in a vertical unit like that and our families are not going to be able to live in homes that don't have the yards, don't have the bedrooms. And really, sustainability comes to mind because I'm very, very involved in green building and in the committee member for the adoption of the sustainable building codes. Now it's going to 20 into 2019 and the sustainability and the cost of new housing. When you're going to raise existing housing and build new, they're going to be more expensive and it's driving up the per square foot, even the cost of the existing housing stock, which is very limited in a very small area . But it's certainly something that could be avoided if the it was appropriate, things were appropriately zoned. And I do think that the blueprint, Denver, the actual zoning and the new comp plan get it right and they don't call for a 50 foot building an m a main street building which doesn't respect the alley the same way there's there's issues with this trust. You know, there are issues. What I suggest is there's a neighborhood planning effort going on for West Denver and it's starting October 5th. If I could please implore.
Speaker 0: The I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 14: To wait and have this thinking adjudicated as part of the neighborhood plan. I think it would be appropriate.
Speaker 0: All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Hines?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. May I speak with someone from the Jewish community? I don't know exactly who to call, but if you could select someone. Awesome. Thank you. And I'm sorry, could you could you mention your name again?
Speaker 8: Daniel Krauss.
Speaker 9: Krauss, yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Krauss, for your service to the city. Also, thank you for for coming here. Also, thank thank you. The Jewish community for for coming. I'm glad that we could do this on a time other than between Friday and Saturday night on Sunday on what is an era of.
Speaker 14: The Arab is a boundary that allows people to either carry things or example to push a stroller on the Sabbath. So within the air of a family could travel to synagogue with their children as opposed to without.
Speaker 9: Is an air of something that's recognized by the city. Like an ordinance.
Speaker 14: There's a declaration by the mayor for a declaration.
Speaker 9: What about an ordinance?
Speaker 14: Mr. Goulart could speak to that.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 8: Five of Gallard. I've had the merit of managing the area for the last 25 years. The the city council's 25 years ago under the mayor, Webb passed a resolution that recognized the need for the Jewish community to build an enclosure, according to Jewish law, without infringing on anybody else's rights that would allow us to carry on the Sabbath. There are 39 classifications of work that we don't do on the Sabbath. I won't name the other 38, but one of them is carrying in the public domain. And so we have inspectors that go around every Thursday to see that the integrity is there and make sure that people can carry food to the sick, carry their children, push a stroller, keep the keys to their house in their pocket, carry their prayer book to synagogue, etc., etc..
Speaker 9: Okay. Is this an it's error of.
Speaker 8: Error of.
Speaker 9: A roof. Okay.
Speaker 8: And most Jewish communities through the centuries have such a construction.
Speaker 9: Okay. Is this the only eruv in Denver?
Speaker 8: No, it is not. There's one on the east side. There's one on the on the southeast. And I believe the current community has recently also constructed one.
Speaker 9: Is this recognized as a historic area or a historic district?
Speaker 8: That's not my department, but I don't think so.
Speaker 9: Okay. As the city allowed you to use utility poles to demarcate the era.
Speaker 8: We had to. It was an arduous process. The legal process probably took a year or a year and a half, and all of the utilities had to sign off and approve our use. Even the water department had to sign off and they were underground. But yes, we do indeed either use the utility poles with their existing infrastructure or we are allowed to. As long as they are in the low voltage area, we are allowed to attach to the utility poles.
Speaker 9: And who's Golda meir?
Speaker 8: Who is.
Speaker 9: Golda meir?
Speaker 8: Golda meir.
Speaker 9: Meir, excuse me. Yes.
Speaker 8: She was the prime minister of Israel years ago, the first female. She lived in Denver. And her house, I believe, is a little historic edifice someplace on the west side.
Speaker 9: Was it part of this area, this era or no?
Speaker 8: Well, I don't know if it was in the era of there was no Arabs when she was here, but the Jewish community was. There were 2000 families at one time, and it has since. And 13 synagogues, I believe 20 synagogues. It has since shrunk. We are the only synagogue left. The oldest one, I think, west of Chicago.
Speaker 9: The only synagogue left west of Chicago.
Speaker 8: Left on the west side is congregations there. Abraham There used to be 20.
Speaker 9: Okay. And I apologize. I'm I'm learning quickly tonight, one of my aides speaks Hebrew and and is an American. But. But it was educating me when I was looking at my phone. I apologize. She can't be here physically. She was physically present earlier, but was trying to learn as much as I could as quickly as I could. And I. I might have more questions in a minute.
Speaker 8: So I appreciate your interest. I don't know. But, you know, I hope I was able to answer your question satisfactorily.
Speaker 9: Yes, of course. I mean, I guess where I'm going with the line of questions is if this is a distinct area and it and and to preserve the air of this this new building might destroy the era of I'm that's where I'm trying to go with this. You know.
Speaker 8: I the average certainly runs up to that that alley. But we're we're very used to being having to respond to changes all the construction goes on. I worked with RTD for, I don't know, 15 years as they changed things around as there are pull hits or people take fences up and down. So there's a reason I have to inspect this go around every week because we need to respond to change in that regard.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So. When we consider zoning requests, we as a city council, we have to follow a very narrow set of guidelines, but conformity with existing plans is one of them, and equity is the first metric in both blueprint and comp plan 2040. And so that's kind of my thought process. But I'll yield to Madame Vice President or President Pro Tem. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Well, we do indeed have a vested interest that goes back over a century in the neighborhood. Historically, financially, educationally. And the area was just really one one aspect of that. And the very admirable concern you had for the Latino population in the last and that minority. We would hope that you would look upon our needs in the same, you know, in the same light. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Teresa, can I just ask you a couple of questions about the surrounding area? And so in your first couple of pages, as you're coming up, you mention in your staff report 44 letters of opposition.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, didn't you mentioned.
Speaker 3: In your staff report 44 letters of opposition? It's on the page.
Speaker 1: Hang on. Well, I'm looking at looking puzzled because I thought it was while there were. I'm sorry. 46 total letters. One was an R.A.. One was in support. So I guess that's 44. Yes.
Speaker 3: Yes. 44 letters of opposition. And you sort of glossed over that and had said, hang on, let me just pull it up really quickly. Sorry. So it was it's nine. Slide nine. One letter of support, 44 letters of opposition. And then when when you were going through this slide, you just sort of glossed over it and said that those didn't count any more or there was something that had gone on around the mediation attempt. Can you explain? Kind of. So those 44 letters of opposition are are intact in your staff. They're in the staff report. And those ones that are in there are intact. Okay, great. And then can we talk a little bit about the surrounding area and what sorts of transit options exist and what sorts of transit options are planned for that area
Speaker 1: ? You want to. Yeah. Go back to existing land use or.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I guess. Or maybe this is a question for someone from Public Works that I'm just sort of trying to figure out as I look at the maps what the and I look at Google Earth, what the actual transit options are that are there because to me, it sort of looks like there's Sheridan Boulevard where there are cars and there's 17th Avenue where there are cars.
Speaker 1: Um, 17th avenue where there are cars and bus and bus. They're shared an avenue where there are cars and bus lines. There are two complex avenue where there are several busses.
Speaker 3: Well, right now it's like seven, several blocks down. So I'm just looking at the immediately surrounding area. Okay.
Speaker 1: So there's a bus line on 17th and there's, as I recall, and somebody checked me, I thought there were at least three bus lines on Sheridan.
Speaker 3: And are those planned upgrades? Are there are there planned upgrades? Is that a high capacity corridor that's going to give.
Speaker 1: It in a high capacity corridor?
Speaker 3: Okay. And it's one of the ones that's planned eventually to be built out to something else. Do we know?
Speaker 1: I. Not to my knowledge, but it is a high capacity corridor and those are the ones we try and emphasize adding transit to. So it would not surprise me. Okay.
Speaker 3: And then without a is it typical to do a rezoning like this without a builder and without some sort of plan?
Speaker 1: Yes. We're only talking about an entitlement at this stage, so.
Speaker 3: Okay. I guess I'm a little confused because it was mentioned several times that it wasn't typical for this to happen without some sort of discussion of pulling out of a planning stage as well. So can you clarify that a little?
Speaker 1: Well, yes. Staff is looking at this from the perspective of the entitlement. A lot of times the builder or the property owner is looking at it and what they might propose to build. And sometimes that feels like a disconnect, I guess.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Because I guess, you know, as we're talking about equity issues and we're talking about a very specific community of people who are looking for a very specific thing and have very specific needs, for example, to have separate countertops, to separate refrigerators, to separate dishwashers, to separate. Right. If you're keeping kosher, you have to have completely separate cooking areas and prepping areas in your kitchen, which makes design and layout of something like a home, an incredibly intricate and different process that is very specific and has very specific requirements and very specific needs. So it's it's very hard to have that conversation when there is no builder or design at all, I guess, and.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's a better question for Bruce, but because I was not in on the discussions of what exactly was being built. All I know is apartment and I don't even know the number of units.
Speaker 3: Okay. Sorry. No further questions then. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I have a question for you, Bruce O'Donnell, please. So we've we've talked about letters of opposition, and then one of the applicants had a petition of people who are in support. So can you tell us about some of the support that you've had in the community? I don't feel that people from the community who are in support of it came tonight.
Speaker 3: Sure, I'd be interested in hearing about.
Speaker 7: Letters of support that are from that community as well as who signed that petition.
Speaker 12: So we in have furnished in our in the official record and in your packets 12, I think it is additional letters of support from neighboring property owners. Two of them are from well, actually five of them I guess are from property owners within 200 feet who could have signed the protest petition but instead signed letters of support . So they're in the immediate you know, they would be classified certainly in the immediate neighbor vicinity. And then the over the last weekend and I was not involved. You could ask Rick Lane, who kind of headed up the effort and one of the applicant property owners, but went to in the neighborhood over the weekend and gathered 102 signatures in favor of the rezoning proposal.
Speaker 7: Mr. Lane, would you mind coming up and telling us more about the petition, the signatures you got on that? Yes, please.
Speaker 6: Well, we just wanted to find out what the interest was. With petitions to see how much support we could get. I was quite was quite surprised that we got a lot of support basically over the. I think we started on the 12th and we went through the 15th and most of those were I was obtained on the 15th. And we just simply asked people if they would support that. You know, we would support the rezoning of the low to medium density that we wanted to put on there. And we got a lot of response. A lot of people signed it. So.
Speaker 7: And did you go door to door?
Speaker 6: No, actually, what we for the. Well we did for some. Yeah, we started doing that and but Sunday there was a bazaar that was on Raleigh and there was a lot of people walking around. So we just stood in one spot and as people would walk by, we would ask them if they would like to support us . And they would they would ask us questions. We answered the question questions. And we've got we got 102 signatures as a result of it.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. And do you live in one of these houses?
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 6: The corner house on 17th and Sheridan.
Speaker 7: And are there are five houses or are. It's hard to.
Speaker 6: There. There there are four.
Speaker 7: Houses were houses and ah. Do you all occupy those houses. No. Who do. Okay. So before you sit down, so we've heard a lot from people in the neighborhood just east of this row of houses who it seems like everyone is part of the Jewish community.
Speaker 3: Are any of you.
Speaker 7: Part of that Jewish community?
Speaker 6: No, ma'am.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Fine.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Darnell. Just a quick clarifying question. If there's no development or plan slated for this, can you clarify why? I've heard a couple folks talk about 3% affordable or some more specific language.
Speaker 12: Sure. So it is correct that there's no developer. There's no development plan. There's no architect. There's no project in in my experience doing this work in Denver for about the last 25 years, that's actually quite common. And I've I've done a lot of that type of work throughout the city. And so we've, as you've heard, spent over a year in community engagement and public outreach and mediation, working with a number of people that are here tonight. And we kept trying to craft restrictions and limitations and requirements into our proposal that in an effort to see if we could find come up with a compromise or a solution that would be acceptable to the neighboring community. And so that was unsuccessful, although the the commitments that we've said we would honor, we've lived up to by recording a covenant in a deed restriction against the property about a week ago now. And so, for example, there is a requirement in there and it runs with the land that 3% of residential units be three bedroom, and that that is one of the requirements in the covenant. And it's in direct response to the input we got from the community in, in all of the components of the covenant collectively are our attempt to respond to the input we've received over the course of the last year in why that is good is that if when this property if and when it is purchased by a developer, they will inherit these obligations. And and so the, the that portion of the community input that we were responsive to will be inherited by them. And in in they'll have to live with it.
Speaker 3: And the the covenant only covers.
Speaker 1: Three bedroom layout. It doesn't cover price point or correct it.
Speaker 12: It covers a number of other topics. More on the development standard than the use standard side, but one of which is the three bedrooms. It also addresses height and parking and the number of buildings in the use of rooftops and all these many topics that we heard over the course of the last year or so. Okay. Thank you. Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Bruce. If you'd stay up there along those same lines, we also I think I heard something about 100 units or so.
Speaker 12: So the application councilman is for Main Street zoning. And so there as I have said, there isn't a plan, there isn't a developer. It could be mixed use. It could be all commercial. It could be all residential. No one knows today. It is because of its location. It's likely. And what we've talked a lot about over the last year or more, it's likely that it is a multifamily site, perhaps with ground floor activation as is required in Main Street in if it is multifamily. Our estimate is that this site in two buildings would support somewhere in the 80 to 100 units perhaps.
Speaker 8: Okay. Do you have any comment or about concerns over access and egress from the site?
Speaker 12: Yes. So it most likely will be Allie served. Sheridan is a state highway and with limited access and then within the block to Zenobia there is limited space. And so one thing that was this was talked about quite a lot over the last many, many months or a year. One thing that's true is that none of the Zenobia houses take vehicular access from the alley. They all have front yard. Zenobia facing or any place facing driveways and garages. And so the alley today is used only for trash and recycling and utility type services. And so, as I think we're aware on zoning situation, the access and those types of issues are not part of the zoning. They're addressed by public works at the time of site plan, but that it's it's likely that it's very reliant on the alley.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Yes, Theresa. One question for you. Is this neighborhood going to.
Speaker 1: Can I correct one thing? Mr. O'Donnell said the zoning requires alley access if there's an alley.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Is this neighborhood part of the NPI initiative? It is. And when would you expect that to start?
Speaker 1: It's already started.
Speaker 8: They're already in the midst of it.
Speaker 1: The first meeting I think, was last week. The steering committee. The steering committee is. That's right. Sorry.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Teresa. That's all right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. So, Bruce, would you mind coming back up to the microphone? So did I hear that there was mediation on this site?
Speaker 12: Yes. The city engaged Steve Charbonneau company to do mediation. And we had a over a period of many months, a number of meetings and back and forth.
Speaker 1: And so who were the community players that were involved in that mediation? I'm assuming this looks like the neighborhood group was at the table, but were some of these immediate neighbors?
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 1: The Jewish community part of that?
Speaker 12: Yes. There's a number of people here this evening that have spoke that we worked with throughout that time.
Speaker 1: Okay. You mentioned that over the last 25 years that you've been involved in doing the zoning changes that it's common to rezone without a site plan.
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 1: That's only been happening since 2010 because prior to that, the the requirement and expectations of this body were looking at details of what came before. Wasn't just a zoning without plans for what was going to go on the site.
Speaker 12: Well, I respectfully in my experience, I disagree respectfully. I reasoned the 80 acres at the Gates site in 2004 and five with a.
Speaker 1: Robust planning process as part of that rezoning. It wasn't just a blanket rezoning without having some some clear. It also included, you know, discussions about obligations from that development to the community. That's all of.
Speaker 12: That. That's all true on the east side, on what was Cherokee. But I was on the west side. But anyway, I like to argue. But but ivory's on a lot of property in Denver with no no developer. And in fact, it's interesting it in particular a planning board today that for the past many years we're not allowed to talk about the specifics of a project or show design or anything like that, because zoning is all about is this zone district appropriate at this address?
Speaker 1: Well, some of us are hoping to change some of that so they don't.
Speaker 4: Play by that rulebook when it happens.
Speaker 1: Understanding of what specifically we're being asked to approve, besides just looking at scale without seeing the details. And, you know, this has come to light with the 41st and Fox area.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman and we.
Speaker 1: Dressing those.
Speaker 0: Yeah we could get going on that discussion for a long time and the hours late, so maybe we could focus on this one.
Speaker 1: Let me call up Rabbi Wasserman, if you wouldn't mind, if you're still here. Do I remember correctly that as part of the Sloan's Lake redevelopment, that the school at the corner of Colfax and Perry was replaced with housing that DHS is doing? That was part of the Jewish school. And I don't remember if it was a land swap or but that in exchange provided some resources for the school to do additional improvements.
Speaker 8: So that was it? Yeah, that was our dormitory, which was four blocks away from the school, which is on Stuart. And the idea was to create a contiguous campus and to have a were a boarding school to create, to build a dormitory on site. So we had sold that property to.
Speaker 1: And what is the location of where the dormitory was built?
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, if they would stick to this.
Speaker 1: It's all part of the same neighborhood. So that's why I'm asking. A new dormitory?
Speaker 8: Yes, a new dormitory is. And it is 1555 Stuart Street, right across from the Saint Anthony parking lot. Great.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that's within this same geographical area. Okay. Thank you. I just needed clarification on that. Can you just. I'm sorry. One quick question. What was the the scale of that? Is that a two story building? One story building?
Speaker 8: Two story building.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 8: And we had to fight hard, so.
Speaker 1: All right. Let me see. I think I had one last question. No. I think I've covered them all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cannick.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I was curious about Main Street zoning. I was looking. Theresa, this is probably for you. But, Bruce, stay close. I see that there's no comment from transportation. I'm really familiar with this area. I used to live not too far away. And I'm just curious about the practicality. If street activation is required, this is a.
Speaker 1: Tough. Couple of blocks.
Speaker 3: Like I've seen the strollers in Sheridan and the wheelchairs in Sheridan. And so I guess I understand we don't do site review, but at a certain level it would be very bizarre to be doing Main Street zoning in a place where it might physically be impossible to comply. So I'm just a little concerned about that.
Speaker 1: And that's I think this is probably a Bruce question because he's been the one in discussions with transportation. But my understanding is that there is discussion with transportation of dedicating 16 feet for a detached sidewalk on Sheridan.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay, Bruce, if you want to come up, I guess a sidewalk only gets you across the site. It doesn't guarantee that anyone's going to use an activated space. I just, you know, I can't imagine personally myself walking and going to a shop or a a restaurant in this particular block of shirt and even with a sidewalk . Right. The only people I've ever seen are people getting to the park or the bus stop. It's not a destination. So Main Street, to me, we're having a lot of conversation about density. I'm I'm not sure we have the right sound district, so that's what I'm trying to understand.
Speaker 12: Sure. Thank you, Councilman. So we have there's been a lot of talk over a long time about improvements in the shared and right of way. And so Theresa mentioned to the sidewalk when when Councilman Espinosa was involved, he started an effort to see if as tied to the actual zoning, if 16 feet of right away could be dedicated to Sheridan because he thought there might be some bond money available that a sidewalk, a detached sidewalk in a tree line could be done immediately. And we agreed that we would pursue that. And then it just for a whole variety of reasons, it never panned out. We we tried to work with the real estate department and also with public works. And so the the only real assurance of a detached sidewalk and tree line today would be just through the rezoning and through the development review and permitting process. The in regards to activated use and the in you're more concerns in the building. I agree with you that this is a difficult site there and we actually explored a whole variety of zone districts. We've inquired about a desire to do a Pudi. We looked at Enmu, we looked at our ECS and CPD insisted all along that it be Main Street because of Sheridan being an arterial, a mixed use arterial pardon me. And also because of in particular the West Colfax plan. And so the inn so we've we kind of got boxed in the main street and we'll have to figure out how to make that work. During the development or implementation down the road.
Speaker 3: Okay. So CBD, Theresa or if you can please come back up, can you please explain to me since you since it sounds like it was the department that insisted on this zone district, I get the idea of like a generic arterial and a generic location, but this actual site has an actual slope. Even with a sidewalk, it's not a pleasant place to be on that side of it. And I'm just so sorry.
Speaker 1: I don't recall us saying this has to be Main Street. I think that when we did the prep, it was a mixed use or Main Street. There was a lot of discussion with the council office, so it was sort of a pick, one of these kind of thing.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 3: I guess the next question then for the applicants, so thank you is again, I understand we don't have a site plan, but we're having a very big late debate involving your whole community. And I'm not sure that what you're describing as what the zone district allows you to do is feasible. So can you explain to me how it is that you are assured that you can fulfill this zone district? First of all, in terms of the Main Street and activation and secondly, why you set certain thresholds for what you could and couldn't agree to in, for example, like the three bedrooms, right. Why? Why if you don't have someone testing the economics of this, why not? I mean, why who who is advising in terms of what the applicant. SA agreeing to or not agreeing to in the good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 12: So we've that's been a big part of my role certainly. And then the I've worked closely with the applicant on all of that. And so, for example, with the three bedroom question, when this came up about a month ago, three weeks ago or so, we started researching it and looking into it and gathering a lot of data and information. And it I've learned through this information gathering that in the West Colfax and Sloan's Lake area and also in the downtown LoDo, Central Platte Valley, kind of Reno area, since 2014, about 12,000 apartment units have been built and about 120 of those are three bedroom. So it's it's just a here under 1%. And in we learned a lot of market factors and market reasons of why that's the case. But we also heard that the community was interested in three bedroom units. And so we've talked about it and determined that doing three times what the market delivers is a step in the right direction on that. And and so there's, you know, real data and information backing that up.
Speaker 3: There wasn't any feasibility in this site. There wasn't any testing of the economics or the design on this site.
Speaker 12: Correct.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 3: My last question. I guess maybe, you know, Daniel Kraus or if you prefer, the rabbi or someone else. You've posed an alternative, and I have to focus on the criteria, so I'm going to focus on the criteria. But you've proposed an alternative that we should not rezone this, which implies that if we did not rezone it, there would be housing opportunities for the community, right? That we're foreclosing opportunities if we do this. But I'm not. I guess I need to understand why you think not rezoning it would somehow result in something better for this community. What what evidence or analysis have you put into the fact that if this doesn't get resolved, it would in fact, provide the type of housing that you're you're curious.
Speaker 14: I very much appreciate that specific question because I was involved in Blueprint Denver as a citizen at the time, and there was concern about the community. And there was very targeted, specific areas of change identified along West Colfax, which everyone wanted it to be, become less blighted. And there was a transportation transit corridor at the gulch that would receive light rail that needed to change. And there was also the Saint Anthony redevelopment. So there was a very careful surgical, almost like saying, okay, this is what we want to preserve, because if we give increased entitlement to the single or duplex zones, we're going to essentially what we've seen already with the four plex, which was a mistake. But we're going to have homes razed literally the homes that we've lived in and people leave the community because eventually people do move around. And when they do, for whatever reason, they're selling to a developer to demolish a house that was lived in for 30 years. That is perfectly can continue to be that. And we have very limited housing stock. So I do think that anything that encourages a developer to say instead of us paying market at Colfax because these lots are available on Colfax, we're seeing lots of these single I mean, that's what Mr. Sherman they were saying is that we're seeing 12,000 units, of which only 1% are what we need. Right? So we're seeing mostly what we don't need. And that is going up all around us. And it's been going up where it's intended by the zoning plan. And that is correct. And all we're asking is to not infringe and not invite people to look and say, well, I can offer less than market to people who can only sell for low density. And I'll tell them no, they can sell for more because we'll go to council. I feel very strongly that a neighborhood plan is on the docket. We should use that to do this through the city, not through this process, because this process has already undermined the community, just literally. It's not a risk that people have talked about. We're looking at, you know, a potential threat. No, this has happened. We have lost housing. And I must say that people who've come to me and asked, can I look in the zoning department whether they can use an established basement unit to rent so they can buy a home and they can have some income? They're being told, no, it's single family zoning. You can't. And that already has the kitchen already has access from the outside. They're being told they can't put up an Adu. So we would thrive from increased density. We could put 100 units in this neighborhood in an appropriate way easily just where it's intended through the correct process.
Speaker 3: Okay. One last question, Mr. President. So, Teresa, can you come back up, please? So can you just clarify for me the current zoned district, this is something I was CPD, by the way, would just do for every zoning, but just tell me what can be built currently. And then you mentioned the mixed use zone district. IMU was the alternative if they didn't go with the MZ, is that right? So I would just like a very high level brief summary of what else could be built on the properties in question under their current zoning and what can be built under means.
Speaker 1: I'm actually did I not do a comparison in your staff report some of the different zone districts and.
Speaker 3: Well I see what the surrounding zone districts but.
Speaker 1: Okay I'm just not sure because.
Speaker 3: I have the options two and three summary of Zoning Request. If you let me know where to look, I can certainly go there. Slide six, I'm. Oh, I'm in the staff report. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 1: Let me get my staff report.
Speaker 3: All right. So it's the site is us you see to and you are three a single in two unit residential. I just don't know exactly if you us we've got to we've got four parcels though so I don't, I don't. Yes. I'm just like if you were to say to me we have four parcels with four residences now under the current zoning we could get eight, you know, let me know that. Like that's where I'm trying to get bottom line. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Well, so the US you see two is single unit build an urban house two and a half storeys or 30 feet because that two is on there. The C two, you can also build an Adu, a duplex, a tandem house on corners where at least one of the streets is a collector or arterial. So on Sheridan Corner, 17th Avenue Corner, you have that ability to build that 82 duplex tandem house. So bump up your density slightly with that you as you see two. Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. I so yeah, we're we're we're neck and it's late. I just literally want to know, are the four homes that are there now if we maxed out the current zoning, we could end up with eight. We could end up with six. Counting Adus. I don't care about height right now.
Speaker 1: I'm just hoping you could do two at the corner there at 17th Avenue. You could actually do two at the other corner at any place there's already one of the properties is already a duplex, so that's six already. Okay. And then so the seventh one you do seven houses, a single unit. But then the actually I'm sorry because they let me get to this. I'm looking, I need to look at the existing zoning. So. It is. The two properties at the end are this row house.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So for the row house, though, you have the ability to build more because you can build row house, duplex, tandem house. You've got a variety of things you can build there. Okay.
Speaker 3: And then there was a little dispute about who insisted on Main Street or whether it was a choice.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of discussion between the council office, the planning office and the applicant. And as I recall, there was discussion about the context. There was discussion about the zoned districts.
Speaker 3: And we probably want to sort all that out. So just between so there's the existing zone district and there's the main street that could end up with the apartment form and the 8200 units in between is the other zone district you mentioned that they could have gone to. Can you just say what that is again?
Speaker 1: Mixed use.
Speaker 3: Right? You ask just can you give me the whole mix if.
Speaker 1: Well, again, you.
Speaker 3: M.
Speaker 1: X x. Okay. You could choose three five.
Speaker 3: Okay. So and then just let's just say it was the three. If it was a you x three for the whole, the whole set of parcels, what would be the potential number of units that in that zone district we'd be talking about.
Speaker 1: I hate that question.
Speaker 3: I know cos.
Speaker 1: I don't know unless I know how it's being parked. Is it parked in a garage or is it being parked on the surface. Okay. Because surface parking takes up so much space, it really limits the amount of units you can build. Okay. And garage, if it's underground, I mean, it lets you build a lot more at the surface. So that's why I really hate that question.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I know that I am going for a long time, but this really is trying to figure out the criteria for my vote. So one last question to Mr. O'Donnell, please. You shared at one point that you saw it or someone shared me. It might have been an applicant that the only thing folks would have been happy with is townhomes. Can you speak to why the applicants were not willing to pursue a different zoned district that was more of a townhome type approach rather than the apartment type approach?
Speaker 12: Well, the you know, the the South and the very south end of the block is already zoned for row homes. And in so the there was in I'm not trying to argue with trees or anything, but there was very strong direction from CPD to pursue Main Street. And so we got into that in in got locked into Main Street because of the plan support in the in the all of that and the the real desire of the applicant is to has been to prepare their property to be able to implement blueprint recommendations in in. So we've been through this long kind of arduous path with mediation and on and on, and we've tried to craft it with the covenant and the deed restriction to be more sensitive to the immediate neighbors and the community given kind of the tool kit we were able to work with.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Kels on black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a quick question.
Speaker 7: I think for you, Mr. Goulard. I think that's your name. So I'm very carefully listening to everyone's concerns and I feel like what I'm hearing is that there's concern that there's not enough housing for future generations. And so I'm.
Speaker 3: Curious.
Speaker 7: These four houses are not currently occupied by by people from your group. So can you explain to me how disallowing.
Speaker 3: New development there.
Speaker 7: Changes the housing options for the people.
Speaker 3: Who live in the community?
Speaker 8: Well, I think I the concern I vocalized was that the rezoning sets a precedent to be able to rezone single family zoning. I'm not familiar with all the code words and and and letters, anagrams, wherever they are. And that will make residential property therefore more valuable for raising and rebuilding and requesting similar zoning within the neighborhood. And then more single family residences will evaporate from the marketplace. So, I mean, I remember a family that came here that lived in five basements before they could find a house to rent. And and there are property owners in the community who rent below market to be able to attract young people to stay here. So I think the logic is that if we don't oppose this rezoning, we set a precedent that will spread just because of the economic incentive to other residential areas, which would be harmful to us and would also be harmful to other people of modest means who are not part of the Jewish community. And my answering the question.
Speaker 7: Yes, yes, you are. And so I know it's just one question, but Teresa, if you could answer a follow up question. So thank you very much. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Mr. Aguilar is concerned that this would set a precedent for a rezoning into the neighborhood. But is is there.
Speaker 7: Plan support for rezoning those single family.
Speaker 3: Homes to the east of Sheridan?
Speaker 1: Well, I guess I'm a bit puzzled by that, because the reason we're supporting Main Street on on Sheridan is because it's it meets the criteria. It's an arterials street. The Main Street zoning talks about being on that sort of a linear situation like that. So I don't think that we'd support going into the residential with Main Street because Zenobia is not a Main Street. We would we consider that the whole point of blueprint is that our arterial streets are where we push the density. We wouldn't push it to a zenobia street.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Councilman 577 is closed. Are there comments by members of council? Councilwoman Sandoval, this one is in your district. Did you want to go first?
Speaker 7: Sorry, I.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry, I was looking over some notes. So I just want to say that. I don't like sitting here tonight at 1145, having neighbors who I represent pitted against each other. It doesn't feel right. It's really unfortunate. And I remember when this application came in. And I'm going to counter what CPD said. Councilman Espinosa wanted the sidewalks dedicated, and he would have done anything possible to have those sidewalks dedicated. I don't think any person in this room can say different. He made that known throughout his whole campaign. He made it known everywhere. And so that's what Councilman Espinosa wanted. That was his will. And so if that meant it was Main Street, that meant it was Main Street. Now, in my councilman Espinosa. No, I am not. So when this came to our office, I saw the writing on the wall because it was actually a five story rezoning application and blueprint. Denver was going on the updated blueprint Denver. And we were working robustly in all of our neighborhoods to make sure that the map that was adopted was reflected from the work of the people. And the map that was adopted from the work of the people in this neighborhood actually changed the plan support from five stories down to two and three, because that was the will of what the people in this neighborhood and the registered neighborhood organizations wanted. So I'm sitting here and as I was, the reason why I wasn't paying attention right now is because I was looking through the MSA zone district. So I like zoning. I think it's pretty clear on what you can do and what you cannot do. So if we were to pass this rezoning, we could have duplexes, we could have tandem house, we could have row house, we could have townhome, and we can have an apartment for them. And then we could also have a drive thru service on the corner of 17th and Sheridan. And the most interesting thing that I find in this is that the general intent of an EMS zone district is to improve compatibility with and respect for the existing character and context of Denver and its neighborhood. Give prominence to the pedestrian realm as a defining element of a neighborhood character. And I could go on and on and on. And I will tell you one thing. Chardon is not a pedestrian neighborhood. Sheridan is scary. Sheridan from Colfax to 17. People cannot walk. They push their strollers in the right of way. Nobody can get there. It's a transit quarter. So I do not agree with the fact that we are going to mess. And I will agree with Bruce that that was forced upon us by community planning and development, because as many of you know and as many of you, especially you like Robin and Debbie, have you ever heard KPD say that the council office got to pick a zone district? Now you go in front of community planning and development. You do your pre-application. I have done them for council members. They push you into a zone district and then it's your job as the applicant to come up with the five criteria that meet the rezoning. So I will I thank you, Bruce. I know that that is to be true. I also know it to be true that this neighborhood does need more development. You. The Jewish community is suffering. It's sad. I feel sad that you all are being pushed out. And I also understand that if this were to get rezoning, we might find a developer who might do more bedrooms. We're not thinking outside the box. We're looking at the application before us, which is very challenging. And before I go on, I just want to for those crazy people who are watching at 1145 at night, I want to talk about what's called a supermajority. It's not called a supermajority. It's called a petition protest. And that is what this neighborhood did. So anyone can have a petition protest. It could be in a minority neighborhood, which I actually think the Jewish people in this neighborhood considered are considered a minority. So thank you for owning your homes and thank you for doing the hard work to get a petition protest done. It's not easy. It's been happening. It's in the Denver zoning code. And so, Ana, I do not agree with what she said. I just had to go on the record and state that I actually do believe that the Jewish community in West Colfax have been a minority. For as long as you all have been there. You have not been the majority. So in that vein, I have been sitting here vacillating back and forth. What do I do as the councilperson? What is my role? And I think I have to go back to my values. I have to start with my values. And my values are that we need more housing in northwest Denver and we need more opportunity in northwest Denver. And we need developers to look at this. Yet at the same time, I do not believe that we can use our housing as a Swiss Swiss bank account. I don't agree that you can just suddenly have three land owners. What if one wants to sell and the other one doesn't want to sell and then these three parcels get broken up or four parcels get broken up. There's no guarantee that this is and we've moved forward in one section. So I just have to go back to EMS, provide human scale and buildings through the use of detail, contrast form windows, doors, placement, provide identifiable pedestrian connections between private development, public right of ways and more time modes of transportation. So in that vein, I will have to vote no on this because of the mess, and it just does not match Sheridan. And I just want everyone to know I hope to never be sitting on this site again. I was elected July 15th, running on the fact that hopefully I can be a good facilitator. And I just want you to know I feel guilty. I was in the council office when this came through. I attended the first meetings to establish a working group, a task force. I thought it was going somewhere. I left the office in November, and I am sorry that you didn't have the representation that took you forward to get this done. I think it could have happened. I really do. And so I feel disappointed by what has happened. And I feel I take accountability and I take responsibility for that. But thank you all for staying here this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll just be brief. I you know, the first metric for both Blueprint 2019 and current Plan 2040 is equity. And I want to make sure that we provide an equitable solution here. And I am a bit troubled by considering equity with this particular rezoning. Why is this rezoning better than the original zoning? I'm not certain I know that particular because we don't have an immediate developer in, you know. Waiting for this rezoning. The M's form troubles me a little bit as well, which has already been discussed. And the final thing is, well, two more things, I guess. It sounds like there's a robust stakeholder process that has just started or will start on October 3rd. So either way, it seems like we've got something in front of us that in the very near future that will have a lot of comment that will affect this not only these particular plots, but but also the area for this particular Jewish community that would allow them for a lot of them, with with more comment. And the last thing I would say is, please, if you're going to have a stakeholder process, allow them to have some at least some of them to happen, not on the Shabbat . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I also am going to have to be a know tonight. I am very concerned about the public safety issues with this rezoning, not only because I think as we delve further into this, it it is the wrong zoning district. It's not. There's something very wrong here. But also because we've got you know, we're talking about 80 to 100 units added on a parcel of land to get a sidewalk, it seems like, which doesn't make a lot of sense, logically speaking, you know, and we're talking about adding density to a community of people who, yes, need a sidewalk so that they can walk around the community. But the trade offs there don't seem to make a lot of sense. There's just the disconnect here. It's just not it's just it's not. Something is wrong. And so I think that the there are just the safety implications of what we're talking about here and the public welfare implications of what we're talking about here. Just don't add up. And I think that unfortunately, that means going back to the drawing board. And I'm I'm you know, I'm sorry for that because I think that you guys are really the victims of a mistake in our planning board or, you know, in CPD somewhere along the way or in a disconnect in our council office somewhere along the way, I'm not sure, but it stinks. And so I think that that I hope that you will go back to the drawing board and find something that works better and come back and I'm sorry that you had to stay this late at night for that. But I do think that we have a responsibility to our community as a whole to make sure that the decisions that we make, especially when it comes to zoning, do make sense for public safety and welfare. And this just simply doesn't. So I will be a no tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 3: I just want to mention a couple of things. Yes. The West area plan kicks off on Saturday.
Speaker 1: October 5th.
Speaker 3: That won't be the only opportunity. And I guarantee you, Councilwoman Sandoval and I, because we share the West Colfax neighborhood, will absolutely make concerted efforts to find times when your entire community can weigh in on the West Area plan. I guarantee you that. One thing that I would mention, though, is that what I'm finding in a number of other neighborhood conversations that are preparing to enter in that West Area plan, they're already thinking about how do we proactively plan for density so that density doesn't happen to our neighborhoods, to the communities that we live in without kind of our participation or our say, how do we proactively zone? And so those are conversations that Villa Park is having, that Westwood is having, that Varnum is having. And and those are going to be some of the things that will filter into the West Area plan as you go farther down. Sheridan You find a mix five mix eight m2, and so you do find density. This is where density should be on Sheridan Boulevard. And I'm compelled, though, that we've lost an opportunity for better conversation here. I would say that in all of these options, Main Street seems to be one that would protect the interior of your single family home neighborhood. And that's one thing to consider among the variety of options that could encroach farther in Main Street would only be on Sheridan. So I'm I'm struggling a little bit with the direction, but I know that there'll be a lot more opportunity to figure out. What happens in West Colfax. And and and I'll support the community in a lot of that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I got to know this community very well. About 13 years ago when I was at the Rocky Mountain News and RTD was going to start construction of the West Rail line. And that's where I became familiar with your roof. And I walked past the A Mikva that's there on Equipment Street, I believe, and that's Beth Israel and the boys school there. Who the name of which escapes me on the north side of Colfax talked to this is the the the home not only of the west side Jewish community, which as I discovered, was vastly different from the east side Jewish community, but also for over a century had been very well integrated with the Latino community as well, side by side everywhere from lower Colfax, down by the old Starr Bakery, all the way west to the Jefferson County line. I learned so much about these communities living together for decades. And I'm very appreciative of that, of knowing that heritage and hearing some of it come alive again tonight. Thank you. Because of that and because of the testimony I heard from that community, I think a strong case has been made that criteria three has not been met , that this does not further public health, safety and welfare because of the impact it has on the character of the community. One of the directives in Blueprint Denver is that while we grow intentionally and carefully, that we pay attention to conserving and preserving the character of our diverse existing neighborhoods. They're very different all over town. You will find neighborhoods that have different character. We talk about building complete neighborhoods, but those neighborhoods are all they all have their different character. That doesn't mean they all look have to look alike. And so I don't think I can support this tonight because I think it fails on criteria three. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I also have concern about I have concerned about criteria one and criteria three as far as adopted plan. If the city has decided that it's time for this neighborhood to have a new plan that is is basically already started, I guess the formation of the the steering committee. I can't rely on a plan from 2006 as having much validity. And as has been stated with with such division, I think it makes sense to be more protective of health, safety and welfare to have that extended community discussion. Now, there may be a bad news to all of that, depending on your point of view and where this planning process ends up. As Councilwoman Torres said, there's no guarantee you get two and three stories there. I would advise the community, if this does get voted down tonight, that you be very, very involved and do your best to get the the outcome that's best for this community. And the while it's not. Maybe it's directly related or not. I think looking to the future for all of our neighborhoods, an increase in the number of multi bedroom units. Again, I think furthers the health, safety and welfare of the community. So I'll have to vote no this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a tough one.
Speaker 7: I agree with the comments of everyone has made tonight. I actually do think it meets the criteria, but I also recognize there are issues with it. And the fact that the neighborhood plan is coming is very compelling. We've had other rezoning similar to this over the years on Colorado Boulevard and other busy streets that neighbors have opposed . But we spend an awful lot of time working on Blueprint Denver, and it does, as Councilman Torres points out, really does want us to put density on those commercial corridors. And that does not mean that it is going to go into the neighborhood. Those are there's very different.
Speaker 3: Appropriate plan, support for what would go on a busy.
Speaker 7: Corridor versus what would go in a residential neighborhood. We can all count. And I think it's very clear that this is not going to pass tonight. As I said, I am I am torn. I do think it meets the plan's support. So I am going to support it because I feel like that is my job. But I'm I'm hopeful that you all will come up with a better solution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Black Council Manager.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I was going to say two different criteria than some of my colleagues, which is the uniformity of district regulations. I don't think similarly situated properties that are on a sloped site like this can possibly meet the Main Street expectations for activation in terms of of just what we expect of a main street, you know, Tennyson as a main street 32nd and little even 25th in federal by Edgewater makes sense as a main street. I just think that this was a little bit overly broad and I don't think we would treat a similarly situated property property as a main street if it weren't just that it had been painted with that brush . So I think it fails to meet the criteria, I will say. For me, it's not so much just about pure density. The only I rarely, you know, on especially on a thoroughfare, you know, vote against density. But the site matters. And, you know, the one other site Colorado needs, Hartsdale, that I also voted against was for a similar reason. I will say in that example, the applicants did come back with a different proposal and were able to rezone to something that I think worked better for a very awkward site as as this one is. So I want to thank the applicants for for being here and for making your case. And I want to thank those who testified. I want to make clear that as persuasive as folks, folks, the story and the community cohesion is, it's the criteria that is the basis of the vote. And so that's that's why, you know, I'm voting this way. But I do hope that folks stay at the table. I guess I would disagree that you can't continue to talk while a new plan is coming. The current plans are in effect. There's a lot of guidance in those citywide plans that are brand new. And I think that it probably behooves everyone to get certainty by continuing to talk than waiting for a two year planning process. So I might differ a little bit with my colleagues about that. I would suggest your position is best if you get to the table as soon as everyone gets some sleep and recovers and figures out whether or not with a little more focus on feasibility on the actual site. And I will say I'm I'm a little disappointed that y'all didn't get a chance to get some actual advice. You have a ready made market for three bedroom units. Part of the reason they don't build them in LoDo is because three, you know, families with that many kids don't want to live in LoDo, but to look at that and make a decision about what's feasible in your market, you deserve site specific market information. And I would I would hope that if you are going to continue, you shouldn't agree to something you don't feel like is feasible. But I think you have a very different market for very different reasons in your site and you deserve actual feasibility from your site and not just some generic analysis of the whole city, including places like Reno, that are just not going to be applicable. So so I hope that you can get that so that you can come to the table and understand what's really possible for you all. And with that, I'll be voting no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to. Add that I think the biggest challenge with this particular site is the fact that it is very, very difficult to get a curb cut from court, from, you know, being able to access the site off of Sheridan, which means the traffic will come in on what was at any street and and then it would be through the alley. And I think that challenges the safety of the neighborhood. I heard a lot of discussion about people from the Jewish community having to walk down many of the alleys. And that safety concern, I think, is is real. But we know that Sheridan needs sidewalks. This conversation should not be about sidewalks. We know that developments that come into the city have to provide their their own infrastructure. And so in this case, that would would have needed to be done. And I was right there with Councilman Espinosa before we even knew there was a reason application for this area. Fighting for sidewalks on this part of Sheridan, because it's on a slope where you see people walking in the snow with strollers or with children trying to traverse being that close to the bus and traffic that's on Sheridan Boulevard. So the safety concerns, you know, with this being a slope site really are somewhat concerning. But, you know, the city would have made sure those sidewalks were put in in in a way that could allow people to walk through there and do that safely. But I think the need for a curb cut to get access to this site is one of the biggest challenges. I've worked on some of those kinds of projects, and they're not always approved. And so that that makes this area even more challenging to try to develop on it. So I'm not going to be supporting it tonight as well. I appreciate the work that everybody put into it. Thank you all for staying so late. I'm sorry. The previous process, you know, went went on as long as it did. But I think this is the right decision tonight. And there's plenty of opportunity to to look at the right way to do this. And I think the fact that the the area plan is moving forward really gives the opportunity to to look at the area a little bit more comprehensively and figure out how it all fits in together. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you all for sticking it out this late. Councilmembers is a reminder that community planning and development has determined a requirement for a legal protest has been met. Ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 1: Sandoval Black Eye. CDEBACA No.
Speaker 6: Flynn No.
Speaker 1: GILLMOR No.
Speaker 9: HINES No.
Speaker 8: Cashman No.
Speaker 1: Kenny Ortega No.
Speaker 3: Sawyer No.
Speaker 1: Torres, I. Mr. President?
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: Ten days to ICE.
Speaker 0: Ten days to council. Bill 577 has failed depending on publication. On Monday, September 23rd, 2019, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 19 0913 designating 4345 West 46th Avenue as a structure for preservation. We'll see you in 9 hours for budget hearings.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard in West Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from U-RH-3A and U-SU-C2 to U-MS-2 and U-MS-3 (urban row-home and single-unit to urban main-street districts), located at 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-18-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 21%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0912
|
Speaker 4: And so thank you for everybody who made this happen. And I can't wait to be involved in making sure we get the right operator in this space in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please, for the next item on our screens, I believe we have 912. Councilman Herndon, will you please put resolution 912 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 2019 091 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca Eye for an Eye.
Speaker 9: Gillmor Eye.
Speaker 0: Herndon Eye.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 7: Eye.
Speaker 5: Cashmere.
Speaker 3: Eye.
Speaker 5: Carnage.
Speaker 6: Eye.
Speaker 5: Ortega Eye.
Speaker 4: Sandoval Eye.
Speaker 6: Sawyer I. Torres Eye.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 as council resolution 912 has been adopted. I'm secretary. Please for the next item on our screens. Councilman Herndon, would you please put resolution 948 on the floor?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the sum of One Million Five-Hundred Fifty-Thousand and 10/100 Dollars ($1,550,000.10), of which $609,268.80 will be paid to the Jester Gibson & Moore LLP Trust Account, and $940,731.30 will be paid to the individual plaintiffs for wages and compensatory damages, in payment and satisfaction of all claims filed by the 15 plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the City in the United States District Court, District of Colorado, Case No. 15-cv-02539-CMA-STV.
Settles a claim involving the Denver Sheriff Department. This item was discussed at the Mayor-Council meeting on 8-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0678
|
Speaker 0: Alumni as Tues Council Resolution 848 has been adopted. I'm secretary. We pleased for the next item on our screens. This is 678. Councilman, I could go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Is anybody here who can speak about this settlement?
Speaker 0: This was the school district contract.
Speaker 4: I think this was for introduction and we skipped the.
Speaker 0: This is the one that's on the floor right now, 678 for the school district one contract.
Speaker 4: DSD not the sheriff's then can is anybody here from who can speak on this contract. This is introduction first reading. Just wanted to get a little bit more details for the public regarding what this expansion of the school resource officer budget is for. It says that it will not add an additional school resource officer to the 18 who are currently in the schools and just wanted to find out what it's about.
Speaker 0: So that's correct. So I'm a division chief. Ron Thomas, Denver Police Department brought with me Robert Gossett, Deputy Chief from DPS. So that is correct. It is 18 SRO is a 17 schools. There's two SRO that East High School. And we're not adding to that complement at all. The reason for the increase in the in the cost of the contract is the 3.25 adjustment for for the collective bargaining agreement a pay increase.
Speaker 4: And what was that exact? 2% increase?
Speaker 0: 3.25.
Speaker 4: 3.25. Correct. So has anybody is there a plan? I know this is barely going to committee. And we've had a lot of talks about disrupting the school to prison pipeline and what role policing schools plays in that. Is there any opportunity to reduce that 18 of the 18 amount of school resource officers, or is that not part of the conversation as we go into committee for this budget?
Speaker 0: Excuse me? And that has not been part of the conversation. You know, obviously, we review the contract and the terms of those contract and the numbers are they just are those that we have in.
Speaker 3: The schools every year and identify.
Speaker 0: Whether or not.
Speaker 3: They need to be moved or.
Speaker 0: Reduced or increased. So that is a continuing conversation.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And can when when you guys get to committee, can you be sure to bring us information about where these 18 officers are placed and how we determined where to place them? And if if there is any possibility to reduce the amount of school resource officers that we're using and shift our focus to the mental health workers, the social workers that we've been hearing about talking about. That would be helpful.
Speaker 0: Sure. I can tell you I can tell you who's where right now. But whenever whenever you're ready for those answers.
Speaker 4: We can get we can get that to the public in committee. Just wanted to make sure that our Monday night viewers are in the loop, that it's come in and they can participate and listen as well.
Speaker 3: Certainly. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Herndon, would you please put Bill 818 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 2019 081 to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: In Singapore. Our system to catch up. Looks like we still need a second round secretary on a real set here. Here we go. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council councilmen.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Second Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado to add exhibits and to increase compensation to provide school resource officers through the Denver Police Department at various Denver Public School locations citywide.
Amends an intergovernmental agreement with School District Number One by adding $721,403.84 for a new total of $2,013,785.97 for provision of School Resource Officers by the Denver Police Department at various Denver Public School locations throughout the 2019-2020 school year. No change to contract duration (POLIC-201736749-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-30-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-10-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0818
|
Speaker 0: In Singapore. Our system to catch up. Looks like we still need a second round secretary on a real set here. Here we go. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council councilmen.
Speaker 4: Savarkar just wanted to call this one out for a separate vote.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, Roll call CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: No. Black I. Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore.
Speaker 7: I Herndon.
Speaker 5: I kind.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Cashman i.
Speaker 5: Kinnick I. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i.
Speaker 6: Sawyer, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: To advise one nay.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes one nay council bill 818 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Herndon, would you please put Bill 874 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Loretto Heights Small 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.
Approves the Loretto Heights Small Area Plan, as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-20-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0874
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes one nay council bill 818 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. Councilman Herndon, would you please put Bill 874 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. Move the council bill 2019 0874 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. May I have someone from the National Western Complex come forward for questions?
Speaker 11: Good evening, Members Council. Take us all the way. Executive Director of the Mayor's Office of National Restaurant Center.
Speaker 7: Awesome. Thank you, sir, for coming tonight and thank you for answering questions. If so, this this bill is appropriating funding for a national western complex. So I'd like to I guess first start with a more general question. How is the National Western complex funded in general? I know that's a large project, so. That's the question.
Speaker 11: Sure. So in part, there's funding from the Regional Tourism Act and then voters voted on to see. So a large portion of the funds, 765 million come from those sources.
Speaker 7: Got it. Where, general? Excuse me. Where general funds used in the funding of the contract. And I think this particular bill refers to general funds. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: So the funds that are currently allocated to it are to sea bond funds and Regional Tourism Act. Okay.
Speaker 7: And this particular bill is about general funds, correct? Correct. And specifically from the contingency account, is that correct? Correct. Okay. Is National Western currently fully funded except for this 1.4 or 5 million for the for the work that it's done to date?
Speaker 11: That is correct. It is a program of $965 million that just like every large program we're tracking to where we believe the health of the program should be today. The 1.4 or five is an amount of money that we're seeking approval for to use. That was an overage that we hadn't anticipated as part of the rail settlement agreement. So just specifically for the rail portion.
Speaker 7: And this this is considered a critical path item, is that correct?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 7: So without moving the rail or or without moving the rail, the national western can't move forward? That's correct. And without the settlement, we can't move the rail.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 7: Or at least as we've negotiated so far. Correct. Is it typical to not fully fund critical path items?
Speaker 11: Yeah. So again, on a very large project such as this, there's unforeseen conditions. We entered into this negotiation with approximately 15.3 million set aside for the rail agreement coming out of that monumental settlement, which was a really good situation for the city dealing with railroad authorities. There was 1.4 or five that we hadn't accounted for. So the program team felt at the time that this was an appropriate request for the use of general fund and Tennessee dollars.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I might have comments, but I thank you for your time. Sure. Please.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Kennett.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. My colleague laid out, I think, a lot of the facts with his questions. I'm just going to comment. I really appreciate how hard the team worked to achieve this rail system. And it's a big deal. And, you know, we often not so jokingly refer to the railroads as the, you know, fourth branch of government. They are impossible to work with except in this case, of course, where they were, I'm sure, very amenable. And we came to a good agreement. So for me, I'm very supportive of the rail settlement. But I, I in this, you know, history because many of this team members have turned over over time. But even early on in this project, there were purchases of land made for the national western site before the voters had a chance to vote on the tourism dollars going . And even at that point, I laid out the very strong expectations since we were headed to dedicated funding streams that the general fund needed to be protected. And it was not appropriate to both go to the voters and use general fund dollars. And so Diane Barrett and some of the predecessors who were involved at that time agreed and made sure that when we got the approval for the voter dollars and through the RTA Act, that we actually paid back the general fund for some of those initial investment. So this has been a principle that I have had for many years. Now I want to acknowledge that, you know, there are different ways to approach large project budgets. We are very early. You know, Councilman Hynes didn't ask, but we've expended a very small portion of the budget for this project because we're just now in the design phase, which means there are hundreds of millions of dollars of costs yet to be estimated and for construction to done.
Speaker 4: So one way to do it is to go through each section.
Speaker 6: Of the project and say, Well, we only thought we were going to need this much money for this section of the project. And because we're short in that section, we need help from somewhere else. The other way to.
Speaker 4: Do it is to.
Speaker 6: Do each critical path as frugally as you can. And this is a critical path, and it must be done. And then as.
Speaker 4: You get later in the project.
Speaker 6: Determine which sacrifices you need to make in design to stay within your budget, or at that point come forward and say, you know, because of the price of steel, because of the price of labor, we can't deliver the project we need to. And let's have a conversation. This is too early in the project, in my opinion, to be asking for outside support. That appropriate time to do that would be when we are much later in the process and we can fully evaluate whether value engineering gives us the opportunity to. Absorb these costs. So it is not my belief that a vote against this settlement transfer of dollars is a vote against a settlement. I'm sorry, I misspoke. I am very supportive of the settlement. We have the dollars in the national Western budget to pay for this. They're just not allocated for this line item. And just like I would not expect you to come here if your electrical bid came in higher than you expected or your plumbing bid came in higher than expected, you have to live within the means of the entire project until you're far enough along that you determine you can't. I want to think finance. They heard my concerns in committee. They went back and they worked hard to try to find some options. None of those were guaranteed payback from the general fund. They were all contingent upon other pieces of the project coming in under budget or having contingency left over. And so because they were not guarantees, I would have been willing if we felt like we needed a loan from the general fund and then we were guaranteed the general fund would be paid back. But as we learned today from the mayor, our general fund is tight. We have a growing city and our budget is no longer growing at the same speed as our city. It is my obligation to protect the vulnerable programs that are in that budget, which we never have enough money to do. You know, our homeless community does not have the benefit of a dedicated ballot measure. Our transportation and mobility needs do not have a dedicated measure. We have two dedicated funding sources for this project. I support it. Our voters support it. But it is critical to live within the means of the project, and it is not appropriate, in my opinion, to use general fund dollars at this time. So with great appreciation for the work on the settlement and great appreciation for the attempt to find potential ways that could maybe be paid back. I need to vote my conscience and vote no tonight. But I and I hope the project does not come forward again for general fund dollars unless and until you are far enough along that we are sure that we need to have that conversation and that there are no other paths. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman Kennedy for comments, and I want to echo them. And I want to say that this is for sure too early for for us to go back to taxpayers and ask taxpayers to dedicate additional funds to the National Western Project. We really we haven't gotten there yet. I mean, we are early in the project. There are a lot of expenses, but there's a lot of funding left. And I don't think it's fair for us to to tell our homeless out loud, folks, no, you can't have funding when we're telling National Western, oh, it's okay for you to have additional funds. So I too will be voting. No, I, I hope that the, that the project does go forward, but not with an additional funding stream from from voters.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So I've been very involved in the whole National Western project from day one, going back to when they started talking about this years ago, wanting to have a new venue at this at this location to when a number of us came onto the council in 2011 and a decision was made that National Western was going to be moved out and be part of the Gaylord project. And all 13 council members wrote a letter saying, No, we will not agree to let them out of their current lease. We think National Western should stay right where they're at. And the mayor worked diligently to get us out of being part of that Gaylord application, and we have worked to make sure that we had resources to do a rebuild of the National Western complex. There have been many meetings in and with the community. The community is a partner in this process. I share the concerns about dipping into the general fund. We actually pay for the staffing for this operation there. You know, they sort of operate as city staff helping us make sure the project gets built. But moving this railroad track is critical to how this project moves forward. And I equate this to when the city worked on planning out the Central Platte Valley and had planned for the Amtrak line to be moved. And the railroad said, no, we're not moving. So we had to go back and regroup and figure out how to reconfigure the Central Platte Valley with the Amtrak line where it's at in this case. Moving this track is critical to being able to have the interface with the river, to do some of the creative things that CSU is going to be doing that will make this, you know, a green campus. And I think looking at the opportunity for how and where resources can either pay back these funds or if there are dollars left over that are not completely utilized to return them back to the general fund. And Titus, I would like you to take us if you could just speak to that point. I think that would be really important to understand that if we do not have to expend the full amount that is being asked for in this particular bill tonight, what happens to any leftover dollars?
Speaker 11: Good evening again. So what in councilwoman can each refer to as we heard the concerns in committee. The program team and partners discussed that if we could figure out a way that if just for the rail project, the 1.45 million is not needed for that project, we would give whatever unused portion of it back to the general fund. And so I think to everyone's point, we look at each individual element of this program and we scrutinize it and make sure that we are using the dollars that are appropriated to it in the best interests of the public and the program to make it a success. And we'll continue to do that and commit to doing that for the railroad project. And so any portion of the 1.4 or five that is not used in by 2021, we would then give that money back to the general fund that.
Speaker 8: Is not used specifically for this project.
Speaker 3: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President, I appreciate tike is just clarifying that point. I will be supporting this tonight. I think it is important for the project to move forward. I know we have competing interests. We just got the mayor's budget today highlighting what those priorities are. Much of them aligned with many of the issues this body has identified, homelessness and and housing being right at the top of the list, as well as addressing climate change as as a couple of those priorities. And I'm comfortable with where we're at at this point in time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I I also will be supporting this tonight, although I.
Speaker 4: Share.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Kenney just concerns about taking money from the general fund and putting it, you know, towards national western at this point. But I think that we need to think about this in many ways as an investment in the community. Moving this rail.
Speaker 4: Means that that opens up the entire Greenway area.
Speaker 6: And that is something that the community has been asking for access to green space. There is an incredible plan in place that allows this new access for trails and for all of these kinds of different things that the community doesn't have right now up there. And so I think that, you know, in the cost benefit analysis of this this money, you know, 1.4 or 5 million, it's not ideal. And I and I wish that it had been done differently, but I do think that we do need to recognize that this is in many ways a 1.4 or $5 million investment in this greenway for the community. And we need to to recognize that and be grateful for that because it's something that the community wants. It's something the community needs, and it's something that we should also be providing for them. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Take us, if you don't mind. So if this.
Speaker 0: Request.
Speaker 3: For a.
Speaker 0: Supplemental is is refused, voted.
Speaker 3: Down, does the rail not get moved?
Speaker 11: No. The rail assuming so next Monday is the actual vote on the settlement agreement itself, because tonight is about the the funding, the supplemental. What the program team would do with as partners is start to look to other elements throughout the program to see what other elements could be potentially removed from the program. So it would still move forward, but it would put additional pressures on other elements of the program that are key, that are associated with so key elements that people would like to see at the at the.
Speaker 3: Thank you to I guess. Yeah, I'm.
Speaker 10: In a similar place, I think, to.
Speaker 3: Where Councilwoman Kinney is in that I'm a huge supporter of what you're doing out there. But after looking, taking a first look at our city budget today and realizing all the cuts that have been made to our city budget, and starting now to look at some critical programs that don't have the option that I believe the National Western does, it leaves me.
Speaker 0: In a quandary. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This is in my district, and I recall the very day that National Western wrote a letter that they asked Community to sign on to. And Community at that time was only a couple of representatives who were part of the Citizen Advisory Council. And so this request for the consolidation of this railroad did not exactly come from community. In fact, it's very far removed from residences in that area and so is not a direct request from community. In fact, came with some protest from community members who felt that we were making this request to Denver Rock Island, about consolidating this railroad under the guise of health and equity and activating the river and helping the community get access to amenities when right down the street we weren't doing the same thing for the I-70 expansion. And so there was some conflict with this. And I do absolutely support the consolidation of this railroad. I support it. I'll support it next week when the agreement comes to us. But this 1.4 or 5 million is is definitely a big amount of money to us when our budget is shrinking, when our general fund is shrinking, and there are so many competing interests for service . So I don't personally support pulling money out of the general fund when we have hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to this project. I sit on steer comm. I've raised these concerns and I think there's absolutely an opportunity to pull this 1.545 million out of the budget that exists without harming the larger goal and the larger project . I don't know why this came this route, and I'm glad that we're taking a look at it carefully, because we should not be allowing dollars to come out of the general fund for this project at all. We've spent money on on on different parts of acquisition and settlements from our general fund dollars, our city dollars that are not dedicated to this. And so I think we need to really tighten up the purse strings right now for this project, specifically considering it is one of the ones that has two dedicated funding sources. So I do not support this tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, I'm going to go to Councilman Torres because. But Councilman Joyce.
Speaker 6: Take us can I ask you a question? What is the likelihood of any of this funding coming back to General Fund, even if it's unspent? Finding it elsewhere and repaying this amount.
Speaker 11: So in regards to the question of the likelihood coming back to the project, can't continue with any certainty that the 1.4 or five is not going to be needed within the rail project. All I can do is commit to the team working really hard to make sure that their savings at the end of the day of the rail project. And that money then would come back to the general fund.
Speaker 6: And can you just help me understand a little bit better why you can't shift dollars from line item to line item?
Speaker 11: So within the overall program, I think to everyone's point, there is additional dollars that is unspent associated program. And we are very early in actually because we're very early is why we want to be, I think, as scrutinizing the details as much as possible and actually asking for the funding where we're seeing a gap that has already existed due to a foreseen actually a condition that we know because of the amount of the rail settlement. So we repeat the question, sorry, I'm off on a tangent now.
Speaker 6: Why you can't move funding from existing source line items to this one?
Speaker 11: Yes. Thank you. So that through through steer comm and through an action, I think actions associated with the program partners in the program team, we would, if this was not funded, have to go back and look at other elements of the program and other there's miscellaneous projects within that program and find opportunities to either remove scope from other projects to help fund this gap that we were foreseeing right now on the rail project.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, back up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So a question. So there are two funding sources. Which are those two sources? Again.
Speaker 11: The Regional Tourism Act and to Sea.
Speaker 7: And Regional Tourism Act is how much?
Speaker 11: 121.51 to.
Speaker 7: 1.5. And to see is how much?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Hi. Hi. Brad Dodson. I'm the deputy director for the Mayor's Office of the National Assessment Center. Thank you for thank you for coming. Oh, thank you. Thank you for the question. The as Titus mentioned, the funding from the Regional Tourism Act is $121.5 million maximum award over 36 years. So it comes in over time. There is funding from from to see that we have estimated to be approximately $637 million. That is based on current estimates from the Department of Finance. The additional funding is from the WCC, the Western Stock Show Association, as well as CSU as purchasing their parcels for their buildings. And so that's to the tune of $27.7 million. 27.7. Yes. The full budget is $765 million for phases one and two. Okay. And how much has been spent so far? We we are approximately 30% through the program. We provide quarterly financials to luti committee and we did that on July 30th. We have we also publish that information on our website, but happy to give you the most current up to date information. So we have at least $500 million available that we haven't spent. I don't have that exact number in front of me. But that that's probably in the in the ballpark. Is it fair to say that we have far more than 1.4 or $5 million available? There is there's money in the program that has been allocated across the various projects that make up the program. And as Tyco's spoke to earlier, there would have to be a we to take a look at scope if we were not to have this funding. We have to look at the scope of those other projects and see where adjustments could be made. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just as we're. I heard that we're screwed scrutinizing the details of the National Western Project. I heard that just a couple of minutes ago. I also heard that at 10:00 this morning from the mayor, how we're scrutinizing the details of the general fund. And this National Western project is over 36 years, or at least part of the part of it is over 36 years. We're not going to finish the National Western Project this year. It seems to me that we should be scrutinizing the general fund because it's been is one year. And if we if it turns out that our revenue exceeds expectations for for the, you know, the 2020 budget, then that's great. But I would I would prioritize scrutinizing the general fund over scrutinizing the National Western Fund. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. You back up?
Speaker 8: Yes. Fred, would you mind coming back up? Can you just highlight what the key projects are that are moving forward that will be under construction in the next year? I know you've got a number of them from roads to a number of buildings relocating the rail lines. Can you just highlight what those are?
Speaker 7: Sure. Thank you for the thank you for the question. And be happy to provide you with a detailed schedule that I don't have in front of me. The focus for this year has been on horizontal construction and so that is all of the horizontal infrastructure, the pad ready sites that support the vertical.
Speaker 0: Buildings.
Speaker 7: That will begin in beginning next year. We reached substantial completion on the Phase one and two program in 2023. And so between that time, we'll be focused again initially on horizontal construction moving in to vertical construction. The work along the river and the east west bridges into Globeville will will also occur in the next in the next three years.
Speaker 8: And those are tied to the Washington Street project as well as that work gets done as part of a Bond project, correct?
Speaker 7: That's correct. That those roads will make connections East, West and in D.C. see the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative is working on the design of Washington Street and the design of those connections to to the bridges that will land in Globeville.
Speaker 8: So if council did not fondness tonight. What? What would get cut.
Speaker 7: I can't speculate at this moment exactly what would be cut. The way that we work with our partners is we we scope to budget.
Speaker 0: And we work within the budget.
Speaker 7: That we have for those elements. But that would mean that there would be adjustments to scope. And we would prioritize that with our team, along with the SSA, with the National Western Center Authority and with Colorado State University, to see what items could be removed from scope.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Sure. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. No other questions or comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: HINES No.
Speaker 6: Black.
Speaker 4: Eye? CdeBaca No.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I.
Speaker 5: Gillmor, I.
Speaker 7: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman Can each.
Speaker 8: Ortega, I.
Speaker 5: Sandoval No. Sawyer, I. Torres No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I know. Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 5: Seven days, six.
Speaker 0: Days, some nights, six days. Constable, 74, has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out this evening or other bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the black vote on proclamations, resolutions and bills on final consideration.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a rescission, a cash transfer, and a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund.
Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,450,000 from General Fund Contingency to transfer to the Other Agency Capital Project Fund to provide sufficient budget capacity to fund a settlement in support of the National Western Center Office in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0724
|
Speaker 9: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 724 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 2019 zero 724 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 9: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 724 is open. We have the staff report.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Liz Wagle with Community Planning and Development. This is a map amendment for property at 1969, 1975, 1995, South Decatur Street and the rear portion of 1957 South Decatur Street. The request is from R to A to SMU three, and I'll provide an overview of the application and staff analysis. The map of the application is located in Council District seven in the College View South Platte neighborhood. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of South Taylor and West Astbury. The property is approximately 70,000 square feet. It's currently occupied by three multi-unit buildings. The site's one block east of Federal Boulevard, which is served by several transit lines. The rezoning is requested to bring the site, which is currently zoned in our old code former Chapter 59 into the Denver Zoning Code. As the existing buildings are not fully compliant with our to a requirements. The applicant proposes to rezone the site to SMU three, which is a multi-unit district. In the suburban neighborhood context, the district allows for a range of residential uses and building forms and buildings up to three stories or 40 feet. As I mentioned, the sites currently zoned are to a in former Chapter 59. This is a medium density multi-unit residential district, very similar to the new code district being requested. The current buildings were developed as a planned building group, which is our former site plan process in former Chapter 59. Surrounding zoning include a mix of single unit and rowhouse districts, three storey mixed use districts and other old code commercial districts. The site is within the Ruby Hill Park View plane. Under the View plane, maximum building heights would be limited to approximately 75 to 80 feet, which is far above the 40 feet that is allowed in SMU three. The site is occupied, as I mentioned, by multi-unit residential. Surrounding sites include multi-unit, single unit, residential, commercial and parking uses. This slide shows an area of the site and the surrounding context looking north. These are photos which show the sites where you can see the existing multi-unit buildings. You can also see the small home located on the SRH 2.5 lb parcel, which is not proposed to be resolved. This shows us slide shows photos of other uses in the area, including mobile homes to the south and commercial uses along federal. And this slide shows photos also of residential homes along Decatur in parking and retail on dual to the north. The map amendment was received in February. On July 10th, Planning Board held a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Today, we have not received public comments on the application. The Denver Zoning Code puts forth five criteria for evaluating map amendments, which I will review. The first is that a map amendment must be consistent with our adopted plans. In this area we have a comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. We do find that the MAP Amendment is consistent with several strategies in comp plan 2014, as are outlined in the staff report. A number of these look to increase the development of housing units and to make sure that we have a variety of housing options in our neighborhoods. Blueprint Denver identifies the subject property as within the suburban neighborhood context, and the SMU three district is consistent with this designation. Blueprint also identifies the subject property as within a low, medium residential area, which includes a mix of low and mid-scale residential uses up to heights of three stories. Decatur and Astbury are both identified as designated local streets. We do find that the SMU three district is consistent with this guidance and blueprint because it would allow a mix of building forms with heights up to three stories. The property is within what's called in Blueprint Denver all areas of the city under our growth strategy. And this is an area where we're expected to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of employment growth overall in the city. The proposed rezoning would facilitate development consistent with this vision. Further blueprint Denver also recommends bringing properties out of our old code and into the new zoning code, which is proposed with this application. We do find that the application would result in uniformity of district regulations and further public health, safety and welfare. With regard to criteria number four. The application identifies changes or changing conditions, specifically that the site is still zoned, and former Chapter 59 as a justifying circumstance. Which is appropriate. And lastly, we do find that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose intent of the suburban neighborhood context, our residential districts and specifically the multi-unit districts. With that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. We have one speaker signed up. Joseph Friedman.
Speaker 12: Hi. I'm Joseph Freedman and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 9: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. I see you chimed in.
Speaker 4: I have two questions.
Speaker 9: Oh, okay. Ah, I didn't know if that's okay. I didn't know if you were signing up, if you were wanting to speak, so. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So can I have the. The planner come up, please? Hi. Thank you. Your name again?
Speaker 6: I'm Liz Weigel.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So if you go to the zone district map, I think it's page six. Sure. Can you just explain to me it's surrounded by annex. Can you explain to me why the zone why MSA was chosen?
Speaker 6: So this is IMU. So it's a multi unit. And the guidance we have is for low, medium residential, which is generally residential uses. So we feel like that that is consistent. Where you're seeing X is where we have community corridor mapped in Blueprint Denver. And I can go to the blueprint map just to give you that piece. Yep. So you can see that distinction that happens in our planning guidance between where a mix of uses is recommended in corridors and centers. And this is a recommendation for residential uses.
Speaker 4: And do you know one more? One other question. Do you know if the property owner like it looks like a jigsaw puzzle was reached out to too, so that it could be a consistent zone district?
Speaker 6: Yes, they were. The applicant probably answered that question more directly and they did approach them on that.
Speaker 4: But did you reach out to the property owner in the yellow?
Speaker 12: We? And we've been we've been in discussions with them. Did did we actually reach out about the zoning change for them? I don't I don't think we reached out to them. We sent them a letter explaining what we were going to do. We gave them notice. There's also been postings around the property, several rounds of them. So they're aware of it. But it's the zoning was basically chosen to reflect the current construction of the planned building group in order to make it make it fully usable. The way that the buildings were actually constructed in the eighties were not compliant with their zoning. And it just so happens that they would be compliant with the new zoning. So it's kind of a twofer here, whereas with that one, that house is a single family home. It wouldn't have necessarily felt like a fit. So they haven't spoken to us and asked us to be involved, but we are in communication with them.
Speaker 4: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I would like to ask the owner's rep to come back and. In the report that we got from city staff, it says something about historical urban Phil and I'm assuming that means a landfill. Is that accurate? Let me ask the city staff the question first and then just I'll come back to you in just a minute. And then it speaks, I believe it's under the DPA cheese response to the reason application. And then it also talks about rate on a landfill. It's called Historic Urban Fill. And I'm asking if that means that that that's an old landfill.
Speaker 12: It's not it's not it's not an old landfill. Okay. That's not a reference to that.
Speaker 8: So what is what is a h you f mean a historic urban fill?
Speaker 6: Would you mind telling me what page you found out?
Speaker 8: I got to pull the document up. Hold on a second.
Speaker 12: Maybe it was a reference to infill.
Speaker 8: That's not what it said. So give me a second. Let me pull this back up.
Speaker 3: All right. I can.
Speaker 12: Find it in here.
Speaker 8: It was under comments from the Department of Public Health and Environment.
Speaker 12: Is that in the comments that you sent back in the first round?
Speaker 8: So it's under summary for city agency referral comments from the Department of Public Health and Environment. It talks about.
Speaker 12: Oh, here under the general notes.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Says the area is of historical urban feel and then in parentheses it says HCF may exist under portions of the site. The H2 may be encountered during future soil. Disturbing activities and impacted soils or debris must be managed and disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulation.
Speaker 12: My understanding was that if ever it has doesn't have to do with the historic sort of industrial uses or landfills on the property. I think that they're saying that if older construction was used, it has to be we'd have to get rid of any dangerous materials in the correct manner.
Speaker 6: I think that I'm speaking generally, so I don't want to speak specifically for you because I don't know the exact answer, but I believe this means that they might be aware of where Phil was brought in from offsite in this property and there might be contaminants in it that could be discovered at some point in the future or.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay. So this yeah, I think generally that things that may come up at some point. Yeah.
Speaker 8: For the future, I think it would be helpful to have a very clear understanding of what historic urban Phil is. You know, does it mean there's more than just some other soil that was brought on or does it mean something more like remnants of an old landfill?
Speaker 6: And I can get more information and share that with council.
Speaker 8: I'm assuming here the owner has done a phase one environmental on the site, and if they have, that would determine, you know what.
Speaker 12: We're not that planning. We're not planning on doing any construction on the site. We're leaving the buildings as they are. They'll get some light lift, remodel of the interiors and freshening up. But we're not taking these buildings down and putting up new buildings or even doing additions on them. So we haven't we're not going to be disturbing the soil.
Speaker 8: So is there a reason, then, that you need to do the rezoning, given that you're not planning to do anything different with the buildings?
Speaker 12: Yes. When the buildings were built, they were built with more units than they were supposed to have been built with. And so we can't the former owner didn't have a problem with that, but we can't actually use the use the plan building group at capacity unless we are compliant. And so in order to get a new zoning permit, we had to go back and get the zoning upgraded.
Speaker 8: Got it. Okay. And you answered my my latter question. So thank you.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 724 has closed comments by members of council. Seen no comments by my colleagues. I will make a comment. I see that this rezoning does meet all of the review criteria and I will be voting in favor. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Black Eye.
Speaker 5: CdeBaca. Clark. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I. Herndon.
Speaker 5: I hindsight. Cashman. Ortega. Like Sandoval, I swear i.
Speaker 6: Torres, i.
Speaker 5: Madam President.
Speaker 9: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes council bill 724 has passed. Councilman Herndon, please put Council Bill 752 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1969, 1975 and 1995 South Decatur Street and the west portion of 1957 South Decatur Street in College View South Platte.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from R-2-A to S-MU-3 (residential, multi-unit to suburban, multi-unit), located at 1969, 1975, and 1995 South Decatur Street and 1957 South Decatur Street Rear in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09092019_19-0752
|
Speaker 9: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes council bill 724 has passed. Councilman Herndon, please put Council Bill 752 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill series 2019 075 to be placed upon final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 9: It has been moved and seconded. The combined public hearing for Council Bill 752 and Council Bill 753 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each. We have the staff report.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Councilmembers Brad Johnson, Senior City Planner with CPD. I'm here and excited to bring to you the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Number five, which would create four new campus National Western Center zoned districts and rezoning proposal 2019 AI 104, which would map the Zone District in a large portion of the area encompassed by the National Western Center Master Plan. This combined text and map amendment was initiated by CPD, but also in partnership with Mayor's Office in Western Sydney. So I'd like to just quickly, I'll do the rest of the presentation, but invite tigers to come say a few words quickly.
Speaker 11: Good evening remembers the council will take as Holloway executive director of the mayor's office National Western Center. Just really a couple of high notes. The National Assessment Team has worked hand in hand with community planning and development to bring this key and critical rezoning forward. As you know, this provides for a level of flexibility and allows us to activate the site to meet some of the key goals around supporting connectivity, the activations of of activities on the site, but then also the riverfront engagement. And so again, being relatively new into the position, we've got quite a few people from the team here that I'll obviously defer to and with Brad on some of the more specific questions, but we're really excited about moving this forward.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Thank you. So just some housekeeping. Here we are in Council District nine. In the Elyria, Swansea City School neighborhood. So when we referred to the campus as a whole, we're generally referring to this area that's outlined in black here, so bounded by the South Platt Race Court, Brighton Boulevard and I-70, obviously with some pretty notable exceptions , particularly the Coliseum site. That area, of course, is bisected by the BNSF Railway. And that's generally synonymous with the National Western Center Master Plan area. The area we're here to talk to you about tonight is this area shown here, which is pretty much everything west of the BNSF rail tracks. And so that's generally synonymous with phases one and two of the campus construction we did. There are two notable gaps in this area that I want to point out. We did receive some questions, A, why wouldn't you rezone all of those properties? Right. One of them is fresh in your mind. Of course, the gap in the northern portion is is dry property currently. You know, there's ongoing litigation, no negotiations. Coordinated with that property. And so we thought at this time it made more sense to sort of not jeopardize or disrupt those those negotiations by rezoning the property at this time. If when that property comes into ownership of the city, of course, it'd be a good candidate for for this for these zone districts down to the south, a couple of other properties quickly. One, the largest piece is the McDonald Farms property that is currently in ownership of an industrial property owner, and they're operating their business there now. If we were to rezone their property at this time, they would become a non-conforming group, non-conforming use, and that the zoned districts that we're proposing are more restrictive than the industrial be that governs those sites right now. There also is a small sliver of BNSF Railway. They're probably too small to develop anything on, but it is also BNSF Railway property that would not be resolved at this time. So we're definitely here to talk about the zoning tonight. But I just want to show this slide as as a reminder of some of the big moves. Associated with construction of phases one and two and. We obviously talked about rail consolidation and relocation today. Wastewater pipes, major wastewater pipes along the river front buried. This allows an ability to establish a new street work in Betty Cram and National Western Drive, connecting in with the existing roadways. New facilities constructed, some of them as long as 1100 feet in length. So major, major construction of new buildings and event event venues bridges to Globeville to the West. An RTD rail stop soon on its way, and a pedestrian bridge that will get you from the campus over to that rail platform and vice versa. And then finally, construction of a riverfront open space community with the movement of those rail lines and the sewer mains. This is a look at the National Western Synod process as a whole, going back, starting with the master plan and I know there was a lot of work before then, but this is only how much I could fit on the on the slide and make it still legible. So starting with 2015, with the master plan and bringing us to today where we're getting close to our deadline via the framework agreement for having the zoning in place, particularly for the CSU properties on the site. So you see that little connection between the framework agreement and a few weeks from now, October one, 2019. The zoning work is outlined there in green and you see that sort of in place within the overall larger timeline of the project. So this zooms in on the zoning work itself as well as the design standards and guidelines work that's been conducted and developing that document. So we've been at this for a little over a year, lots of meetings with Citizen Advisory Committee along the way. We published a zoning strategy back in January, which is a pretty comprehensive sort of preview of where the zoning was going and but a little bit more accessible in the way that it was written. The idea is that someone would have an early opportunity to weigh in on the zoning proposals before it gets into the sort of legalese, red line language that you have before you today. Obviously, it's been a busy summer as we've made our way to this adoption hearing. So starting with the text amendment, I just want a couple hit on a couple of framework ideas behind the zoning. One is the streets are important in the way that development is associated with streets. And the way that they contribute to public space is critical. And it's no. Most critical on those portions of the street network that are connecting Globeville through the campus over eventually to Elyria, Swansea, as you see those portions of the Street Network outlined in green. Secondly, the river is to be respected. That means being careful about what uses we're allowing in close proximity to the river, ensuring that if buildings are built near the river, that they're set back sufficiently to maintain opportunities for circulation and things of that nature. And where a building is also built along the river that it actually engages the river, that means real architecture along the wall, not a blank wall up against the river, but transparency. Windows. Actual articulation. So to get out those framework ideas, what we're proposing in the text amendment is for new campus national Western Center Zone Districts and the Corps General Flex and riverfront. And you see those mapped here. This is the map that you'll see in your packet. It looks a little bit different than the one that I like to show. And the reason is that for the packet we have to map the new zone districts over existing conditions. But if you look at these maps, what's important is that they show the new street network that's going to be established out here. And that was a big influence of the zone districts that are before you so quickly walked through these first to start with campus national western center core. This is Main Street in phases one and two of the National Western Center. And so the zoning reflects that objective. You'll see many of the requirements that you would see in a main street zone district elsewhere in town. So transparency requirements, having buildings lined along the street. Active use requirements and prohibition of parking in close proximity to the street. So it's all about creating a walkable, pedestrian oriented corridor. There. Moving to the northeast, you have the campus nationalist from Center General District. That's an area that's going to accommodate some of those very largest facilities, like the one I mentioned, and that is close to 1100 feet long. And the livestock center, as well as the equestrian center in the plaza, that sort of runs through the middle of those two projects. Street Edge characters still important in there, and that it has frontage this area has frontage on National Western Drive, but more flexibility certainly with respect to land use, considering the type of activities that will courrier campus National Western Center flex. This is a zone district designed to accommodate those more support and service oriented uses that are going to be necessary to ensure that the campus can operate smoothly and efficiently in this area, you're going to see more sort of outdoor focused activities. And by that I mean the stockyards, for example, is in this one district, primarily outdoor activity space, the maintenance and operation facilities, storage, storage areas and things of that nature that sort of support the core of the campus. And then lastly, a campus National Western Center riverfront. This is synonymous with the areas that are planned to be open space amenities both for the campus and the neighborhood. The concept and intent behind this zone district is that it is intended to maintain this area as an open space community. It does allow limited development, but the idea behind is that any buildings that would be built there would be visually subordinate to the open space itself. So you see height limits and lot coverages are excuse me, building coverages and things of that nature. Science. I'll show you a map in a minute. Some of you may remember in 2015 there was a campus National Western Center Zone district, an initial one mapped in some areas of the what's referred to as the triangle. So east of the BNSF Railway. What we did for sign regulations was we borrowed the sign regulations from that original campus National Western Center district and apply them to these new zone districts. However, we also, with this tax amendment, establish a mechanism by which an applicant in this case probably a NewCo and or the authority, would prepare a district sign plan that would allow flexibility above and beyond what's allowed in those baseline sign requirements in the zoning, provided that they prepare a district sign plan in that district. Same plan as approved by the Planning Board. Parking. We got some questions about this, I. I heard on the one hand. Why don't you do some parking minimums? There's not maybe not enough parking. And I heard on the other end of the spectrum, maybe we should have parking maximums. There might be too much. The answer to those questions is kind of it's complicated. I'll give you the short answer. And it's that the demand for parking at the National Western Center is changing every single day. It's changing week to week and it's changing event to event. So we explore the idea of having parking minimums and maximums when we haven't eventually looked at the numbers and landed on the idea of having neither maximums or minimums. Part of what helps out with that is that the National Western Center Authority will be in place. They will be the single entity managing parking on the site. And so this this approach allows them the ultimate flexibility really to manage parking on the site, as well as access to the site and parking opportunities potentially off site. So, you know, we'll get into the map amendment and you'll start to see some of the slides you are used to seeing. Um, so the mapping memo, as I mentioned, would map these four new zone districts. It should mention that the billboard overlay you oh two, as it's called, is mapped on these properties today. And we would retain that as as it is in place now. So quickly through the existing context. Existing zoning on the site is via industrial light IP, which is that heavy industrial and industrial mixed use five storey. Historic structures. There is, of course, the Armory Administration building, very handsome building here that will ultimately become the centerpiece for the the campus in the surroundings, of course, the 1909 stadium arena across the tracks over in the triangle area. There are currently no design standards and guidelines our design review. But this text amendment would enable design review for these districts and we have prepared in coordination with new code design systems and guidelines those that document is drafted and is available for review and has been for for some time. That design review process would be administered by CPD administratively and it is important to consider the zoning. In light of the design standards and guidelines. Another tool for ensuring high quality design and character. Existing land is out there on the side. It's probably changing quite a bit. There's vacant properties, there's parking, there's office and retail and the livestock exchange building, of course, and there's some industrial uses still operating there. Surroundings are generally industrial, more parking and then some of the entertainment and cultural uses associated with existing facilities that accommodate the structure. Building foreman skills generally this kind of low slung industrial utilitarian buildings, as you see in the picture in the top. There are some exceptions. I mentioned the livestock exchange building, quite a jewel there on the campus, shown in the picture in the middle. This is a rezoning. So I just want to take a minute as a reminder that the rezoning doesn't allow or permit any specific development as projects come through. Under this zoning, they will still have to go through the SDP site development plan review process and be any number of items looked at during that process. Freight rail and potential safety issues related to that is one of those considerations that may be relevant out here. And of course, traffic impacts and. Roadway infrastructure and things of that nature will be looked at as well as projects come through. These are the three credit criteria that we consider for a legislative map amendment like this and a text limit. So I'll go through those now. First is consistency with adopted plans. These are the five plans that. Correspond to this area. Starting with Play 2040. We found the rezoning to be consistent with it and that it will create or allow for the creation of a vibrant mixed use center and a people oriented place and will advance cultural tourism goals. The neighborhood context is urban center. Again, we found it consistent with this item in that there is rezoning will facilitate a significant employment area that will result in good street activation and connectivity. And of course with the pending rail line coming online will be served with high capacity transit. The future place type is a regional center and supports a high mix of uses. The rezoning would result in structures that are generally corresponding and framing those public spaces that there along and the heights that we're allowing in. All but that riverfront district I showed you are up to 150 feet in the river riverfront district. We're talking 40 feet max. So we think that's in keeping with the goal for taller heights in this place type. The street types. When Blueprint Denver assign the street types to this area, they assigned it to the existing roadway network, which makes sense from their perspective. Now, as we look at the campus, we have to consider also the Future Street Network, right. So there were two two streets. Well, two street types, I guess. First, Franklin Street, a suburb of it there, was identified as an industrial connector, which allows for kind of flexible placement of buildings and zoning, of zoning that would allow those types of building placements. So in the campus National Western Center Flex, we're certainly in line with the objectives of an industrial collector. I mean, look at Race Court and 46 Avenue identified as a mixed use collector. I think we're somewhat consistent with that. We meet the intent of an east west street that is a mixed use collector, but it doesn't happen as much on those streets as it does on the new streets that are going to be constructed with the campus. And that's very crim and nationalist from drive north. Growth area strategy is a regional center. So this is an area that's to accommodate lots of employment, growth and housing in this phase. Employment growth obviously is a big part of that. Walking through the plans. The Globeville neighborhood plan doesn't cover this area, but comes right up next to it. Along the river, it was very clear about objectives for connecting from Globeville to, uh, to the National Western Center and eventually over to Elyria. Swansea. Certainly the zoning will help to allow for those connections to be made. So we found that to be consistent as well. We found the result to be consistent with Illyria Swansea Neighborhood Plan. Its land use concept for the site is entertainment, cultural and exhibition. It calls for promoting heritage tourism, certainly in line with that says to establish maximum building heights to support arts scuse me, to accommodate redevelopment of the nationalist center. And then again, you hear this again. Improved neighborhood access and connectivity to the river. And lastly, the National Western Center Master Plan. I mean, this is our our guide for the campus. This sets the vision and objectives for the campus. And I think this rezoning is is one small step in achieving all of these objectives. I'll just point out to that are a little bit more direct in that the zoning will support engagement of the river and nature by the community as well as integration. Again, looking back to that original diagram I showed you that prioritizes those connections that go from Globeville through the campus. Elyria. Swansea. Further, the rezoning would result in uniformity of district regulations and would further the public health, safety and welfare of the community. So with that concluding presentation, we recommend approval of Text Amendment Number five and Rezoning Proposal 2019 i104.
Speaker 6: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Brad. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. If I could have folks leave that front bench open. And if I could remind folks to make sure and state your name and city of residence. We have Lance Nadin, Paul Andrews, Jocelyn Hill, Brad Buchanan and and Elizabeth. Mr. Nadin.
Speaker 3: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Members of council, for being here tonight and those in the audience. I'm sure everybody is either giving up Bernie or the opening game of the Broncos. So that speaks to your passion. Thankfully, I only get to speak 3 minutes, but I can't see. You will have to see the clock as as is my. I live a born in Denver, lived here my whole life. I'm currently residing in Greenwood Village. I'm a managing managing member of 4700 Brighton Boulevard, which is the future home of the Denver Police Museum, which I'm very, quite passionate about. My father died in the line of duty in 1971, so that's extremely important thing to me. Following the progress of the National Western complex over the last many years, it's very exciting opportunity for for not only the immediate business community around the national Western, but just the city as a whole. I don't think we clearly understand and I don't think I did until recently, the global impact that that that the national western complex will have in conjunction with the associated development in Rhino and down Brighton Boulevard. Its proportions is it's monumental, it's larger than than really I think any of us realized through its completion and it will have a global impact with the changes in our society really over the last. And you know, by the way, I for one think good changes with how we we we train, interact, recognize deficiencies of the past and move forward. Being more theoretically of a political national political climate wouldn't indicate that at all. But things like the MeToo movement, as a one good example, I think that that we can't not ignore that that doesn't that doesn't impact development. We have a lot at stake here and smart, responsible, community oriented outreach development. And that's really what the National the Police Museum stands for. It's really outreach, outreach, how to align the community around it with the police museum. And that is in line with, I think, in my opinion, that all development should happen. I'm a big obviously a big supporter of the National Western redevelopment and all that it has to offer. But I don't want you as leaders of the community who have been so great in support of that initiative with the mayor, the current council and previous council members. I don't want it to get lost in how great this is in this vote tonight of 7 to 6 was absolutely stunning to me. On one side, it shows that democracy is in good hands. In Denver, Colorado, when you have something as powerful as the national western complex, come down to a 76 vote, which I, I can see both sides, by the way. I'm not taking one one opinion on the other. But but it just, again, emphasizes that things aren't just a given, that they're going to happen, but they should happen and they should happen the right way. And a community development responsible type way that leads this development project of enormous magnitude to be all that it can be, both to the world, the state and our local community. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Next up, Paul Andrews.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Madam President. Thank you. Members of council. I'm Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show. We reside at 4655 Humboldt Street in Denver. As you know, the Western Stock Show Association is one of three equity partners in the nation of Western Center campus. We are on track to meet our financial obligations to this project. Those commitments include $50 million in cash committed to the project and $75 million in land value, which is land the stock show acquired over the last 100 years. We paid our first 15 million last November and next May we will deposit 35 million to complete our cash commitment. We're also planning to build our own building on campus called the Legacy Building. We will buy the land and build the building all with private funds and expect completion in June of 2023. The rezoning under consideration tonight is a critical part of the overall master plan that the Council adopted in 2015 and the voters overwhelmingly passed in November of 2015 as ballot measure to see. In January 2020, we will be hosting 114th National Western Stock Show. Early entries are strong, with more than 40 states already committed to attend an anticipated economic impact to the Denver metro area this year of more than 115 million from January 11th to the 26th. I also want to share with you that we have started a new Denver specific college scholarship program called the National Western Denver Scholarship Program . And we're looking forward to the continued involvement with the neighborhoods and communities surrounding the nation of Western Center as we choose future students. The nation, western stocks. You and our partners. Thank you for all your support of the National Western Stock Show and the Nation Western Center Project. And we ask for your support in the rezoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Up next, we have Jocelyn Hill.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President, and members of Council. I am Jocelyn Hill. I am Senior Director of Sustainability and Denver Programs for the Colorado State University System. Our office is located at 475 17th Street in Denver, and I also live in Denver as one of the partners in the National Western Center redevelopment. Over the next three years, CSC will build three buildings focused on the themes of water, food, animal and human health and sustainability. These facilities will have both a local and global focus, attracting visitors to Denver from around the world, showcasing both the heritage and innovation of our city and state with an investment of $200 million. We will create spaces that host outreach and education to K-12 students and families through activities like field trips, camps and hands on education programs. We will support research on the challenges we face, both locally and globally, as well as linking youth to the scientists and policymakers tackling those challenges. We will support training and professional development to introduce Denver residents and visitors to new career and educational paths. Our Denver Extension Office will have a presence offering programs and activities that are responsive to the requests and needs of residents of the city and county of Denver, particularly our neighboring communities. All of this work will build upon. See us use existing collaborations with the schools and organizations that serve the surrounding neighborhoods. We have not been waiting for buildings over the last six years. CSU has built relationships and offered programs that range from an annual community animal health clinic to youth engagement activities to ongoing programs in equine assisted therapy currently offered at the existing stock show complex. In addition, CSU will continue to collaborate with our existing National Western Center partners the Authority, the Western Stock Show Association, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science History, Colorado, Denver Water, and the City and County of Denver to create a platform for learning, arts, culture and convening that can also be used by new partners who join us as the National Western Center evolves. This rezoning is the next step toward meeting our goals of opening all of CSU's facilities in 2022 so that we can offer new programs and host existing programs and a new home. Tonight, I'm here to ask for your support of the rezoning so we can meet that goal, begin this new chapter of the National Western Center, and achieve CSU's goals of enhancing education and outreach in Denver. I would like to thank Community Planning and Development and the Council for their continuing work on the National Western Center and support of the project. Thank you and I will be available to answer questions.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Brad Buchanan and then analysts with.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam President, members of city council and Brad Buchanan, I'm the CEO with the National Western Center Authority. For those of you not familiar, the mayors of the National Western Center will design and build and have been standing in the gap for the authority for a number of years. The authority was formed last year and I moved to this post last October and were charged with operating programing filling, activating the campus over the next hundred years. I will not be doing it for a hundred years, but for years to come, I hope the the vision and mission for the National Western Center. I just want to quickly touch on those to be the global destination for agricultural heritage and innovation, to convene the world International Western Center to lead, inspire, create, educate, entertain in pursuit of global food solutions. What I think is most important about this next important step of the rezoning is that we've talked about the three partners tonight . I want to talk about the fourth partner. The communities around this project that that were situated within Globeville or Swansea and in the greater community of Denver constituents, even larger community of the urban and rural place that we're trying to connect. These are issues that are before us both and are relevant to our city and our citizens around food justice and food equity issues, but also around saving the planet and talking about global food production, soil health and other regenerative agricultural needs that are contributing to to climate change. There's there's a lot at stake. This is an important next step. You're going to start to hear a lot more from the programing efforts as they come to life here over the next number of years. This is not a typical urban development. It's a it's a once a one of a kind project. And so we're having to recreate new from scratch out of whole cloth at every step of the way. Thus customize zone districts here tonight before you that we think are relevant and important and ask and answer important questions that are important to our city and to the region, to and to the planet. So I'm here to answer any questions, if you have any, and appreciate your support. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Our last speaker is an Elizabeth.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Council for the opportunity to address this. I would like to speak strongly in favor of these zoning changes, although I wouldn't say that they're being made from scratch or cut from raw cloth. I'm here to bear witness to the fact that there were long and detailed conversations to create the original New Zone Zoning District for the National Western Center that these are also continuing to be accountable for, which is why I support these, because I think it will support the business plan going forward. We do need to be vigilant with some of the flexibilities. One example allowing flexibility by goes above and beyond the baseline sign requirements. I do trust that part of what the awareness is going forward is that the baselines were developed in the original conversations of the larger district. I don't know all this the pre the preceding zoning district that had to do with the the constituency quality of life so that these the signage has the history of behind this has some very good conversation about what is the noise, what is the signage, light controls, what is the environment. And I really have great confidence that the people that are involved in this zoning conversation now do understand that. And the council as a whole, I think, can be unified in paying attention to the project to carry forward in the design with those flexibilities. And it's an ongoing conversation just as there was, just as there has been in many facets.
Speaker 6: Of.
Speaker 3: The development, the National Western Center. And as a member of the National Western Center Citizens Advisory Committee, that has been embedded from the beginning, although I'll be moving to a more emeritus position here, I do want to say that this zoning conversation, just like the conversations about the consolidation of the railroads, has been an ongoing, ongoing conversation , broad and deep. With due respect to the council member that said it was the railroad consolidation conversation was limited to the CSG conversations. If you would please when you have time reference the various wants your neighborhood planned that was adopted in 2015. You'll find 21 references to conversations about the railroad. You'll find historically that one of the RE connectivity pushes access to the density of jobs in the neighborhoods. Has to do with remedying the disconnect tivity that's happened with the railroad as historically. So thank you for passing that measure. I appreciate it. And I really hope that I have an opportunity to talk with each of you over time around the prolonged process of what the National Western Center emergence has been. Because I'm not a grassroots person. I'm a I'm an Aspen roots person. Those those those roots are interwoven. They're not individual blades. And I hope that we can get a greater understanding of what this tremendous project is because it will break silos.
Speaker 9: Think time is out. Can I have you restate your city of residents? Please tour.
Speaker 3: Globeville, the Near East 45, East 51st and Washington and I have lived at 47th and Brighton in the area as well.
Speaker 9: So thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on both Council Bill 752 and Council Bill 753. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Can you hear me? There you go. So thank you to everyone who's worked on making sure that we clean up this area and rezone out of the industrial uses that have really polluted this area for a long time. Activating the river is also a noble cause. We have recognized that this has been a very dirty river for a long time, and my hope is that this opens up the conversation to make sure we clean it up. I'm not super surprised that there aren't a lot of residents here testifying in support or against this. I believe we've displaced most of them. Make no mistake this for my colleagues, this is a project that is not for the neighborhoods. And I think it's become more and more clear over time. And while there have been people in the in the audience who spoke to the long and arduous process that residents were involved in, I'm sure you could knock any door in the closest neighborhood and find that people do not feel like they're connected, especially those who we've displaced through eminent domain abuse and are actually going to use their properties for attractions in this event center. I do want us to recognize that these decisions have strategically painted a narrative that is misleading. When we look at the map, and I don't know if we can go back to either the current zoning or the second map that showed where houses are. Councilman. It's the second.
Speaker 9: Portion of the public hearing that are questions. Do you have a question? Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So I'll get to the question, but I'm I'm making a statement right now. So we've painted a narrative about this project that it is connecting the neighborhood to the river. And while we are activating the river, if you look at the bottom right hand corner of this map where the yellow is, that is those are the closest residences that exist. The diagonal line through the middle of of this image is the BNSF railroads. And that is where we're consolidating the squiggly line along the river to be in the future. And so what we've essentially done here is we have in the built form, this project has turned its back against community and we are talking about connectivity, but we don't necessarily have paid for linkages to community within these projects. And so while I support the rezoning because it takes us out of heavy industrial use and into something different, I do want to know if there are any guarantees that there will be funding for connections to community if we're rezoning under the auspices of connecting community to the river.
Speaker 10: So some of that's probably a good question for newcomers, since they are more focused on on the development. I think if I think I understand what you're saying is is talking about connect connectivity from malarious mines here in the yellow area that you see there, that is going to be determined in the development of the triangle. As you probably know, if you look at the master plan, there's a very clear diagrams that indicate that a roadway will be established and that an underpass underneath that railway that you mentioned that links up to Betty Crown, the sort of centerpiece of phases one into would be established.
Speaker 4: So under when we talk about these plans or this rezoning being consistent with current plans and we recognize that the new comprehensive plans have equity and healthy communities all baked in, does CPD have any indicators of equity that they look to when they're determining whether or not a reason is in fact providing tools for equity?
Speaker 10: Yeah well I think that would Denver Blueprint says or Blueprint Denver says is that rezonings of this type of scale would be evaluated for their equity impacts and things of that nature. Of course, this rezoning was well along the way before Blueprint Denver was adopted, so that's why you don't see some of that analysis here, I think . And there are other people from CPD here, I think they could speak to this, but that sort of criteria and the ability to to examine rezonings and different scales of rezonings for equity is sort of under development, and I think you'll be seeing that soon with respect to this one, as I said, sort of like in the pipeline already. So that's why you don't see that specific analysis here.
Speaker 4: So it may be consistent in built form with what the plans say, but there are no indicators that show it's consistent with equity goals in the current plan.
Speaker 10: Not that we have in an analysis here. I mean, we'll just say that the a big part of equity, as it's stated in Blueprint in Denver is of course, a lot of that is about access, as you mentioned, the connectivity and access to open space and things like that. So I think those are things that the zoning directly speaks to. There are a lot of other things going on with the National Assessment Center beyond this rezoning that also speak to equity that I won't try to speak to. But of course there are many people here that could.
Speaker 4: So CPD has no criteria or checkbox to make sure that plans embed equity.
Speaker 10: Not for this rezoning.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Good, Councilwoman. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So I have a question about, um, Councilman CdeBaca comment about displacement. I'm very familiar with this site. I've been. I worked in Judy's office since 2015. Does anybody know exactly how many people we have displaced? Because I thought we did eminent domain on only four or five homes. So can someone speak to that from the National Western Center or someone? I don't think you can, Brad, but can somebody answer that question? And also if it's possible to talk about it in the pre eminent domain process because they don't all make it there. But I just want to know how many places I know the question I'm looking for.
Speaker 7: I got someone. Thank you for that question. Brad Dodson, deputy director for the Mayor's Office of Best Western Center. I understand from the team we have acquired 38 properties as part as part of the campus, and ten of those are residential properties.
Speaker 4: Okay. And when they were with the ten residential properties, it went through the process where it was eminent domain and a market value study was done and they could have come back and rebutted that, just like with every eminent domain process. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 4: And then did any of them end up in litigation or did all of them settle with the amount that you all negotiated?
Speaker 0: None of them ended up in litigation. They were all settled.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Pratt. You might be the best person to answer this question. Yes, this. Brad. Sorry. What? What type of structures would need 250 feet heights on the campus? I would refer.
Speaker 7: To I would defer to Eric Anderson, our design.
Speaker 0: Manager, to come in.
Speaker 7: And answer that specific question.
Speaker 6: Eric.
Speaker 10: Can I can I clarify? It's 100.
Speaker 8: 5150. Okay. I was looking at something that said 250 and I just wanted to clarify that. So thank you for that.
Speaker 0: Eric Anderson from Centennial. I'm the design manager.
Speaker 1: For the mayor's office of the National.
Speaker 3: Western Center.
Speaker 0: Again. As others have mentioned, this project is truly unique, particularly in the types of buildings that we are building. Although some of.
Speaker 11: Them are one story, they may be.
Speaker 3: Much taller than an.
Speaker 0: Average building because of the uses.
Speaker 3: And the events that will have to happen here. Things like arenas and barns need.
Speaker 0: Lots of space.
Speaker 3: And lots of clearances to make those work. So to.
Speaker 7: Be able to allow for those.
Speaker 0: Types of structures that 150 feet has.
Speaker 7: Been set to be able to allow that.
Speaker 8: Okay. And any rezoning beyond this particular area. So east of the railroad tracks, south of I-70. Those will come at some future time.
Speaker 7: That's correct.
Speaker 8: Okay. I also had a question about the 48th Avenue connection from Elyria to the site. This this this campus has always sort of had a Brighton Boulevard facing entrances, and it will now have a west facing entrance towards the river. And it wasn't until I don't know, I would say in the last couple of months that I learned that the connectivity in Phase one doesn't go all the way to Brighton Boulevard. And and so I share that concern and I've expressed that to the National Western staff. I know that's being proposed as part of what is anticipated with a private partner coming to the table to help, you know, do the build out of the next buildings, the next phases of the campus that are not funded with this first phase. And I guess I'm in comments now, so I shouldn't I should stop, but I just want to share that that's a concern as well.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I'm a little concerned that there was nothing about equity. I think I'm a little concerned because that's you know, one of the things that we're supposed to do is measure things today, right? We're not supposed to come to any sort of conclusion before today. And as I look at comp plan 2040. Which we're supposed to use as a as a guiding document. It talks about equity. It talks about equity multiple times, actually equitable, affordable and inclusive. It talks about why measure equity. And then also in Blueprint, the number one of the six vision elements is equitable, affordable. Inclusive. So. I'm kind of at a loss because I didn't do as much research on Blueprint or or for this particular item, because I just assume that you met all the goals and that's that's my, I guess, penalty for not being on LUDI and following LUDI closer. I want to give you another chance to like maybe you've come up with something between counseling and setbacks questions. And now that it's really you don't have anything on equity other than eminent domain on 22 houses which not exactly equity and and that you haven't considered equity at all that that's really concerning to me because that is a core tenant on both blueprint and component. 2040. So do you are you sure you're not considering equity at all.
Speaker 10: For a I shouldn't say we didn't consider equity. What I mean by that is we didn't do an analysis in the staff report because of the timing of adoption of blueprint number and so on. Part of the equity goals that you mentioned related to uh, providing housing opportunity. I want to point out one major difference here between the zoning that we're proposing in this area and what's there today. There's industrial light, and industrial heavy zoning does not allow housing. Right now, the zoning that we're proposing for the site in this portion of the site will open up the site to the potential for housing. That's obviously not in the program and funded portion of phase one and two. But from a zoning perspective, it certainly opens up that opportunity. And I think that's an important thing to note. In addition to the things that we mentioned about access, uh, access to open space, access to neighborhood and so on.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: Hi, I'm Sarah Showalter, citywide planning manager for CPD. And I really appreciate the questions that both yourself and Councilman CdeBaca have asked tonight, because you're right on equity. The reason there's a reason why it shows up first in the comprehensive plan is the first vision element, because we heard strongly from the community when we were working on Denver. Right. That of all the vision elements, people really felt that was the one that we needed to commit the most to and double down on if we want Denver to. So be the city that's so rich and inclusive that it is today. So I appreciate you asking these questions and a couple of things I want to clarify. I think first, related to this particular rezoning, there are a lot of components that Brad's hit on that are about advancing equity goals. It is very much part of the plans that were adopted by City Council before Comprehensive Plan 2040 and before Blueprint Denver. So those those more areas specific plans like the neighborhood plan and the National Western Center Master Plan don't have as much as some of our future plans may about equity, but they still reflect a lot of the same values and goals about wanting to create something here that responds to what the community wants and adds amenities for the community, bringing things in that this community hasn't had in the past. Open space is a really big one. So I do want to emphasize it's not the equity is not part of this rezoning or part of the philosophy. It's very much part of what we're trying to accomplish with the rezoning. However, Brad's correct that this process, which is I don't know how long exactly it's been, but it's been very long. A lot of how we're thinking about how we can more formally integrate equity analysis into large rezonings like this starts at the very beginning of the process. It's about the scope of the whole analysis that you would do around what are the things that we might be considering that we wouldn't have otherwise if we don't have equity at the forefront? And like Brad mentioned, we're working on how to change some of our processes, including large scale rezonings and amendments to the zoning code, to do a more formal analysis and more recognition of that key goal. And so the great news is that that will very much influence the triangle component that still is not part of this project, but will be in the future and will go through a rezoning. We should have that process in place and I am really hopeful you'll see a much more kind of formal, like Brad was saying, integrated databases, you know, blueprint. Denver actually has three equity concepts. One of those is about access to opportunity. One is about vulnerability to displacement, and one is about housing diversity and jobs diversity. And in areas like this, we're working on something geographic specific. We plan to look at how an area of scoring in each of those three equity buckets and use those scores and where there's challenges to influence the outcomes. So that will be very much part of what we get to do with phase two around the triangle. And that's even more important because that's the portion of the campus that's closest to the neighborhood and where that can be the most opportunity for connections, as Councilman CdeBaca brought up, but where there's also the most impact to this to the surrounding community. And even more important, to make sure we have more of that equity analysis figured out and know how to influence the decisions that are being made based on that. So I hope that provides a little more background kind of where we're headed and what you all will see coming before you in the future when it's not a rezoning like this, where the majority of the work had already been done at the time those those plans were adopted. But I also want to reiterate, again, feel very confident. These are just like you said, it's part of your criteria. Like one of the biggest ones is are these consistent with our adopted plans? And we feel really, really strong that both the MAP amendment and the tax amendment, especially because they're advancing the neighborhood plan in the master plan, are advancing some key goals around how do we improve equity and access in this area. And I hope we can do even more robust analysis and conversation when we get to the triangle component.
Speaker 7: Can you or somewhat not necessarily because you didn't give the presentation, but would can we go back to the the slide that talks about the plans you use as metrics, the guides.
Speaker 10: Oh, yeah. It's very.
Speaker 7: You know, it's at the very beginning. This one concerns consistency with the adopted plan. So comp plan 2040 Blueprint Denver 2019 are two of the five plans and and that makes sense because city council actually right before we took office approved both plan 2040 and Blueprint 2019 and that was before today. So it makes sense that we're comparing to current plan 2040. I just I just wanted to make sure that it was on your list. So thank you for for having it on the list. I'm a little concerned about just trust us because, you know, eminent domain doesn't really share suggests to me that there's been a commitment to , you know, making sure that the neighborhood people can age in place and people can have access to. So and Denver has had an unfortunate past of not developing in an equitable way. So I'm a little concerned. I really like the the I like the idea. I mean, you know, the National Western Project I really like I'm not certain that I really like just trust us or your answer before of we didn't consider equity when there are two of the plans that that's the number one issue or excuse me the number one criteria. So thank you for your time. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I just have one last question. And either Brad or Titus, if you could come up to the podium, I don't want this conversation to be left assuming nothing or no commitments have been made around addressing some equitable issues. So I would like you to speak to commitments that have been made around apprenticeships and hiring goals that will be part of the ongoing construction, the next phase of of building out national western. Talk a little bit about the commitment that was made to the Community Investment Fund, community benefits that are in discussion stages with the community right now. I think it's important to just not presume that those things have been completely left off the table because they have been very much part of the meetings with the community and commitments that have been made by National Western Center.
Speaker 11: So sure, you can take us all away. And I think that also goes to the commitments that are made by the partners as well. I think we heard about what CSU and the stock show, but also what the authority plans to do. You know, I think one point of just a comment and clarification on I think what I'm hearing tonight is not necessarily that the plans that are moving forward did not consider equity, but where are we consistent with? And so I just think that we need to be a little bit clear on as those plans were developed, they got to the zoning, what components are still consistent with the equity platform that we are pushing forward in our neighborhood plans and through the comp plan. And we'll have to come back to that that conversation at some point so that we can, I think, settle up on that. So to the question at hand, yes. So, you know, the zoning side is the play space. That's the sort of the physical, the the mapping of. And yes, connectivity is part of that. And duly noted that the team continues to work on trying to find out additional ways to to make sure that connectivity to and from the adjacent neighborhoods is at the appropriate scale so that we're not having as many people coming to events that are accessing the location via the roadway network that are not the best for that type of travel within the neighborhoods. And so it's a balance and I know we've been looking at that and including with Betty Cram and future phases of how to make sure we're connecting better to the east while we're adding additional connections to the West. And the connections on the campus are complicated. It doesn't answer the question around equity, but because of a lot of the utilities that are on the site, the river separating it, the infrastructure and the clearances that are required often will impact both sides of the roadway. So we're very sensitive of providing enough access, but also not having so many transportation facilities that it limits the use and usability of the site. So fast forwarding into what the commitments are. So the National Western team was one of the first in the city to really push forward in an equity conversation around workforce. And so the horizontal integrated contract was really the first steps for the city and a workforce conversation. And since then we've moved forward into exactly what. You were mentioning requirements around apprentice apprenticeships within the construction phase. And so what we're looking at for our upcoming procurements is adding in that language that has been presented in other major projects in the city with the lead of Dito's Workforce Services and CBO on the small business front. And so there are specific requirements on the construction side. And yes, there is a map that Dito had has created that does focus in on the the inverted EL, if you will. So the west side, north Denver and far northeast zip codes that are in the highest need and demand of of economic opportunity. And so we've partnered with work now as part of this. And Nucor was one of the first sponsors, our first entities to help fund the Work Now program, who has been doing some really good work around training and getting opportunities for individuals. One of the first things that I'm looking at is to make sure that we're focused in on the right things so that those access to opportunities, which is one of the equity components that comes out of the master plan, starts to get the focus in on what we need to do here. I'm learning a lot of great things about what is happening that's positive. And as you and I have discussed, Councilmember Ortega taking that opportunity to look at other ways to make sure that we're increasing that those that are entering into the construction workforce. But I will say that's what's happening today. The other big focus for this campus is what happens in the future. And that's where Brad Buchanan and the authority and Paul in the stock show have been looking at, focused on opportunities where it's career opportunities within the operation and the maintenance of the campus that lasts more than the construction phase. It looks like I'm in the red.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. And you don't have to follow that. Take us. So that's okay. You keep talking. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. And I'm sorry, I have a question about apprenticeships. So just as you continue conveniently sat down, I apologize. The you I think I heard you say that in future projects you'll add an apprenticeship component to the contracts. Is that is that what I heard?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 11: Okay. For the construction phases of the livestock center in the equestrian. So there are two last procurements that we have for the animals.
Speaker 7: And would you also agree to to have those apprenticeships programs be or have the requirement be that the apprenticeship programs are recognized by the Department of Labor? As in there, they're actually approved. Apprenticeship programs already.
Speaker 8: Are.
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And so okay, so two other things. One question. If we vote no, that means that this just doesn't go forward and we get another chance to look at this. Is that correct? And that's not necessarily for you. This is a procedural question.
Speaker 9: We'll go ahead and turn that over to the city attorney, Kirsten Crawford. Or do we have somebody.
Speaker 7: Like we don't we're not killing? Does the the proposed zoning amendment. We're just saying not today.
Speaker 6: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I'm actually going to defer to Nate Lucero because he and talk about the TOS applications and then our code requirements with respect to Blackout and then I can fill in if there's anything else.
Speaker 12: Good evening, Services and City Attorney. So if you were to vote no on the text amendment and the map amendment, it would essentially send this back to the drawing board and you would be saying no to what's being proposed to you this evening.
Speaker 7: But we could theoretically even look at this again next week, right? I mean, that's I guess what I'm I'm trying to come up with a way to say, hey, let's give you a week or whatever to go back and, you know, to go back to CBD and say, Oh yeah, we do have equity things. We just didn't have the right people here tonight to address them. You see the nature of my thought process.
Speaker 12: Councilman Hines This application has been through a very long public process. It's been to the planning board, it's been through the committee, it's been through first reading. And now here they're they're here now for the public hearing. So there's been plenty of opportunity, both in the public and through the processes of the city for questions like this to be answered.
Speaker 7: And so how come you can't answer it?
Speaker 12: Well, tonight's your opportunity to vote it up or down. If you're not satisfied that the application doesn't meet the criteria, that's counsel's prerogative.
Speaker 7: Okay. And the last thing I would say is certainly when in presentations, I would ask that CPD include some of the components, including equity, that are core tenets of the plans that we're supposed to use to judge text amendments and zoning changes. Thank you, Madam President, for them.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. Sara Showalter. Can I have a question for you? So when map and text amendments come forward and they're voted down, is there not a one year blackout period until the property can come forward for a rezoning?
Speaker 6: Yeah, good question. There's just discussing with the city attorney. Yes. So you're correct. If you vote no, if city council denies a rezoning, then the typical process is that there's 12 months correct before you can apply for the same zoned district. But as the city attorney was pointing out, this is a little different because that if you also voted no on the text amendment that's creating the zone district to which the application is for, and now that zone district wouldn't exist. So actually probably could come back sooner with that zone district and then ask to apply to it. It's a little different than a typical rezoning where the zoning district is already on the books.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Yeah. And I'm sorry, Ryan, I just I really do want to reiterate. I want to be clear on the message. All of the rezonings that come before you when we recommend approval, it's because we feel like we've met all of the criteria and all of the adopted plans. It's a it's a very comprehensive look. When you're thinking about a site like this, we're looking at are we consistent with all of the adopted plans, like in their totality, which, as you can imagine, is a lot to kind of digest when you have five plans like this one. But there are other rezonings that have come forward since Blueprint Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 were adopted that are also in this. A little bit of an awkward to be frank you know timing thing here where we weren't starting to implement what does it really look like to have a large rezoning go through a more formal equity analysis until we knew the plans were adopted and now we're trying to catch up as fast as we can. But projects like this that have gone through the majority of the work prior to adoption of that new citywide vision are in that awkward phase. But I do really want to reiterate, it's not that we're saying, you know, trust us or that there wasn't any equity analysis done. And it's it's not part of the analysis. It very much is. I think we feel really confident that what this rezoning would do in terms of really changing a very heavy industrial area into a mixed use area that's going to provide a lot of amenities and realize the vision for a community in an area that has really struggled and had all the heavy industrial is very much part of a more equitable Denver and a more equitable future. So we we do feel strongly, even though we may not have the same level of rigor, we will in future large rezonings that it is definitely consistent with the adopt a comprehensive plan and blueprint number.
Speaker 9: The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 752 and or Council Bill 753. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My comments are that I don't wish to stop the rezoning of this project. I think that we have to. I think tonight it would be a mistake not to advance this rezoning. But what I do want to make clear is that council has our eyes and fresh eyes with a new plan on equity and on CPD and on what we're expecting when we say something is consistent with the plan, because if it does not have that primary indicator that if we don't figure out indicators for equity, that we can literally check off, see and understand in. In a way that's going to be manifested not promised. Then they are not consistent with plans. And so for this situation, I do think that we have let the belt form turn its back on this community. But this community has been disconnected from this part of the city anyway. And so what I think this means for CPD and for a NewCo is that you have to pay special attention to what happens to the triangle and there has to be extra attention to undo the harm that may have been created by this zoning and not prioritizing equity. When we do the triangle. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So I recognize that you guys have been working on this for a long time. I recognize that you've had many presentations to a lot of people, including Rudy and Planning Board, and now we're here today. I also recognize that that there's some growing pains with with this started before Blueprint Income Plan were approved. We, too, are I mean, there are five of us who are new to council, and we also are having growing pains. And so, I mean, in some ways, I kind of feel like I'm caught with my pants down. They're not out. But, you know, it's a little bit of a concern. Just I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. I think it doesn't make sense for this not to go forward, because I. I believe that that you've had a lot of vetting. I also don't want you to coast through city council and bebop through and think that we're just going to rubber stamp stuff. And I'm not trying to say that that's what's happened in the past. But I don't want I mean, I want to make an informed decision and I'm going to get beat up if. Tomorrow. I mean, you know, I vote for this and people are going to say, well, why didn't you consider equity? You're going to beat me up tomorrow. And and, you know, so I have a constituent who I know is going to email me either later tonight or tomorrow about equity. So. I just want to make sure that we're we're being thoughtful and I assume that you are, but it's not our job to assume. It's to make sure that it meets the criteria. So thank you so much for all the work that you've done. I'm not trying to not trying to beat you up. I'm just trying to make sure that I make an informed decision. So. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Woman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I just wanted to. I speak in support of the application. And yes, there has been a lot of work that's gone into getting this project to this point. It's it's been around for several years now in the works, trying to get us to a place where we can, you know, get the site ready for new structures to be built. And, you know, I'm excited about the commitments that are made to the workforce, knowing that there are well in excess of a thousand people in the pipeline right now, many of whom are working on different projects across the metro area in the skilled trades that they chose to be trained in. And that's important, especially for people in these neighborhoods who can take advantage of these livable wage jobs and be able to have a solid career path and afford them the ability to stay in the neighborhood if they so choose, if they're a renter, or to potentially become a homeowner, if they're a current renter. And I think that is one very important component. It's not the only social contract, if you will, that is tied to this project. The commitment that's been made to the scholarships, I think is is really important as well. But this is a project that this city made a commitment to a number of years ago, that we want to see this done and see it done right. And, yes, the connectivity is critical. And part of the reason the Eastern connectivity is vital is because that is part of the linkage to the rail stop that's on the campus. And if people from the neighborhood can't get there because there are the right connections, that's a problem. And that's why you've heard me be noisy about making sure that we're addressing that as quickly as possible. So but I think this project is one that is is going to be one that we will all be very proud of. And we've got a great team of people who have been working very hard to make sure that all the pieces are in place and to work to address the community concerns. And does it mean we've gotten everything right? I think we've got a ways to go on some of these issues. But, you know. This phase will actually see some of those those social contracts be materialized. We're not having to wait for phase two through eight to to see those things happen. Yes. When the triangle gets built out and that comes back before us, we will see those very clearly spelled out as well. So I will be voting for this tonight. I think it's important for us to move it forward. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And seen no one up in the queue. I will go ahead and make my comments. I appreciate the conversation and the questions of my colleagues. Equity is something that we talk a lot about in the city, but we don't yet have those tools that we can show our constituents and that we can even show council members without, you know, a shadow of a doubt that we have considered all components of equity. And I look forward to those documents that we can actually show how decisions are being made instead of, Yeah, we did it, it's a check mark, but really delve into it and having access around, you know, equity and access to opportunity, transportation and mobility. There's a whole laundry list of what we need to do. And so I appreciate the conversation. And, you know, what my my colleagues had mentioned. That being said, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 752 place.
Speaker 4: Black. I see tobacco. Yes.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I heard it. Hi.
Speaker 5: Haines.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Ortega Yes. Hi. Sandoval. Hi.
Speaker 6: Sawyer, I. Torres, I.
Speaker 9: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code to establish new zone districts that implement the objectives of the adopted 2015 National Western Center Master Plan.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to establish four new zone districts referred to as Campus-National Western Center-Core (CMP-NWC-C), Campus-National Western Center-General (CMP-NWC-G), Campus-National Western Center-Flex (CMP-NWC-F) and Campus-National Western Center-Riverfront (CMP-NWC-R) in furtherance of implementation of the National Western Center Master Plan and Globeville and Elyria and Swansea Neighborhood Plans in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0880
|
Speaker 1: I have called out Constable 803 and 805 and under pending. No items have been called out. Did I miss anything? All right. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the first item on our screens. Councilman Hines, please put resolution 880 on the floor.
Speaker 2: I move that? God, I'm sorry. I'm with the Council Resolution 1980 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to make a quick introduction. I saw Mr. Mauro here a second ago. I think he went over to overflow. Hi. I've heard from the press that there may be comments directed to you personally. To be clear, I want to direct all my relevant questions to the communication. Community communications. Excuse me. Community Corrections Director. Not to you personally, as in Mr. Moreau. So I think you're a good person. I think that you're doing a good job. I'm going to do my best to separate the person from the role. And if I've stumbled on highlighting that separation, I apologize. Also, I recognize that I may have a few more questions than I might otherwise normally have. I learned about this bill on Thursday when a Brownstein attorney called me to ask me for a yes vote, and I didn't know about it before then. So if this weren't a direct file to the floor, I'd ask these questions of most of them in committee. So who? My colleagues understand. So I'd like to start with some basic questions. Mr. Moreau, if I could have the director come forward. So thank you. And also the. A little bit. Also on my apology tour, just because the industry has been accused of placing kids in cages or running concentration camps doesn't mean that these kind of contracts are authorizing either one. So I'll just ask, do any of these facilities affected by the contracts place kids in cages?
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: First, let me say good evening, President Clark, members of Council Councilman Hines, to your question. No, thank you. And do any of the facilities affected by these contracts run concentration camps? No, thank you. So also, just because one of these companies is currently in the defendant of a class action lawsuit alleging slavery doesn't mean that these contracts are authorizing slavery. So do any of these facilities affected by the contracts use their inmates as slaves? No, thank you. So I want to set the stage for the next few questions. Denver City Council can either vote yes or no on contracts given to us by the executive branch. We can't make any amendments, so we asked for alterations a few weeks ago and we voted on the contract that was put for us forward. Forward to us. We now know that that particular contract was unpalatable for council. So, you know, if it was an unpalatable, unpalatable a few weeks ago, chances are pretty darn good that it will be unpalatable in six or 12 months when these proposed contracts expire. So I'd like to ask some questions to get a better sense for where we are now to set us up for a successful transition later. So what is different about these contracts versus the contracts we voted on three weeks ago? So Councilman Hines, just a point of clarification in my to respond to questions about other resolutions tonight or the one that's on the floor right now, because this is just a revival and a mandatory agreement. Oh, are we discussing just this one or are we discussing all three?
Speaker 1: Right now, the only one that's on the floor is 880. But I mean, I think if they're all in the same vein, then I think we can. You could ask questions about all of them, make comments, you know, or if someone specifically has one on another one, they will put those on the floor. And you have that opportunity at that time, too. But I think it's okay for you to answer all of them if you just wanna maybe want to clarify as you're asking, is this for all of them or a specific one?
Speaker 2: So. Mr. President, I'd also like to move 881 and 882 so that we can consider them all at the same time.
Speaker 1: I have I have thought we were going to go one at a time through on voting. But again, I think if you want to ask your questions and make your comments and then we'll just vote on them individually, if that's okay.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Thank you. And thank you for the clarification. So, yes, what's different about the three contracts that we have in front of us? I guess there's one new contract and then two others. Is that correct? Correct. I think there's a total of four items before council that have to do with community corrections. I'll start with 880. This is to revive and amend an agreement with Correctional Management Inc. for the fiscal year seven I'm sorry, fiscal year 18 and 19 final payment during the course of July one, 2018 through June 30 of 2019. CMI are Core Civic Incorporated provided services to an additional two individuals plus some additional treatment dollars. So as we move money around with all of our contractors at the end of the year, they exceeded their original budget amount. We moved money from underspent contracts and we were reimbursed from the state for the full amount. So. Okay. Should we go on ahead? I don't have any issues with this one. Should we go ahead and vote on it and then talk about the other two separately?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we already have this one on the floor, so let's just vote on it and then we'll move on to 81 and I'll kick it back to you. Yes, we think I don't see anybody else in the queue on this one. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 880.
Speaker 2: HINES Eye.
Speaker 3: Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an Eye. Gilmore Eye. Herndon Eye. Cashman. I can eat. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. US Results.
Speaker 3: 1339.
Speaker 1: As Resolution 880 has been adopted. I'm secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens, on our screen. And Councilman Hines, if you please. Resolution 81 on the floor.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Revival and Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver to be administered by the Department of Safety, Division of Community Corrections in consultation with the Denver Community Corrections Board and Correctional Management, Inc. to add additional funds for residential and non-residential community corrections services.
Amends a contract with Correctional Management, Inc. by adding $60,368.01 for a new total of $6,029,912.01 for residential and non-residential community corrections services provided in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 (201951095). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-16-19. Council member Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 8-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0881
|
Speaker 1: As Resolution 880 has been adopted. I'm secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens, on our screen. And Councilman Hines, if you please. Resolution 81 on the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move 881 for adoption.
Speaker 1: Has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Hello again. So I apologize. This is what we get when we get things directly to the floor. So thank you for your clear clarity and that makes the first one way easier. So what's the difference between. This and the contract we had three weeks ago. So. Councilman Hines so resolution request eight one changes the terms of the agreement with Geo Group from 12 months to six months. It's part of the strategy after the vote before Council on August 5th, where we heard the message loud and clear to me and to distance ourselves from both core civic and jail. This was a strategic decision to try to phase that plan and move it forward. It's extremely challenging, if not impossible, to transition away from six facilities and add up to 500 beds or 517 beds. So the decision here is to move in that direction with the GEO Group and this contract takes us through the end of 19 . Okay. So there are 157 residents in GEO facilities, 73 at 1284 at William Street. And it can sometimes there's a 157 beds. The number of individuals in those beds varies day to day, depending upon movements there. And. Oh, geez. Okay. Sorry. My notes were my questions were assuming that we were going to talk about these together. So let's see. So the contract is for $2 million. So that means that the assuming the beds are full, which I would. It sounds like they would be at least close to full. Joe's getting about $100.31 per resident per day for this contract. Is that correct? Councilman Hines? No, that's incorrect. So the funding for community corrections isn't as simple as just the daily per diem rate. You have a base bed rate. So for every individual and residential placement, you will have an itemized per diem. In addition for the specialized program, a two way hall, the cognitive behavioral treatment program, there's supplemental funding that goes and is attached to that. We also have funding for a correctional treatment fund that pays for substance use treatment and mental health treatment. And there's a facility payment that each provider gets to keep caseload sizes down to a minimum of 1 to 20. It pays for prior reporting and for minimum staff salaries. So together, collectively, all those funding lines come up to the amount you see before you. Okay. That actually stands for several of the questions that I had about substance abuse, mental health. But all of that's included in the in this particular contract. Correct. Okay. And. Is there any additional funding source beyond this contract with federal dollars or. Anything else? Councilman Hines No, there's no additional funding provided by an agency of the government per the General Assembly. There is a requirement that residents pay what we call a subsistence. And that amount is authorized in the long bill each year through a footnote. And it requires the facilities to attempt to collect up to $17 per day for non specialized programs. So the William St Center qualifies for subsistence collection rates up to 17. As I mentioned at the hearing on August 5th, those rates are much lower than that. The cognitive behavioral program at Tully Hall does not charge subsistence. The footnote is not also in statute. Is that correct? That's a technical question, Councilman. I'm not sure it's part of the long bill that's passed by the General Assembly. So I, I, it's a legal document that establishes, you know, the funding for the state and then the parameters of the funding. It is my understanding, because I've put footnotes in the long bill before myself, that that isn't that's more guidance than it is statute. But I don't know that for sure either. So. But that's that was the nature of my question. Let's see, so that the cost to residents does not include room and board or classes or, you know, what's the average amount per day that a resident might be might pay for staying in one of these facilities? Councilman HINES So the the the current rate under this contract is $48.45. That's the that's the per diem established by the legislature. So that money travels to the State Office of Community Corrections and then passed through to the city of Denver in this case. In addition to that, you know, the residents of William Street, as I mentioned, would be required to pay up to that $17 a day. If someone is assessed at high risk and has a behavioral health issue. That's where the correctional treatment fund dollars kick in, and that's where the person can be referred for behavioral health treatment in the community or in house. The resident does not pay for that treatment room and board is provided as part of the funding and that subsistence. So there is no additional cost to the residents. So maybe this is answering one of the questions that I had, and that's as I was trying to do just the math on the court, civic facilities versus the geo facilities. And and you're saying it isn't quite that simple. I'm going to give you the simple math and you can help me and, you know, get get a little smarter about the math. So there are a total of 364 civic beds, right, 90, Ulster 120 and Diet 90 and Fox and 16 combined. So a total of 360 beds and then 157 beds and geo facilities. The court civic contract is from today until the end June 30th of 2020. End of the state fiscal year. Correct. Correct. Okay. And. If I did the simple math in the course of a contract is $6,680,446 in $0.70. If I do the simple math again, the core civic math gets $60.05 per resident per day. And again, as I said, the Jio contract gets $100.31 per resident per day. Can you help me understand why one is almost double the other? Councilman Hines So again, it has to do with the specialized program services. So as we've discussed, GEO has the cognitive behavioral treatment program that has a certain rate, I believe it's 5317 on top of the base bed so that those two numbers combine to pay for the CBT program. The William St Center is just the 4845 when we're talking about Core Civic. You have base bed rates across all four facilities. You have a sex offender population at our value program that receives enhanced dollars, you have facility payments. So of course Civic receives for facility payments where GEO only receives two. And then the correctional treatment fund allocation is is proportionate to the number of residents they serve. So, of course, CORECIVIC would have nearly double the correctional treatment fund allocation as well. So in trying to do the math, the way you're you're doing it, you're operating without all the information. And I believe it's similar to a question that Councilwoman CdeBaca asked at the August 5th hearing, and I'd be happy to sit down and walk through the funding lines. But it's not as simple as saying each resident gets X dollars per day. And why doesn't the math work? Yeah. And again, we had more time. It was I was under the understanding that that you were going to send that information out. But had I had more time, I would certainly have asked for that in advance of tonight's conversation, if I might add, this gentleman so I don't have the ability to change the per diem rates or to award more to one provider or another. The providers get the same rate, whether you're GEO or CORECIVIC in Denver or whether you're I6 in Jefferson County or whether you're Larimer County up in Fort Collins that's established by the legislature. So the only discretion that the city of Denver have is how much total money to allocate based upon utilization. We don't have the authority to change rates of reimbursement. Those are established by the General Assembly. Thank you, Mr. President. I have additional questions. I see someone else in the queue. Do you mind if I yield for other people's questions?
Speaker 1: It would be great. I appreciate that. And we'll come back to you. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: Perfect segue. Segway Thank you, Mr. President. My question I understand you don't have the ability or authority to change per diem, but my question is about Denver's community corrections division. What is the full budget of that department?
Speaker 2: And the councilwoman said, Mike, just to clarify, are you talking about within the Community Corrections Department and underneath the Department of Safety, we administer three programs for the city. We have residential community corrections, which is part of the system or program we're talking about tonight. We have pretrial assessment and release services. And then we also administer the county's home confinement or in-home detention program. So the total budget for all three programs are just for the Residential Community Corrections Program.
Speaker 6: If you have it broken down into three parts, that would be awesome.
Speaker 2: I have approximate numbers off the top of my head. So the Community Corrections Residential program is roughly $18 million and that money is received from the state of Colorado. All but $600,000 is passed through to the providers. Again, we have four different providers that operate ten facilities in the county. The city of Denver keeps $600,000 to administer the program. So that's that supports the work of the Community Corrections Board. It funds positions in my office to provide technical assistance to providers as we move in the direction of infusing evidence based principles into the programs. It also pays for regulatory and audit work that's done by my staff as well.
Speaker 6: So with that 600 annually, how many staff do you guys have in your department?
Speaker 2: The allocation for community corrections is 5.4 FTE. And then just to just to go back to the question you asked about the total budget, the the direct services we provide, which are general fund from the county is approximately $5 million for the pretrial release and the home confinement program.
Speaker 6: Altogether.
Speaker 2: That's correct. And that's that's approximately 5050.
Speaker 6: Okay. And back to the 600, those 5.4 stuff. Can you describe to me a little bit more about what they do, considering we're primarily a pass through for the state dollars? When you say audits. When you say administration, what does that look like?
Speaker 2: Councilwoman CdeBaca So the model in Colorado for community corrections is one of local, local support or local control. So they're pastor dollars, but the responsibility kind of center statutorily with the Community Corrections Board. So community corrections boards in our state do two things they decide or authorize which individuals is referred from either the Department of Corrections or the courts or approved for placement. And they also make recommendations on which providers operate in a specific geographical, judicial district or county. Now, the way the ordinance reads for the Denver Community Corrections Board, it is advisory to the Department of Safety on policy matters related to community corrections. And there are roughly 94 standards promulgated by the Division of Criminal Justice, which is the state agency that has regulatory and funding oversight of community corrections. Not only does the state office conduct regular audits and visits to enforce those standards, but that's part of our responsibility as a local jurisdiction as well. So I have three staff that are compliance coordinators. And their job is to measure program performance to those 94 standards. They're also there to support the work of the programs. We view the network of ten facilities in Denver as a single program underneath our jurisdiction. We have a gamut of services. So there are times where they need technical assistance around statewide initiatives like contingency management or you've heard this term before called a matrix. It's a it's a case plan that takes into account offender risk and need and stabilization factors. So they go and watch individuals assessing, completing the assessments and working with clients on their case plans to make sure that there's fidelity to the model. In addition, I have one one dedicated FTE that processes all 2000 referrals each year from the Department of Corrections and from the courts. A portion of my salary is charged to the Community Corrections Fund to do work to support community corrections. And finally, we have a business manager that pays bills and manages the finances.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Let's see. Real quick before I pass it on. I will let the others ask questions. But I do want to get back to the community advisory group that was agreed to. With these renegotiated contracts and I know that's not something the public is seeing here in the Bills tonight, but we'd love to discuss it a little more. And so I want to save that till the end of the conversation. So I will let the next person speak. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Greg, can you just outline the process that someone has to go through to get into one of the community correction beds?
Speaker 2: Yes, Councilwoman Ortega. So on the Department of Corrections side, there are statutory eligibility requirements that one has to meet for nonviolent individuals, for individuals convicted of a nonviolent offense. They can be referred to community corrections 16 months prior to their parole eligibility date for violent offenders. That's at six months when a referral from the Department of Corrections is generated. It's typically sent to the County of parole destination. It means that person has declared that location is where they want to reside on parole. And after their release from the Department of Corrections, the referral travels to to my office. That single staff person reviews the referral. They score the referral when I say they score the referral. Denver was the first jurisdiction to adopt a decision making tool, which takes the elements of risk assessment and structure decision making to make more consistent and uniform decisions so that staff member scores the tool. It's then presented to the Community Corrections Board, and they have the authority to say yes or no to the placement that they say yes. That referral then travels to a program. Statutorily, each community corrections program also has the right to accept or refuse a placement. So essentially it's a dual yes to get into community corrections from the EOC. Similarly, on the direct sentence individuals. So there's some confusion when I say direct sentence, these are not municipal level offenders. These are individuals who have failed or are failing or not eligible for felony level probation. And the district court in Denver has determined they're appropriate for a community based sentence. So the district court will sentence an individual to community corrections. That referral will then travel in a similar way that I described for Doxey. It comes to my office and then to the board, but the community board and a program has to agree to that sentence up to that placement as well.
Speaker 8: So an individual can't say this is the facility I want to go to. That's determined by what beds are available and whether or not that opening, whoever runs that facility, is willing to take that person. That's been approved by the Community Correction Board.
Speaker 2: Correct, Councilwoman? So it's based upon sort of service need. It could be gender responsive. It could be DRC assignment. We're doing a pretty neat thing in Denver with respect to the direct sentence population. Part of the responsibilities to the earlier question that my team does is they'll review assessment data for the direct sentences, or they'll meet with the client in jail and do an assessment. And we've embraced this concept of treatment matching. We know from the evidence that if we can match a client to their assessed level of care, we stand a better chance to have improved outcomes and reduce recidivism.
Speaker 8: So. When these contracts were not moved forward. There were some suggestions by people that spoke that these clients that are in the programs could be put on ankle monitors and basically be released to go back into their homes, assuming, you know, most of them have homes to go back to. Can you just speak to what authority locally we would have in being able to approve something like that?
Speaker 2: So let's start with the Department of Corrections population councilwoman. So the parole decision is controlled by the State Parole Board, which is appointed by the governor, the Community Corrections Board, nor the city of Denver has any decision making in the parole decision. So in order for someone to be paroled, whether it be because of a decision or just because they've sort of reached a point in their placement that they're ready, that's done by the parole board. They also have to be statutorily eligible. I just mentioned a minute ago that individuals can be placed in community corrections six months prior to even being parole eligible. So if you have a client that's met that timeline, then they're not even eligible per statute. The ankle bracelet program at the state level for doxy clients is called ASP inmate. That is a decision made by D.O.C. again in terms of statutory timeframes when one is eligible. The D.O.C. has to initiate a referral. Now the Community Corrections Board does have to accept or support an individual moving to ACP, but it is controlled a referral by D.O.C.. The direct sentence population remains under the jurisdiction of the court, so the court can modify the sentence, but it still requires the court to take action. So when we were discussing worst case scenario, if the contracts are not approved, individuals under direct sentences will be returned to our jail. It will create complete chaos within the courts to get them redacted, to look at the sentencing structure and make independent individual decisions on each and every direct sentence.
Speaker 8: I'm going to ask you one last question, then I have one other question of someone else in the audience. There was an article in the paper this morning, and Christina from the KRC was quoted basically giving sort of an opinion and and sort of summary of the operations of the different facilities. And I guess my question for you is, having having been with the city for so long overseeing these programs. If we did not have community correction facilities in our city, what would be the alternative to people being released from prison?
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega So if residential community corrections didn't exist in Denver, individuals would have coming out of DC would either reach their mandatory release date and be ordered to parole for a period of supervision by the parole department. Or if the parole board thought they were appropriate, there could be discretion discretionary released on parole supervision. They can also be referred to ISP at a certain point, but in order to be on ISP supervision, you have to have housing, you have to have stability. You typically have to be employed and have some level of savings to support yourself in an independent living situation. So I would say absent community corrections, you would see a potentially higher rate of individuals who released without housing to Denver County. You would see a higher rate of individuals without supportive, you know, care and quite honestly don't have a place just to kind of reside and stabilize while they come back to the community. And we talk about D.O.C., but let's talk about the direct sentences, because absent community corrections is an intervention. Those individuals have failed at probation, are not eligible. So if you take away community corrections is a sentencing option. You're looking at either a county jail sentence in some cases or Department of Corrections sentence.
Speaker 8: I'm going to ask. I believe he's still in the audience. Reverend Kelly, are you still here? Would you mind coming up to the microphone? I have a question for you. Reverend Kell, you've been working in our community for many, many years. And and you work with a lot of people who have gone into our prison system and then come back out. And I just wanted to ask you your opinion about the value of us having a local community correction program. And then just ask if you have had any contact from individuals that are in the facilities. And what kind of contact that has been since these contracts had been voted down?
Speaker 9: You know, a lot of folks refer to the communication as half way out. Many of them felt that, okay, they took accountability, the ability of their actions, the crimes, whatever. And they were willing to do whatever is necessary to get to the next point of freedom. And those who are understanding what the guidelines are, who are still incarcerated, they work hard to do what needed to be done to get to be eligible to get halfway house considerations. There are those who feel like they have. Accomplished what has been asked of them. There are those who are feel a sense of redemption. I am sorry. What do I need to do to make this right? How do I go back to my community and deal with, you know, make it in the establishment of a new life? And so once they are eligible and for a halfway house scenario, you know, many of them are motivated and motivates them to continue to stay focused on what they need to do to get there. And there are many who would call me and call my office and maybe somebody could help me understand what a pre you have a prepaid collect phone call that that doesn't even sound right in the same sentence you know, because I'm still paying for it. But but they call me, they say.
Speaker 4: Rev, man, I.
Speaker 9: Finally became eligible to be considered to go to a halfway house. And they are doing what? And I accomplished this. I understood that. So it's been a motivator for them to, you know, to get to the point of being halfway free, those who finally, you know, get that call from the controllers. In our case, managers said that because of your accomplishment, you're eligible. You're getting ready to make the next move. And those are just excitement that you would think that these are criminals, these are convicts, these are but they are those people who are really trying to deal with redemption. And so as they find themselves making that transition, getting to the halfway house and being it truly hall and being at William Street, you know, has been two of the ones that I've been dealing with, knowing what core civics Dahlia Fox, you know.
Speaker 4: Those those guys.
Speaker 9: And the girls over at William Street, they said, man, I'm finally here. I'm finally able to come back to the community, you know, that I've done harm to and to try to make things right. Listen, in the wake of all of this that have just happened over the last couple of weeks, I've been inundated with calls and of concern from grandparents, from significant others, from kids saying, okay, what does that mean? Does it mean my mommy daddy going back to jail? Does it mean that those who are finally made the oh, and your mate made the did what they needed to do to become eligible for this? That means they're on hold their on state. There's a lot of people who are in jail right now. It's a real what do we do? Grandma said, what do we do? Why? Significant upset. What do we do?
Speaker 8: We're talking about the wait list. The people that are.
Speaker 9: Waiting and waiting. Yes, those. So it was just and then, you know, you know, beyond all that, my thing is, even if we are talking about taking it from the private sector to the nonprofit and all of that, the thing is, if that's going to happen, it's going to happen. But what do we do between now and that time? That has been the biggest concern that many of these grandma and people who call me. What do we do within this period of time if they are talking about consideration of putting things together until other things happen? Okay. That's one thing that we look at, you know, but when you've got a couple of people who said, what's the point? I have lost faith in the system. I've told been told what I needed to do to get to this next level. Now, I've done all of that. Now what? Now what? Now. Just like that. The carpet could be pulled from up under my feet. And you know, now, when I say that we are dealing with a big problem of immigration and whatever is a little bit up there. Okay. But I am speaking for those who feel like we are just collateral damage in this war. We are down here, you know, and nobody's talking. And maybe even right now to be in a position to talk with the ground people, the people down here, what do we do? What we do? You know, now, I would like to think that the city council, once you made this vote, you looked at the overall picture and considered that, okay, if we stop this, what do we do? What do we do? So speaking, that is our take. You know, I think those of you who know me over the years, you know, unless I feel really adamant about a cause and reason, I even say that I'm a victim. Won't say a victim. No, no. I take that back. You know, I went through William Street almost 40 years ago. I knew the value I would in to the system. What a college degree. But yet I found myself going through the system. And one of the part of the system was at William Street, the months I spent there, and I had to just understand what I had to do to get to the next point of freedom. Being able to show the city, show other folks here myself that I'm willing to do what it took to get to the next level.
Speaker 8: Thank you for that input. I appreciate it. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega, before I go to the next councilmember, I know we have some new people have come in since I made this announcement, but our fire code does not allow people to stand in any of the aisles, including that back aisle. So either need to squeeze in or we have overflow next door and 432 down in 391. I know there are a lot of people here for this item. And so if you're not here for this item. You know, please grab a seat and overflow so that folks who are here can grab a seat now. And I'm sure that seats will free up as we move through our agenda. I would appreciate that so that we can just make sure that the fire department stays happy with us. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Greg, thank you. So what we keep hearing the number of 517 beds. Does this mean over a year's period of time we serve 517 residents in those beds? Or is there more or less? Well.
Speaker 2: So Councilman Cashman so it's actually more so when we talk in terms of of language of bed, that bed will typically flip over almost twice in a year, roughly 6 to 8 months for a male in community corrections. If they're successful, they'll leave after 6 to 8 months in placement. And for females, it's 7 to 9. So anywhere between 1.5 and two times that bed will flip over. So you're talking closer to 900 to 1000 individuals that are affected.
Speaker 1: Over the course of a year. Thank you. The other question I have. I've been on a committee for the past year and a half or maybe two years looking at the possibility of reinstituting in-person visitation in our jails. And I know we're moving towards that slowly out at county and a little bit more slowly than that at the downtown detention center. Can you explain today if a significant other a friend, a family member, a child wants to visit someone who's in our city jails? What is the process?
Speaker 2: Councilman So are you asking about the visitation for the city jails or for community.
Speaker 1: Corrections city jails? If someone's in jail now.
Speaker 2: Then I can't speak to. I don't. I would ask someone from the Denver Sheriff's Department or Director Riggs, maybe. He just stepped out. Well, but I believe they're not in person, obviously.
Speaker 1: So I can tell you for I think the last decade or.
Speaker 0: More.
Speaker 1: Because of concerns over contraband coming in to our jails. The option, there's been video visitation. So you go down to the jail lobby and there are video screens and the inmate is on a video screen inside their pod. And that's the the current method of visitation. So it is if someone's in our halfway houses, what's the visitation option there?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you for that question, Councilman. So every facility is going to have slightly different processes to approve a visitor. But generally speaking, family and even support systems friends can visit in person at the Community Corrections Program as a resident gained stability and progresses in their treatment plan. They are also allowed to go home on short window passes or 4 to 6 hour passes. So as we begin that stabilization of reentry, there is a connection to family. I know it's not a program that's affected by the decision tonight, but I'd also talk about, you know, the contract is coming up for the University of Colorado and the Arts program. Here you have a program, the haven, that works with women who have severe addiction. They can be pregnant or even have infant children that can live on site with mom where treatment is provided, a mom daycare is provided to child and then mom and baby connect. So there's tremendously tremendous advantages to kind of in-person visitation for family and children and community corrections.
Speaker 1: Right. And I would just offer, since our on this topic that the reason we're looking at returning to in-person visitation is because of the evidence that how important that is to the family members as well as the inmate that that in-person contact take place. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all I have. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I miss tomorrow. Can you talk a little bit about how.
Speaker 6: Our capacity has changed over the.
Speaker 10: Years and how long we've been at 700 or so? Has it grown? Has it dropped?
Speaker 2: So Councilman, community corrections has had periods of growth. You know, the program itself was was developed in 1974, and we started with programs at William Street Center at Independence House because. I believe there were another program or two at the time. And we stayed relatively in that 3 to 400 bed range until about 2001, two and three, where we saw additional facilities come online at that point. Community corrections was again expanded in 2008. There were. Four facilities that qualified for an expansion proposal that required a change of the zoning code, increasing the number of residents at each facility in four locations. So the cap is raised from 60 to 90 a course of Fox and 60 to 120 at three other programs. But since 2008, there has been no additional bed capacity expansion in Denver.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, Councilman Hines. Looks like we're back to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. So I realized in my notes that I'd neglected one silly question. Well, one question about. Slavery just about the Constitution. So in 2018, Colorado amended its constitution to remove slavery entirely from the Constitution, including for those convicted of a crime. So is it possible in Colorado to require work for people who have been convicted of a crime in Colorado? You're asking, Councilman, what happens in the residential facilities as far as work assignments? I would defer to a city attorney to interpret sort of a ruling there. Fair statement. Okay. I'll just I can respond to to what happens as far as in the facility. Sure. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So, you know, as part of living in a home. Right. We all have chores. So that's replicated in residential community corrections programs. Individuals are assigned chores. Wiping down a wall, wiping down a table, cleaning a restroom. They cannot make any facility improvements. They cannot add value to the program. They may paint internal walls and they may do other odds and ends, but they're not there to provide any service that increases the value of the facility. So like painting fences or outside or repairing fences or pest control, nothing along those lines. Yeah. Councilman So I'm actually glad you brought that up because that was reported in an article that there had been an allegation of an individual or set of individuals to erect a fence at one of the facilities. I had my team go out and visit all the sites today and talk to residents and examine what's going on according to the individual that completed that chore. He volunteered to raise a single pole on an existing fence and was happy to do so. And pest control. There's nothing that like they would leave that to a professional or something along those lines. Yeah. Councilman Hines, we've actually looked at pest control records specifically at Corecivic Fox recently and can see that monthly there are exterminator visits. So we pull that information and look as well. So that's done professionally as well. Okay. We've also received documents about the quality of the meals provided to residents there, alleging that the meals are substandard and that there isn't an adequate amount of food available to residents. So just are meals provided to residents, is there? There was specifically about cereal if if someone wanted to eat cereal, is milk available to the resident? If someone doesn't want cereal, are there other breakfast options available to the residents? Councilman Hines So the one of the one of those 94 standards speaks to nutrition and dietary values. So the facilities are required to provide three meals per day. One of them has to be a hot meal. The other two can be breakfast cereal or, you know, a sack lunch if the folks are going out to work. But they're all approved by a dietitian that's reviewed by my staff and the state. So the nutritional value is there. I can't speak to the taste. I'm sure it doesn't taste very good. But yeah, so I think taste is an opinion anyway. So I recognize that. But so because that's a requirement, is it? I mean there's, there's a requirement and then there's what actually happens. You're saying that it actually the requirements are followed through and the Denver facilities. I'm saying that we review those requirements, and if they're not followed through, it'll be a finding in an audit report. Okay. Thank you. So I, I mentioned documents that that we've received. I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond to them. And again, if we could do this in a different form, I would prefer that. But here we are. So one of the one of the documents that received there was a I'll just quote it quote, I'm here I'm currently here on nonviolent charges, and I've done everything they've asked me to do. The problem is, they want you to go through a matrix to get out of here. And the case managers drag their feet to make sure that you have to stay here longer than need be. Is that I am concerned about the quote because, you know, it says the system is set up to maximize the stay and maximize the profit. And I would I certainly think that we, you know, having rehabilitation as a place, you know, has a place. And I think that taxpayers would say, you know, that that's a wise investment of taxpayer dollars. I'm not sure that it would be a wise investment to pay for for profit prisons. So I would just want to give you an opportunity to respond to that. Sure. Councilman, so a couple of things. The concept that programs would extend a placement for profit motive. If you think about it, it's a logical there's over 230 people on the waitlist today waiting to come into the programs. There's 59 in our jail waiting to come into the programs. So there's no shortage of somebody to to fill that bed. The matrix that you refer to is an evidence informed strategy that was developed by the State Division of Criminal Justice in consultation with programs and community boards to standardize how clients move through a program. We wanted to make sure that if you were placed in program A or program C, you received the same level of care. That matrix consists of both stability and risk reduction measures within it, and so individuals are going to move at different paces. I don't know, because it was an anonymous complaint as to that person's status, but if they're moving on the dock side, it might be because they're not eligible or the parole board didn't parole them. If they're referred for ISP, it could be that DOC hasn't completed the home investigation to approve that placement. Typically on a direct sentence, they move pretty quickly to nonresidential supervision. And you mentioned 6 to 8 months for mail, 5 to 7 months for female, or do I have this backwards? You're close to a male is 6 to 8 months roughly for a general population client and 7 to 9 for a female resident. And and you're right. These are anonymous. These quotes are anonymous to me. And it sounds like to you as well. We did have a third party verify that these actually are quotes from people who are in one of these facilities. It doesn't mean that the quotes are accurate, just that someone in one of these facilities said it. So I'm going to give you another opportunity to respond to a quote. Quote Right now, I'm appalled at their behavior as they're using residents all day, every day to make the place look good and presentable. When for months I was here, they had toilets that overflowed. No sitting outside, 20 prairie dogs living in the back, no utensils to eat with many times, not if not enough food for everyone to eat, end quote. So I just want to make sure that we're maximizing treatment and reentry instead of profit for a for profit corporation . Councilman, I can appreciate that. And that's why, you know, the Community Corrections Board in my office take those complaints very seriously. You know, we we touched a little bit upon the level of regulation in addition to the State Division of Criminal Justice and their Office of Community Corrections. You have the Community Corrections Board, you have my office. You have building inspections with the city, you have neighborhood inspections with the city. You have a Department of Corrections liaison that is assigned to each facility. You have a judicial department, probation officer that's a liaison on the court side. You have the Office of Behavioral Health that completes audits of these programs. So I think everybody is committed to ensuring that clients are safe and that they have an opportunity to to make the changes that we all seek. You mentioned a lot of inspections, and I wasn't able to get them all. But but you mentioned building a neighborhood inspections. How often do those occur? I believe for a neighborhood and building, I think they're I believe their annual. And then if there's a finding, there's a follow up. And is that through corrections or is that you saying that's just a function to the city? No, that's to the city. And as a function of the role of these buildings, not as. And just because it's a building in Denver. Correct? I mean, so Councilman. So the I mean, I guess what I made the point that I was making is that the buildings are looked at by the appropriate officials for safety and security. You have correctional professionals locally and at the state looking at it from a client care perspective. You have licensing agents, the division of Behavioral Health. If it's a substance use or mental health program, licensing them, ensuring that the quality of care is too standard. Okay. Still going. Sorry, Mr. President. So another quote that I had and it says, The sad thing is that I work a ten hour day and I have to come back and have mandatory general inspection cleaning every single night in order to have this place looking good. Is is there what is mandatory general inspection cleaning and is it every night, Councilman? I think I wrote that complaint because after working a 12 hour day today, I have to go home and clean my house with my wife. I think we all have chores. And that's the point is, is these are chores. These are not, you know, completing facility renovations because, you know, someone's profiting on me being in placement. They might have to mop the floor. They have to keep their room tidy. These are just basic life skills to running a facility and quite honestly, a behavior that should be reinforced as people reintegrate from an institutional setting into independent living. And see, I think the next quote is, has already been asked and answered. So let's. I think I want to yield the floor one more time to Councilwoman CdeBaca if if she has additional questions or whoever's on the list.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I actually would like to bring up two people, and while they come up are Candace Bailey and Dr. Calderon. I would like to make it clear that we are not the concept of community corrections is not on trial tonight. I think that we all agree that community corrections are necessary and provide an extreme benefit to our our folks reentering society after incarceration. I think the issue tonight is really about the corporations that indeed are profiting off of community corrections. Mr. Morrow said that these chores are not because someone is profiting off of this labor, and I disagree completely. That is exactly why we are working with private prison companies because they do see a bottom line benefit in this work. I would love to ask Candace Bailey, who herself has some experience with these facilities, to speak on her experience because unlike many of the people who may be in this room currently in corrections, she is no longer in corrections. And I think that that is a protection that people who are speaking out don't currently have. A lot of people who are currently in community corrections don't have the luxury of being the whistleblowers. In fact, we have had many who have blown that whistle anonymously, and Dr. Calderon will speak to some of those complaints. But we are very concerned that even after these contracts go through, that those people will be retaliated against for speaking out on their experience. And so I do want to ask what remedies are possible to make sure that our offices are getting monthly reports on who is being sent back and why, just so we can track and make sure that nobody is being targeted for telling the truth about their experience. Ms.. Bailey, would you mind telling us a little bit about what you know of these facilities, specifically the women's ones that you've encountered?
Speaker 10: So. Excuse me. Council City. So my history goes way back. I was incarcerated. I was in the Department of Corrections in the early 2000s.
Speaker 3: I ended up going to a halfway house here locally. I ran the gambit and I regress myself.
Speaker 10: From the halfway house. Many people would say, why you met all the criteria that Mr. Morrow had talked about. You had worked so hard to get everywhere that you wanted to be. You had children to go home to. You had an objective. I had an education behind me. I was ahead of the curve. However, I had a violent crime, which put me way at the bottom of the list. So when you talk about placement into community corrections, you have to think about the fact that the Department of Corrections is an overarching adversary and they have their own set of rules, and then people are funneled through this system that Department of Correction has. And you've got to go through. Could be any of a number of things, many that we won't discuss while I'm at this podium, because it is the dehumanization while within those facilities that carries over into our communities. We're talking about community corrections. We were talking about placing a new form of penitentiary in our community. So I'm looking at some of.
Speaker 3: My sisters over here because I understand where you are. I have been where you are. I am on the other side of the fence. And I say to you, if we do not examine.
Speaker 1: Our rules, if you could just address counsel and not the audience.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I apologize. I believe that what happens next is dependent not only on what the city council believes and what they do next, but also in what we do next as a community, as a city, as a state, as a country. We have the opportunity in front of us to change everything. We have community members who are out here doing the work who have experience from inside of the walls. It is proven that peer to peer advocacy is the greatest impact. We're behind. We're far behind. We are one of eight states who has not adopted this into what we do, into what we do. I actually work in the Division of Youth Services as a family advocate, and so I am the epitome of what we should be moving to because I have the experience, the understanding, the education, the knowledge and the community presence. I know what the issues are that the woman here face, that the men who are in community corrections face. We have the opportunity to have community led co-ops to look into during this time while our contract is now being approved for the next 6 to 12 months. What are we doing? We have a timeline where we need to look at land and zoning. We have to look at this. We are not warehousing human beings. We are human beings. We want our human rights back. Okay? We are not less than you.
Speaker 3: We are equal to you. We actually pay. We pay taxes for this.
Speaker 10: And so there is something that is happening when there is a trifecta of payments. So you're getting payment from the federal government, you're getting payment from the people who live in the city and county, and you're getting payment from the people who need to come back out and be supported, loved and embraced by our communities to be healthy members of society. And we are failing with a big fat F based on profits and not people. There are human beings who are affected on all sides of the fence. And during this time that you were looking at these contracts, I implore you to look at the human beings, because those testimonies that you're hearing that are anonymous are afraid of retribution. They are afraid. You get food in these places. This is not for human consumption. Okay? Now we can either feed the system.
Speaker 3: Or we can do something completely different. Completely. It is our.
Speaker 10: Choice. We will lead the country and we have to take the steps to do so. We have to.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Because you. I'm sorry, Councilman, could you just state your name for the record so that we have it on the official record?
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 10: I apologize. Candace Bailey.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Dr. Calderon, can you speak to some of those anonymous complaints that we've been getting via phone, via letter, via email regarding the conditions in the facilities in question? Lisa Calderon, chief of staff.
Speaker 8: For Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca, also have a doctorate in.
Speaker 10: Reentry and best practices.
Speaker 6: First, I want to just say I want to thank the folks who do this hard work of reentry, reintegration, rehabilitation. It is hard work. I know I've done it and I know it's often thankless. And I know that people often critique your your work.
Speaker 10: You're working long, hard hours.
Speaker 6: We're also standing up for those complaints, those complainants who do work in these facilities. Who have been afraid to speak out in about these facilities, about their working conditions, about their long hours, about not being fairly compensated, including for the breadth of training, experience and degrees that they have, including hearing from some of them who hadn't been paid until the negotiations for this contract started moving forward. So we're also standing up for the rights of workers.
Speaker 8: As well as.
Speaker 6: For the rights of residents. So I want to make that clear. The kinds of complaints we've also been getting from residents. I think Councilman.
Speaker 10: Hines pointed many of those out, but they run along.
Speaker 6: They run along the kind of themes of basically labor that when you have worked an eight or ten hour day and having to come home to do chores. These are adults. These are not children. And I would like to see the evidence that shows that making people do disciplinary chores makes them a better person. That's not actually what the research shows. Right. So I'm a big believer in cognitive behavioral approaches. I understand that some of the facilities actually implement that, but chores is not part of that research. We've also heard around having chores that were potentially put people at risk.
Speaker 10: Such as clearing out prairie dogs and things like.
Speaker 6: That, things that they should not be required to do and are potentially a violation of labor standards. So for those reasons, we are.
Speaker 10: When we met with director Greg Morrow and.
Speaker 6: Executive Director.
Speaker 10: Of Public Safety Troy Riggs.
Speaker 3: One of our non-negotiables.
Speaker 8: Was to.
Speaker 10: Have a hotline.
Speaker 6: For complaints. And Greg outlined kind of all of the oversight committees or.
Speaker 10: Agencies.
Speaker 8: That oversee the these these residences.
Speaker 6: But that's a bureaucracy upon bureaucracy. Upon bureaucracy. And what we're hearing is that people don't feel safe going to these bureaucracies. They also don't feel safe when they cannot report anonymously. And people know that they have to go through a process of inquiry. They're not asking us to automatically believe them. What they're asking is, please look at this, pay attention. Please investigate this because we are afraid. In fact, we even had a resident report to us that.
Speaker 10: Their cell phone.
Speaker 6: Was taken away by a civic.
Speaker 8: By civic administration.
Speaker 6: Look through their emails and texts to see if they had been corresponding with Councilwoman, see the box office. And once it was confirmed that that person was, they basically let them know in a nice way that we see what you're doing. And, yes, you have a right to complain. But the very nature of taking.
Speaker 8: Someone's phone for exercising.
Speaker 6: Their rights to be.
Speaker 8: Heard and their freedom of.
Speaker 6: Speech is quite disturbing.
Speaker 3: That is and also also not.
Speaker 6: An evidence based.
Speaker 8: Practice for reintegration.
Speaker 3: And then finally, I just want to say, you know, I want to.
Speaker 6: Make sure that this false narrative gets debunked, that it's either these halfway houses as we're currently conceiving them or nothing. We know that people do better coming out of incarceration when they have transitional services. That is not in dispute here. The question is what kind of transitional services are effective? And we have a transitional housing halfway house model that is based on an old standard. And so what we need to do is re-envision.
Speaker 10: How we have halfway houses.
Speaker 8: As opposed to warehousing.
Speaker 3: The fact that we.
Speaker 6: Zone halfway houses in warehouse districts tell you how we value people coming out of incarceration. So let's stop with the false.
Speaker 10: Narrative that no one wants transitional.
Speaker 6: Services people do. The question is what kind and should a private corporation be the one to lead that? We are you know, it should be community based. And one last quick point. Our pioneer for halfway houses was the late, great Dr. Elaine Smith, who opened a group living in five points.
Speaker 10: A black woman.
Speaker 6: We need to get back to the roots of community based reentry, rehabilitative and residential services. We've done it before. We've had county run community.
Speaker 8: Corrections as late as.
Speaker 10: 2013.
Speaker 6: In our city, we need to go back to that. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. So I want to direct to Riggs I'm sorry to her tomorrow. We we had our conversation on the 5th of August, if I'm getting my dates correct. The next council meeting was the 12th, and we discussed two premises on steel in Council District nine. They were zoned i a and we asked several questions about those two particular premises and with regards to whether they could house halfway homes. Are you are you familiar with those particular properties? Councilman Hines I'm familiar with one, I believe, and we followed up to the request from the floor the night of the fifth. 4650 still was the address. And according to community planning and development, there are space and buffer issues. With that site being zoned. It would require a variance from the Board of Adjustments and we provided that information to Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: Sorry. And, and it was definitely within a space that where that would be granted. It's significantly far from actual residences. It's behind the old pilot off of I-70 and Vazquez and I don't see why the use would be a problem when all of these other facilities are much closer to residences.
Speaker 2: So I think the question becomes, can it be done without action of the Board of Adjustment? And the answer to that is no. So it would require a variance. Okay. And so I also think you I want to echo what Councilwoman CdeBaca said and Dr. Calderon as well, that what is. And a concern for me is not about reentry services. My concern is making sure that we were stewards of residents of Denver and the taxpayer dollars. And I want to make sure that we put people above profit. And and we've had I mean, it's well-documented that these companies at a national level are problematic. I think that's a very careful word to use. They've been a result of numerous lawsuits, settlements and nationally and even here in Colorado. And we just want to make sure that that we're doing right by the people here in Colorado and by the end and the residents in Denver and the taxpayers in Denver. So I am absolutely on board with with the the concept of community corrections and halfway houses. My concern is, is these particular vendors. So at. I hope that if we do renew these contracts this this evening, that that the message has been delivered that we're very interested in and ensuring that we have vendors that are good actors and good stewards of taxpayer dollars that work responsibly. So thank you. And I'm sorry, would you like to say anything about that? I actually have a question for President Clark. May I respond to a statement that was made by Dr. Calderon? I think it's important to just provide the an accurate fact about salaries that, you know, when it comes to geo, of course, if I just want the council have the information.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 2: So if I heard correctly, the statement was that salaries were only increased in during this contract negotiation period. That's not accurate. I will tell you that Core Civic originally and then Geo followed suit with raising the starting salary for both their entry level security staff and case managers long before these contracts came before council. Such as? They're not here. They're in the audience, but they're not at this podium. And I just want to be transparent and honest with this council. What happened there?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Hinds, are you all done?
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I have one more question. Does a burn? The Columbine facility has 60 men, correct? Correct. How many showers does it have? I don't know. Off the top of my head is the answer one. No, no, no, no. There again, there's a standard. There's a standard that governs the number of of toilets, showers, sink basins. I can ask the corps civic representative who's in the audience if you want the exact answer, or I can follow up. But the answer is not one.
Speaker 6: That's that's not accurate. I went there. I live across the street from me. And I asked them and they said that there is only one shower, that there's multiple heads. But because of the the the the Rape Protection Act or whatever, they can't shower more than one person at a time. So it's functionally only one shower for 60 residents.
Speaker 2: May I? May we call?
Speaker 1: Do we have the folks from course, the vicar in this facility who can respond to this?
Speaker 10: Thank you, Shannon. Class with Core Civic. To answer your question about showers on top of my head, I am not aware how many showers are, but they do meet the DC standards and there are one shower room with multiple heads. You're correct. And then there's another shower room that has one for 88.
Speaker 6: So what does that mean functionally? How many of those showerheads can be used at one time? Everyone that's in there.
Speaker 10: I would say it's a lot more like a gym locker room type shower.
Speaker 6: That's thank you. But that's not what the staff there reported, nor the residents there.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm sorry. That's what's accurate.
Speaker 1: Councilman Hines Jordan.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I have three questions. The first one is just by show of hands. Are there any folks in the audience who currently are in any of these programs? Okay. Can I get someone to volunteer to just come up and just share your thoughts, your experience? I'd like maybe just one or two. We're not going to call everybody up because we've got a full agenda tonight. So how about a female and a male?
Speaker 1: Okay. So we've got one and two is a these these two individuals. Okay. I think we're going to go with these two for the council. If you could state your name for the record and then answer the council women's question. Thank you.
Speaker 10: My name is April Cotton.
Speaker 8: And which program are you in? April?
Speaker 10: I'm in William Street.
Speaker 8: Okay. Can you just share your experiences there? Are you finding that being in this program is helping you reactivate back into community and get you prepared for when your release date finally comes to that, you'll you feel like you're being equipped with the right tools to be successful.
Speaker 11: I absolutely do. I just did ten years in DWC.
Speaker 10: If I came to William Street not wanting to really do anything because I had no guidance even out of prison.
Speaker 11: They don't have cell phones. So you don't know where Google is. You didn't know absolutely anything.
Speaker 10: So when I first got to William Street, I was real shut off. I was scared. I was nervous.
Speaker 11: I just did ten years. So in my.
Speaker 10: Mind, I was institutionalized. But after being there for maybe a month, still doubting things started changing for me. I ended up getting assigned a wonderful case manager. I was showed how to use a phone. I was showed about Denver, Colorado, because I'm a native from California. I was given resources to get a lot of things done for myself.
Speaker 11: I was able to get back in the well, good.
Speaker 10: Good standards of my family. They were offered to come see me. Then shortly after that, I expressed my dear love for the food industry.
Speaker 11: Well, someone from corporate heard me talk, came down in safe served serve safe, certified me with the manager, served safe so I can go out and get a job so I can be just.
Speaker 1: Please hold me like that. Please hold your applause so that we.
Speaker 11: Can be sure to hear everything. He made sure.
Speaker 10: To believe in me, to give.
Speaker 11: Me that go when I had issues in community corrections. Because we all do when things don't go our way. We will do things like pick up and email you because we're upset because either we got the class one ride up for being off location or either we was out there relapsing and now we need a scapegoat. And that's where you guys come in. So what we do is when things happen to us, we I picked up the phone and I called Mr. Moreau. I said, I'm having an issue and I don't know what to do. He gave me the best advice that anybody could give me. And that advice still makes me stand before you today. I am somebody now. I am a resident, a proud one at William Street, and G.O. has done everything for me. Community Corrections stands for reformation, preparation for our destination and goes done just that. Everybody said that, but nobody said the good. Nobody looked at the good the guy was doing. I was in prison ten years lost, and now I am one of the best people that I can be. And I thank God for Geo. And I emailed you, Miss Gilmore, expressing that she's sorry.
Speaker 1: You are rules that you have to talk to counsel as a whole not call individual council member. Councilman Ortega, have you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I appreciate your input. I like the gentleman.
Speaker 1: Before we do that, just a couple ground rules. An important part of democracy is making sure that we have a safe space for people on both sides of an issue. And this issue is is very sensitive and sensitive for everyone. And so I will ask that you not applaud and do those things. We want this to be a safe space for everyone. I appreciate you taking time to share with us. I just want the audience to be respectful of everyone who might have different opinions. Let's hear what everyone has to say. Make sure that we can hear that and create a safe space for everyone on every side of this issue to speak. So thank you very much, Councilwoman here. This gentleman right here, is that who you'd like if you could introduce yourself and answer the councilman's questions?
Speaker 7: Jeffrey Bradley. So I'm a resident at Solihull. Jeffrey Bradley.
Speaker 8: Okay. Jeffrey, same question.
Speaker 7: You know, I've been a and all this and it doesn't make any sense. I committed a crime. I did almost five years behind it. I still got time left on a sentence. Community corrections didn't do enough to help. I'm at a jail facility. I'm at Solihull. And like the lady just said, that people did not bend over backwards for me. I'm one of the people who voluntarily helped do work around a facility. Nobody forced us to do anything. I did it myself, keep myself occupied and learn a new skill that I had no idea I could even figure out. Oh, the food, everything like that. They feed us. They houses. Granted, we pay. When we start working, we pay the $17 a day. We do that as part of being responsible is part of life, not being in a facility. I came home from DC and committed more crimes. I would've went right back to prison. They've done nothing but opportunity award opportunity to us, so I don't see how anybody could have a problem with Jill and me personally. No, I don't think it's okay to make profit off of our dumb decisions. But it's a business. I mean, that's what everybody does. They find somebody find a way to make money. Who can fault. And for that, you know. But as in us, nobody's thinking about, oh, let's consider the contract. Let's let's shut it down. Okay, cool. We're all going back to prison. So, you know, I did almost five. I've got a friend who's a I believe he's at Columbine right now and he's been in prison 23 years. He's outside. He's got a good job. He's getting ready to go to ISP. Like he wouldn't had that opportunity. You're going to take all that from after doing a quarter century in prison and send them back over something that has nothing to do with us. It doesn't make any sense. These people have done nothing but try to help us.
Speaker 8: You know. Are you are you working right now?
Speaker 7: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 8: So you feel like you're you're being equipped with the tools to be successful so that when you reach your release state near your release, from there you're going to be successful?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. Totally. How has the CBT program cognitive cognitive behavioral therapy? I believe I mean, cognitive thinking is something we all obviously slack and we we made horrible decisions. We did things. We sent a did we paying a price behind the tools that they gave you there? I mean, it's tools we all sort of had as kids for whatever reason. We don't possess them. Now we have them. We have the opportunity to use them. I mean, it's on us. Everything's a choice on us. You know, we got to make a choice. What are we going to do with it? You know? But I do believe, you know, when the day comes that I am able to be actually back home with my family, with my kids. I'm not going to leave them again. Will I give all that credit to them? No. I mean, I spent a lot of time in prison trying to better myself. But coming home from doing that into this residential program, it is nothing but amplify that. Everybody actually, I love them dearly and I've only been there for three and a half months. From his Louis to Miss Whitney to my case manager. So, Miss, I tell you, like, all these people will go out of their way to try to help you. So why anybody would think they're treating us any kind of way or doing anything like that, nobody's perfect. Are human beings that work everywhere, obviously is human nature. Sometimes people are just bad people. Look at us. We went to prison. But that doesn't mean these people that aren't trying to help, there's not serious issues. All these things that I'm sitting here hearing, I mean, I would rather eat sack lunches they give us every day than eat the food that they give us and D.O.C. And if this contract is a renewed, I'm going back to eat food and see do I want that now? I've spent years trying to fix my life to go backwards. I mean, it is what it is. I committed a crime. I did that. But does it suck? Absolutely. Is a desirable? Absolutely not.
Speaker 8: Thank you so much for your input. Yes. I'm going to follow up with two quick questions, Greg, for you. There was a comment made about some folks who had not been paid. And I just want you to talk about, you know, when the contracts expired and how long it had been before we were able to actually make payments to the organizations that we've had these contracts with.
Speaker 2: So the contracts expired because the contracts align with the state fiscal year and the funding source. The contracts expired in June of 19. So the vendors actually have not been paid for services. They have continued to provide services at six facilities on their own accord. Nothing prevented them from closing and returning everybody to custody. They've continued to operate all six facilities.
Speaker 8: But that's been corrected from the time that City Council approved the receipt of the funds from the State, correct?
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Ortega No, it has not been corrected that the hope tonight is.
Speaker 8: Because we haven't had all of these contracts.
Speaker 11: In place. That's right.
Speaker 8: Okay. Sorry about that. I think a couple of them did move forward, though, right? The state and independent says correct.
Speaker 2: So the the acceptance of the intergovernmental agreement from the state moved forward, as did the contract with Independence House.
Speaker 8: Okay. Last question. Either you or I saw Evan here earlier. I don't know if he left. Okay. Just talk about next steps where we move forward, assuming that we have the votes here tonight for the contracts. To be moved forward as we move towards looking at other options about how we do community corrections in Denver.
Speaker 2: So, Councilman, the first thing I'd say is we have to get this right. I mean, look at this room. It's filled it was filled on the fifth. So we have to get this right. If the contracts are approved, what we will do from the Department of Safety standpoint is stand up a 13 member committee that will be responsible to sort of look at the options that we have available. We're going to have to work closely with land use and zoning. We're going to have to look at how community corrections impacts victims, how it impacts families, how it impacts individuals. That body will contain representatives from from city council. It will contain reported representatives from the community. I will co-chair, along with a community person, which we will be seeking input from council to sort of move these conversations forward. I will tell you, it's no small feat. We have six months and 12 months to turn a massive ship. I think it's been quoted in an article to move it and turn it on a dime. And that's going to be no small feat. But we've heard council will respect where you're coming from and do everything we can to restore services. But it's going to be painful and we will see a reduction in services in the short term. It's my goal to ensure down the road that Denver's better, better for this and that we have all the services in more than we have today. But in the short time, we're going to lose services.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just want to make a few brief comments. First, I just want to say that I really appreciate those who are here with lived experience. Those current and past. And I believe that it's quite possible and I believe it's true that we are hearing the true experience of people who've had very positive, affirming experiences, and that as well, it can be just as true for those folks who've either shared anonymous complaints or shared that they had a different experience to meet. And so I think that that full gamut of experience is really important to hear and to believe. And I think that what's most important for us moving forward is that we have the systems in place to ensure that where there are concerns, there are people who can hear them and handle them in ways that protects people's safety. Last time we were here on this topic, I did ask and I did get affirmation that ombudsperson is or somehow some kind of safe complaints system outside the Department of Corrections. Typical systems would be a topic of conversation for the task force. I see Mr. Morrow standing. I Unless that's changed, I don't need any comment from you, but I'm assuming yes, it's okay. So that is still a topic. I just want to make clear that I don't think we have to prove that the operators in town have somehow done malfeasance or bad things in order to decide that these are not the right partners. Right. So I don't think that we have to have a string of cases. We have a strong history in this city of saying that we want to do business with folks who are responsible contractors and their performance in other facilities in other states is relevant. We recently went through a private contractor at the airport that we had to terminate with who had a record of having issues in other communities, and we did not follow some of that evidence and we contracted with them anyway. So it does matter how they conduct business and there are times maybe things have been lumped under one provider's name that's better known. But the truth is that one of the providers does have some use in their custody, the other does not. And there are lawsuits and concerns for both of the providers we've been discussing. And so that is enough, in my opinion, for us as a council to ask questions about who we're doing business with, even if there hasn't been wrongdoing here in Denver. On the flip side, I don't think I have to prove or that you as a community or that anyone on this council has to prove that these providers are perfect in order to extend these contracts. Today, it's been very well demonstrated that there are not other pathways. And so because there are not other pathways, and it is critical that we put the individuals who are residents in a stable environment for the six month or the 12 months. Even if there are some lingering complaints that require investigation and follow up, there is not the malfeasance here that would say we can't and shouldn't extend this to provide stability to four or 500 individuals so they don't have to be, in my opinion, perfect providers for us to say that the right thing to do is to continue these contracts so it's both appropriate to continue them for the people who live there and need the stability as well as for our city to prepare. And then it's also appropriate to say that at some point in the future, when those contracts expire, that these partners don't meet our standards for how they may operate, even if it is outside our community. And I think both those things can be true and we can vote with both of those values in mind. I do just want to put on the record that I heard from several. Individuals who I had talked to prior to our hearing the last time who were, you know, voices for immigrant protection and also voices for saying we couldn't end the contracts immediately. I was surprised that that testimony did not come out in the last hearing. Instead, all of the testimony was about ending the contracts immediately. I have since heard from several of those community organizations who believe that the right step forward because of racial justice and because of the number of individuals impacted is to continue the contracts. We didn't have an open hearing tonight, so not everybody who didn't get called up here was able to testify. But I have heard from those individuals, and I do believe that we have a greater community consensus tonight about the need to continue these contracts for these short terms, for the humanity of the folks living in them while we work to responsibly wrap them down. I believed we could have gotten here last time. We didn't. I think if we'd had a few months under our belt as a council and more practices of talking to each other and negotiating with the administration, we might have gotten there, but we were not at that place. We had folks who were new and the relationships in the communication were new. But we can do the right thing tonight. I'm prepared to vote for those things with a very serious investment in the promises made both last time and tonight about the process. And I will just renew my call one more time for our community. If you care about this issue, it's important for you to open your hearts and minds as we engage in a conversation about zoning for community correctional facilities. There has been no safety related incidents in our communities. There have been virtually no complaints. It's critical for us to open up more of our neighborhoods for supervised protection of individuals. These community members are coming back to our city whether they come under supervision or not. And so it's incumbent upon us to change that zoning as quickly as we can. And that will take support from all of us, including those who may not be here tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think it's accurate to make people in this room believe that at the last opportunity we were able to renegotiate this contract on the floor. I think that's been a misunderstanding throughout this entire process. There's one entity that has the ability to renegotiate these contracts, and that is our administration, that is our mayor's office and his director of public safety and those who work underneath him. And so at the last opportunity, it was not a possibility for us to get to this place with these with a six month contract and a 12 month contract. And in fact, even with those new relationships and those new people who were on council, we attempted to meet with the Division of Community Corrections prior to our vote to discuss what potential options existed to renegotiate this contract and make sure that we were ratcheting down in a responsible way and transitioning to local management , that we were told that that was not going to happen. That was not an option. And so that is why we're in this predicament. And so I want to be very clear that there was a lot of thought put into this process the first time. There is a lot of thought, obviously, being put into this decision this time. Ideally, we would want to have community or county control over this situation so that we could more be more selective about the providers that were choosing. I would like us to see I would like to see us move in that direction because we need to be able to hold our providers accountable in a way that serves our local government and serves the people in corrections with high quality standards. We have had people testify tonight about what is happening inside, both from the positive side and the negative side. And I think that, yes, we have these decisions in front of us now. But I think that in the last vote, what you heard from council is that we're not willing to renew these contracts after the six months and after the 12 months. And so what I expect from our Division of Community Corrections is that we put that $600,000 that goes into this budget to use to make sure that we're looking deeper into these audits, that we're figuring out how to build our own capacity again, to do this work, instead of allowing corporations to gobble up our services and gobble up our capacity and not allow us to make decisions that are in the best interest of our residents. And so I was going to call somebody up, but I will I will skip that so that we can get on to the vote and the rest of the agenda.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 10: I was drawn.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other comments before we vote on this one? I will just end by saying thank you to staff and that I will second that I feel, you know, I think it was Councilman Hines who actually said earlier that the message has been delivered. And I sometimes change like the change that we need in this space takes a moment where it gets real and we don't have the option to negotiate these. We have an up or down vote. And I stand by my vote last time to vote no and send that message to deliver that message that the future can't look like the present or the past. And I appreciate the work, and I appreciate that it's going to be a lot of hard work between now and then. But I think that through that vote, we've said we've set our city on a different course. And so I do today I will be voting to support these contracts because I feel like now we're on that pathway and we're on that course. And I didn't feel like we were last time. So I appreciate the work that it went into to get us from where we were then to where we are now and now . I do believe it's the right decision to make sure to take care of the people who are currently in the system, in a system that is hard to move on a dime, but we need to move it very, very quickly still. And I think that's really the hard work that has set out now on the path that we're set on. And so I look forward to that work happening and starting, you know, tomorrow. So thank you for that. And I will be voting in support this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Hinds High.
Speaker 3: Black High CdeBaca I Flynn.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 3: Gilmore High Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 2: High.
Speaker 3: Converge Ortega High Sandoval I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. I'm Secretary. Please close voting announced results 1339 as Resolution 81.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver to be administered by the Department of Safety, Division of Community Corrections in consultation with the Denver Community Corrections Board and Community Education Centers, Inc. for residential and non-residential community corrections services.
Approves a contract with Community Education Centers, Inc. for $2,000,000 and through 12-31-19 for residential and non-residential community corrections services (2019-51449). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-16-19. Council member Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 8-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0882
|
Speaker 1: I. I'm Secretary. Please close voting announced results 1339 as Resolution 81.
Speaker 13: Has been requested.
Speaker 1: I'm not quite done yet. If you're here on this issue, we actually have two contracts, so you might want to sit and we're going to vote on the next one. You're free to leave if you'd like. Madam Secretary, will you please for the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Hines, will you please put resolution 882 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move a resolution eight two for adoption.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded, and I believe everyone was commenting on both of them. So I think we can move straight into the vote unless I see somebody pop up here and I don't. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 882.
Speaker 2: Hinds I.
Speaker 3: Black. I. CdeBaca, I fled i. Gilmore i. Herndon, i. Cashman can each. Ortega. I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 as Resolution 882 has been adopted. I will ask that if you are not sitting around for the rest of our meeting, we do have a packed agenda. So if you could Exodus quietly as possible and leave those doors closed as you get into the hallway so that
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver to be administered by the Department of Safety, Division of Community Corrections in consultation with the Denver Community Corrections Board and Corecivic, Inc. for residential and non-residential community corrections services.
Approves a contract with Corecivic, Inc. for $6,680,446.70 and through 6-30-20 for residential and non-residential community corrections services (2019-50074). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-16-19. Council member Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 8-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0776
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3939 as Resolution 882 has been adopted. I will ask that if you are not sitting around for the rest of our meeting, we do have a packed agenda. So if you could Exodus quietly as possible and leave those doors closed as you get into the hallway so that we can move right along. If you're watching in overflow and you came for something other than what we just voted on, there is lots of room open in chambers now. And so you're invited to come join us in chambers. Now, Madam Secretary, if you could please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Hines, will you please put Bill seven, seven, six on the floor? Councilman Hines. Oh. Could you put seven, seven, six on the floor, please?
Speaker 2: I guess. Mr. President, I move seven, seven, six for adoption.
Speaker 1: I budget. This one's ordered published.
Speaker 2: If I. You know what? I want it published.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Herndon, you have a motion to postpone. Why don't you go ahead with your motion?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19 0776 be postponed to Monday, September 23rd, 2019.
Speaker 1: All right. We have a move and a second, Madam Secretary, on that motion. We good to go. Okay. So, comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I assumed everyone was in chambers about this vacation. I'm just kidding. So vacations are rather mundane topics where adjacent property owners have the opportunity to take right of way that's next to their processed process. If the city does not deem it has a city use and the rather mundane, as I said, and this is the first opportunity that came in to the full council when we heard this two weeks ago. But to ensure two interesting things happen and when I as I have the ability, the honor of chairing land use and transportation and infrastructure. First was a lot of my colleagues had concerns about the overall vacation process in regards to why we are beholden to certain rules. And I wanted my colleagues to know we couldn't have a full conversation that night. That day, excuse me, but we will be bringing vacations back to the council for a full discussion. So I wanted to make sure I put that on your radar so that you have the ability to come and learn more about that. If there's a will of this council to even ask the question, should we have vacations at all? Because that question came up. But more specifically to the vacation that hand that's before us. During that time, council members had some serious concerns about the size of the vacation that was moving forward, the community concerns about how what is the currently used for right now. And they brought those concerns up during the committee that I thought was that were very well said. Well, over the course of the two weeks, the applicant moving forward about the vacation heard some of the concerns that council and the community had and is requesting a four week postponement because they would like to revisit their plans should this vacation go through. And so I believe that since the applicant hearing what concerns council members have community and wants to revisit their plans for week. The four week postponement certainly seems appropriate. And just to let my colleagues know the postponement in no way beholden to them to supporting the vacation, that's absolutely not the case and just allows the applicant to have more conversations with the community and revisit that. So I, I would encourage my colleagues to support this four week postponement. And then we'll have an opportunity to look at the merits of the updated vacation on September 23rd. Thank you, President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Procedural question for week postponement, that is. And I know that sometimes we have 30 days to vote where it's automatically adopted. I just want to make sure that we still have the opportunity to deliberate and vote as we would today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I will defer to our legal counsel, but since this is not a contract certification, I don't believe that is bound by any shot clock.
Speaker 12: Kirsten Crawford Legislative.
Speaker 10: Council. And that's correct.
Speaker 1: So, yes, we retain all rates.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms.. Crawford. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions or comments before we vote on the postponement? All right. None. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 5: Herndon I.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco I. Flynn I. Gilmer I.
Speaker 2: Hinds High.
Speaker 3: Kashmere High. Kenny Ortega High. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. Bill seven. Seven six has been postponed to September 23rd. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Hines, will you please vote council vote 803 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations.
Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0803
|
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. Bill seven. Seven six has been postponed to September 23rd. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilman Hines, will you please vote council vote 803 on the floor.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move that council bill 803 be taken out of order.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. This one's mine. So I'm going to make some comments on 803 and 805 together, if that is if that works. But we'll vote on them separately. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So 803 and 805 are our climate bills that of that we have been working on? And you know, I just wanted to bring everybody up to speed. Today, we'll be asking for a postponement of these bills, one to June 1st and one to November 3rd. So we have been working hard on on addressing climate in the city and addressing the emergency, the crisis that we have for our planet, for our people, for our environment. And we were able to work with the administration and get to some areas of agreement. And so I want to read that in that where we're headed and why we're postponing that today, so that today we announce the the administration and the seven sponsors of this bill. But today, in conjunction, we'll work on the following. Establishing a new Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. That's one of the bills that we were taking up. And this office will be established by ordinance with the city council. We are going to work on it a little bit more with the administration and bring it back before October 31st. And it will be fully functional and stood up by July 1st of 2020. It will combine personnel from the existing Office of Sustainability and the Denver in the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment and also the Climate Team. And in addition to that, the mayor also has agreed to in the budget proposal that he brings forward. The city council proposed an additional $8 million in 2020 funding to expand efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And we are jointly immediately launching a formal process to examine Denver's current climate work, identify gaps, analyze funding needs, and engage experts, interested stakeholders and a wide range of community members in a process to look at how do we tackle this? And it will conclude by the end of May 2020, giving this Council ample time to consider a referral to the ballot for November of 2020. And in conjunction with that will be delaying these bills since the beginning of working on this. And, you know, I want to say first and foremost, thank you to my colleagues who put their name on this bill and sponsored this and stood up and said, hey, this is really important and we need to do and we need to do hard work, but we need to do that hard work now. I also want to thank there are a lot of members from the resilient Denver team and also from the broader community who have honestly been pushing the city and pushing all of us to do better and to do more and to really put our money and our efforts where our mouth is not just stand up and say , hey, we are still committed to the Paris climate accord but continue to show slides where we are not on that glide path, but to actually engage in the tough conversations and the tough work to get us where we are aligned with all of the scientific standards that have come forward when it comes to climate change. And also, I want to thank, you know, all the stakeholders who pushed back and said, hey, this process is moving really fast. We get the urgency, but we also want a seat at the table who promised to come and join that conversation over the coming months to work hard as we work together to tackle, you know, an issue that is unlike any that humankind has has faced. And so I really want to thank everyone for coming together in that. And and so the essence of what we're doing, what was important from the beginning was we needed to elevate this work. We needed to make sure that our climate team was well positioned within the city to be driving all of us as leaders to make sure that we're meeting these targets. And and so this new office where we were going to put our climate and sustainability efforts will do exactly that. We knew that we needed to take more aggressive action now and as soon as possible. And so the commitment to new dollars in the coming budget for 2020 are those dollars that come now and then. We need to really take a hard look and have tough conversations about how do we transform the way we live, the places where we work, the places where we play, the infrastructure of our transportation systems and how we cook food and have those tough conversations and come with a robust plan on how we're going to get there and how we're going to fund that. And this allows us the time to do that while still taking aggressive new steps with new money to take action now and really bring everyone together. So to be back and with us with proposals and solutions coming forward. So I really wanted to thank everyone. And again, we'll be pushing out the first bill. 803 We will be postponing until June. First, because again, the commitment is that we will have a stakeholder process to come forward with these solutions and these ideas that will wrap by the end of May. And so leaving this on the table again sends the message that we up here are committed to solving this and to finding the funding that we need to solve this. And we're going to engage in this stakeholder process with this, knowing that this is not just a fake deadline, this is a real deadline that this bill will be coming back. And similarly, with the commitment to get this an ordinance to for this council to vote on, for this new office moving the bill that proposes the office in 805 to November 3rd, because we have a commitment, a shared commitment between us and the administration to do that hard work and get that in front of council by October 31st. So these allow us to continue to push for the change that we need. So I see a lot of people lining up to talk. And again, feel free to talk about 803 and 805 as we did last time. But we will vote on them separately on the motions to delay. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I when I ran, I talked about the planet. I talked about how my mom's a hippie and how I grew up around the five national forests and rural East Texas. And it feels really weird for me to live in District ten, by the way. Perfect ten is perfect, after all. But it's really it's interesting for me where I came from and being so connected to nature and then where I am now living in a condominium, high rise, having a view of another condominium. High rise, well, an apartment high rise, but whatever. Climate change is real. I've said that many times. I said that the first day I was here. We got inaugurated on July 15th. That night, the I think the first thing I said was climate change is real. And I am committed to working with with everyone who is willing to to join the coalition to make sure that we make bold, meaningful steps now. And and I'm I'm glad that there that we can work with the executive branch and the mayors. So thank you. Please relay the the excitement of working together with the third floor. And and and, you know, the rest of the administration. I'm. This isn't the end. So we're certainly going to work it with, you know, hand in hand with the administration in this stakeholder group. But we need to keep pushing. And and this isn't this isn't it? We're going to keep going. So thank you for coming here tonight. Resilient Denver. Thank you. For all of those who care about climate change. And and thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilman mechanic.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a quick question about the timing. It's my understanding that the agreed upon date to kind of report back is May. And then if this motion to defer is only till June 1st, it doesn't allow much time for the council process and interaction before you kind of have to make a decision on this one. We might not have had any time to debate the report, so I'm just curious why June 1st versus like August 1st, so that we actually have time to interact with what comes back before this vote comes up again?
Speaker 1: Great question. Again, the commitment is to engage in this deep process and get there. I'm hoping that at the end of that, we will have something new to file starting then and starting through our council process in June. And I don't want to wait all the way until August to have that, because I do want next time to do a better job of making sure that we have all the time. And so I would like to get through the process, having a stakeholder input that informs what we then file as soon as possible after that stakeholder process to again also keep an eye on us to say, hey, if, if the stakeholder group has come to something that is bigger and broader and bolder and better at that point, we will have this in front of us to make sure that it's top of mind and be able to file a new path forward and start it through the process.
Speaker 12: Okay. I guess I'll just comment that I think what that really means then is that if the idea is that a bill is done by the end of May, in fact there then needs to be a lot of council interaction from, you know, not every member will serve on this work group. And if in fact, your goal is to have a bill before this June 1st date, then in fact you need to start engaging us like in April so that we have a couple of months to interact. So I just want to point out that by making the bill deadline June 1st, it means you actually have to have the analysis and engagement stuff done then in time for the bill discussion to emerge rather than plopping a bill at the same time as the report. So I'm a little concerned about those two things happening on top of each other. I think the goal here is to separate them out with some space. But I will continue to listen to the discussion and I appreciate the parties having stayed at the table to find some common ground and some immediate action in terms of the $8 million additional investment, which I think is not the net dollars, it's just the new dollars. There would be probably the base dollars as well. So I look forward to the budget process as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. I'll just also add that on that June 1st date, we could decide at that point that, hey, this isn't ready for a full bill. We could further delay or we could say a bill is imminent and we could kill this bill entirely at that time to create that space. But it again, puts a very real end date to the commitment that both sides have made to having that process completed. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to thank you for.
Speaker 1: Your leadership on this issue. I want to thank the mayor for coming to the table.
Speaker 0: In what were.
Speaker 1: Not easy negotiations on this. Everybody was on the same page, I believe are real close to the same page. On the need to aggressively address climate change. We just needed to do a little bit of wrestling on exactly how we were going to get there. And I appreciate.
Speaker 0: Not only.
Speaker 1: The the other co-sponsors of the bill, but this was truly, from my view, an effort of virtually this entire council. I know Councilwoman Kenney played an invaluable role in.
Speaker 4: Not only.
Speaker 1: Urging us towards.
Speaker 0: Compromise, but at the same time.
Speaker 1: Working hard to to offer amendments to the bill in the in case it does move forward at some point. Councilman Ortega was busy as well in that type of regards. I had great discussions with with our other council members who were not fans of the process that we were involved in, but worked hard to move that move this forward. I find it extremely interesting that as we if we meet the timeline that this proposes, that will be coming to our proposed solution on perhaps funding streams or additional processes almost are right on the heart of April 22nd, 2020. That will be 50 years from our first Earth Day celebration that the former the late Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, spearheaded. So I'm extremely excited the direction that we're heading in. And thank all involved for getting us here. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman, Councilwoman Joyce.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Just so that I'm understanding is the process next to use the existing bill language as a starting point for conversation or to start this from scratch?
Speaker 1: I think the commitment is to go in with, you know, again, an open mind on where we go from here to really dig deeper into what do we really need and how do we fund it. This was the catalyst for that conversation. But that, you know, as we heard, there were people who didn't feel that they were at the table from the beginning and had their voice. And so to start from ground zero with the shared path that we need to be able to get to a place where we can do the work and fund the work that needs to be done as set by the science.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. And just so I can mention, I appreciate the fact that a pause was taken to collect more input and engage District three stakeholders. I have a number of small businesses, art and business districts who reach out to our process, our office. I'm sorry on why they couldn't been couldn't have been part of that process, not that they opposed the goal, that they recognized the impact, but that they didn't want to be rolled over. So thank you so much for the courage to bring this bill and to both through this pause.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So I would just like to also share my sentiments that. Thank you, Councilman President Clark, for being a bold leader on climate change. During my campaign, I often talked about the next seven generations. And oftentimes you'll see in my office or in my house, I use seven generation products. And I think that a lot of times when we're making decisions, we're not making decisions based on the next seven generations. We make them based on what's going on in our current climate. And I just want to say that my sister, Kendra Sandoval, who had worked for the.
Speaker 3: Administration, had talked to me. Often times she has her.
Speaker 6: Master's in sustainability and from Naropa University. And she sent me a beautiful text this morning when I was talking to her about this compromise. And it said government should protect people and regulate corporations, not protect corporations and regulate people. And so I just thought about that deep today when I was thinking about this bill and moving forward on a compromise. And I think that this is shows that we can all work together, even though there's five newly elected members here sitting here with you, and that we can work with the administration and the mayor's office. So I applaud the mayor for taking this bold step as well. And I look forward in the next year to coming up solutions for the next seven generations of Democrats, for the world and for my kids and for my grandkids. And I just want to thank the co-sponsors. I don't think it was easy to make this decision. And I just want to say that I don't think it was taken lightly for you all to come to a compromise. And I just want to say thank you for doing that. I really just honor that. And I respect where you came from.
Speaker 14: And thank you, John, for your work on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Any other comments on this one? I will just add again, thank you to the administration for continuing to work with us as we were barreling down on this deadline. I'm so excited about how we move forward. Thank you to all of the citizens and the groups that have been involved so far and will be involved from here on. We're going to have a lot of hard work to do, but I'm really excited about that work. I also want to give a shout out because I think in the midst of this and talking about how we're not doing enough, I don't want that to seem like that is a criticism of our current sustainability staff or our current climate staff, and they do amazing work. And I hope that you all will hear this as a renewed statement that we have your back and we are ready to push with you and for you to do the work that you all know and keep telling us that we need to do and that we're here to to help make that possible. And thank you for the amazing work that you have done so far on that. So with that, I believe, Madam Secretary, first we need to just vote to take it out of order so that then I can propose this postponement. Is that correct? Okay. So this is just the vote on taking it out of order so I can propose the delay. Madam Secretary, call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye. CdeBaca. Eye for an Eye Gillmor. Eye. Herndon Hines. Eye Cashman. I can each. Ortega. Sandoval. Sawyer Eye. Torres. Eye. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please close voting in US. Results 1339 as council zero three has been taken out of order and now I move that council bill 803 be postponed to Monday, June 1st, 2020, and that has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye. CDEBACA No.
Speaker 4: Flynn All right.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 5: Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman Kenny Ortega. I see an evil eye. Sawyer No. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and notes results.
Speaker 3: Two days. 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 days to nays. Bill 803 has been postponed to June 1st. All right, Madam Secretary, if you put the next item on our screens and Councilman Hines, will you please put Council 805 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing an excise tax on electricity and natural gas for commercial and industrial customers to fund the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state coordinated election on November 5, 2019.
A Bill for an ordinance establishing an excise tax on electricity and natural gas for commercial and industrial customers to fund the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state coordinated election on November 5, 2019. Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19. This item was postponed to 6-1-20 at the City Council meeting of 8-26-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0805
|
Speaker 1: 11 days to nays. Bill 803 has been postponed to June 1st. All right, Madam Secretary, if you put the next item on our screens and Councilman Hines, will you please put Council 805 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move that we take Bill 805 out of order.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. So this is just a vote to take it out of order. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 3: Black Eye CdeBaca I.
Speaker 4: Flynn High.
Speaker 3: Gilmer I.
Speaker 11: Herndon High.
Speaker 3: Haynes Cashman. Connect. Ortega I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. Counsel zero five has been taken out of order, and I will now move that council zero five be postponed to Monday, November 3rd, 2019. It has been moved and seconded. I'm Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco. I. Flynn. I. Gillmor. I. Herndon.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 3: Hinds.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer? No. Tourist, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I am sorry to lead because the voting announced results.
Speaker 3: When they 12 hours.
Speaker 1: 12 hours were nay constable 805 has been postponed to November 3rd. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Other bills for introduction are ordered, published and were now ready for the Bloc vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or bloc vote and you will need to vote i. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Hines, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move 799800793. And it's deciding not to move. 794554726775795700768771772773781782766784 and 7804 adoption.
Speaker 1: And just to be clear, that was resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for the passing of block.
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. And, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. I see. Tobacco. I flinn.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Herndon. I Hines. I Cashman. Kenny Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, i. Mr. President, I am.
Speaker 1: I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 1313.
Speaker 1: As the resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 744 approving the East Colfax Quarter Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area and required public hearing on Council Bill 745 approving service plans for
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency.
A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0744
|
Speaker 1: Evening speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. 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 Gilmore, will you please vote council 744 on the floor.
Speaker 10: Yes, President Clarke, I move that council bill 19 dash 0744 be placed upon final consideration.
Speaker 8: And do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black. I understand you have a motion to amend.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 0744 be amended in the following particulars on page one strike lines 29 through 33. On page three, strike lines eight through nine on page three. Line ten, replace 11 with ten. And on page three. Line 14, replace 12 with 11.
Speaker 1: It has been. Do we have a motion and a second on the amendment, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 3: We do.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Thank you. Third has been moved and seconded comments by members of the Council. Council in Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is to conform to the amendment made last week at City Council to remove the establishment of tax increment areas.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. So, Secretary, I think we're gonna do work on the amendment before we open this up. Correct. Okay, so roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Black I. CdeBaca when I. Gillmor, I. Herndon Hines. Cashman. Kenny Ortega I see Novo. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting in notes results.
Speaker 3: 12 US.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes Council Bill 744 has been amended. The public hearing for Council Bill 744 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 14: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And Dura is requesting City Council approval of Council Bill 19 074 forward to approve the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan establishing the East Colfax Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority. As the city's redevelopment agency is statutorily charged to pursue the elimination of blighting conditions through thoughtful redevelopment and development. Therefore, a fundamental component of the proposed urban redevelopment plan is the determination by City Council that the approach that the proposed urban redevelopment area is blighted as is defined by state statute durect cannot undertake. Catch myself up here. Bear with me for a minute. There we go. Dura cannot undertake an urban redevelopment project in an urban redevelopment area unless the area has been determined to be blighted. While the neighborhoods in which the proposed urban redevelopment area is located have experienced varying levels of investment and growth over the last 50 years . The properties within the proposed urban redevelopment area along the East Cortex corridor have not experienced significant reinvestment. The creation of the East Colfax Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area, as part of the approval of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, will allow various public improvement projects to be pursued, and it will allow assistance to the private sector to encourage projects, including commercial mixed use and housing developments and other statutorily authorized projects throughout the urban redevelopment area. When considering the creation of an urban redevelopment area, the boundaries of the area must first be determined. State law requires the boundaries to be drawn as narrowly as possible to accomplish the development objectives of the urban redevelopment area. The boundaries were determined in coordination with the city's planning department. Once the boundaries were determined, Duran engaged a consultant to conduct a condition study. When conducting a condition study, Durham must notify in writing. Each private property owner in the study area that their property is being included in the study area. During notified each property owner by mail, we then hosted a meeting of the property owners to describe the condition study process and then hosted a follow up meeting to share the results of the study. In making the determination of blight, City Council relies on evidence presented at this hearing, including the condition study. If the area is determined to be blighted, Durham will provide notice of the determination to all property owners. The proposed urban redevelopment area is comprised of approximately 80 acres and is located in the far eastern portion of the city and county of Denver within the Montclair, South Park Hill and East Colfax Statistical neighborhoods. The eastern boundary of the urban redevelopment area coincides with the boundary between the city and county of Denver and the city of Aurora. The urban redevelopment area is focused along Colfax Avenue and the real property parcels in the blocks immediately to the north and south of Colfax Avenue, including the Colfax right of way and other public rights of way that are adjacent to these parcels. The urban redevelopment area is generally bounded by Monaco Parkway on the West and Yosemite Street on the east. The urban redevelopment area encompasses all or portions of 48 city blocks, which are all primarily within the Main Street Zone district due to their orientation along East Colfax Avenue Transit Corridor and the commercial nature of the area. Der commissioned Matrix Design Group to conduct the study to determine if the area is blighted. That study, dated February of 2019, has been filed with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. The study addresses each of the 11 factors and summarizes why or why not. A particular factor was determined to be present in the study area. For purposes of this draft report, I will only be speaking to the five factors constituting blighting conditions that were found to be present in the study area. Deteriorated or deteriorating structures. An onsite survey was performed in the study area to document existing conditions. Buildings as well as property were surveyed. Many structures in the study area were found to be dilapidated, with characteristics such as broken and or boarded windows and doors peeling paint deteriorated, fascia and or sockets and broken signs. Some structures were in good condition, but many more lacked proper maintenance, especially buildings that were vacant. The prevalence and frequency of dilapidated structures in the study area was significant enough to impact the overall character of the study area. As a result, there is a finding of slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. As part of this study, crime records from the Denver Police Department over the last five years, plus the year to date, were examined. During that time period, there were over 6000 reported incidents in the study area, not including minor traffic incidents that were not classified as crime by the police department. Over the same time period, the three official neighborhoods that encompassed the entirety of the study area again South Park Hill, Montclair and East Colfax had 16,512 reported crimes, not including minor traffic incidents. The three neighborhoods had nearly three times the number of crimes as the study area alone, but over an area 38 times larger, giving the study area a crime density and order of magnitude much greater than the surrounding vicinity. It should be noted that the three neighborhoods considered in this analysis are entirely developed and do not include a significant portion of vacant land or parkland. All three are composed of streets on a grid, contain high density housing, and all three are solidly within central Denver. In other words, population density is spread fairly evenly across the three neighborhoods, but crime is concentrated ten fold within the boundaries of the study area. Based on the high concentration of violent crime in the study area, a finding of unsanitary or unsafe conditions has been made. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. The conditions that apply to this play factor reflect the deterioration of various improvements made on a site other than building structures. These conditions may represent a lack of general maintenance at a site the physical degradation, degradation of specific improvements, or an improvement that was poorly planned or constructed. Overall, the presence of these conditions can reduce the site's usefulness and desirability and negatively affect nearby properties. During the Field Survey, a lack of adequate site maintenance was noted to be a common occurrence. Several properties had discarded mattresses or other types of illegal dumping. Others had deteriorated parking lots, overgrown vegetation or dilapidated retail signs or other improvements. Finally, broken or crumbling sidewalks and other pedestrian surfaces were commonplace. These issues were not universal. Many properties were found to be in good condition. However, the frequency of issues found warrants a finding of deterioration of site and other improvements. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. The focus of this factor is on the presence of unusual topographical conditions that could make development prohibitive, such as steep slopes or poor load bearing soils, as well as deficiencies in the public infrastructure system. Within the study area, that could include deteriorated public infrastructure such as streets and alley pavement, curb gutter sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage systems, lack of public infrastructure, the presence of overhead utilities or billboards, inadequate fire protection facilities and hydrants and inadequate sanitation or water systems. The topography of the area is generally flat and does not present a limitation to development. However, sidewalk infrastructure in the study area is generally present along Colfax, but in poor condition. Many sections of the sidewalk were noted during the field study to be absent along side streets or in other cases, severely damaged. Current conditions contribute to a general sense of a lack of maintenance and lack of infrastructure. Finally, the presence of billboards along Colfax Avenue through the study area has the potential to complicate redevelopment projects due to active billboard leases. The infrastructure needs mention to support a positive finding of unusual topography or inadequate public improvements in the study area. And lastly, the existence of health, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements. Municipal service calls are elevated in the study area, as described earlier. The study area covers a heavily developed mixed use area, but many structures and units within these structures in the study area were vacant during the field survey and many of these vacant buildings were among those found in the worst repair. Furthermore, due to the historical development of East Colfax in the area, many buildings cover a low percentage of their respective properties and devote the rest of the land to parking, contributing to a sense of underutilization. The current Main Street Zone code allows for three storey buildings in some portions of the study area and five story buildings in others. Envisioning a significantly higher development intensity than currently prevails. However, the lack of investment in the area means that the current character of the study area largely remains noncompliant to the code and is instead grandfathered in maintaining an abundance of parking lots. Low development intensity and automobile oriented buildings large, often empty or nearly empty parking lots are a common feature of the study area and contribute to its overall underutilization. The high levels of municipal service calls the the prevalence of vacant retail and commercial buildings and the underdeveloped character of the study area are grounds for a positive finding of the existence of health, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical, underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings and other improvements. These blight factors, individually and collectively impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality and constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the area. In bringing forward this urban redevelopment plan, Darragh has sought to align the goals and objectives of the plan with the existing city plans for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver, the East, Montclair, East Colfax Neighborhood Plan and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. Additionally, the Urban Redevelopment Plan requires any project to also be consistent with future plans, including the East Area Plan. Plan. 2040 is the holistic and sustainable vision of the city and the guiding document for shaping the city. The goals and strategies within Planning Plan 2040 are organized under a framework of six vision elements. Equitable, affordable and inclusive. Strong and authentic neighborhoods. Connected. Safe and accessible places. Economically diverse and vibrant. Environmentally resilient and healthy and active. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will help realize the visions of Plan 2040 by furthering many of the goals and strategies outlined under each vision vision elements. So by way of example, as we start in the upper left with equitable, affordable and inclusive, the outcome that is noted in in Plan 2040 is to build housing as a continuum, to serve residents across a range of income, ages and needs. This would be also reflected in the urban renewal plan. Strong and authentic neighborhoods create a city of complete neighborhoods. Build a network of well-connected, vibrant, mixed use centers and corridors, connected, safe and accessible places, promote transit oriented development and encourage higher density development, including affordable housing near transit to support ridership. Economically diverse and vibrant. Targeted investments and small business support to the most underserved or distressed neighborhoods. Environmentally resilient, focused growth by transit stations and along high and medium capacity transit corridors. And finally, healthy and active. Expand the efforts to recruit and retain fresh food retailers in low income and underserved areas. These are just several of the plan components that are also noted in the Urban Redevelopment Plan. Blueprint. Denver is the city's integrated land use and transportation plan. BLUEPRINT Denver aims to achieve an equitable integration of land use and transportation throughout the city by realizing the plan's vision for a city of complete neighborhoods and transportation networks, an evolving city and an equitable city. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will support Blueprint Denver's Vision for the Urban Redevelopment Area. Starting with a city of complete network, Complete Neighborhoods and Networks blueprint. Denver identifies that the urban redevelopment area primarily lies within the urban edge neighborhood context. The urban edge context is predominantly residential and acts as a transition between more intense urban contexts and suburban areas. Blueprint Denver foresees the majority of the urban redevelopment area evolving into a community corridor, community corridors within the urban edge contexts or destinations with an extensive mix of uses that draw visitors from surrounding neighborhoods and are characterized by a pedestrian oriented environment. Colfax Avenue, the arterial street running through the center of the urban redevelopment area, is envisioned as a Main Street arterial. Main streets are characterized by a mix of active street level uses that prioritize people walking or rolling. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will support the complete Neighborhood and Transportation Network Vision for the Urban Redevelopment Area, as depicted in Blueprint Denver. An evolving city. Focusing growth in centers and corridors helps to provide a variety of housing, jobs and entertainment options within a comfortable distance to all Denver sites, and is a key element of building complete neighborhoods throughout the city. Collectively, throughout the city, community corridors are anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth and 20% of new employment growth growth by 2040. The Urban Redevelopment Plan aims to stimulate the development of housing, retail and office space in the urban redevelopment area, which is consistent with the city's growth strategy. An Equitable City blueprint. Denver incorporates equity into the planning process by measuring three key indicators across the city. Access to opportunity. Vulnerability to displacement and housing and jobs. Diversity. An existing analysis demonstrates that the urban redevelopment area is in an area which has low access to opportunity, high vulnerability to displacement, and low job density and diversity. The neighborhood falls in the middle range for housing diversity diversity. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will foster development that will improve the urban redevelopment area's equitable outcomes as measured by these three indicators. These include incentivizing development of affordable housing, community serving amenities and new employment opportunities. Blueprint Denver provides policy recommendations and strategies to create complete neighborhoods and networks, guide future growth and promote equitable development. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will further many of these recommendations. As noted earlier, the urban redevelopment area lies within three statistical neighborhoods which have adopted neighborhood plans. The first is the east Montclair East, North East Colfax Neighborhood Plan. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan promotes a pattern of land use, urban design, circulation and services that contribute to the economic, social and physical health, safety and welfare of the people who live or do business in the East Colfax Neighborhood. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan is applicable to the portions of the urban redevelopment area, north and south of Colfax between Quebec and Yosemite, and to the south side of Compacts Avenue between Monaco and Quebec. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan envisions a more pedestrian friendly, landscaped and thriving commercial district along East Colfax Avenue. The vision for the East Colfax corridor also includes an improved image and a, quote, cleaner and more beautiful, inviting business district that will strengthen existing businesses and attract new businesses to the area, end quote. Additionally, the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plans Transportation Vision for the area imagines a neighborhood friendly to walking and biking. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan intends to promote patterns of desired neighborhood change. Urban Design. Housing development and preservation. Business development. Traffic flow. And safety and other public services. All of which contribute to the economic, social and physical health, safety and welfare of the people who live and work in Park Hill. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan is applicable to the northern portion of the urban redevelopment area along Colfax Avenue between Monica Parkway and Quebec Street. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan identifies Colfax Avenue as not only the main street for the neighborhood, but also for the city's metropolitan region. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plans primary goal for Colfax Avenue is to create a stable, safe, attractive, well-lit retail street with a mix of offices, neighborhood businesses and destination businesses that attract customers from out of the geographic area and with anchor tenants to increase activity and uses for other businesses. The city is currently working on the East Area Plan as part of the broader Neighborhood Planning Initiative, which, if approved, will replace the existing East Montclair, East Colfax and Park Hill neighborhood plans. Any future urban redevelopment project will need to demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the then current neighborhood plans. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are as follows. First, eliminate blight to renew and improve the character of the area. Encourage the creation of complete and equitable neighborhoods. Encourage mixed use development and redevelopment that is socially and economically inclusive. Encourage the growth of existing uses that are suitable to the area more effectively. Use underdeveloped land within the area, and encourage land use patterns that result in a more environmentally sustainable city. It also looks to encourage the participation of existing property owners in the redevelopment of their property to promote a diverse mix of attainable housing options, encourage affordable business space for small, independent businesses, improve access to healthy transportation options, healthy foods, and open space. And minimize the displacement of communities serving businesses or residents. When approved, the Urban Redevelopment Plan will describe the area and plan objectives. It will describe project activities and authorize tax increment financing. It will require projects to conform with Plan 2040 and its adopted supplements, which have a very intentional focus on equitable development. They will also require the application of the existing DURA programs, including project art, first source hiring, small business, enterprise utilization, enhanced training opportunities and prevailing wage if the project includes trunk infrastructure. As important as it is in describing what the urban redevelopment plan will do, it is equally important to describe what it will not do. Approval of the plan will not tonight approve approve an urban redevelopment project. It will not approve the use of tax increment financing. It does not authorize the use of eminent domain, and it will not rezone any property within the urban redevelopment area. Any future project that may require tax increment assistance will require City Council approval and which will require the project to meet the objectives of the plan. In approving this Council bill, council will be making the following findings. The urban redevelopment area described in the plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And the conditions of blight constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. This is a legislative finding by the City Council. Based upon the blight study or other evidence presented to City Council that the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan. A feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the Urban Renewal Act. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns again in accordance with the Act. That written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested der to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the East Colfax Corridor. Urban Redevelopment Area. On July 24th, 2019, which was more than 30 days prior to this public hearing, find that no more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this urban redevelopment plan. You will be finding that this is the first consideration of an urban renewal plan for this site. And thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with Denver Comprehensive Plan. On July 17th, 2019, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and it's applicable supplements. A letter to that effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing and that the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area for open land, which is to be developed for residential or nonresident residential uses. Nor does it include any agricultural land. Finally, again, want to emphasize that no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. In closing, Dura is very pleased to be working with the city and county of Denver to bring forward the urban redevelopment plan for this area. During staff has spent over two years working with community planning and development, the partnership as well as area residents, businesses and property owners through the East Colfax Corridor Condition Study Process, the city's east area plan effort and in preparation of this East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan, the potential for Darra supported redevelopment captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Neighborhood Plans. We look forward to working with the property owners, business owners, community members and others to bring about the revitalization opportunities outlined in these plans. With that concludes my staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have 15 individuals signed up to speak this evening. What I'll ask is if you're sitting in the front row, sorry, but if you don't mind, maybe moving over to that row so that we can I'm going to call five people up at a time so they can be close to the podium, so that we can get through everybody quickly to have time for questions and all that good stuff. So I'm going to call up the first five if you want to come to this front bench and be ready to step right up to the microphone when your name is called. So first off, John Neal, Tim Roberts, Cathy Speed, Brendan Green and Jesse Paris. And John Neal, you are up first.
Speaker 0: My name is John Neal. I'm the secretary of the East Colfax Neighborhood Association. I was present at and recorded notes for the general meeting held Tuesday, August 20th, when I emailed the notes to Tim Roberts, president of the association, the next day, August 21st. I stated, quote, I did not include the so-called vote at the end of the meeting since it was not conducted properly. That is, there was no advance announcement of a pending vote in the agenda. Also, there was no consideration of a quorum. A number of the attendees had already left by then, and there were abstentions that were not counted. I hope you do not state to city council that the association voted to oppose the designation, since that would be a gross misrepresentation. Naturally, your passion and opinion certainly should be expressed at the city meeting on Monday. However, please do not abuse your position as President of Act Now to speak on behalf of all of the membership. Close quote. Tim replied quote I did add info on the vote to the minutes. It could have been less messy, but it certainly did happen. And that fact is all we are reporting going forward, close quote. In his letter to city council members dated August 23rd, Tim stated quote At the conclusion of the latter meeting, we voted with a show of hands to oppose approving the you are a 8 to 4 . Close quote. I respectfully disagree. Article nine of the bylaws of the association entitled Parliamentary Authority States quote The rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall govern the association's conduct of business in all cases to in all cases to which they are applicable. Close quote. Pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order. Quote The formal steps in handling a motion or the making of a motion having a second. Stating the motion. Having debate on the motion. Putting the motion to a vote. And announcing the results of the vote. Close quote. These basic steps of parliamentary action were not followed. In addition, since there was no mention of a proposed vote in the agenda as announced prior to the meeting, attendees were, in effect, blindsided by the purported vote, which took place at the very end of an extremely long meeting during which attrition had reduced the number of eligible voters. I ask the Council to disregard the so called vote of the East Colfax Neighborhood Association, since it was not conducted properly. In addition, paragraph number three of the letter you received regarding Dern.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Tim Roberts.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Um hmm. I am an unpaid volunteer and I. Need some training. Let me think. First of all, the people.
Speaker 1: I'm Tim Roberts live in.
Speaker 7: Denver, East Colfax, business owner and president of the East Colfax Registered Labor Organization. I want to thank the people of East Colfax who have so far stepped up to grapple with this complex issue. I don't think it's easy. Thank you. We look at East Colfax, which close to 70% folks struggling to keep their homes, well over 30% in poverty. And we know that Doura does not have a record of protecting these communities. They seem in many instances, to have accomplished the opposite. For example, we know about the displacement in five points. We know about the severely homogenous community in Stapleton. How could we then be expected to stand by for any phase of a plan constructed by an organization that still tells us the city needs to be, quote, revitalized, or that areas where people currently live are, quote, blighted. We had a well publicized and well-attended R.A. meeting with the most vigorous debate I've seen in this R.A.. We were lucky enough to have the Dora director attend, and we argued back and forth for quite some time. The debate went on so long people were complaining, vote already. And finally we did. And it was 8 to 4 against. Again, this was a show of hands. It was relatively informal at this point. We're faced with a city council vote on a preliminary.
Speaker 1: But deeply structural.
Speaker 7: Policy that very likely will have massive effects on the neighborhood, just like it has on other neighborhoods. And when we go and try to make predictions, what we see associated with durable projects is a vast amount of displacement of exactly the populations we represent, not just once or twice, but for years on end, repeatedly not learning from things. Make no mistake, this vote is to stand with the people of East Colfax because we are working with, we are working with but in some sense under siege by the dirge generated community. To our north in Stapleton another Dora project in the south and Lowry and from the west by South Park Hill, now openly co-opting the east area plan. We are an outpost surrounded. We ask you to vote for a reset to an old school financial giveaway with a progressive mask. We own up to the truth that the value systems that are being overlaid on disadvantaged communities are themselves the blight we need to confront.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Cathy Speed.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for your time tonight. I've looked at the.
Speaker 10: East Area plan and I am.
Speaker 0: Neither for or against it. I find elements of it that I enjoy and I also.
Speaker 11: Find elements that are somewhat challenging, that are missing. There are things in there that are ill defined, like the.
Speaker 0: Accessory dwelling units. There's no definitions. There's nothing in there that goes to how that works.
Speaker 11: And there's a June 2018 letter from.
Speaker 0: The OR I should say, a memo from the zoning administrator that gives definitions.
Speaker 11: But none of that was incorporated into the exterior plan. So that's an area of or an example of where there are some things that are not well defined within the plan, but there are other things that are great about the plan where.
Speaker 0: Adding in a new community center like UNITA and Colfax.
Speaker 11: Or Yosemite and Colfax, that's great. That would be a great addition to that area of town.
Speaker 0: But I rise really tonight for one reason, and that is I am a long time homeowner in this target area and.
Speaker 10: Starting back in.
Speaker 0: 1994. The area plans that were in these neighborhoods promised to redevelop Quebec Street. We are a stand watched neighborhood between Lowry and Stapleton. You had.
Speaker 11: 30,000 people added in.
Speaker 0: At Stapleton. You have 25,000 people that were added in at Lowry.
Speaker 11: Our neighborhood is compressed between those two areas.
Speaker 0: And the area that has been promised over and over to us to be redeveloped is a two and a half mile stretch of Quebec Street. It is still remains a two lane road. And in the East Area plan, there was a tabled item there that indicated that the funding for the Quebec Street renovation and renovation at $23 million was going to be postponed and tabled under consideration of.
Speaker 11: The East Area Plan. So I would really.
Speaker 0: Suggest and hope that City Council would at least earmark that $23 million in funds so that it does not get spent on something else while we continue to really.
Speaker 11: Struggle.
Speaker 0: With that area, because that's going to be a huge deal for us.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Brendan Green.
Speaker 10: Point of order, Mr. President.
Speaker 12: May I just ask if some of the speakers are referencing a plan that is not on the agenda tonight? Can you please clarify the scope of this hearing as opposed to or can the staff please clarify that? Just I think everyone's voice is important, but I want to make sure folks understand what we have before us tonight and what we don't. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Tracy, do you want to come up and clarify? Certainly. Thank you.
Speaker 14: And if I may go back to a slide that I used previously.
Speaker 3: Which, of.
Speaker 14: Course, may be easier said than done, but we are here tonight asking council to consider is the urban renewal plan. The Urban Renewal Plan is also a planning document that draws upon the goals and objectives of other existing city approved plans. So we talked about Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver. Currently, the neighborhood plans that we are drawing references from are the the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan, as well as the Park Hill plan. The city is also working on the East Area plan, but that has not been adopted. And so therefore today the urban renewal plan does not reflect what is what may be included in the East Area plan. That is a separate, different planning effort than the urban redevelopment plan that's being brought forward for consideration tonight.
Speaker 1: Councilman, does that get to what you were looking for?
Speaker 12: I just wanted the public to make sure that we are not voting tonight on an east area plan. That term is used by community planning and developments. So I just want to. There are two separate votes at some point the council will vote on. So I just just wanted to make sure they understood that. But again, all of the testimony may still be relevant. I just want to make sure that that was clear for the right thing.
Speaker 1: Councilman, Councilwoman CdeBaca, do you have a point of clarification?
Speaker 6: Yes. On slide 16, the plan compliance. It shows the pyramid of how these plans interact together. If I recall correctly, you said that if approved, this replaces the East Area plan, Park Hill and Montclair, and essentially supersedes those plans. Am I correct?
Speaker 14: That is correct.
Speaker 6: So we kind of are.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. We will get into some debate and questions. Just to clarify, again, this is the bill that we have in front of us, so to speak. Speak to that bill. We've heard some clarification up here, but we're going to move along, giving people their time at the microphone. Brendan GREENE.
Speaker 7: Thank you. My name is Brendan Green. I'm a long time resident of the East Colfax Corridor, grew up on 23rd and Forest graduate of East High School. I currently live on 13th and Wabash Street. I'm the new community organizer for the Facts Partnership with 20 years experience organizing. Most recently was the campaign's director for the past ten years for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. The main focus of my work is going to be to organize, to preserve and protect local residents from displacement as the pressures of gentrification come our way. I'm extremely excited to be able to organize in my community to make sure that the development of our community is in line with our community's vision and that it prioritizes affordability and places a value on diversity and maintaining the vibrant mix of cultures. That makes East Colfax what it is. I'm here to speak in favor tonight of the urban renewal area for my neighborhood. As someone who grew up in between North and South Park Hill. I've lived the impact of gentrification and seen my old neighborhood change dramatically in my lifetime. My block used to have a great deal of diversity, and now that has changed as property values have skyrocketed, and many in my generation can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood. In East Colfax, we still have an opportunity to be intentional in our planning and make sure that we develop in a way that protects local community from displacement and places a value on economic and cultural diversity. I see the urban renewal area as an important tool to provide incentives to private entities to bring much needed investment to the neighborhood for affordable housing projects such as PHENIX on the Facts and the Supportive Housing Project on 7900 East Colfax. We can grow in a way where our community prospers and our communities are valued. We can fight and build our neighborhood in a way that pushes urban renewal and not urban removal. Most importantly, I trust in our community and I trust in you as our city council to be responsive to our community feedback and make sure that we only approve projects through this urban renewal area that our community is serving and that prioritize the construction of new affordable housing units in line with the blueprint Denver and the East Area plans. We will be highly organized. We will be closely monitoring projects. And we will be president here at the city council meetings to provide checks and balances and make sure that projects meet the desperate need to create more affordability in our neighborhood. I'm confident that the leadership exists in our in our neighborhood and that we can partner with you, our city council, to make to you to use this tool wisely to protect the cultural and economic diversity of East Colfax and expand affordable housing. We look forward to partnering partnering with East Convex Neighborhood Association members, community organizations and local leadership to monitor proposals that come to a vote. And we really expect that you are council members will be sensitive and responsive to our community's needs and feedback on which projects should and which projects shouldn't move forward. Thank you for your time and I ask you for a yes vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up is Jesse Paris McCall, the next five up to the front of you. As for Thomas Fussing, Megan Atwater, Lee, Larry Drees and Marsha Casey. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Jesse Parris represented for Denver Homicide Law, Black starts a movement for self-defense and positive action command for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large May 2019, almost 15,000 votes with no money. I'm neither for or against this. As the previous status have already stated. We have a crisis in the city. We have a housing crisis. We have 23,000 vacant apartments that need to be filled. But yet we want to redevelop all these areas of town for who this area is predominantly black and brown neighborhood. It's been that way since as long as I've been living, which is 32 years. So why was this neighborhood blighted for so long? For 30 plus years? Why was there no kind of development going on the past 20 years in this neighborhood? It just leads into the degradation this was caused. This is cause and effect. We don't need any more unattended consequences. You guys don't understand. You're literally gentrifying the whole city. Every side of town is being gentrified. North, east, west, south and north, east, west and south is being gentrified. We are being ethnically cleansed out of our neighborhoods. I am a native of Five Points in East Denver and I do not feel safe at home or. Welcome. In my own neighborhoods that I was born and raised in and grew up in. So what we want to know is how many affordable units are going to be built in this neighborhood? Exactly who is going to be residing in this neighborhood? Because, like we've already stated, we are being gentrified, ethnically cleansed out of the city. So who is this being built for? Who is this being redeveloped for? Because obviously it's not for us, because when we were here for the past 20, 30 years, you guys did not care one bit about what was going on. And this is why the degradation occurred and this is why the deterioration occurred. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've lived it. I've lived in these motels on the facts in this neighborhood. This is purposely being done. And we are not going to sit up here and sit around and allow you to keep continuously doing this. So I want to know exactly how many affordable units are going to be built, what the amount level for these units is going to be. Because I know salaries is being talked to affordable housing. But I want to know what the AMA level is going to be because we need 0 to 30% housing across the board and we don't need areas of concentrated poverty. So if you're going to build 0 to 30% housing, need to do it in every single neighborhood, every single district, not just in certain districts. We don't want the same thing to happen in this neighborhood that happened on the west side of Sun Valley, that happened on the north side and in Sunnyside and what happened on the east side in five points. So if somebody could please ask them, I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, your time is appreciated. Thank you. Next up, Nabeel Assefa.
Speaker 7: Hi. Thank you. My name is NAB. Never go as far. I'm a community organizer in the Ethiopian community, which represents the second largest foreign born population in the state of Colorado, with our roots in East Colfax. My role in the community includes organizing the annual Taste of Ethiopia Festival and co-chairing the Ethiopian American Development Council. Ethiopians have been making significant contribution to the economic development and cultural richness of Denver since the seventies, and we're proud to call the city home. Unfortunately, though, over the past decade, our community has been on an exodus to Aurora. This is largely due to the consequence of hyper development and gentrification that has effectively pushed out many minority and immigrant communities from Denver, East Colfax and the far northeast Denver have been the exceptions in this, where our community has been able to stay and prosper, where we have become significant contributors as small business owners, homeowners and positive cultural influencers. However, and the East Colfax neighborhood, many in the community feel that our fate is uncertain and are anticipating to deal with displacement, which has already begun. The reason for displacements are many, including the city's nuisance ordinance, which has been weaponized to close down many women, minority and family owned small businesses on East Colfax Avenue. The writing is already on the wall. Denver is increasingly becoming a different town, one that does not include us. This is why, by large, our community is fearful of the East Colfax Development Plan, oppose and opposed tax incentives like TIFF to private developers that have a track record of destroying communities around Denver. By large, we agree on that principle to revitalize East Colfax. However, we oppose the status quo approach. The status quo has failed us throughout Denver. Take, for example, the great promises. All this great promises were also made to five points. However good the intentions may have been the end results of our displacement and gentrification. Also, let's look at other neighborhoods like Reno, Stapleton or Lori. Have the promises been kept? Where are the affordable houses? Where is the racial equity diversity culture or the inclusive character that represents the spirit of Denver? Is this the type of neighborhood we want to turn East Colfax into? Is there a place for the poor and working class in the city as you consider your vote today, I would like to kindly ask you to consider who will benefit from this change. Are we setting up the foundation and institutional framework for displacement? Are we putting a target on the backs of East Colfax residents and small business owners? Are we creating an environment that incentivizes the wrong people? With all this challenges, these cold facts is a beautiful neighborhood with character, beautiful people and culture worth preserving. Please vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Thomas Fessing. I'm Thomas.
Speaker 7: Fizzing a steering.
Speaker 1: Committee member on the East Area Plan and also a resident of the East Colfax neighborhood, which.
Speaker 5: Is in the urban redevelopment.
Speaker 1: Area. In the last 28 years, I've lived in every neighborhood along East Colfax from this building all the way to the rural border, which is my last stop. This urban redevelopment plan gives focus.
Speaker 11: It gives guidance.
Speaker 1: It gives a framework for development.
Speaker 7: Development is going to happen eventually in this area. It's already starting to happen on its own through private investors.
Speaker 5: But through.
Speaker 1: This program, it gives more of a framework.
Speaker 7: There's checks and.
Speaker 11: Balances.
Speaker 2: To make sure that it is.
Speaker 1: An equitable growth. The majority of our housing stock that is in the neighborhood that is low income or affordable housing is actually not within the boundaries.
Speaker 5: The boundaries of this.
Speaker 1: Urban renewal plan, when you look on the map, essentially is 15th, 14th to 16th Avenue along Colfax. The majority in the East Colfax neighborhood, specifically of that housing is in the far southeast corner of the neighborhood.
Speaker 7: Outside.
Speaker 5: Of the boundaries.
Speaker 1: But for the actual redevelopment on Colfax.
Speaker 7: I and the folks that live in the neighborhood want it to be equitable. We want the diversity to stay in the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: That's one reason many of us have purchased homes.
Speaker 7: The last ten years in the neighborhood. The other thing is the.
Speaker 2: Neighborhood plan.
Speaker 1: As it exists now. The East Montclair, East Colfax neighborhood plan is 25 years old.
Speaker 7: The South Park Hill plan.
Speaker 1: I think, is even older than that. South Park Hill Many of the things in the plan actually have taken place in the East Montclair East Colfax neighborhood. None of them.
Speaker 7: Have been 25.
Speaker 4: Years.
Speaker 1: So I think this gives a lot more guidance to the city, to the residents, to the future.
Speaker 2: Of this part of East Denver. Thank you. I support the plan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Megan Tortorella, you.
Speaker 12: My name is Megan Tortorella, and I'm on the board of the East Colfax Neighborhood Association and I also live in the neighborhood. I'm here to.
Speaker 3: Urge council to oppose the approval of the East.
Speaker 6: Colfax Corridor Urban.
Speaker 12: Redevelopment Area. Here's what I know. More than half of East Colfax residents.
Speaker 6: Are struggling and at risk of displacement. It seems certain that designating the East Colfax corridor as an urban redevelopment area will accelerate.
Speaker 12: Gentrification and people will.
Speaker 6: Be forced to leave our neighborhood. The primary goal of our R.A. this year.
Speaker 12: Has been to increase participation and better represent all.
Speaker 6: Of the more than 1000 East Colfax residents. And if I have learned anything from the outreach process, it's that our neighbors have a real sense of fear that the city's agenda for East Colfax does not include many of its current residents. I am especially concerned about comments from last week's city council meeting.
Speaker 12: And the picture they painted of there.
Speaker 6: Is outreach efforts.
Speaker 12: I'm paraphrasing here, but it was said that Dora has gone above and beyond to ensure.
Speaker 6: That problems that often exist with urban redevelopment, such as displacement, will not happen in East Colfax. It was also stated that the city and borough are doing.
Speaker 12: Everything they.
Speaker 6: Can to involve the community in this process. At best, those comments were a gross exaggeration of efforts that have been made. Well, it is true that Tracy and others from Dora have attended and presented at several East Colfax R.A. meetings. It's completely disingenuous to say that extensive outreach has taken place in our community. There's been no attempt to include our most vulnerable our most vulnerable neighbors. In this conversation with Dora, attending a few R.A. meetings with 20 to 50 people in attendance is not the definition of doing everything that can be done to involve a community. I'm not naive, and I recognize that development is coming to East Colfax regardless of how the council votes tonight. But I have big concerns about incentivizing this development, particularly before East Colfax residents understand our is complex plan and the impact it will have on their ability to stay in their homes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next to Larry Drees.
Speaker 4: My name is Larry Reese. I live on 1160 Verbena Street. I am a board director as well as East Colfax Neighborhood Association and have been active in the association for six years. Lived in the neighborhood for 15. I am for urban renewal specifically because it's a chance for quality of life for everybody right now. Any one of you want to walk with me from my house two blocks down to Colfax at 830 at night to go eat? Come join me. I beg you. It's quality of life for the whole neighborhood. And it's important that we have the opportunity to have our own town center like other parts of the city. We don't we have. Car lots. Some very good restaurants and some convenience stores. That's it. We need this change. And I don't see this neighborhood has always been extremely diverse. There's 27 different languages that are spoken in our neighborhood because of the refugees there along Yosemite. They're not going to get to this place. Why not build affordable housing for people that are living in rundown shacks in the area because their landlords don't care? That to me is more important, making the neighborhood better and better. Quality of life for everybody. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Marsha Casey and then call the last five to come up to the front bench. Stacey Loucks, Lashonda Weston, Kelsey Clarke, Monica martinez and Darian Horne.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 1: Have mercy. Mercy a Casey. Nope. Stacey Loucks. Kelsey Clarke.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Kelsey Clarke.
Speaker 6: And I am the business service outreach manager at the Facts Partnership, a community development nonprofit in East Colfax. And thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. In January of this year.
Speaker 3: The facts launched an East Colfax Business Support Office.
Speaker 6: With the support of the city of Denver to be an advocate on behalf of and provide assistance to our local business community. The majority of the businesses that we work with are located on the proposed urban renewal area from Monaco to Yosemite. Since January, we have been on the ground proactively and authentically getting to know our diverse and culturally rich business community. The facts recently concluded a business, a needs assessment, a survey, and receive an overwhelmingly 30% response rate.
Speaker 3: With their permission.
Speaker 6: I'm representing a handful of those businesses. Mr. Tank, owner at tanks, world class.
Speaker 3: Barbers quote Many of my current customers are having.
Speaker 6: To move due to high rent. End quote. April SS Office Manager at Kids Dental. Quote It is important that we stay where we are. Due to residential displacement, we worry that our patient base may be moving, making it more difficult for vulnerable children and their families to have access to quality dental care, end quote.
Speaker 3: The fact supports.
Speaker 6: The urban redevelopment area because the plan states that it will encourage affordable business space for small, independent businesses, including the promotion of diverse mix of attainable housing options. The facts will ease that TIFF is a valuable tool for developing affordable housing on this important transit corridor so that the Mr. Tanks and the assessors and their customers and their patients can stay in this community that we all love so much and continue to support these local businesses. Moses Alice Walker, property and business owner at Econo Emissions quote The property is my retirement plan for myself and for my wife. It is important to me that I work with people I trust when I decide to sell. I see the partnership as a trusted partner and quote the facts. Who believes that urban redevelopment area will help provide incentives to developers to invest in communities serving businesses and community benefiting development through our relationships and expertize?
Speaker 3: The facts will be.
Speaker 6: On the front lines of supporting our local businesses and we promoting such development opportunities. And we see TEF as an opportunity and a tool that will help us achieve that. Thank you again for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Lashonda Weston.
Speaker 10: Hi. Thank you. I'm here to vote. Hopefully I'll vote against. I've been in community for a while. Long time, most of my life. And when Dora said that, they. They they notify people. This is my notice. It's just that there was a meeting tonight. I'm here because I feel that. That our area is very diverse. What I'm I mean, that I'm right off of Colfax. I'm on 15th in Colfax, so I'm literally right off of Colfax. 15th acknowledged. So my area I've seen grow. But to me, if Dora wants to help the neighborhood, there's plenty of opportunity to go up and down that street to help the people that are already in there. We have barbershops. We have restaurants. We just got a new brewery. We have Ace Hardware. We have many, many things on that corridor. And if they. Most of them are, you know, up to par in my standards. Some of them, yes. Can use a paint job or whatever. But the area that is there, people there, they support their businesses. They support their neighbors. And everybody gets basically alone. Yes. Our neighbor. And when people keep saying affordable housing, what does that mean? Because my house now, when I bought a long time ago, I can't afford to move back into that same house that I bought in 1980, which is very, very sad. So when you say affordable housing, what does that mean? It doesn't mean that you have to make over $100,000 like we do now. Like five points like we do probably in Swansea once they finish that, that new build. So when people say that that's just a word, it doesn't mean that's what they mean to me. It means they affordable to them, not to the majority of people. And when you have immigrants and all the other people, it has to be affordable to everybody. Currently it's affordable to everybody. Otherwise they would not be living there. So I vote for you guys. I asked you guys to vote no. Sure. Door got plenty of money, but with that money they can go like we just had. A 7-Eleven built there is already closed down. Why? Nobody supported it. Nobody wanted it. So they didn't support it. It was there maybe three years. The building still there. So if they want to brand new building door can go in there and work with the private or whoever they want to work with to upgrade that or get somebody in that building because it's brand new, right on the corner of Colfax and Monaco. So there's plenty of opportunity for door instead of to come through, knocked everything down with their developer and they raised the price up so high that they just want to gentrify it. Just forget about the black and brown in those whites that are not making $100,000 a year. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Monica martinez.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name's Monica martinez. You've heard from a couple of my staff members tonight.
Speaker 12: The Facts Partnership.
Speaker 6: It's a501 C3 that has been working on the East Colfax corridor since 2004. We have been advancing a vision of redevelopment without displacement. We've had some recent successes, and those votes have come to you all. The city of Denver acquired two parcels on East Colfax, and both of those will be deed restricted, affordable housing. We're really proud of that. And that's our vision to add higher density deed, restricted housing, where it matters on East Colfax. But we know that city finances are very restricted. And so as a result, the facts has been promoting this urban renewal area because we know that the city can only acquire so many properties and the private development is not building the housing that this community desperately needs. East Colfax renters, 40% of them are housing burdened. We have a 35% homeownership rate compared to a 50% rate in the city at large. So we know that we need development that will benefit this community. But instead what's happening is a pre that was submitted for a McDonald's on East Colfax. This community is considered the highest community with the highest health inequities as defined by the Department of Environmental Health. It is a food desert. It has high levels of childhood obesity, but instead the private market is going to build a McDonald's. So I believe we need intervention and using bold public policy that will have extensive community engagement and approval by you for any sort of tiff that's really provided. As a result, we might get something like the Mecosta project on West Denver that is a deed restricted affordable housing project that Gorman built its 42 units and it received $2.5 million tiff investment for a project that was $14 million. So TIFF was used to help get the community a nonprofit space and 42 dude restricted units. Or we might get Lowenstein, which is further down on East Colfax, and that became the home of beloved Tattered Cover and Twist and Shout records that received $3.9 million of tax increment financing in a historic rehab project. We know these projects are tough to build. And so as a result, I encourage you to adopt this urban renewal area so that we get the development this community needs and not what the market thinks that it can build. It does have it may have the consequence of increasing investment, but the facts partnership is going to be on the ground through our business support manager and our community organizer and proactively promote the kind of development we need, as well as turning out supporters to ensure that we get the types of projects that this community deserves and this type of the types of development this community needs. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Darian May Horn.
Speaker 7: All righty. Thank you. I appreciate the time to speak with you all. My name is Dorian Mae Horne. I'm a resident of the East Colfax neighborhood with the nearest intersection to meet me in Mountain View and Rosemary, within District eight. Well over a year ago, I went to a public meeting at Johnson Wells, where Tracy from Dora and Monica from the partnership introduced the study that would lay the foundation for considering East Colfax, bounded by Monaco in the West and Yosemite on the east as blighted. Tracy has explained at that meeting and at the very various meetings afterwards that this definition is legislatively defined and I would imagine defined with objectivity in mind. While the term blighted may seem jarring as defined, it is accurate. I work as an engineer for the federal government at the Federal Center in Lakewood, and since I aim to live a lifestyle that considers sustainability and our society's resilience, along with maintaining my mental health as our traffic increases, I use my eco pascal on the 15 hour to get to civic center and from there I use the 100 hour to get to the federal center. So every day I spend a great deal of time on Colfax as I get on and off the bus and make my way home and support the various different local businesses on Colfax, including the Barbershop that was mentioned earlier. So from the missing sidewalk connectivity to the underutilized properties, it is clear to me that the city has neglected truly public investment within this corridor. While the infrastructure of this corridor may be blighted. I echo what everyone else has said, which is the people and the culture within the broader East folks. East Colfax Community has been and will maintain its vibrancy. I was reminded of that on Sunday as I engaged in outreach with neighbors regarding a upcoming block party that will be hosted by the Neighborhood Association. I saw the diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, culture within our community, and what I believe the adoption of this plan will do is allow our community an opportunity to be intentional with how we incentivize development that aligns with our community's priorities in ways that we may not otherwise have a seat at the table. As others have mentioned, development will come to our neighborhood regardless. Without an avenue like this to have a thoughtful discussion. I'm excited for the new community organizing role that Brendan will take on at the Facts Partnership and Tracy's leadership at Dora to ensure that there is significant public engagement regarding potential projects, ideally before they even arrive here at City Council. Again, as a resident of the neighborhood, I believe we have an opportunity to have development that eliminates the blighted conditions while maintaining and supporting the local, diverse businesses that already exist in the area. I thank you for your time and I support the approval of this plan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like three people in the queue. I first one to start with Tim Roberts, if you could come up and then Tracy and then the honorable Dr. Aguilar, I'll have a question for you at the end. So, Tim, I want to have a conversation about this vote because I think it's really important for people to understand. I wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to some of the thing. So was the vote that's happened at East Colfax, was that notice prior to the meeting?
Speaker 1: We didn't use the word vote in the email that went around. What happened prior to the meeting was what I indicated in the opposition.
Speaker 7: Letter and that was a couple of different meetings with different ones focused specifically on tax increment financing. And then we had a reading group on blight and then we had our most recent R.A. meeting, which.
Speaker 1: Was where the vote took place. I can remember.
Speaker 11: Typing out I.
Speaker 5: Have a lot of people in the queue, so I wanted to make sure I be respectful of their time. So I'm going I want to read what I'm looking at the East Colfax Neighborhood Association post that you had for the agenda. And correct me if this is not right. Yeah. Denver Urban Renewal Authority Doura. Well we'll plant. We will plan to discuss the upcoming August 26 City Council vote on the proposed East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area and how it might serve East Colfax residents and businesses. Details of the council session are here. Page 13. So as you said, and I'm reading this, there's nowhere in this notification that you're actually going to vote, you're just going to discuss it. So this is acting right.
Speaker 1: And but it followed.
Speaker 7: On an extensive engagement with this issue and with this construct of of influences.
Speaker 5: No, I absolutely understand. But I just want to say, for this notification, it is not mentioned anywhere that you're going to vote. And that's what makes sense, what.
Speaker 1: I just.
Speaker 5: Said. So my next question is, was, did you if you're going to have a conversation about Doura, did you or is anyone from the East Colfax Neighborhood Association invite Darrah to the meeting?
Speaker 7: We did not, and I did that intentionally. We because we had already like I just said, with all due respect.
Speaker 1: I had a number of engagements with Dora.
Speaker 7: So my my intention, again, as a volunteer, an unpaid.
Speaker 1: Volunteer who is untrained.
Speaker 7: Entirely and I just started in January.
Speaker 1: Though Robert's Rules of Order.
Speaker 7: Does have my name attached to it.
Speaker 1: The the intention was to clear the decks a little bit for the.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood and not have a professional planner present at the discussion so that we could then air whatever we wanted to without being afraid of.
Speaker 1: Getting.
Speaker 7: Shot down or whatever it is again. I didn't I went back and forth about using the word vote, but I honestly thought it was so obvious that.
Speaker 1: It I, I just.
Speaker 11: You know, I just.
Speaker 5: Don't want to do it. So going to the actual vote, so what are the rules and procedures for people allowed to vote? So the the first speaker spoke to that there was not a motion. How could you said the vote was 8 to 4? Do you know which individuals voted in support in opposition? Is there a list available?
Speaker 7: There's not a list available. And I like I.
Speaker 1: Was saying before, it was an informal it was an informal vote.
Speaker 7: A show of hands. It was the end of a two and a half hour meeting. I when we wrote the opposition letter, I tried to make that clear by just saying it was a show of hands. And I mean, yeah, so that's that's really what there is not a list and it was I could probably say who who did vote for for and against. I mean, I know that John Neal voted against or for the plan and others a couple others here. So I, you know, I, I think that there is a.
Speaker 1: A major issue.
Speaker 7: In this city. Okay.
Speaker 5: I absolutely. For but I want to give I have a feeling you might you might get called up for another speaker looking at the list. But I just want to make sure I want to speak to the particulars of the vote. So thank you so much. That's all I had for you, Tracey. I wanted to give there was. I know we did. We're just all we're doing now. We're just defining the you are a can we just take a step forward. So what would be an example of something that could happen just so that the community and the people could understand what might possibly be a next step?
Speaker 14: So what might possibly be a next step provided the council approves this redevelopment plan? Is that through the outreach of the sex partnership? There is a property that is identified and a developer that is interested in developing it for there is a property that is identified in the existing owner is interested in making some type of an initial investment. If that would be the case, that person or entity would then have to come to Dura. They would have to submit an application for our assistance, starting with a letter of support from the council member that it is a project that they are in support of. We would evaluate first and foremost, is this a project that meets the criteria of this urban redevelopment plan? Does it address all of these things that I just spent a very long time walking through? If it does, then we would begin an evaluation as to whether or not it even needs public financial assistance. So there is a very stringent underwriting process that we go through to determine what amount, if any, the project would both be able to generate and therefore be able to utilize in its redevelopment. Once all of that preliminary underwriting work is done, then we would continue through an approval process. But let me pause for a moment and say through all of this conversation, it isn't just a hand off from the partnership. The partnership to us in this example, there also would be community outreach as well, and recognizing that there could be a project in one of three different neighborhoods that could be in in East Colfax. It could be in East Montclair, it could be in Park Hill. But the development is going to impact the entirety of the area. So we would be talking with the community at that time about what this project is, what it means, what is the level of support that finally then culminates in us coming back to City Council because it is a formal amendment to the plan to add a project and to add tax increment. And part of that process as well is to then enter into agreements with the other taxing entities regarding our ability to capture property tax, if that was being requested. So a lot of different iterations there. But I want to focus on on on the community outreach, on making sure that any project that comes to us, we can stand before this body and indicate how it meets the objectives of Plan 2040, of blueprint of the neighborhood plans and the urban renewal plan to then be able to come back to ask for approval.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So just to focus, though, if a community is fearful that if council approves this tonight, there will be multiple opportunities for community to hear and give input on a potential URI project. Yes. Perfect. Thank you, Dr. Aguilar. Your work that you do with Nest. I just wanted to give you the opportunity, because I've seen you in East Colfax several times as you've been working in your job. And thank you for that. If you could in my apologies, Mr. Perez, this is my last question to give you the opportunity just to to speak on the work that you have seen along East Colfax in your thoughts on the potential you are.
Speaker 10: I'm sure in in the interest of full disclosure, I came in and said we can't do a you are and these Colfax is going to gentrify it. And then people sat me down and talked to me about what it means to do you a and how it could potentially help. And what I would say is the vote tonight, in my mind, is the easy one is just acknowledging that there are bad conditions on East Colfax right now. The harder votes will come to you when projects come forward, and that's really where you really need to do your due diligence. You need to make sure that it really is about for and that what you're incentivizing is affordable housing, is affordable business space, and is not things that will lead to gentrification. I see this as a tool because hopefully it will bring more projects to your attention because as you may or may not know, East Colfax is an opportunity zone under President Trump, President Trump's tax act. And so there's already great incentive for investors to buy properties there and do whatever they want. Our hope would be that they would come to us looking for it and bring these projects to our attention and give you another opportunity to work with them to make sure these projects actually help the community. We are aware of the the fact that this is an underserved community and that we need to really build it up. And as the director of Nest, one of my goals is to see whether we could actually demonstrate that it's possible to do development without displacement. As you heard, the city has invested in two buildings in the area, one of which will provide permanent supportive housing to, I think, approximately 70 people with chronic brain injury, another which will provide affordable housing to about 80 families, including a child care center on the ground floor. Someone mentioned, and it is true that there are a number of housing buildings there that are currently occupied by immigrants and refugees. And so we are working with those folks as well to ensure that that community has the support it needs. And actually through the East Area Plan, investigating whether this might not be made into an international corridor. And so I think it really provides an opportunity for us. This will just give you another tool in your toolbox. And and I would be there with the community making sure that anything you approve to fund would be for the benefit of the community. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: First line of questions is for Ms.. Higgins. Can you explain to me there's a slide in here that shows that the original. So an idea to do these plan to do this plan is started by the city council member and a developer. Who were the original initiators of this idea?
Speaker 14: Sure. And just to be clear, the presentation that you're looking at would have been from the council committee. Correct. It's not tonight's presentation. And that is a a depiction that we use frequently when we are talking about the urban renewal process. So in this instance, and I actually was looking back at my files, this is a conversation that started back in 2015 that included several council members, predecessors, as well as members of the city administration, the Planning Department and the Office of Economic Development, as well as the Facts Partnership in their role as representing the businesses and community along the corridor.
Speaker 6: Were any of those council members or are any of those council members present? They are not. Okay. Can you explain to me the structure of Dora? Is this it's confusing to a lot of people because we call it an authority. But what I understand is that it's not a part. It's not a city agency. So can you explain a little bit about the structure? Sure.
Speaker 14: An urban renewal authority has its opportunity to exist as a result of state statute that put in place the ability for a municipality to create an urban renewal authority. That legislation was first introduced in 1958. That was the same year that Dora was created. That was a an ordinance that was approved by the city to create Dora back in 1958. Currently, we are an organization that works within through city government. As you can see tonight, there are very few, if any, things that we can do without city council approval. Our we are governed by a 13 member board. 11 members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by city council. There is also a position for an elected school board member representing Denver public schools and there is also a position representing special districts because of the overlap between the utilization of tax increment financing and what that means from the property tax and those the impact on those other taxing entities. State statute was amended in 2015 to make sure that those voices were represented on the Dora board as well. The board directs policy of the staff and then as we work through all of our efforts, again, it is really with and through the city government to make sure that as we are affecting plans, they are consistent with the city planning objectives in order to achieve our our mission of blight elimination.
Speaker 6: And so can you explain the funding structure there? What percentage comes from city? What percentage is private?
Speaker 14: So our funding. There was a point in time when all of our funding came from the city. That is no longer the case. I want to be clear. There are two functional departments of the Urban Renewal Authority. One is the redevelopment department. The other is our housing department. Would like to have an opportunity to talk about what our housing programs do and can do in this area as well. We have been longtime partners with the city and county of Denver in implementing a number of affordable housing programs that are intended to help existing single family homeowners stay in their homes by making necessary repairs. So we have our housing department, we have our redevelopment department. The Housing Department gets funding through the contract, the annual contracts with the city and county of Denver in implementing these programs. The redevelopment department gets its funding through the projects that we support. So a portion of the tax increment that is generated on each project is made available to Dora to pay for our operations.
Speaker 6: What portion is that? Is that consistent across projects?
Speaker 14: It is. It is quite consistent. Each project that we undertake is unique. And so it is it is negotiated separately, but it is typically 1%. Of the amount of the commitment that we are putting into a project we are able to take as revenue for the the operations of the organization.
Speaker 6: And so are you guys technically a five on C three or what's your tax status?
Speaker 14: We are not. We are a public body. So again, created under state statute and I am in no need to look over my shoulder and make sure legal counsel is giving me the the indication that that is correct. We are a a quasi governmental entity.
Speaker 6: Is is that a corporation? Is that what kind of we are, a public body. Okay. So I'm going to need some more information on that from counsel, if possible. But going back really quickly to what you just mentioned, the two branches of the work that you do. Is it possible to do any of this work, this redevelopment work without the plan? It is the housing side.
Speaker 14: On the housing side, yes. And in fact, that's it.
Speaker 6: The next question, the tip piece of this. So there are slides that are contradictory. One of the slides, I think it's the second to last says that let's see the actual wording. It says that this plan does not approve the use of tax increment financing. But then on slide 15, it says that we're authorizing TIFF. Correct. Can you explain what is happening there? Sure.
Speaker 14: In the urban renewal plan, you can, again, under the statutory language, include in the plan language that allows for the use of tax increment financing. That's the authorizing language that is in the plan currently. However, we don't have a project to apply that to, nor are we asking for a tax increment area to be established at this time. That would be that secondary step. If a project comes to us, we come back to City Council. You formally amend the plan to approve the project and approve the establishing of a tax increment area that there that therein allows for the use of tax increment for that project. So one lays the foundation, that's the language that is in there currently. That's the authorizing. When we bring a project back, if we bring a project back, that would be that step to approve the use of tax increment financing.
Speaker 6: So we're authorizing it. We're just not picking where we're getting it from.
Speaker 14: You are not approving a project, so it cannot be used until you set a tax increment area and approve a project.
Speaker 6: Got it. And so it was said multiple times that the purpose of urban renewal plan is to attract new capital, primarily through private growth and to incentivize private entities to invest in the area. Is that accurate?
Speaker 14: There is a condition in state statute that looks for us to maximize investment through the private sector. However, again, we have a balance of the ability to use tax increment to advance both public projects, infrastructure projects, as well as development through the private sector. But yes, it is the intention of the urban renewal statute to look to put that burden on the private sector as opposed to the to the public sector.
Speaker 6: And the authority doesn't do housing, affordable housing development. You all just hope that the projects that start up or catalyzed include affordable units, correct?
Speaker 14: No, that is not correct. Well, we are not the direct developer. We have a requirement in any project that we participate in that includes housing, that there be a component of affordability. So in our redevelopment agreement, which is a contract arrangement between the Urban Renewal Authority and a developer, it will have a requirement as to what the affordable housing requirements may be.
Speaker 6: And what is that typically?
Speaker 14: It again, it depends by project. You know, there's been comments made about the the Wilton Corridor. The first project that we made along Whelton was 100% affordable. It aims not to exceed 60%.
Speaker 6: Which project is that?
Speaker 14: 2300 Whelton.
Speaker 6: Can you talk a little bit more about where there have been urban renewal plans and the successes and challenges of them here in Denver? Sure.
Speaker 14: I think we've had we have a number of urban renewal areas that establish a number of urban renewal plans, that establish the urban renewal areas. And then there can be multiple tax increment areas within that. They really run the gamut of the city. We have spent a lot of our time since I first joined Laura in 1992 focused on revitalizing downtown. A primary objective of that urban renewal area was to make downtown a neighborhood. Back in the early nineties, no one lived downtown. Businesses were leaving. Retail in particular was leaving as quickly as they could. At the same time, when we had just built a new convention center and we were looking for ways to attract visitors back to our city. Dura emphasized historic preservation also emphasized the importance of workforce housing. And so we have a number of examples of projects the Denver Dry Goods Building, the Bank Lofts Building, Mercantile Square, Rio Grand, all of which represent two opportunities for us, together with the private developers to acquire properties that were vacant, repurpose those as from a mixed use standpoint very frequently, including housing and not just housing, but workforce housing as well, to help stimulate overall development downtown. In addition to that, we have been in virtually every council district. Safe for you. Councilman Cashman I do not believe we have undertaken a project yet in your district. Some of the more recent projects include One on one Broadway, which again is an affordable housing development in an existing structure. On on on Broadway. We've also had opportunities to work in in the former St Anthony's redevelopment site, again focused on affordable housing and historic preservation, including a project that we are doing with the Denver Housing Authority. We have worked at Stapleton and in Lowry in being the financing mechanism for the infrastructure that supported that development. And then in in West Denver, along South Federal, we have worked extensively with the Vietnamese community on facade improvements as well as additional infrastructure improvements on those area. So we've had a number of projects throughout the city.
Speaker 6: All part of those are all urban renewal plans.
Speaker 14: Those are all we can only undertake an urban renewal project in an urban renewal area. The only way an urban renewal area is established by approval of a plan. Okay. So yes.
Speaker 6: And so on. The downtown one that you mentioned that coincided with the era of white flight, correct?
Speaker 14: I am not as I don't know what you are referring to as white flight. This is an era that started in the late eighties with the economic downturn where businesses were leaving, large retailers were leaving, businesses were closing.
Speaker 6: And the blight conditions. So at the end of this presentation, it says that it will not authorize eminent domain. But is blight a blight determination a precursor to eminent domain?
Speaker 14: Yes, in order for eminent domain is a power that is afforded to urban renewal authorities if granted by city council in order to make that determination. If we ever were in that position, there would have to be a certain number of factors of blight. The number is five that are found in order for eminent domain to be used. It is a different standard than if if eminent domain is is not to be used. But I want to be clear. Eminent domain is not being requested for approval in this plan.
Speaker 6: On a specific project. Kind of like the tiff. Okay.
Speaker 14: It just is. It's not authorized.
Speaker 6: Okay. And so if this plan is not approved tonight, you all have to take 24 months before you come back to us. Correct?
Speaker 14: If it fails tonight, yes. We can not come back for. For two years.
Speaker 6: Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 10: Just a question for Liz. Hi, Liz. Can you clarify the questions that were raised about this plan replacing any neighborhood plans? Yes. I'm Liz Wagman with Community Planning and Development. I'm one of the project managers of the East Area Plan. This is an ongoing neighborhood planning process to create a community driven vision for several neighborhoods along the Colfax corridor. That process is still ongoing and will be brought forward in the future to City Council for consideration. The clarity point here is that the East Area plan will supersede existing neighborhood plan, so once it is adopted, it would replace the guidance from the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan and the East Kovacs and East Montclair Neighborhood Plan. This urban redevelopment plan in no way predetermine the outcome of the East Area plan. The point that I believe Tracy was making is that a future project that comes forward once the East Area plan is adopted, that east area plan will be used also to evaluate a project. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Let's see. I guess this is for either CPD or for Ms.. Huggins.
Speaker 0: I'm wondering.
Speaker 1: It's kind of an. Along the lines of councilwoman tourist. But why are we doing this first rather than waiting for the plan?
Speaker 10: So to answer that question, I think that we feel it's really important to put tools in place that can help us achieve that equitable vision for is COVAX. And rather than waiting for the area plan.
Speaker 6: To be adopted.
Speaker 10: This sends a signal that we're looking for that equitable, inclusive growth for any project that may come forward in the future, and with the fact that any future project would have to be consistent with any adaptive plans, we think that still puts that tool in place to be used once the East Derry plan comes forward.
Speaker 1: We think that makes sense to me. Tracy. Just just to clarify, it's your position, your understanding of the reality of an urban renewal area that it neither stimulates nor prohibits growth of small business or growth of affordable housing. It simply puts in place an area for projects to be presented that would then be up to us to evaluate.
Speaker 14: That is true, Councilman. But I would add that with the framework that has been put forward, again, drawing out the objectives of Plan 2040, a blueprint of the existing neighborhood plans, it is more focused to say these are the type of projects that we want to be able to support to to again, give that different focus to affordable housing, to emphasizing the importance of being able to support the existing businesses. So that would be the only change I would make to your statement.
Speaker 1: Thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 10: Next up, we have Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Madam President. Tracy, don't go anywhere. Just one quick question for you and maybe it's not that quick. We've talked about this a lot in the neighborhoods and at the many of the meetings that we've been to. Tell me a little bit about what is going to be different about this this time.
Speaker 14: That is a great question. Thank you. And I certainly would be remiss if I stood here and said, I think we have all of the answers about how it is going to be different. But one of the things that I think is most different and it's really a carry on to what I just answered for Councilman Cashman , is the intentionality of the city plans that again, the urban renewal plan sits atop top of that is giving a charge to each of us that we need to be thinking about it differently. We already believe that affordable housing is a really important component to neighborhood stabilization. Make sure that as there are different economic pressures, that people have places where they can continue to to live and to be able to stay in the neighborhood. I again want to emphasize, even though it is separate from the urban renewal plan, the importance of those city housing programs that Derek administers to already help, to help those people who are already in the community deepen those roots by being able to make improvements to to their homes. I think the work of the office of Dr. Aguilar and Nest is going to be very, very critical to cause us all to make sure we are looking at development differently, community outreach, trying. The Office of Economic Development is working on a predictive tool to help us try to better understand if this then what? That is a different dynamic than what we have had before. While emphasizing that, we've always been mindful of the impacts that we have had on a community. But I think we have a very different collective charge, a mandate for all of us. And as was stated previously, as a project comes forward, this is going to be a continuing dialog between and among the community, the developer, the Urban Renewal Authority, City Council, to make sure that we are trying to do everything we can to avoid those unintended consequences and see if we can in fact be successful in rising up while still maintaining the importance of the things that the community.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem, Madam Director. So I recognize that you are saying that that this project would supersede all plans. I want a reference blueprint anyway, because it is a plan that had a robust stakeholder engagement and has been voted into, you know, voted by city council and accepted. So while I again recognized that that this doesn't have to conform to or report to blueprint, these are things that people have said they want and and city council has agreed. So just a one of the tenets of blueprint is about land use in built form. And so can you help me or can you describe so inside land use in both form? One of the tenets and blueprint is to integrate mitigation of involuntary displacement of residents and or businesses. Can you help me explain if that is one of these charges in this urban renewal and in how it.
Speaker 14: So a couple of things, and I'm going to answer your question and then remind me that I want to come back to where you started. So, yes, it most definitely is a tenant that is in the urban renewal plan that is drawing out, again, the objectives, a blueprint to be able to cause us to think about how we undertake the work that we do in a way that meets that objective. So, yes, absolutely. And the urban renewal plan is going to be an expectation that a project works to, in combination with other activities, mitigate involuntary displacement. Now, the other thing that I want to come back to, I want to again emphasize that approving the urban renewal plan doesn't change any of the plans beneath it on that on that pyramid. So if the East Area plan is approved, it replaces that second to the top regarding the neighborhood plans. But it doesn't the urban renewal plan doesn't change the neighborhood plans. It doesn't change Blueprint Denver. It doesn't change plan 2040. Instead, we look to take those objectives that are consistent with what the outcome of this corridor is looking to achieve and call just upon those. That would then include the criteria regarding the mechanisms to to try to help address involuntary displacement.
Speaker 2: So if we were to approve this tonight and then next week, you know, obviously this is hypothetically, but we were to then consider a zoning variance in this zone. Then we would still consider comp plan 2040, Blueprint 2019, and those would be factors that we would consider. So it isn't as if we would just throw them out and and just consider this urban renewal plan in a vacuum.
Speaker 14: That is correct. And I'm going to look at Liz. Is there anything more you want to add to that? She's the planning expert.
Speaker 2: Hi. Welcome back.
Speaker 10: Hello. So just to reiterate that the the urban redevelopment plan must be consistent with our adopted plans. It does not supersede them. That going forward, any project would again be evaluated, whether it is consistent with all of our plans. And for rezoning specifically, that's one of our criteria is consistency with our adopted plan. So that would not change or would be the comprehensive plan and its supplements, which include Blueprint Denver and any area plans.
Speaker 2: Got it. So, Madam Director, I have another question for you also from Blueprint. Blueprint talks about increasing the development of affordable housing in mixed income housing. How can this let's say we vote this in tonight, how can this augment that charge from Blueprint?
Speaker 14: Sure. As was noted earlier, the devil if if the delivery of affordable housing were easy, it'd be happening everywhere. But it's not. It is hard. It is expensive. It is complicated. And so being able to bring another tool, that being urban renewal in tax increment to the conversation of helping to deliver housing and affordable housing in particular is really what we would be looking to achieve.
Speaker 2: Okay. And another tenet of blueprint is mobility. Colfax has another project going in. I think that would also help blueprint with, you know, the blueprint charge of increased mobility. Does this help the BRT at all?
Speaker 14: What this would do would be to help support the objective of of having there be access to housing and services near transit. So as BRT or any transit activity continues to occur, helping to promote development that is consistent with increased ridership with reduced use of the automobile would again be something that we would look at as the project comes to us.
Speaker 2: And one more question, Mr. President. You looked different than just a couple of minutes ago. The what is to keep other than the city council just saying no, what is the key? Let's say again, we vote this in tonight. What's to keep someone, a developer or whomever, to just immediately go for 12 storeys because they want to, you know, one of the concerns, a real or imaginary and this is I guess the nature of my question is that we will approve this tonight and tomorrow. Developers will go bonkers and we'll have, you know, 80 plus story buildings all along this renewal area. So can you help address that or so?
Speaker 14: And again, Liz, I don't don't go far. Approving the urban renewal plan does nothing to the existing zoning. So right now, that type of development is not possible because it is contrary to the existing zoning. In addition, we can help a project that comes to us. If the developer is looking to do something that is already within the existing framework of this city, they can do that. It's in these areas that are a challenge that we frequently find that there there is a project that wants to be done, but because of a variety of conditions can't be done without some amount of additional public investment. That's where we can come in and that's where we can begin to. In addition to the project that is put forward, make sure that it is meeting as many of those objectives that that we've already talked about, that it includes the affordable housing, that it pays attention to the job creation, that it pays attention to the businesses that it would be bringing and the impact that they may or may not have along others trying to effect development along transit. All of those things now become available to us if the urban renewal plan is in place, because now that's a venue for Darrah to participate.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Director Huggins. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Before I go to the next member, I just want to address there were some concerns about sounds they might be hearing outside. Sound like gunshots. And Denver Police Department is calibrating the gunshot detection system, also known as ShotSpotter right now. So that's what's going on. If you're wondering about that, just want to put everyone at ease, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy, if I can ask you to come out, please. Thank you. My first question is, are you willing, from this point forward to ditch the pyramid and come up with a new visual about the plans? Don't answer just. Okay. Thank you. I think one of the questions underneath what's happening tonight is about trust. And I think evidence is more helpful than promises when it comes to building trust. So can you talk about Mary Crust as a specific example of how an area that is vulnerable to gentrification on the border between Denver and Adams County working class neighborhood? How? Al Doura and Teff were used in ways that promoted equity and give just specific examples. Don't go into the history. Just give the specific examples of the outcomes related to equity there, in particular the housing and the way they used the training funds. You might want to put the slider that shows some of the policies that it has. While you're talking.
Speaker 14: I can get past the pyramid.
Speaker 6: There we go.
Speaker 14: Certainly.
Speaker 12: And and then I have one more. So just go quick and then I'm going to ask for another.
Speaker 14: So so the Mary Chris comment site is a former convent located in far north west Denver. It was acquired by a developer. And I think this is really fundamental to the answer as well, Councilwoman, is that this was a developer that was committed to embracing these goals and objectives of the city. And the intention of that development was to create a very different type of neighborhood. It has a very unique mix of housing options, including co-housing, very focused on affordability and attainability, focused on the community around it, making it be very, very inclusive. So tax increment was used both property and sales tax increment is being captured on that development site to help pay for some of the necessary infrastructure to to support that development.
Speaker 12: And there was local food production to help address the food desert. Yes. Yes. And there was a specific use of the ETO or the training dollars to do training for folks who needed career training in construction.
Speaker 14: That is true. And in councilman, we councilman, we have changed our program. It used to be such that you could either pay a dollar amount to the Urban Renewal Authority and then we would further deploy that in our construction employment opportunities programs or the developer could create their own program. This was a circumstance where that latter alternative was utilized, where there was a program that was put together by the developer that focused not only on construction but really women in construction as well, to be able to help build that segment of our economy.
Speaker 12: And when there's retail on that site, it'll do local hiring. That will include giving the first opportunity to jobs for folks from Denver who might be in need.
Speaker 14: That is true. All of our projects require there to be participation in our first source hiring program, and that is a program that says that any new job that is created in an urban renewal project, first opportunity to apply for that job has to be made available to a low income Denver resident.
Speaker 12: Great. And then can we just talk for a minute about one of the things that's been raised and I think one of the most important concerns raised tonight is about business ownership from immigrant and refugee communities and minority business owners. And so Doura had some experience in the District three with the Vietnamese business district there. And so can you talk for a minute about how urban renewal worked in terms of there were two different projects. The first one is there was a Lowe's where there was a concern about displacement. And and I'm going to talk to you in a minute about how some of these came to be because they did not fall from the sky. But can you just talk about the two projects there and the retention of businesses and how that was arranged and how that came about?
Speaker 14: Sure. And I want to make sure you're referencing the Alameda Square project as.
Speaker 6: Well as.
Speaker 12: Langley. The later there were two different.
Speaker 14: Is the one because there are two urban renewal areas, there are two urban renewal areas and the district boundaries have shifted over time. But one of them is the Alameda Square former shopping center. That is where we worked for a very long time to try to repurpose the back portion of that property, in particular, while there were existing minority owned businesses in the front part recognizing the need for there to be balance. And so there were several starts at that that finally culminated in the back portion of the site being redeveloped as a Lowe's Home Improvement. But meanwhile, then the existing businesses that were there had an opportunity to reinvest in themselves and to improve the overall functionality of the businesses that were there to the extent they they chose to and participated in. So Kingsland Restaurant you may be familiar with was is continues to function very similar to how it did at the beginning . There were two Vietnamese grocery stores. One of them decided to leave when they sold a portion of the property. The other had the opportunity to significantly through the tax increment as well reinvest to and enhance the tenant experience as well as the customer experience.
Speaker 12: Great. And then my last question, and it's kind of a compound question, so hang with me, but some of the things we've talked about are dairy policies and some of the things we've talked about were site specific agreements or. Commitments or outcomes. Would you say that involvement from community was key to achieving both of those things? I mean, did Dara just think of these policies on its own? Did Dara just think of these outcomes and what was the role? Because I think one of the questions that folks are asking tonight is how do they really know that community can impact your agency or these projects? And so I think that I just want to have you point to where these things came from and who they came from.
Speaker 14: Sure. And and I'm going to take those in two pieces as well. I'm going to talk about the the programs that we administer. And then I also want to talk.
Speaker 12: About in the generic. Don't go through each one maybe.
Speaker 14: But understood. You understood. Most of those have been brought to us by concerns from from the community. And I'm going to define the community rather broadly where there was recognition, particularly when we were becoming more active in downtown, that as these projects are happening, where is the opportunity for that low income Denver resident to be able to apply for a job? Where is that opportunity for there to be additional resources made available, particularly when we are still in an area where we are struggling to find construction workers to work on these projects? How can this public investment be a mechanism by which we can effect these different outcomes? So it really.
Speaker 10: Almost.
Speaker 14: Always were brought to us, evaluated, and they have been longstanding programs that have had a high degree of success. That's the program side. On the project side, there's, you know, I think some of our our best projects going back, Councilwoman CdeBaca, to how do these projects start when they really originate from the community? And case in point is the Dahlia Square Shopping Center in District eight, where it was a a dilapidated shopping center that at one time had been the largest African-American owned shopping center in the region. Certainly a very, very large region. But traffic patterns changed. The center fell into disrepair and the community said we need something else. What they really wanted was another grocery store and we had to work with them to help them appreciate that just the location of that was going to make that very, very challenging. But we worked with that community to better define how it is that site could be redeveloped with them. It is now at the home again to a Denver health clinic. It is home to senior affordable housing and it is home to the mental health center of Denver. Every single one of those development aspects was met with great support of the community because we worked so closely with the community every step along the way to work as hard as we could to make sure that anything that happened on that site met with those continuing community goals and objectives.
Speaker 12: Last question not every project originates with the community. Sometimes the project originates with a developer. Yes. Would you say that there is experience, though, where the where there is a community that is organized and exerts influence both with the council as well as with your agency and with the developer, that outcomes are sometimes achieved even where the idea did not come from the community.
Speaker 6: Yes, yes.
Speaker 12: Very, very frequently. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 10: Thank you, President. Clerk Tracy. I have a couple questions for you. So do you have some examples of when there's been an urban redevelopment plan in other parts of the city? How has that affected the surrounding property taxes of single family residential?
Speaker 14: Councilwoman I do not have that direct data and that has been a question that is asked, has been asked of us before. And are the the information that we have really is limited to the increase in the taxes in the tax increment area itself. So I know that it is happening. I know we looked at the the outlying impact when we worked on the Highland Garden Village redevelopment, which was the infill redevelopment of the former ILA to site when it moved out of northwest Denver into the Central Platte Valley. But I don't I don't have specific information regarding the the direct correlation.
Speaker 10: You talked a little bit about a predictive tool that Dito is working on, and it sounds like it might incorporate some of or might be able to generate some of that information. Or could you talk more about that predictive tool?
Speaker 14: I would really prefer that that question be answered by somebody in the Office of Economic Development. I just know that in part of our broader conversations, which again, I think is a really important component of this, is recognizing that every city department, many city departments, not every many city departments have their finger on the pulse of development , whether it's Parks and Rec, whether it's CPD, whether it's public works, urban renewal, the Office of Economic Development. And it's in those collective conversations that I'm beginning to hear about this. But again, I would ask that you ask that question of somebody from the Office of Economic Development lest I mess it up.
Speaker 10: Okay. We can do that. In the slide deck, it talks about 20% of new employment growth by 2040. And I wanted to understand a little bit more what sort of employment might that be? And are we looking at how we incorporate existing residents and businesses?
Speaker 14: So that is a statistic. And Liz, I'm going to look to you as well. That is a statistic and a goal coming out of Blueprint Denver that is again trying to, as I understand, focus development along corridors throughout the city. So I want to make sure it's clear that it's not saying that 20% of all of the new jobs are going to be in the East Colfax corridor. Right. It really is across the city in those corridors. And it will be a new employment of of all different sorts. But I will stop there, Liz, and ask if you want to add anything more.
Speaker 10: That is correct. That's the blueprint guidance that generally in our community corridor is we want to see 20% of employment growth. I think one of the objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan and something we've heard through the East Area Plan process, is looking at opportunities for affordable business, play space, community serving businesses. There's the ability, I think, with this with the urban redevelopment plan to help foster some of those opportunities that may connect existing or future entrepreneurs in the area or small businesses to help them stay in the area and expand those opportunities. Those are objectives that are included in the plan that may help us with achieving some of those goals. So it sounds like at this point we don't necessarily have a framework, though, in how to implement that and make that happen to be inclusive of the current residents. To answer that first. I think, again, that it's an objective of the plan. So it would be something that we would be using with a project that comes forward to evaluate the project. So how is it helping to further those objectives? Okay. My next question is for Irene Aguilar. It was mentioned previously by another speaker that there's 30% homeownership in the area. What are the investments that the city is currently making to ensure that we stabilize and not reduce that 30% homeownership? Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Actually, we are compiling right now lists of people who are delinquent on their property taxes. And we will be doing door to door outreach to them both, warning them of the hazards of predatory mortgages that might be approaching them and ensuring that they are aware of our programs that we have available to help with rebates. And then Office of Financial Empowerment. And that would be starting probably next week. And what exactly, I guess, is that outreach going to look like for because it's a very, very diverse area. Thank you. So for this first day, we're going to start with door to door knocking and we will leave behind fliers with some of this information on it. And a contact number to contact will hopefully do this partnership with the facts, partnership either them or NEST. And then we will ask to be giving them information on the programs that door has available for homeownership and improvement. And I understand I have a meeting actually tomorrow with Energy Outreach Colorado, because they may have some funds to do some energy improvements in the area as well. So we're hoping will be able to notify them about all of them. We have a small internal team that's been meeting probably once a month to talk about how are we going to actually get out there and do outreach on East Colfax and specific. And I'm excited that we're finally going to be getting started. And so the programs that are going to support homeowners, I'm assuming that's the same property tax refund program that we have within the city that is only at the 35% and 40% average median income level. Right? So that's the property tax program that's available. There's actually a state property tax program available as well that for those who are over the age of 65, we should make them aware of it. The ability to have the state pay their taxes, put a lean on their property, get that back when they sell their property and then ask to talk to them about some of the home improvement programs that exist through organizations like Brothers Endura. And so what are kind of along those similar lines? What are the supports for current business owners along this corridor? So are tools for business owners are more limited right now. But the Economic Development Department is has started up a pilot program this year, and we're hoping to expand the funding next year through business services to do a business improvement. I thought it would bias stands for I'm sorry, but to provide support for them through construction and through remodeling to help them further improve on their area. And then there are there is East Colfax bid, not just East Colfax, but all of these Colfax. And then the other thing we're trying to do is support the effects partnership to see if we could help them evolve to become a community development corporation so they can begin to provide funding to increase and stabilize that community as well. Okay. Thank you. I have another question. And as far if you could come on up. Thank you. I wanted to learn more. What you're hearing from current property owners or members of the Ethiopian community, specifically about what has been transpiring along this stretch of Colfax and where you see some gaps?
Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, people overall, especially in the therapy community, are just nervous. And honestly, people are saying, we're going to move to Aurora. There is already, as I mentioned earlier, issues with small businesses being shut down as one reason or another, like the nuisance ordinance that the city has that's been used to close down small businesses that some newcomers consider an eyesore. But those businesses have been part of the neighborhood for decades. There's just overall, historically, when you look at other neighborhoods as well, our community has already been pushed out. This is, you know, a larger therapy community and a city park area. Like 20 years ago, we had a large community in five points. They're all in Aurora now, you know, and that's what's happening in East Colfax. That's the perception of what's happening in East Colfax. And all of this is happening very, very soon or rapidly, even though I know they've been working on it for years. But the other thing is all this details honestly are very confusing to a lot of people. And I know during your last meeting here, there was a passionate speech made by Councilwoman CdeBaca that really, like, got people's attention and say, oh, this is what it means. So there was also a lot of misunderstanding. And now there is a lot of alarm in the community saying, you know, we're next and East Colfax is next. And so, you know, that's why there is a lot of fear and nervousness. And, you know, some people are already making plans to to find a home or a business in Aurora.
Speaker 10: Have you gotten feedback or been part of the neighborhood outreach process?
Speaker 7: Can you repeat that?
Speaker 10: Have you been part of or had feedback on, I guess, the inclusiveness of the process so far?
Speaker 7: Yeah, the partnership has been great. They've been attempting to reach out. You know, we've worked with Nest to help reopen some of the businesses that have been closed. So we've had some success in that. But the issue is that, you know, as many times as you meet with this agency, it's an organization's first of all, it's hard to get this is a different community where a lot of the residents work two or three jobs, you know, single mothers or even the small business owners. They can't afford to hire a lot of staff so that, you know, the owners are working 16, 18 hours a day. So when there's a crisis, we'll make a call. People come out. But usually when you call people for planning, you know, the participation level has not been that great. And people just trust that, you know, a council or, you know, the good people take care of it. But there has been you know, I give a lot of kudos to the fact partnership and there's been a lot of attempts to reach out, but. This thing is very complicated. A lot of times people don't understand it. There has not been a lot of opportunities for a great deal of the community and not just the Ethiopian community, the immigrant community, the African-American community. I've talked to a lot of influencers from multiple of those communities, but not the fault of the good folks that are trying to put this together. But the reality of that community is that people don't have the luxury to actively participate and have a say.
Speaker 10: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca, you back up for questions.
Speaker 6: Just a quick question for Ms.. Aguilar. You were mentioning the the state tax program and that Alene would be put on their house for the payment. And you said that the lean would need to be paid back upon sale. What happens in cases where there is no sale and the person passes away? Because that's usually what happens when a senior is seeking support.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Councilwoman. It's similar to the Medicaid program where they would when the house was sold, they would take their portion and the remains would go to the family, the remaining value built up in the home. So the hope would be that on some of these homes that were perhaps purchased for 100,000, that in four or five years they'd be worth closer to 500,000. And what was behind on taxes to be taken out of that? And the difference in equity could go to the family for intergenerational wealth.
Speaker 6: Does that require a will?
Speaker 10: The I think my understanding is that the state would take their portion and then ideally the family would have a will to say that how the low equity in the home gets distributed once the family member has died. But otherwise, the usual inheritance structure.
Speaker 6: Or if there's no will, does it go to the state?
Speaker 10: Not if you have living relatives as like. There's a a listing of who gets it next. Like if you have a spouse, even if you've only been married to them for a year or two, they're first on the list. Unless Mom has, you know, drafting something up saying it goes to my kids or my grandkids. And it really behooves people to do that, even if it's just a handwritten witness by somebody, because that still has legal standing in their state.
Speaker 6: And in cases where there is nobody identified because that's that's what happens. Otherwise, they'd go to their family members for support. In those cases, what happens to the properties?
Speaker 10: To be honest, I don't know for sure. I know we have unclaimed property funds that come to the state and so I presume it would go there, but I'm making that up. I don't know. That is a fact.
Speaker 6: And do you know what percentage of Coloradans or Colorado seniors utilize that program?
Speaker 10: Very small. I think it's not well known among people. And as you know, there's a lot of distrust.
Speaker 6: And is there hesitance to sign that leen or documents that allow that lean to exist?
Speaker 10: Yes, I think that's part of the distrust. Interesting. The only good part about that, if you will, is that when you have that line on your property, if somebody comes to try to do some kind of predatory, mortgaging process on you, it will go through the the state or the city first so that you'll be counseled about the potential risks of that.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 744 is closed. And we're going to move on to comments by members of Council Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I got to tell you, thank you. That we don't have a public hearing for climate change tonight. You know, I. I wish we weren't having this conversation because that would mean as I leave the city and county building a hangar. Right. I'm Cherokee and I head east heading to my house on Colfax. And I see the vibrancy in District ten, District nine. Grocery stores, amenities walking. You hit Monaco and it's a virtual wall. You hit Quebec and you go in a time capsule because you go back to the 1950s when the Colfax was I-70, prior to I-70 , and you still see the same services and shop that you had back then. If you're curious, from Monaco to Yosemite, from this just under two mile stretch right now, there are 21 car oriented businesses, used car dealers, mechanical shops, auto body shops. 16. I say motel's I use that term loosely. I have been in those motels and the state that we have these individuals living in and the amount of dollars that they pay to stay in there is is a disservice to those individuals that are trying to survive. And I appreciate Doctor Aguilar, because you hit the nail on the head. This conversation tonight is easy. East. Colfax needs the support. And this is a tool. And this is all it is. This is not a silver bullet, but this is a tool that will give us the opportunity to serve a community that is in desperate need of it. I don't know if you're familiar of the community planning development done because we talked about equity in Comp Plan 2040. Each statistical neighborhood in the city and county of Denver recently received what's called an equity score. It runs from 2 to 4.4, and that equity score is built on five factors. And I read some of them to you socioeconomic families that are in poverty, educational attainment, the built environment, access to full service, grocery store parks or open space health care, first trimester care during your pregnancy, more morbidity, child and youth, overweight and obesity . Mortality, life expectancy. So they took all these different factors and they spit out a number. The neighborhood that has the lowest in the city and county of Denver is East Colfax. We cannot do enough to serve these people. People that have been neglected for a very long time. And I want to applaud the city because in the past few years we have recognized that and we have taken steps to move forward with it, investments in our infrastructure with the 2017 Bond acquisition of two parcels. And I'll come back to that as we talk about housing, making investments in a community that has been neglected for a very long time. And there was a conversation about the local businesses. And we support this. We support the small businesses. But I will tell you right now, and I'll look at the East Colfax neighborhood there in this front pew, there are businesses right now in East Colfax that are not serving East Colfax. And we are using the tools that we have in place to either have them turn around and serve those communities, or we will handle that accordingly because I've been in those stores. And it's not because we are picking on a particular group of business, not because you're not serving the community. And I want to welcome any of my colleagues who walk Colfax with me, because I've done it, walk through with the neighbors to see how can we better serve this community at night picking up trash to better serve this community. When it comes to gentrification, the first thing you need to do is build housing. And that's what we're doing as a city. 83, 15, 82. Units. One, two, three, four bedroom units. 60%, Ami. And if you're curious what that means, if you are a family of four, maximum income is $55,000 and below. Yes, we cannot. These are the tools that we're using as a city to support those in this neighborhood. So I encourage my colleagues to support this, you know, so that we have another tool that we can help this community be a part of it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of comments, because district three in particular, Westford was mentioned a couple times, and I just Stacy failed to, I think, adequately mention how much of an impact that had along Alameda and South Federal. And so I just want to make sure that folks here and appreciate the amount of work that goes into both the areas and the utilization of the turfs and how it can be a benefit. But always remember that it can also be taken advantage of. And so it is the investment of the people who live there. It is the investment of the communities who operate businesses there to pay attention over many decades of what's going to be happening in these corridors. So I saw it support housing and small business development. 42 projects were done in this particular area. One directly placed affordable housing at Alameda and Irving, 98 units under 60%. AMI because the project was mentioned, 42 units, 30 to 60%. AMI and their nonprofit actively working to support the economic success of West Denver families. Significant facade improvement including New Saigon bakery and and restaurant if anybody's not been there you should the retail malls on both sides of south federal Mississippi. These were years long process to build trust with dozens of individual owners. Each individual business was an individual property owner. All of them had to be brought along to approve facade improvement in their entire retail area. This took years and involved the creation of an actual alley behind one of them. Those business owners were taking trash home because they didn't want to take it behind their business. These projects were tough. Trust did not exist between first and second generation immigrant business owners and government. Not a shock. My work there was with the Asian American Pacific Islander Commission who wanted to understand what those business owner retail concerns were . Safety and upkeep and growth of their businesses were paramount. They wanted to be able to pass down their businesses to their kids. It took years of relationship building, years of tenacity by Tracy and her team, resulting in actual renovations, actual placemaking. And now we're seeing the burgeoning Little Saigon business district start to grow there and walkability and pedestrian access start.
Speaker 6: To be advocated.
Speaker 10: For. The successful outcomes come from partners, deliberate support and trust, and we all play a role in that, especially those who live, work and really love these particular neighborhoods. So I just wanted to mention a few of the successes that I've seen in West Denver that really can result from investment in our communities that need them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to start by thanking everyone who came out to speak tonight. And I know it's a it's a long evening. It's a tough thing to stand up and speak. And so we appreciate your advocacy and your bravery for getting up there. I know there's been some confusion with this vote that's before us, and I believe we kind of owe it to everyone to just make sure we're setting the record straight about exactly what this vote is about. You know, it is not about the east area plan. It is not about whether to use TIF money for any project specific project along East Colfax. It's not about whether tax dollars should fund TIFF. Our decision tonight is about whether or not that's an option on the table. Whether it's a tool in our box if we want it down the road. To not have that option available to us, I believe, is shortsighted. I've been attending East Colfax Neighborhood Association meetings for a long time, and I just want to point out what a unique R.A. it is. Tim and the rest of the leadership have truly engaged this community, its community, members of all ages, of all cultures, of all nationalities. And, you know, we might not always agree on the outcomes or how to get there, but we can all agree that this is a level of community engagement that has kept the East Colfax neighborhood a vibrant place, even given the challenges that it faces with safety and affordability and the threat of gentrification and displacement. One of my aides lives on East Colfax and in the East Colfax neighborhood, so my familiarity is very, very deep and you guys are well-represented in my office, just.
Speaker 10: So you know.
Speaker 12: To say that there's a lot happening on the East Colfax corridor right now. Kind of an understatement, right? It's an economic opportunity zone. There are five active Reno's two active business improvement districts. It's two council districts. You know, they're talking about the pilot BRT program that you Syria plan is being developed there. It's home to a thriving immigrant community that brings a rich cultural heritage, but it's a place that faces a lot of challenges. The lot sizes along East Colfax are very shallow, which makes it difficult to do anything really on the land. The city of Denver requires that small businesses to tackle the significant costs of infrastructure upgrades to the alleys and the sidewalks on any parcels in this area and in all areas. But in this area in particular, and even though the data shows that the crime is down, we still have a lot of work to do. All of this adds up to significant barriers to entry for new business and development in the area. I've spoken to some of the parcel owners and most of them tell me the same thing. If it were economically feasible for them to do anything else on these parcels, they would have done it by now. It's just that simple. Denver has one of the strongest economies in the country, in one of the strongest national economies in our nation's history. Yet still right now, the East Colfax corridor is struggling. And if economic indicators are correct, we're headed for a market correction which is only going to make a shift in this area more economically difficult. So what do we do to change this? If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, how can we create a shift on this corridor? Like many people I've spoken with, I don't believe that doing nothing is an option, and I believe that imperfect action is better than perfect inaction. With all the economic uncertainty we have to do, we have to use every available tool in our toolbox, which is like altering the financial options in the area through TIFF down the road is an option that we shouldn't eliminate prematurely. Is there a perfect? No. Historically, it's had its challenges. But this isn't the dura of 1975. It's 2019. Jura isn't asking to use eminent domain here, or frankly, I wouldn't support it. And the scope is limited to very specific parcels that are bordering East Colfax. Tracy and her team have been working their tails off to do the outreach that is needed to be done. Discussing this with community members, answering questions, making herself available to discussions with concerned neighbors. I mean, look at how many questions she answered tonight. That's pretty amazing. You know, Darrah is walking the walk and talking the talk and showing their commitment to the neighborhood through their actions. And we have examples in Denver, like we just talked about the Vietnamese community over on federal and Alameda, where Dora was successful in revitalizing the community while still ensuring that it maintains its authentic character and that the community was not displaced. We need to make sure that as potential projects come in front of council, we vet them through the lens of equity and we are careful about the choices we make. But tonight's vote isn't related to a specific project. It's a vote to leave all the available options on the table in a time when we might be facing economic uncertainty. And this evening, I will be supporting this designation, and I ask that you do as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. I wanted to take a minute. Having heard these presentations, as well as having recently completed our race and social justice initiative, training as body and again highlight several of my comments from last week during our race and social justice initiative training. We discussed several times the policies that have impacted and exacerbated race and social justice injustice over time. Several times we saw that urban renewal has deepened race and social justice in our in our injustice in our country and our community here in Denver, under the guise of helping us. Here we have a plan that was initiated in 2015 through the leadership of council members who are no longer members of this body for various reasons. One perhaps being that residents did not feel adequately represented by said representatives. 2015 was also a time when we were not aggressively acknowledging and mitigating our housing and displacement crisis. We have an area of town that this plan itself recognizes as high risk for displacement. We've heard several members of marginalized groups share their fears and concerns with this plan. Tonight, through emails, through phone calls, 70% of residents are struggling to stay in the community and this plan is attempting to incentivize private development. Most of them are not owners and instead are renters. They have a very different level of access to the improvements and planning that owners have and that have been discussed on other projects. Doura is determining blight and the plan overall was not catalyzed by residents. In fact, outside of notice for this meeting, residents who are not property owners have claimed that they have not been a part of this process. There was a statement made that this plan, if that if this plan was accepted and relocation was required for displaced businesses and residents, that a feasible method exists to relocate them. That makes me very uncomfortable. I also understand that while we're not approving a TIV project, we're authorizing the use to generate funding for the promised improvements of future projects. Two Financing draws a boundary around the same neighborhood. That's asking for affordability, and 70% are at risk of displacement. To impose those necessary taxes that will effectively tax the properties in the area to pay for the new improvements. While tax increases and instability is one of the primary factors causing homeowner displacement across our city. This is already a trump opportunity zone that incentivizes private development in the area with federal dollars. A denial tonight is not a permanent denial, but a two year pause while Denver recalibrates, as we have promised our residents we would to address this housing crisis. Derek can also continue to work through their housing branch to help facilitate improvements along the corridor without the plan in place. We can also move forward with our upcoming neighborhood plans and decide if through those plans they still want to catalyze the same level of private development. I'm not comfortable with hoping that communities are organized enough to fight back and achieve the sometimes decent projects. That is too big of a risk to take right now. Knowing that all of our families are facing and I think Miss Aguilar's thoughts, while Miss Aguilar's thoughts have changed to realize how this might be used as a tool to mitigate displacement, I believe her original instinct was based on knowing the data we have. I'm going to have to again go with the many years and projects of proof. We have to show that the urban renewal plans have corrected blight of poverty by eliminating the poor, black and brown and driving them out. We need to press pause. We watched the devastation of what happened with Walton Street and the redevelopment of that area. I respect my colleagues underscoring projects that had satisfactory outcomes, and we can do those projects on a project by project basis. We know a lot of change is coming to this corner of our city. We've heard multiple tools that are being utilized by Nest and Ms.. Aguilar has been in her role maybe a year at this point. And we need to give those efforts a chance to work without using the same tool that we know catalyzed massive disruption in several areas of town. So for this reason, I still do not support this plan.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Many of my comments were stated by Councilwoman Torres. I think, you know, I had an old saying, which is that urban renewal is like fire. It can keep you warm and alive in a winter or it can burn your house down. And it's all about how you use it. Part of the responsibility for how it gets used is on government and in particular how we institutionalize more policies to ensure that if this tool is used, it's held accountable. There were movements it took to make the policies that are in place, and we probably it's time for us to update those. I think there is pointing direction that points that way in our plans that we've adopted. And so it was not the case very recently that there was a policy of always including affordable housing and it's not a written policy. So there is definitely room for improvement for institutionalizing the government accountability. But I will always believe that it is important that there is wisdom in the community and that one of the most important things we need to go forward if this passes tonight, is to help make sure that the wisdom of communities who've gone before get to directly share their experience. With this community. So I think we need to pair the Vietnamese community that Councilwoman Torres talked about with some of the immigrant refugees in this quarter and create an opportunity for shared learning and then to create more resources for those communities that are now activated. I started tonight thinking that we were doing this too soon, that we should have waited until we had actual projects. But actually, as I listened to the discussion and all of the really important testimony tonight, I realize it's really important that we're doing it tonight because now everyone is paying attention before there's any project. And so we have to seize that. We have to resource this community with organizing dollars and the ability to self-organize, to learn about community benefits agreements and how to negotiate. And so together, we have to have accountability in government, both in the agency as well as the council, because we will vote on anything that moves forward, as well as finding a way to channel and collect the wisdom that's in the community about how to ensure that that power lives there. So I hope that those are steps we can take. I'll be looking forward to seeing what the first round of grantees are from the funding that is going to be out there for equity organizing . And if it doesn't include this neighborhood, how we ensure that there is more resources going forward. I'll be hosting an event on community benefits later this fall. I will make sure to invite those of you who are here tonight from the neighborhood to learn more about that model. And then we will continue, I think, to have an important conversation. I'm really glad the questions were raised. This agency has in recent history not had the same policies it has today, and it needs to continue to grow and evolve. And that responsibility falls on us. It is the history of this agency's evolution has been an inside and outside organizing period. It hasn't been one body. It's required both. And so I think if we continue to focus this important conversation, we can hold any future projects really accountable or reject them. And we can also make sure that the next plans that come forward potentially have even more mitigating tools built into them from the front end. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman each. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everyone for coming. It's. It's late. I don't even know what time it is. Oh, 1030. Yeah, it's like ten past my bedtime. And. And I also want to thank people for. For, you know, sharing your views and your thoughts, regardless of what side of this particular discussion you you're in. I think that this is a framework and and not an actual implementation. And I want to say, I think this is I think this is good. I think that we should have additional development, particularly if it encourages locally owned businesses and affordable housing and allows people to age in place and continue to run their businesses in place. I would also say if you're a developer who is looking at this vote and starting to salivate and think, I don't care about race or social justice, I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. We need to consider that as a middle aged white male. I you know, obviously, I don't I don't experience the struggle, but we need to make sure that everyone is is considered and heard. And we and I heard the our recent training on race and social justice. And if you are a developer who is not going to consider that, don't expect this urban renewal to be a green light. For me, the last thing I'd say is my colleague to my left talked about the vibrancy of Colfax and District ten. I invite all of you to come, maybe as you go home tonight, but please do visit Colfax on District ten, west of Colorado, and enjoy our wonderful, vibrant businesses. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 10: Thank you, President. Clerk. I appreciate I appreciate everybody for Lee. And my comments will be brief. You know, my husband and I, our first home was at 1960 Verbena before Stapleton was redeveloped. And, you know, Saturday's was the location that we gave folks to make left off of Colfax to get to our house. And there hasn't been the investment by the city in this area at all for decades, specifically Québec and other areas. But. Really came forward for me. Today was a great conversation with Neb and. I value your opinion and I value that of the Ethiopian community. And I'm very concerned. I'm very concerned because I haven't heard tonight the plans that we need to really have in place to make sure that we are providing every resource possible to our residents and our businesses. And I can't in good faith vote on this tonight knowing that we don't have a predictive tool that is ready to roll out. We don't know how this investment will affect the property values of surrounding single family homes and businesses, and how are they going to mitigate and navigate those rising property values? How during this development we're going to keep local businesses in the neighborhood? I didn't specifically ask the question, but I purposely didn't because I wanted to hear someone tell me how for that barber shop, how for the dentist's office that was shared tonight. Where are they going to go? What's the interim plans to make sure that they stay in the neighborhood? And so with that, I'm not going to be able to support this tonight because I don't feel like there's the infrastructure in the plans to support our most vulnerable residents and businesses. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman CdeBaca, I see back in the queue, we don't generally go back around to second time programs. All right, then. See nobody else up for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I swear I black I. CdeBaca No.
Speaker 4: Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gillmor No. Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. Torres, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right, Madam Secretary, please cause voting in those results.
Speaker 3: Tunis 11. Nice.
Speaker 1: Tunis Lebanese Council 744 has passed. Councilman Hines, will you please put comfortable 745 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area.
Approves the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions as well as to stimulate growth and redevelopment in the East Colfax Corridor, generally bounded by Monaco Parkway on the west and Yosemite Street on the east in Council Districts 5 and 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0745
|
Speaker 1: Tunis Lebanese Council 744 has passed. Councilman Hines, will you please put comfortable 745 on the floor?
Speaker 2: I would love to. It's somewhere I move. Bill 745 for adoption? Yes.
Speaker 1: One final consideration.
Speaker 2: Yes. I would love to place it on for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 745 is open to me. We have the staff report.
Speaker 4: Well, good evening, everyone. I'm very pleased to be here. I get a chance to stand up for a while and I'm going to be giving you the staff report for Council Bill 745. My name is Andrew Johnston. I'm with the Department of Finance. Council Bill 745 is an ordinance approving six service plans for a new metropolitan district supporting redevelopment of the former Loreto Heights campus in the southwest Denver area. The districts are Colorado height metropolitan districts 1 to 5. And then there's also a sixth district that's called the Loreto Heights programing Metropolitan District. Together, the service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of ACM Loretto six LLC pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act, Sections 32, Dash one, batch 201 and more, particularly 30 2-1, Dash 204.5 of the colorized Colorado Revised Statutes. The service plans contain the District's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code. Rules, regulations and policy and all other applicable law districts shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. Tonight's public hearing is about the service plans for the metropolitan districts. It is not about the the small area plan that is also concurrently happening and will be at land use and land use. Transportation Infrastructure Committee tomorrow and at a public hearing next week, September and September 16th at city council. The the plan for the the area illustrates a mixed use mixed income multigenerational hub for the community serving both existing neighborhoods as well as for any future residents and new businesses located at the redevelopment site. The development plans include a variety of office retail, diverse resident and diverse resident. Residential uses, affordable housing, multimodal options, open space, historic preservation and the adaptive reuse of buildings are also top priorities in the plan. In fact, the plan Creation Hall is slated for adaptive reuse to create 69 affordable housing units for residents that are 30 to 80%. A area median income, additional affordable and attainable housing options are expected as well. The small area plan's commitment to affordability, connectivity and community is is the culmination of a year long process of listening to the registered neighborhood organizations, neighborhood citizens, local community leaders, historic Denver, Denver Public Schools, Loreto alumni and the former property owners, the Sisters of Loretto. The community led process involving over 1300 participants yielded an outcome with significant community assets, which would need to be developed and maintained through time. The communities desired improvements and the basic infrastructure and utilities totals nearly $97 million. Part of the answer to support the desired outcome is the creation of multiple districts with specific purposes and enough financial capacity to provide the opportunity to fund upfront construction costs plus the associated maintenance of the improvements through time. While the small area plan approval is not up for approval tonight, the City Council is being asked to consider approval for the service plans for the Loretta Hite Metropolitan Districts, which will assist in the implementing of the small area plan as approved by as proposed for City Council approval in the upcoming weeks. The metropolitan districts are an implementation tool and approval of the service plan does not approve or affect any zoning or land uses. The six proposed metro. Out in districts organized to work efficiently together are being organized to work efficiently together to enable financing, construction, ownership and maintenance of certain public improvements at the site. The districts will have three different areas of responsibility is anticipated. District number one will be the management district responsible for coordinating the previously mentioned activities for for the site and districts. Two through five will be the taxing districts, generating revenue to pay for cost of installing and maintaining public infrastructure. Arrangements for financing, acquiring, constructing, operating and maintaining public improvements will be created among the districts after creation. The sixth District is a programing district which will overlay the entire inclusion area and specifically assist in the programing of activities and facility maintenance of community assets on the site, including, but not limited to the plazas, the Grand Lawn and the campus quad, as well as the following structures currently known as the Administration Building, the MAVEN Stanton Theater, the indoor pool, the former campus library, and the preservation of a historic cemetery as potentially open space. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the services area, including without limitation street and sidewalk improvements, parking infrastructure, water, storm drainage detention and sanitary sewer improvements, landscape and irrigation. A public plaza and traffic and safety controls and improvements. The new metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the Authority's grant by the Special District Act up to the following aggregate limitations. Districts one through five can impose up to 50 bills for debt, up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance. And then separately, the programing district will have ability to impose up to 20 mills for programing and maintenance, specifically for the community assets called the Plazas, the Grand Lawn, the campus quad, the administration building, the Maven Piece Theater, the indoor pool, and the former campus library. The current programing district is not authorized to issue any debt. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $97 million. However, the district financing model does not achieve all the project funds required to cover the project cost of the nearly $97 million worth of improvements. The basic infrastructure of roads, utilities, drainage. Supporting the proposed development is estimated to cost about 43 million, while the costs of realizing the community hub as recommended by the community process is estimated to cost an additional 54 million. The outcomes desired by the community support the outcomes desired by the community. Support the concept of the mill levy parameters that are greater than the model service plan parameters in order to provide flexibility to future residents and constituents of the districts and provide the level of infrastructure, public services and programing desired by the community. The service plans include an increase to the maximum debt service melody and an increase to the maximum operations, maintenance and levy. Under the service plans, the change is to increase from 40 mills to 50 mills for debt. And. An increase of from ten mills to 15 mills for the maximum operations and maintenance melody. In addition, a separate programing district will be created to provide a mechanism to maintain and activate the community assets through time. Ultimately, these increases alone are not enough to meet the capital requirements of the community assets. So an application for tax increment has been submitted to Daera seeking further support for the community assets. Additional financing tools will be required to cover the project cost gap or a reduction in the desired community. Assets will need to be considered. The city views the metropolitan districts and additional financing tools as a successful approach to achieving neighborhood and citywide goals of affordability and equity. Without such tools, development projects often result in higher purchase prices and lack of public amenities. Approval of the service plan establishes the following There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and projected needs. The districts are capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Once again, the approval of the service plan does not approve or affect any zoning or land uses. City staff recommends approval of the service plans. And with me tonight is the applicant and representative Mark Wicker. Wick I always your name sorry mark with two quick events and I'd like to invite him up here just to give a quick statement.
Speaker 1: Well, I think we have you signed up on in our public speaking. Oh, you.
Speaker 4: Do? Yep. Okay. Okay, then that is the end of my staff report. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have 13 individuals signed up to speak this evening. First is Mark were Cavic, if that's what it says right here. So I'm hoping that. That's right. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And yes, it is Mark Wood Cabbage. And good evening, President Clark and members of Denver City Council. My name is Mark Wood Cabbage. I am a partner at West Side Investment Partners. We are the owner of the Loretto Heights campus at 33,001 South Federal. Tonight, as Andrew mentioned, the Metro District's service plan is in front of you for approval. That is all just as a little background here. West Side purchased the property of the campus in the summer of 2018. Since that time, we've been on a holding pattern very intentionally. And the other thing that I want to point out to the council is that we only decided to purchase the campus after an exhaustive search was performed to try and maintain the campus as an educational facility. So we are stepping in only after that occurred. But since that time, we have been working in collaboration not only with the community but also with the city on an area planning process. And although that's not in front of us tonight, there has been an extensive and exhaustive outreach to the community as far as trying to find collaboration for the future of this project. And as Andrew mentioned, that does include about 1300 different participants in ten different steering committee meetings and four different public hearings. And there were also two online surveys. You know, unfortunately, we understand the trend in the in the city of Denver right now is a lot about mistrust. And that's precisely why we took out a practice for a letter for Loretta Heights to have a genuine community outreach program. In my opinion, the program that has been set forth is the gold standard for what the city should be expecting from all developers as they're reaching forward to other development projects for years to come. Councilman Flynn has reminded me on numerous occasions that Southwest Denver has been overlooked on many occasions in the past, and it's been far too long since anything great has happened in that side of town. It's also clear that the community in southwest Denver is seeking a place to call their own. The community envisions a mixed use. Mixed income, multi-generational development that honors the spirit of Loretto, embraces the campus characteristics and preserves the historic structures, while at the same time the community is not seeking a high density development. To breathe. New life back into the historic campus require a huge lift, and I underscore the word huge. The Loreto Heights Metropolitan District is just one of many, and I underscore the word many tools that will be required in order to make this campus great again. But without the tools like the Metro District, there's no chance of bringing the community vision to reality. In the case, the campus will either rot or be forced to be developed under the current zoning, which neither will bring many community benefits to Southwest Denver. I can stand here in front of you with whole heart and tell you that West Side.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. All right. And I neglected to call the first five up to the bench, so I'm going to do that now. Megan Bettcher, Lacy Knowles, John Henderson, Maribel Gage and Karen Calamity. If you want to come up to the front and Megan better, you are a first.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. I'm Meghan Becker. I am general counsel for that applicant and I'm just here to answer questions tonight. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Lacey Knowles.
Speaker 6: Good evening to the council as well.
Speaker 12: Only signals with the Davidson we're.
Speaker 3: Providing investment.
Speaker 6: Banking services to the metropolitan district. And I'm also here just to answer questions.
Speaker 12: Tonight as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, John Henderson.
Speaker 9: Good evening. It's been a marathon, and I'm glad you're still here. I want to talk to you a little bit about special district abuse. I've been spending the last three years struggling with special district abuse, reading, learning everything there is to know. And now I'm sharing the information to try to educate city councils like yourself throughout the front range in the Denver City area. Our experience, we are spending $57 million, $57 million in interest on $7 million worth of pipe on the ground. The bonds that were paying interest on. Explained to the bond investors how excited the community was about spending all of this money and spending all this money on interest. What they failed to say in the bonds is that the election that took place to authorize that debt took place in 2006. The people who voted for that bond debt were eight people who were employed by the developer. The bonds do not explain. That the developer at the first election, which is the TABOR election referenced in the special this in the service plan the first thing they're going to vote on is removing eliminating the right of future residents to vote on their own taxes and their own bond debt. We didn't wake up to it until 11 years had passed. I've heard others say they didn't wake up to it until after 20 years passed. In our case, all of the public elections were canceled for 11 years. Because the developer and it says it in this service plan. Told our residents, you won't be able to vote. You won't be able to serve on the board until we're about 75%. They don't say 75% in the service plan, but they say eventually the residents will get around to being able to vote and serve. That is simply false. Under the statutes, as soon as someone has a contract to purchase property, they have a right to vote and serve on the board. I'm running out of time. I'm asking you all to step back from this. You need two other documents, and you need a better service plan. You need to know what the ballot issues are going to be because when you vote. If you vote to approve this tonight, you are voting to eliminate the right of the future residents to vote on future debt. You need disclosures.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Maribel Gage.
Speaker 6: Thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak to you. I am a sister of Loreto for 51 years and an alumni of Loreto Heights.
Speaker 10: College.
Speaker 6: And a classmate of President Clarke's mother, Janna Maya.
Speaker 10: And Amanda Sandoval's mother, Mary Helen Donnelly, singer.
Speaker 6: I have three points I wish to bring to your attention. The first one is the symmetry. There is a symmetry on the northwest part of the campus, about a third of an.
Speaker 10: Acre.
Speaker 3: Where 62.
Speaker 6: Sisters of Loretto are buried from 1912 107 years ago through 1969, when the last burial.
Speaker 3: Took place. 50 years.
Speaker 10: Ago. That plot in the.
Speaker 6: Northwest section of the campus is a sacred space.
Speaker 10: Of historical.
Speaker 6: And cultural.
Speaker 10: Significance.
Speaker 6: That requires perpetual care. Fortunately, Loretto is involved in conversations with the West Side regarding the future of the cemetery. Part of that discussion will be whether or not the cemetery is to be included or excluded from the metropolitan district. Point two.
Speaker 10: Above the main.
Speaker 6: Entrance to the dominant structure, the administration or the Academy Building is engraved. The motto Fridays mores at cultural phase goodness and beauty. As you.
Speaker 10: Evaluate the redevelopment.
Speaker 6: Of the campus. May these values inspire you. Does this enhance.
Speaker 8: The faith.
Speaker 6: Life of our community? Will this promote goodness within our community? Beauty. Does this plan provide for ample views of this long, beloved bell tower and the.
Speaker 10: Totality of the administration building.
Speaker 6: And the chapel, as well as views of the Majestic Mountains to the West?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry for your time as a.
Speaker 10: Space.
Speaker 6: That will allow Mother Nature to nurture all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Karen. Calamity and I'll call the next five up. Paul Fisher. You know Christine O'Connor.
Speaker 11: Sochi.
Speaker 1: Sochi. Gaetan, Kate Kitten. And Jesse Paris and Bonnie Gilbert. Go ahead.
Speaker 14: Hello. My name is Karen Calamity.
Speaker 6: I actually was invited to hear about Loreto.
Speaker 14: Highlights from Sister Mary Nell.
Speaker 6: At an event we call Wasted Fridays, where a lot of historians and political people meet and talk about what's happening in Denver and the area. And that was about two years ago. And as a person who grew up in Denver, I was born in Denver in 1957. And I've spent a lot of time in Denver.
Speaker 14: I I've remembered I've known about Loreto Heights.
Speaker 6: For years and years. And it's a.
Speaker 14: It's a very iconic site.
Speaker 6: It's a beautiful building.
Speaker 14: And set of buildings on.
Speaker 6: A on a hill there, the highest point in Denver.
Speaker 14: And it's got a lot of.
Speaker 6: Greenspace, which is in short supply. Now, I've had my experience with bad development just.
Speaker 14: In my own family, and.
Speaker 6: I've been very concerned about the potential for bad development.
Speaker 14: On this site.
Speaker 6: And the metropolitan district in the first place. Is the cart is the cart before the horse. The design has not been really finalized or perfected in a way that would warrant trying to finance it at this point, much less. It was based on this small area plan, which I did not feel was as inclusive as a lot of people are saying it was. We have an instance where this is a beautiful green site, one of the few green sites left 72 acres of green and beautiful architecture. It's not like a, you know, a parking lot that we were hearing about before, you know, terrible situations where it's abandoned buildings. I mean, these are older buildings that are empty now, but they're not not derelict buildings. These are beautiful architecture, beautiful landscape. And I don't see the plan respecting the one of the few places in Denver that has this green space that we need to keep intact with the.
Speaker 14: Animals, with.
Speaker 6: The right for people to have bike trails and pedestrian trails and take advantage of the green space. It's heavily dominated by residences and high density buildings, and it just doesn't seem right.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Paul Fiorina.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Thank you, President, and welcome new members. Listen, Loretta Heights is a big part of me as well. I my career started there. I was singing.
Speaker 4: There with Dr. Brecker.
Speaker 0: Back in the day. I was. My daughter was born after a performance in 85, after that show. And so I come to to, again, support the fact that this is a pioneer property. This is Denver's highest.
Speaker 4: And oldest property.
Speaker 0: This is a property that not only has an educational institution.
Speaker 11: But a campus.
Speaker 0: And let's call it what it is. This is our opportunity to step up.
Speaker 11: And.
Speaker 0: Make this a campus for the.
Speaker 11: Arts and humanities.
Speaker 0: Denver is now and Colorado.
Speaker 11: Is.
Speaker 0: Number one in arts participation in the nation after 12 years.
Speaker 11: Of fighting.
Speaker 0: Tooth and nail. And, you know, every one of you know that this is your battleground for our nuns, for our Loreto nuns who have come to Colorado first. Established St Mary's Academy then built this place. Now we have an opportunity and this owner has a right of first refusal. Are you familiar with that? There's a statute r0fr right of first refusal. It's time for City Council to pick that up and look at it. This is an opportunity to buy this property as is. With the new money we just got from our Parks and Rec. This is a Parks and Rec issue. This property needs to be transferred.
Speaker 11: To a51.
Speaker 0: C3 nonprofit organization. A consortium, if you will. To have at least two of you on the board directing this particular development.
Speaker 11: And not having become divided. And conquer. That's what's happening here. Dammit!
Speaker 1: Could you please watch your language in our chamber? And could you please state your name? I've had it. Could you state your name for the record?
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't.
Speaker 1: Mean to. Sir, could you please state your name for the record? Your name?
Speaker 4: My name's Paul Fiorina. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Sir.
Speaker 0: Anderson Heights is your battleground right now.
Speaker 4: Right here.
Speaker 1: All right. Next up, Christine O'Connor.
Speaker 15: My name is Christine O'Connor. I do not live in the Laredo Heights area. I know some people have been talking about the plan, but you yourself talk nothing. The owner is not going to talk.
Speaker 1: About the comments to council, not.
Speaker 15: To talk about the service plan, because and I read it and I have it open here if people want to ask me questions. But I want you to turn this down today for many reasons. First of all, this is self-serving by the developer who will be able to issue bonds in a huge amount that will be paid back by the developers. I know that you all are thinking about the recent audit that O'Brien did about the homeless affordable housing program and all the mistakes that are made and buyers who are buying property without being in that category. I think you would agree with me that prospective homebuyers and future Denver ites need to know what they're getting into here in the service plan. At a minimum, city council should reject this service plan, require the owner to file a new one. That one includes a homeowner buyer home buyer form with large font include specific timeline regarding when the future prospective residents get these disclosures. Spells out what specifically will be disclosed. Some of the things that should be prominently disclosed. One The home's annual property taxes, including the metro district taxes and how it compares to a similarly valued Denver home outside the District two, a breakdown of how much debt residents will pay to finance infrastructure, administration operations, maintenance and programing in the district. Three A prominent statement explaining that no future resident, except possibly if they get on the board, will ever have the right to vote on taxes and debt. And fourth, information that residents will have the right to serve on the district board as soon as they enter a contract to purchase property. Second, I would like you all to turn to Article two, Part six, the district rationale in the service plan. I'm not going to read it because I always run out of time. But basically it's a statement that says We need to form this structure. It's necessary for the public improvements. First of all, it's just pro forma language. It's a recitation that they need. Where's the proof? There's no proof in the service plan or in any documents that I've seen. First of all, this didn't even come to anybody's attention until July 30th. All the outreach that was done on the plan had nothing to do with the district, the service plan. It had to do with the area plan. So I'd like you to read that and say and require that the people here representing the developer get up and give you that proof today that no, no other way exist for this to be done. Third, I ask you to ask if will be sorry, but.
Speaker 1: Your time is up.
Speaker 15: I can't be.
Speaker 1: Up. Yep. Sorry. Thank you very much. Next up, Sochi Gaytan.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Sachin Gaitan. I'm president of Hip Co. The Harvey Park Community Organization Hippo voted to oppose the Loreto Heights area plan and the Metro District Service Plan. We informed City Planning and Councilman Flynn of ZIP Codes five Concerns of the area plan one It must be a landmark historic district designation. Two We need strong language around indicating that Dartmouth Avenue will not go through traffic taking traffic into the elementary school. Three Mitigation of traffic must be stronger language for other streets and avenues heading in the southwest direction for maintenance of the pond. Waterways and wildlife in the southwest region have been nearly ignored. Five Limiting building heights to five storeys and not going higher because we lose adequate view planes of the admin clocktower building. We all know that the higher the building, the higher the penthouse, the higher the penthouse, the higher the prices, hence causing gentrification and unaffordability. We oppose the Metro District Service Plan due to the important components in state law, Title 32 that have been ignored in the last decades. One boundary City Council should require that the developer tell you what those improvements should be, and there needs to be a notice to new property owners telling them what will be spent outside of the boundaries. Two purpose You should have a clear understanding of why this special district is created. It's simply for the bottom line of the developer. Three Who and how is this being paid for? Feature residents will pay double the property taxes of those outside of the district. Over 50% of the financing debt from the entire metro district will go to renovate the theater, the garage and the admin building. And it should only be for infrastructure, not for private properties. Four There should be a detailed ballot initiative that should be attached to this. It will help you determine whether you oppose, approve or disapprove this service plan itself. Special districts are required to comply with TABOR. However, in this case, the developer is going to eliminate TABOR for the residents of the district through the election. So why not? Then, instead of placing metro districts in our communities in order to avoid Tabor, he put more effort into reforming TABOR. The scam is that the developer issues bonds with interest, that these future residents will end up paying $4.9 billion with no oversight. This plan is a poster child to these abuses. You are giving power and latitude to the developer, forcing the gentrification sweep. Developers have had this playbook since the eighties. Bond investors, developers, special district management companies run these special districts. They benefit and push us out. Black, brown, indigenous peoples and working class whites out of the sky.
Speaker 1: But your time is up. No, thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 7: Jesse Paris, represented for Denver, home of Salau Blackstar, some movement for self defense and positive action committed for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for city council at large, almost 15,000 votes this past May 2019 election. We are against this for the reasons that were already previously stated. It seems Denver is up for grabs to the highest developer. You give developers full rein to do whatever they want to do in this town and nobody is holding them accountable for what they do. We don't need any more unintended consequences. We already have enough it out with Stapleton. Stapleton is a metropolitan district, which is the exact same thing that you're trying to do, Loretta Heights. Now, I went to school for like six months at Loretta Heights back in college. I had to take some Romanians for math. So I'm kind of familiar with this campus. And I was there this past campaign season for one of Flynn's events. Kevin Flynn, councilman for the District. So I'm kind of familiar with this area. So, yeah, I wanted to know, are you going to do a traffic study for the reasons data is Dartmouth's going to be redirected to go all the way through to the school. What's going on with the campus itself? Is this still going to be an educational institution? Are you going to try to turn it into a health campus? Are you going to try to mix it all up? What's going on with that and then what's going on with the housing? Ah what kind of housing are you going to be providing here and what am I levels that are going to be because there's nothing I'm going to tell you that's going to make you not approve this tonight because it's just going to be business as usual. You have made it apparently clear that developers have bought and sold you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next up, Bonnie Gilbert.
Speaker 12: Hi. I'm Bonnie Gilbert. I live have lived in Harvey Park for the last 30 years, fairly close to Loreto Heights. I have many concerns about the Service Metro District plan, which includes the lack of community input. When the plan was being developed.
Speaker 6: The how much.
Speaker 12: Affordable housing will there be and the likely, likely gentrification in the surrounding areas. I am disappointed that the community was not made aware of and included in the process of the Metro plan. When asking and asking questions about the development, the community have been told over and over that certain topics would not be addressed because it was too soon in the process. Then we found out by accident that a metropolitan plan, which included answers to many of our questions, had been released.
Speaker 14: One week.
Speaker 12: After the end of the area. Plan process would have helped our understanding of the project if the Service Metro Plan had been discussed previously and in-depth with the community. The plan being voted on tonight will increase property taxes dramatically for those who move onto the former campus compared to those currently living in similar home in the neighboring communities. There's no indication under this plan how much desperately needed affordable housing there will be on the former campus. With taxes so high with the new development, it will likely make much of the housing unaffordable. Another consideration is gentrification in the surrounding areas because of the apparent lack of affordable housing, residents who have lived in the area for decades may be forced to leave the no longer affordable area. The service district plan should have been made public much sooner so that the plan could be studied. Specific questions could be answered about the districts and the community could give more input once the plan was made public. We in the community.
Speaker 6: Should have been.
Speaker 12: Notified of the plan because there was not enough time to thoroughly study the plan and get more public input. I have serious concerns about the taxation of residents, lack of affordable housing and gentrification. I request that you do not pass this service metro plan in its current form. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Gregorio Alcala.
Speaker 11: It.
Speaker 7: Thank you, members of the council. I am sixth.
Speaker 0: Generation Denver, right. My family came.
Speaker 7: Here over a hundred years ago, lived in the area, was one of the 400 families displaced.
Speaker 0: The 200 businesses displaced my life and many lives were formed by master plans policies. However.
Speaker 7: I come here tonight in hopes that we can learn from past, from debt, from urban renewal, mistakes, and some of the successes we've had in historic preservation in the city, in the.
Speaker 0: State and in the country. What we have here is a gateway to Denver's past.
Speaker 7: And architectural past, an incredible site that does not exist anywhere left in our city boundaries. The highest point of open space that evolve through a whole different process of systems coming here and developing it.
Speaker 11: But we do not have. And we have not had.
Speaker 7: Plant designers and experts involved. In this so-called community process. We have had professional engineers, landscape architects, historians.
Speaker 0: Ecologists, theologians, geographers that have been excluded to share free of charge.
Speaker 7: What alternatives we can do through a design.
Speaker 0: Process. With respect to the planners in our city, we have here a different language. We don't have.
Speaker 7: Designers representing the people.
Speaker 0: They use different languages, programs, tools.
Speaker 7: We are also talking about a democratic.
Speaker 0: Process that is at risk here. We have professionals in our community, in our.
Speaker 7: State that can demonstrate alternatives, that will benefit developers. But also think about we talked about sustainability 50 years from now. Cultural landscapes. Environmental integrity that has not been addressed, that has not been part of a base map that we've been asking from the very beginning to have a cultural, historical, environmental base map created an inventory and an analysis to present to the people of Denver, to the community.
Speaker 0: Through the working class, through indigenous people, people of past, present.
Speaker 7: And future cultural perspectives, to understand how great this site is and what it could be. It's not about prohibiting profit. It's it's about not imposing limitations for how great this site could be. And we will provide examples, concrete examples, using technology of historic sites in Denver, Colorado, the state, and across the country and the world of how this could be a great site if we.
Speaker 11: Give an extension.
Speaker 0: It's way too fast.
Speaker 7: We have ignored basic protocol, basic processes.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Jim Gibson. Good evening. I'm Jim Gibson. I live at 2787 South Stuart and I'm representing the Loreto Heights Community Initiative. First and foremost, developers should pay their own way. A service metropolitan district plan is simply not necessary for improvements. Like every other owner, the developer should get his own private financing to pay for his own improvements. Why should the developer, which is the same thing right now as a metro district, get a taxpayer handout more than doubling of property taxes on the future residents of the district. This service plan is not ready for prime time. It's a blank check and should be rejected by council this evening. If council still believes that the taxpayer should subsidize this developer, at the very least, he should say no tonight and demand a version that holds the developer more accountable and protects future homebuyers. Similar to other service plans around the state, the master developer keeps a small parcel of land, which will be the operating district. That way, he'll be able to control the five.
Speaker 7: Taxing districts indefinitely, keeping residents in debt.
Speaker 1: And their property taxes high. Please see page B one of the service plan. The second version of the service plan should not include this small parcel of land and should include a limit on the total of an amount of debt that can be incurred to pay back this debt. Future owners and renters will pay in property taxes up to an additional 90 mills. More than double what other Denver homeowners have to pay is shared by the city administration in the Finance and Governance Committee meeting on July 30th. Tonight's request represents the highest additional property tax millage increase for a metropolitan district in Denver ever. The doubling of property taxes on homes within the district will make the availability of additional affordable housing very difficult, if not impossible. This huge increase in property taxes will inevitably result in higher priced homes than the surrounding neighborhoods to.
Speaker 0: The north and east of the.
Speaker 1: Site. The result will be the gentrification of those communities and many displaced working class and senior residents to protect residents. Service Plan 2.0 should include the language of the measures that will be on the November 2019 ballot, when the district would be created. Similar service plans around the state suggest that, among others, this list of ballot measures are most likely to include the election of district board members, all of which will be the developer's people, because no one owns property there right now. An exemption from TABOR requirements, including eliminating the future residents right to vote on bond debt and taxes. Those decisions will be left up to the developer control district, board members and a waiver of term limits for district board members to further ensure long term developer control of the site. Please say no to this service plan. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of Council on this issue? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Andrew, could you come on up? Good evening. Hi. Do you know how many metropolitan districts there are in the city at the moment? City and county. Denver's been has a lot of metropolitan districts. I think we're well over 80 metropolitan districts right now. Okay. And when I downloaded the data from our map data website actually counted about 120 or 130. Is that because some of them like here, also include districts that come under a management district like being proposed here? Yeah, correct. And so you're right, there's probably about 120, but not all of them are active. And so is a statutory thing where they called inactive status, where maybe they were approved, but there's no purpose for them and they are under like a management construct. So for instance, like in this case with Loreto Heights, you'll have the management district. No, that's number one. Our district, district number one and district's number two through five may actually be inactive until such time that there's actually development on the site. Okay. So a number of them have the 50 mil maximum for debt, correct? That is true. Okay. Because I think someone had said that 50 mills was was hired by was higher than but a good number according to the list we were provided that have that for debt. Right. And there are a couple of metro districts out in northeast Denver that are higher than 90 mills at the moment. Is that correct? There are some metropolitan districts that were created many years ago, probably even earlier than 1990. And when those service plans were put together, those service plans did not even contain military caps, which the service plan does. And as such, they have the opportunity to have rather high mle levies if they're listed as unlimited. Yeah, and they are unlimited. Okay. And the table that we were provided showed that some of them have had or two of them have district levies that total over 100 mils. Correct. Okay. And that some of those districts have management district structure with several taxing districts coming under them, correct? That is true. Do you recall the last time? And if you don't just say so, when was the last time that the city came in and constructed streets, water, sewer, drainage and other improvements for private development? And I I've been with the city for about 12 years or so, and I do not recall any instance where I've seen that. Okay, in those 12 years, how many metro districts have gone forward? Um, I don't know, but quite a lot. Fernald and Green Valley Ranch, I think, is one of the oldest. The Ebert District in 1973, I think was the date on it. Correct. Okay. And a couple of the new ones would be what? The Navajo Market in in my district, we have Granite Ranch. We have Union Station and a couple of other. Yeah. Just last fall, we did a series of districts. We had a one called Hurley Place. It was in the Reno neighborhood. Yeah, we had one called the River Mile, which is a similar structure. And so those are some of the other examples. Okay. To be clear now, the mill levee that we're being discussed that we're discussing here applies only to the real estate and improvements that are on the property now owned by West Side and not to any property outside the campus boundaries, including the number of public schools, DST, school on the campus, but is completely encircled by West Side properties and the Catholic Charities Mount Loretto Apartments off to the side. That's correct. That is correct. The it's called the service area and inclusion area and the DPS and I I'm not sure about the second building, but I don't believe that second building is in the inclusion area. No, that's okay. Thank you, Mark. We have each. What does the metro district provide for in terms of the cemetery? We heard Sister Mary now talk about the future of the cemetery. What are the provisions in the service plan for dealing with the cemetery, understanding that it may be excluded at some point and that's still being talked about?
Speaker 9: Sure. That is being talked about whether the district would perform any work on the cemetery. But if it were to perform work on the cemetery, it would be performed landscaping and open space type work.
Speaker 4: Okay. Now, one of the speakers mentioned or several mentioned open space in the service plan. There appears to be more open space than was recommended by the community in the area plan process that will be seeing her next month. What are the plans for open space that are funded by the Metro District? Parks, plazas, trails? What exactly does it consist of?
Speaker 9: All the above, sir.
Speaker 4: Okay. And there's. These are subject to change, of course. But I think the area plan will recommend the standard 10% seven acres. The diagram in the service plan shows significantly more. But you don't really have a a fixed number on that yet.
Speaker 9: I don't have a fixed number on that, Councilman Flynn, but I can tell you that the objective is to well exceed the city standards.
Speaker 4: Is to want.
Speaker 9: To exceed the city standards.
Speaker 4: Okay. What measures does the metro district intend to use for to ensure transparency for purchasers?
Speaker 9: Sure. That's a great question. I'll answer part of it, but I'm going to also ask my legal counsel to come up and answer sectorial the rest of it. By statute, there is disclosures that you have to be included. There are opportunities that are recorded against the property. And I if it's okay with you, I like Megan to explain that a little bit further. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 6: Thank you. To answer that question, Councilmember Flynn, the transparency comes on all different levels. Statutorily, this is a local government, so the district must comply with all of the same disclosure requirements public records, public meetings, audit audit laws, budget laws, election laws, construction, bidding laws. Anything that relates to a requirement of a local government within the state, the district must comply with specifically relative to disclosure to purchasers. Statutorily, there are several notices that are required. There is a notice that is required to be recorded against the property within the boundaries of the district. In addition to that, the order and decree creating the district will be recorded against the property. So there's disclosure at that level. There are annual transparency notices that must be submitted to essentially a public repository, which may include a district website and or the Special District Association website. So that is available. There is an annual reporting requirement directly to the city, so the district will be selling information annually to the city, which is obviously also available to the public. So on several levels.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Mark. The $96.9 million in identified public improvements in the metro district plan. Of course, not all of that can be funded by the mill levy. And you're pursuing other avenues, like through borough, through grants, through like tack five funding and tax credits, historic tax credits and things like that. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: That is 100% correct, sir.
Speaker 4: Okay. Of that, 96.9 million. My math. And it's always dangerous to do math on the fly there. 53.9 million of that is in the community benefits portion, the theater restoration, the academy building, etc., as opposed to the traditional infrastructure of the streets, the sewers, the water, the drainage, the traffic control, etc.. So more than half in the community benefits. All of those items were requested and put in the area plan by the community, were they not?
Speaker 9: Yeah. That is a true statement, sir.
Speaker 4: I'm. The just pull out the street improvements. 20.4 million was the tentative price tag on street improvements. If the metro district model were not being used here, how much would those street improvements cost?
Speaker 9: There would be no change in the cost, sir.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the way that we finance it doesn't affect the capital cost. It affects the repayment cost.
Speaker 9: That's a true statement.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I won't go through all of them one by one. But but all of these recommendations are consistent with what the community process came up with over the past year, correct?
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Did you explore the alternatives that were mentioned, for instance, private obtaining, private financing? And what was the analysis? What did you decide would be the effect on affordability if you were to obtain private bank financing, to build the streets, etc., to do the theater instead of doing metro district bonds?
Speaker 9: Sure. That's a great question. Can I tell you that I specifically explored private financing for the roads and streets on this particular project? The answer is no, but in historical respects I can tell you the answer to that question from other projects. The one of the luxuries of using public financing, such as a metro district to do capital improvements for public improvements is you're able to get much better economic rates, as an example, from a bonding capacity than you would if you privately financed it. And to be honest with you, I'm not sure this is even privately financeable, but if you were able to find financing dollars for it, it would be very expensive money. Similarly, if you were if we were to go out hypothetically and go out and privately finance this, there's still a cost to doing that. The cost still has to be capitalized and it has to be repaid. Rather than having bonds issued, which could be paid over a long period of time, that cost would have to be recouped immediately upfront. So what would be the end result of that? The end result of that would be literally the house would cost more money. Those that are leasing either apartment spaces or office spaces, the lease rates would be higher. And because of all that, everything that would happen on the campus would cost more. For an example, that hot dog or that cup of coffee. But further, we haven't actually answered all the questions. And you didn't specifically ask this question, but I'm going to explore it for you. If we go in and we put in infrastructure and we privately finance finance it, what happens from the maintenance? Operation standpoint, there still is grass that needs to be cut, snow that needs to be plowed, and there's plants, flowers that need to be planted in order to achieve the vision that the community is asking.
Speaker 4: That would be that would be on the order of, say, a nature way that would have fees that would do something like that. Yes, sir. In the alternative. So just to summarize, what you're saying is that the bond financing, which probably likely is obtainable at a lower interest rate, would result in lower lower costs for housing rentals , commercial than borrowing upfront at bank rates and having to recoup that cost right away.
Speaker 9: Yeah, because the cost that you would have to pay for is not only the bank rate because you would never, ever get 100% financing on this. You would have to go out and raise private equity to build the other half of it, which would be very expensive capital.
Speaker 4: Final question, Mr. President. Thank you. You sat in on all the area plan meetings with the community. Is the density that is being recommended in the plan sufficient to leverage private financing for this?
Speaker 9: I'm not following your question 100%. Can you rephrase it?
Speaker 4: The density that is being recommended, the low density on the Irving Street side, the the medium, the low medium, and then the high medium up on the south end and up along the north end. Is that density sufficient to produce leverage that would leverage private financing as opposed to the metro district?
Speaker 9: I think what you're asking the question is if we had high density, all high density on this, could we do this without metro district financing? Maybe. I don't know the answer to the question. And I honestly didn't even explore it because it's not what the community is asking for.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Henderson, I had a clarifying from you. I feel like I read an email from you and I can't find it in my email, but you live in solitary or something like that, is that correct?
Speaker 9: Correct. There was an article in the newspaper. I wrote a commentary. It wasn't an email, but it told told the story.
Speaker 6: Okay. And where is that located?
Speaker 9: That's in Lakewood. If you know where Dinosaur Ridge is, it's directly across the a470 from Dinosaur Ridge.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I just I'm trying to get from Meg in to address your concern about the elections not happening. So.
Speaker 9: How does that work?
Speaker 6: She was nodding her head when you were talking about that. So if you wouldn't mind, Megan, can you address that and how that would be different here? And then while you're at it, Ms.. Gaitonde had some additional legal concerns about boundaries, TABOR and oversight. So I think all those things are probably related. If you want to discuss that, I'll stand up here for a little bit. Okay. Thank you. Relative to the question on elections. So as I mentioned previously, elections are is ah, it's late. I apologize. One of the requirements of districts is local governments. So we follow the same election cycles, the same election requirements as all other local governments in the state. So relative to director elections, currently those director elections are held in May of every even year. So next elections will be 2020 in May. There is a statutory provision that indicates when there are not more candidates than seats available, the election may be canceled. That's the instance when an election may be canceled in the theory they're statutorily legislatively. The history is if you have two seats open and you have two candidates need not go through the entire expense and cost of an election when you have two people for two seats. And so I can only presume that perhaps that was the circumstance that occurred with Mr. Henderson. That is what is statutorily authorized. To the extent there is more candidates and seats available, the election must be held. One of the questions that was raised, I think by several individuals was who's entitled and qualified to be an elector and therefore take and have one of the seats on the districts. It is any individual that is over 18 and registered to vote in the state of Colorado, who is a resident of the district for more than 30 days, or who owns property they and their spouse within the boundaries of the district or has an interest in real property via a contract whereby they're obligated to pay taxes. And so any of those individuals at the time of election, in accordance with the election requirements, would be considered an elector able to sit on the boards. Okay. And one of the concerns was about oversight. Sure. So oversight in each district, these districts will each have a board of directors. That is the governance board. Again, in all of the requirements relative to open records, procedures, open meetings, just like the city council here is run by a board of directors. The board of directors must be registered electors of the district in the same manner that I just described and compliant with all of those statutory requirements. And that also relates to the transparency with all the, you know, requirements relative to the recorded disclosures, the annual budgeting auditing requirements that that are associated with that. So the directors would oversee sort of high level financing decisions, as well as hiring someone to play as the board. To that end, yes. So decisions are made by the board. Just just like the city council makes a decision, a majority vote. The district would retain consultants to assist with compliance of all of these matters. So there are managers, legal accountants or rather legal advisers, accountants, engineers, construction advisers, project managers, just like, you know, the city. It takes a village. The same is true with the district, and the district and board can approve entering into engagements with all of the appropriate and requisite professionals necessary to ensure compliance with all of the statutory, regulatory and all other requirements the district must comply with. Then all of that information is public. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 6: I'd like to bring back up socially Guyton and Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson first. You didn't get a lot of time to explain the 57 million on the 7 million. Can you explain how that financing and paying back the debt works?
Speaker 9: Of course. Of course. And it's it's it's not everywhere. This is not unique. And it'll happen here, too. What the developer is saying to you all in the service plan is he's going to loan the cost of the infrastructure to the future residents. I've talked to many developers. I've represented them as well as citizens and engineers. And they have uniformly said. The most expensive way to build and finance infrastructure is through these special districts. Because here's what's happened. They take the actual cost. They had a profit. Pick a number. There is no accountability. And that's why you all are so important, because you all are the only check and balance in this process until we get all the residents in the community. You are it. And the statute gives you the power to require more information to call them in on the carpet. And if they're not doing what they supposed to do, you can dissolve the district. So we start with the actual cost. You add profit. Pick a number. There's no accountability. Then because it's a loan, you take that cost and the profit and you add interest. The interest in our case, $21 million. So that's $7 million worth of pipe in the ground. That's the first one. The second loan is because the residents can't pay all of that. Says the developer. The developer is running the boards. This first election that they're going to have here in a couple of weeks. The TABOR election is going to take away the power of the voters to vote on bond that and give it to the boards which are going to be exclusively, exclusively the developer for at least ten, in some cases 20 years. And that board is going to then say, okay, we're going to. Issue bond debt to pay off the loan. So now you have the interest on the loan, $21 million. And then you have the interest on the bonds. Another 37.6 million. Add those two up, we're paying $57 million in interest for $7 million worth of pipe in the private. This is a way to generate another profit center for the developers. I've talked to the special district attorney. They say it's just the name of the game. Go along to get along.
Speaker 6: Can you can you talk about those documents that you were saying should be coming first? You got cut off?
Speaker 9: Yes. There's there you have the service plan. There are defects in the service plan. Even our service plan tells us how much we're paying. It says you cannot pay more than X number of million dollars in principal. This service plan leaves open, it says will close to 96. No, you all need to set limits. If there's no limit, there's no control. It's a blank check. So the first document is to tighten up the service plan. The second document. This is the most important one. The ballot issues. You never you've never seen them. No city or county in the front range has ever seen them. The ballot issue, the eight, in our case, the eight employees of the developer are voting. To eliminate the right of future residents to vote on bond se and they give it to the developer boards. You all should have that in front of you. You should know that when you're voting on this, you're voting to eliminate the right of future residents to vote on the bond. But. The the the other piece of information in that ballot issue that you need to be aware of is they don't put it in the service plan or in the ballot issue. They're going to establish a maximum amount of financing. They said it would cost $27 million to build our infrastructure. You all are talking about 96. The financing for that, in our case, just one. $27 million of infrastructure. $4.9 billion. And that becomes important when they issue the bonds because the bonds have a limit. They say, okay, they can only pay 50 mils. But the debt is higher. They can't pay it off. So the interest keeps rolling. And what happens is you don't pay off that bond. You don't pay off that debt until you hit $4.9 billion. That number is important. You need to know what that number is and you aren't going to see it unless you get the ballot issues. You should have that in front of you before you vote on this. The third set of documents that are important are the internal agreements. They reference them in their in the service plan. Why do you have all these separate districts? And then there's one management district. Think back to Western civilization course, right? Feudalism. You have a small parcel that no residents are going to live in. In our case, it was ten square feet. In this case, it's 1/10 of an acre. Because no residents live there. The developer controls it. And that's the management district. That's the one that makes all the spending and taxing decisions. These other myriad districts. They just provide the money. They want to keep control over the taxing and spending, and they do it by living in this district. So these two agreements are important. The third area of agreements, the first agreement is all those other districts, the three or four or five, seven, how many, however many there are in our case? Or three? They all agree. It's a tax themselves and pay all the money to the First District blusher. The second agreement is the first District flusher agrees to pay all the advances of the developer. I guarantee you it'll happen here. It's happened in every special district I've looked at. It happened in hours.
Speaker 6: Let me clarify. So you're saying that the coordinating district could basically decide to impose the mills on the other districts and not itself?
Speaker 9: Excellent point. It import imposes the the mill rate the tax. But because it's so small. And nobody lives there. They don't pay.
Speaker 1: Anything.
Speaker 6: Got it.
Speaker 9: The developer doesn't pay anything. They're totally fine. And the important thing. The signatures on all those agreements, it's all the same person. Got it. It's the developer saying I'm going to pay myself. And. The developer of the first District, then paying the developer. So it's a wonderful it's a wonderful operation. I've talked to developers in other parts of the country and they said, Oh my God, that's fantastic. We wouldn't have we don't have spent any money. I have gone through the details in our in our area and talked to other developers about it. And this is the most expensive way to do it. There are alternative ways and all I'm suggesting and as I peddle this this around the state. Number one disclosures. Tell the residents when they walk in to buy that house. Here's how much interest you're going to be paying over the life of your special district loan. Here's the total amount of money that you will be paying in principal. And by the way, as soon as you sign that contract, you have a right to vote and serve on the board. And if anybody tells you different like they did in our community for over 11 years. You just do it. And. But the residents here in our state know more about financing the purchase of a used car than they do financing a house in a special district. And that's wrong. And you all are in the best position to require those disclosures.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much, Mr. Henderson. So, Chief, can you talk to us? I heard some concerns about outreach and how there were there was outreach, but not necessarily regarding the financing structure. Can you tell me a little bit more about some of the challenges there? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for asking, Councilwoman. So the baca. My apologies to. I'm very tired. I usually go to bed early, so I got a little boy I take to school really early in the morning. But yeah, the I'm a Spanish speaking indigenous Latina and city planning nor Councilman Flynn's office nor the developer ever reached out to me as a Spanish speaking leader in our community to bring folks into this Spanish speaking community wide meeting. And only ten or 12 Spanish speaking folks showed up to that meeting. And that's it. 10 to 12 people representing our Latino community to me is very inauthentic and not true community outreach and engagement for this process. And that was for the area plan process. And those folks were also not informed of the Metro District plan. So they didn't have that information when they were making the decisions. And was the financing structure something that was explained to you in the English version of community engagement? No, as a matter of fact, it was might have been mentioned once. I don't know if it was by the developer or by Councilman Flynn. It was mentioned once as a possible tool for financing and it was mentioned once early on and never brought up again at all. So it was never defined during the area plan process. And Jeb Gibson, who is was our representative for Hip Cove, our primary representative, could share more with you about that question about historic district status. So I've heard it come up from multiple people, the the desire to protect the historic nature of this process, of this property. Did anyone pursue historic designation? If not, why not? You know, that's a little more difficult for me to answer. I can bring Jim Gibson up or our representative that can share more with you. But for us, it's for hip. It was it's uber important that that happens on that campus. There's a lot of historical buildings that we want to be protected and especially the view planes of those buildings. So we're very, very concerned about the view planes. Would you like me to bring Jim Gibson up if he's still here? Jim, is he still here?
Speaker 1: Gentlemen, I just want to check in there. You're going after this question from on the metro district, not from the neighborhood plan perspective, because we will be taken out of next week, September and Louie coming up. So you're doing a.
Speaker 6: Story district.
Speaker 1: Historic district through the lens of this bill, not the next one that's coming.
Speaker 6: Yeah, because it feels like I mean, this entire thing feels like putting the cart before the horse. And so I think this would have been the first step or conversation to have. And so I'm curious about even how these pieces got out of order to begin with.
Speaker 1: But your question, counsel.
Speaker 6: Was his. I heard a lot about historic status, historic preservation of the area. Why was this not pursued? Was this a part early part of community conversations?
Speaker 1: Yes, that's a great question. And it it speaks right to the way the area plan process was conducted, because essentially when I when I first entered this process, I assumed that, you know, issues would be put on the table. We would wrestle with them, we would work through them and then come to some sort of rough consensus. That's not the way it worked at all. What happened was you we planning would put up some slides on the board and they would say, okay, what do you think of this? What do you think of this? What do you think of this? We'd have maybe 5 minutes of discussion. They'd go back and interpret what they thought the consensus was. And their version of the consensus was much different than my version of the consensus, as well as other steering committee members. And we were told only towards the end of the process that we were merely advisors, just advisors. So that meant they could pick and choose the advice they wanted to take from the community. So to say that it was totally community driven is just a misrepresentation.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I can't remember your name, sir. The developer, Westfield. Mark, can you come up real quick? You mentioned something about if this doesn't go through or if you didn't get the financing, we'd have to deal with the current zoning. What exactly would the current zoning allow?
Speaker 9: The current zoning doesn't allow the community vision. It allows for its campus zoning currently today. It allows for educational uses. And you could put residential on there as well.
Speaker 6: So the current zoning allows the landmarks to stay in place.
Speaker 9: The zoning doesn't speak to landmarks, the zoning just speaks to uses, and the uses would be educational, campus or residential.
Speaker 6: And the greenspace would be preserved.
Speaker 9: The zoning doesn't speak to green spaces. It speaks to those uses, which, again, is educational or residential.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You're done. Council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Markovich, may I also ask some questions of you? Does anyone live on this property today?
Speaker 9: No, sir. There are actually no occupants on the property today.
Speaker 2: So does the campus have a use today?
Speaker 9: No. It is currently vacant and we have security monitoring the property from any more destruction that's been happening out there.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Any more destruction?
Speaker 9: Sure. We've had lots of vandalism since we've on the property and where we're forced to put 20, 24 seven security on it to prevent any more damage from happening.
Speaker 2: Okay. When was the last time this location was activated?
Speaker 9: I believe the last classes were in 2017, if I remember. Right. Okay.
Speaker 2: Um, if no one buys a home, does that mean no one services these bonds?
Speaker 9: No, that's not true. Okay. Bonds can be serviced by any of the uses that will ultimately put on. Their bonds are repaid through the property taxes.
Speaker 2: Okay. If no one purchases property in this special district, then you would be holding the bonds and no one would be paying you that.
Speaker 9: Well, we wouldn't be holding those bonds. Those bonds would be sold on the market. And then we, as the owners of the property, would would ultimately be responsible for paying back the debt, for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess the nature I guess part of my question is if you price yourself out of the market, you're the one who's screwed. I mean, I'm sorry. You're affected. Negatively affected. Is that.
Speaker 9: Fair? I mean, I suppose that could be a true statement.
Speaker 2: Okay. Do. So I'm. I'm new here. Do service plans change the zoning or. Or do you plan?
Speaker 9: No. Service plans don't do anything. In fact, only just because a service plan is approved. I can't put a shovel in the ground. I can't go out and sell bonds because I won't have infrastructure to build because I won't have a site plan that's approved.
Speaker 2: But word. Well I'm not on luti but council as a body is going to be discussing that tomorrow in committee. Is that correct.
Speaker 9: Tomorrow in your land use committee. Those that are on it will be discussing the area plan. No, not a site plan. Just the area plan.
Speaker 2: Okay. Can you tell me about the rehabilitation that's necessary? Is there? I think I recall there being asbestos in the in the buildings. I mean, is there I want to also say that I recall a like a number of $63 million or I don't know, maybe I just pulled that out of thin air. It is late, after all, but there's a significant investment required for anyone to take this property or this campus. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely. Actually, you may or may not remember, but Metro State did look at actually acquiring the property when it was closing down, before it was being considered a sold to a developer. One of the reasons why Metro State decided not to purchase it was because of the cost of putting in the necessary infrastructure and updating the buildings to a standard that they thought that they needed.
Speaker 2: Was that they were offered to buy it for dollars or something. Right. There's a I.
Speaker 9: Can't speak as a matter of factly on that. There might be others in the room that could speak to that. But I do believe it was economic. And maybe I can someone else can clarify.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm curious about voting rights for residents. It's been mentioned a couple of times about how the voting rights are given to a management district in them and that no one, no residents get to be to participate in that management district. Can you tell me about. If I were to buy a home or where to purchase property in the district, what would I somehow be precluded from voting?
Speaker 9: That's a great question. And just because it's a very technical question, if that's okay with you, I'd like Megan to answer it. Sure.
Speaker 6: So relative to the district structure and the coordinating or managing district in taxing district structure, the and stepping back a little bit the reason for so many districts in this circumstance and relative to developments like this, we do have a unique circumstance where this is going to be a multi use development. We're going to have commercial users, retail users, residential users in order to recognize that and the potential for differing needs and interests in the future. That's why we have so many different taxing districts proposed, because it's likely that commercial owners will be interested in other things than single family residential owners. And we want the opportunity to recognize that in the future the relationship between the districts will be recognized, obviously not only in the service plan, but contractually through intergovernmental arrangements. And those intergovernmental arrangements between those districts say essentially in the beginning we need some efficiency because some of the infrastructure that's going to be installed obviously is going to be community wide infrastructure. So the coordinating district is going to assist with that as the property builds out and the uses are finally determined through the zoning and ultimate site development plan approval processes, property will be included in the appropriate and requisite district. Agreements will be entered into whereby in each district there will be a board of directors that can be represented, will be represented by constituents of that district. So each of those districts will have their own board that can be filled with constituents of that requisite district. The agreements that are entered into these days have provisions and recognize that interests change over time. So they're determinable and ultimately if one does, if a district. So we have all of these districts are a party and one residential district determines that they want more control over their own destiny, not as a part of the larger group , but they say we can do this more efficiently ourselves and we'd like a little bit more control rather than being part of the larger group. The agreements and their position in them are terminal so they can control their operations. Now, to the extent there is existing debt outstanding that they've agreed to pay, that obviously can't go away. But to the extent they want to make future decisions and have a hard time in doing that, the agreements do allow for that. So it's really a structure to recognize the need to have the development be developed in an efficient, coordinated manner. But it also recognizes that things change over time.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I haven't run a metropolitan district or six. I have in addition to being on city council, I have the lovely opportunity to be on the board of my HRA. And if we want to change that and I do that for free, I'm crazy. If we want to change something in our governing documents or declarations or bylaws, we have to get 75% of all homeowners to agree to that, which is we can't find 20% to get quorum. So getting 75% is effective. I mean, it's it's it's a it's a percentage, but it is effectively impossible is I want to I don't know how you can really as an attorney say it's effectively impossible. But I want to ask this question anyway, because it seems like the that's the nature of what I've heard a couple of people say tonight is that it would be effectively impossible for someone in this property to to do it, you know, do it, do their own thing. There would be. Effectively required by the developers into perpetuity to do whatever the developers want. Do you have any thoughts or comments on that?
Speaker 6: Well, what I can say is those requirements and provisions relative to highways don't apply to districts. So again, we're purely in the local government statutes. So the requirements relative to constituents or electors getting positions on the board, not until your 75% built out or frankly, I don't even know what the requirements are because it is factual and statutorily required that once you are an elector, once you have those interests we've discussed before, you're eligible to be a board member irrespective of what's happening in the development. If you live within the boundaries of the district, you're a resident of what I said. So those provisions don't apply to these districts.
Speaker 2: Okay. So what is there? I'm having trouble reading my own writing. Will there be an H away as well? Potentially. Or is that like, oh, I see what I was. Well, these properties have fees. So in addition to servicing will there the the bond and property taxes, will they also have fees?
Speaker 9: You know, at the end of the day, that that actual answer isn't known for 100% certain, but the thought process was we wouldn't need one because the infrastructure would be in. And then the district, through the maintenance and operations mills, would be able to take care of what the FHA would normally take care of.
Speaker 2: Oh, there was a comment earlier about putting the cart before the horse. Do you have any comment on are we putting the cart before the horse? And if so, why?
Speaker 9: I think in a perfect world, Councilman Hines, we would have the area plan and a lot of things, you know, done already. Unfortunately, the way the statutes written, it requires, you know, elections. And as you know, at the state level, there's only certain times of the year when that's allowable. So if we were to and we worked on the area plan as quickly as we could, understanding that when we started and we bought the property, we immediately, you know, started working with the city on how to do a rezoning. And if we would have just gone forward with a straight rezoning without doing a small area plan and we could have potentially of gotten community, community consensus, you know, through just a rezoning, normal process rather than doing an area plan. You know, we could have had an area plan approved already by now, hypothetically, you know, and then we could be sitting in front of you today with this metro district. You know, getting this approved in the car wouldn't be in front of the horse. What we tried to do is the right thing on this project and completely hit the pause button for over a year. I mean, we bought the property in July of 2018 and we've been working, you know, as closely as possible with the community. So in a perfect world, would it be nice, you know? But at the same token, I think we have community consensus. This service plan, as has been said on more than one occasion tonight, doesn't approve any zoning. All it does is put the tool, so to speak, in the toolbox so we can deliver what the community is asking for.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me start with you first, Mark, if you don't mind coming back up.
Speaker 9: No problem.
Speaker 8: Do you all plan to be a master developer or do you plan to own many of the structures that.
Speaker 6: Both.
Speaker 8: Existing structures, but any of the new ones that will be built on the site as well?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's a great question. And we've been asked that question a lot of times. I can tell you what we do, what we do well, and I know what we don't do. We are not a residential home builder. So as it relates to the street residential, we wouldn't be doing that. But when we start talking about the mixed use commercial aspects of the property, there is a high likelihood that we will be developing those ourselves.
Speaker 8: And we continue to own.
Speaker 9: This structure is possible for sure.
Speaker 8: Okay. Tell me a little bit about the open space. And I don't remember. What's the total number of acres on this site? 70, 70 acres. So how much of that will be open space?
Speaker 9: You know, at this point in time, I can tell you that the city requirement is 10%. I can tell you that with site planning that we are considering for the the project it's in, it's in far excess of the 10% at the end of the day. And I'm going to stand here and promise you that it's 20%. I'm not going to do that. But I am going to tell you it's going to be well north of 10%.
Speaker 8: So within the Metro District Service plan, does that include maintenance of the open space?
Speaker 9: Sure does.
Speaker 8: Okay. And is that sort of built into the project over the term of the debt being collected?
Speaker 9: Two different topics. The debt being collected and repaid is for the initial bonds that are issued. That's the 50 mills. Right. The operation and maintenance is up to and again, that's up to the 50 mills. The operation and maintenance is up to the 15 mills. And until we have a final plan, as far as what it is that we're going to be completing out there, it's hard to say exactly what that what the mills are going to be as far as the operation and maintenance. And it also depends on what kind of open spaces there are, you know, fallow grass, you know, has a different cost, you know, versus, you know, hardscape, you know, plazas as an example.
Speaker 8: So has there been discussion with the City Parks Department about that open space eventually being turned over to the city to be a city park? Or is that intended to be under the control and ownership of the entire development?
Speaker 9: Sure. Great question. In there having conversations that we've had with the Parks Department, we are also going through the LDR process just starting as well. Initial conversations with the Parks Department are the they don't have the capacity or the financial wherewithal to manage and operate the parks. So they think the best hands for the parks operations would be within the district.
Speaker 8: For you to continue to control it.
Speaker 9: The district to control it.
Speaker 8: Okay. I guess that's what I mean when I say you all as opposed to the city or the department. Okay. So housing is a big part of the discussion and affordable housing has been part of that commitment. Has there been any discussion about the phasing of that?
Speaker 9: Absolutely. And I'm proud about this, actually. One of the things that I can tell you is that we heard loud and clear from the community that affordable housing was important. We've heard from Denver that affordable housing is important. We also heard that, as some people have mentioned tonight, that some of the historic preservation is very important. There's a particular building on campus. PANCRAS The Hall, which was built in 1929, which was a dormitory. When you talk to the building, it actually wants to continue to be residential. Clearly, if you are saving a building, you're not going to move the building. And if we're talking about, you know, doing affordable housing as an important element, community benefit, we saw no reason why we shouldn't just tell everybody that pancreas a hall is going to be an affordable housing project. In fact, we are very proud of what we're what's transpiring there. It will be 68 units, I believe, of the 30 to 80% AMI. There are three bedrooms there. I believe there's 17, three bedrooms that are going to be inside of that project as well.
Speaker 8: And is that the only affordable housing or will there be more than that? I think you know.
Speaker 9: I think you know the answer to that question. But I will answer it for, you know.
Speaker 8: Okay. Let me move on to my next couple of questions and I wanted to ask. Let me ask you this question and I'll call someone else up. So the expectation is that we're talking about 97 mils total on on the entire project.
Speaker 9: Right. 90.
Speaker 8: 90. Okay. I don't know where I got 97. Maybe I was looking at the 96.9 on the cost.
Speaker 9: And that's an up to number. Sorry to interrupt.
Speaker 8: I guess what I'm trying to get at is. The long term existence of the metro districts. I know. Not long ago there were some changes at the state legislature that pretty much allows them to exist in perpetuity. And I. I don't know if the expectation is that they will exist beyond the time frame of paying back the debt. So how how is that how are you looking at structuring this in terms of the the long term existence of the metro districts?
Speaker 9: There's two questions there, actually. There's one question as it relates to the debt. Right. And then there's the other question that relates to the operations and maintenance. And then actually a third question as it relates to the programing of that 90 mills that you're referring to, 20 of those mills are being held aside for the opportunity to use them for programing, whereas 15 mills are being used potentially for the opportunity for maintenance and operations, and then the 50 mills would be used for up to 50 mills be used for the debt services. Once the bonds are retired, it would be up to the board to make a decision on whether or not they would want to issue new debt. Maybe there might be a a rec center or something that they would want to build as a public amenity. And that could be an opportunity.
Speaker 8: So because these operate like a independent unit of government within the city and county of Denver, they can continue to issue debt after that.
Speaker 9: I mean, I believe that that is a true statement. And I look at my attorney to nod yes. Yup. And she nodded. Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. So. If we set limits at 50 mills, what would what would be compromised in the in the project.
Speaker 9: If we set it at 50 mils. Oh, meaning that 50 total for debt service operation and maintenance and for programing.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, it just, you know, whittles away tools in the toolbox, you know, as it relates to, you know, bringing forward to southwest Denver, a place I don't know if it's sustainable or not. I can't really I haven't explored that model. We were looking for the optimistic side that we would be able to move forward, you know, with a tool in our toolbox that can be fully utilized.
Speaker 8: So the hope and expectation is that if you get the total 90 miles. If I'm hearing you correctly, that's what allows you to be able to meet the community benefits and the commitments that were made to the community through the planning process.
Speaker 9: No, that's actually not what I said. Of the 90 mills, only 50 mills, up to 50 mills that can be utilized for debt services, for infrastructure installation. The other 40 mills, which goes to 15 for operations and 20 for programing and five to the regional mills, you know, could be determined otherwise.
Speaker 8: Okay. Let me just look to see if I have one last question here. I guess I just want to ask her attorney. So what's what's the incentive for any of the districts to expire after the debt is paid? Or is there?
Speaker 12: So. Kirsten Crawford, legislative counsel and I'm here with Dianne Feinstein, who's really more of the special districts expert. But I just want to make a couple comments because there's been a lot.
Speaker 10: Of.
Speaker 12: We've we've jumped around a lot tonight in I think so many things probably needs and deserve more explanation. And the first thing I want to just confirm is that both with when it comes to the Urban Renewal Authority and to the special districts under Title 32, these are crazy governmental entities. They have certain powers. They're separate and different.
Speaker 10: From.
Speaker 12: A home rule municipality. And their powers are very limited. So special districts have enumerated in their statutes certain powers. There is absolutely credibility to the debate that has been ongoing for for many years, not just here tonight at council about the virtues and the pros and cons of special districts. But I want council to understand that that is a debate that has to occur at the state level. And the only reason this comes to council tonight is for approval of a service plan. And it's a pretty narrow opportunity to council for council to approve or not approve the service plan with respect to incentive to retire the debt.
Speaker 10: I don't know, Joann, if you feel like you can answer that from a legal perspective.
Speaker 12: But the one thing that I want to just say with respect to Councilwoman Ortega's question is that any additional debt that would be sought after.
Speaker 10: Have would have to.
Speaker 12: Go out for an additional vote.
Speaker 8: But would that have to come back to this body? They would just go. Would it have to come back to this body to be approved, to be put on the ballot to go out to a vote?
Speaker 10: It depends. Okay.
Speaker 8: Clarify that.
Speaker 10: Debt is. Well, I think you you asked and said a couple of things. What I was going to address initially you were talking about the termination of a metro district that they are they do have a perpetual existence, just like any municipal entity. And it is to some extent, it's up to the board of directors at that time to say, do we want to continue or do we want to, you know, do we want to try and terminate the. It's not a good word, but and the special district, number one, they would need to be debt free to be able to shut down essentially or make other arrangements to retire the debt. But the debt is not the only reason for the special districts, in my view. As Megan Becker was saying that in and as Mark said, they will have lots of maintenance responsibilities and that is an ongoing function. And is Kirsten was saying that. I mean, this ties into another question that came up earlier. I think that if the district is really going to change dramatically, it is considered a major modification in any metropolitan district within the city and county of Denver would have to come back to city council to. Really change your alter the service plan in terms of what they can do and the service plans that that we have approved recently talk about a maximum mill levy and the election would cover the maximum amount of debt. So whether they could issue debt later depends on two factors. One, the length of time and I'm not the bond financing expert, but the authorization will expire at some point in time. So that's one issue. And the other one would be the amount has the maximum been issued. And if that was the case, then the district would have to go to an election of its. Eligible electors if they want to try and issue additional debt.
Speaker 8: So join in your experience, at what point in time does the city in these districts begin to assume responsibility for city services? Trash pickup. Street sweeping, snow removal, that kind of stuff.
Speaker 10: Well. My understanding is that the metro districts typically provide a higher level of service in certain areas than city services. I don't think it's necessarily a replacement for city services and perhaps I don't know Megan or Mark, you.
Speaker 8: Mark, you want to help out with this one?
Speaker 4: I might be able to help out a little bit on this one. You know, as you think about like city services, there's the service services aspect. And then there's also one of the responsibilities of the district is to provide that infrastructure, like the roads and the sewers and the waterlines. And each of those have a warranty period based on each jurisdiction. And each of those responsibilities sometimes is 2 to 3 years. And then when they get after the warranty period, it's gone by and they've built it to the standards of each of those jurisdictions. They get then transferred over to like, say, the city for the roads or Denver water for the water pipes. And at that point, then those infrastructure pieces become a part of that organization's maintenance. But, I mean, we look at the OEM pieces of the of the metropolitan district. What we're looking at is like common area maintenance is like parks, open spaces, not necessarily the roads anymore. As like all the other public entities that manage the roads or the water lines take on that responsibility. So the 15 mills of our operations and maintenance would really be part of the what I'll call common area maintenance and even sometimes replace as a highway style activities.
Speaker 8: So just to be clear, though. Once the roads are are constructed. Is it assumed then that those are city streets and the city is responsible for snow removal? Street sweeping, you know, trash pickup, all those all those services that are provided to every other neighborhood across the city.
Speaker 4: Sure. The the answer is, of course, it depends. The what if the city like streets, for instance, if the streets are built to the city standards, then yes, they would be after a warranty period, they would be handed over to the city and we would be doing all the snow removal and replacement of any potholes or patching of potholes or problems with the roads. But if they were not built to those city standards, like sometimes they're just a little narrower than what we would normally accept as a city street. They were staying there. The it's the streets that do not meet the city's standards would be retained by the metropolitan district and it would be a metropolitan district responsibility for operations.
Speaker 8: So in our review and approval of these districts, as are brought forward to us, are we not dictating certain standards that we expect? I mean, if the streets are too narrow in any of these developments, you want to make sure your, you know, emergency vehicles can get through there.
Speaker 4: Sure. I that you do want to have safety for everyone and the standards are important. But the metropolitan district itself is a financing tool, and the standards for the streets and whatnot are not dictated in the metropolitan district.
Speaker 10: Where is that done?
Speaker 4: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 9: Yeah. So let me explain further. The the roads and the standards that the roads are built to are approved in the site plan of the project. They're I think what Andrew was trying to explain is that there could be some roads, especially at Loreto, where we're trying to create some of these public places that may be unique and unique. What is an example of that? Like, for an example, there could be a street that doesn't have a curb. Why would you want to have a street without a curb? So you could close the street down and you can make it more of a festival street. The city may not want to have that particular street that wouldn't impact, you know, the flow of traffic on the site. But it might be a special place, you know, on the property. What Andrew was explaining is if that case were to exist, it would still have to meet standards as it relates to emergency type things. But the district could own them.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 6: All right. That was a helpful explanation.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. All right. A few people up for a few follow ups. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thanks for has just had a few follow ups for me. Let me start with Megan. When Mr. Henderson was talking about the experience, etc., and then his other research, you were nodding your head this way quite a bit and I wanted to find out why was that? What were you taking issue with?
Speaker 6: I think what I want to make sure that everyone understands and it's, you know, based upon some of the comments of your attorneys, these districts are quasi governmental entities. So there is transparency, there is accountability. We have to follow the statutes. We have to follow the Constitution. We have to follow the election laws. Everything is publicly available. And can I say that there haven't been circumstances in the state of Colorado that have not followed all those rules? There have been. But it's absolutely true that these districts must follow all of those open records, open meetings, transparency. So there is accountability. There is transparency. And it's our intent and our goal to ensure that that does happen, not only in accordance with statute, but in accordance with what the community desires. So. Okay.
Speaker 4: Andrew, just to follow up on that, real briefly, have any of the metro districts in Denver had those issues? Lack of transparency, fraud, abuse. I imagine I'd like to say no, but I'm sure at that point that you don't know they would come up with one, but I'm not aware of one. All right, Mark, during the area planning process, the use of metropolitan district was always on the table from the very first draft, was it not?
Speaker 9: Yeah. If you look at the first draft of the area plan that came out in June, one of the tools that was noted, I don't remember what page, but there's a page in there that talk specifically about metro top metropolitan districts as a financing tool. It was in the first draft and in the second draft.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then the planning board draft is absolute third draft. And it's you had your staff at every meeting. And the the area plan steering committee is not a site planning committee.
Speaker 9: That is correct. It is absolutely the site plan.
Speaker 4: So when the service plan comes out for the metro district and it implements pretty closely the guidance you were hearing from the community, what you know, what would you say about that?
Speaker 9: I think my team did a good job listening.
Speaker 4: Okay. Can you are there any areas where you where you might have deviated from the guidance? I didn't see any myself. And probably unfair to ask you, but.
Speaker 9: No. I mean, I think the area plan the area plan is a document that sets up the visioning statement for what the property wants to be.
Speaker 4: But it's not a site.
Speaker 9: Plan, not a site plan, you know, inside of the service plan. We are required to put as attachments, illustrations to what, what, what, what, what the project is going to be. And that's simply what's in there are illustrations.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Dr. Aguilar, could I ask you a couple of questions? As the head of the Neighborhood Equity and Stabilization Team, I've heard it said that metro districts are absolutely the worst way to do a project like this, with the exception of all the other ways of doing it, because they all cost money and they all have their impacts. And from the southwest, Denver is pretty high on our inequity index or pretty low on the equity index would be the proper way to say what concerns do you have about the financing here and the potential impacts that the mill levy might have on affordability and on one on the development of the site, if any
Speaker 10: ? I actually am more concerned if we don't pass this. I think it was alluded to here this year because.
Speaker 4: Six 0 million six.
Speaker 10: $0 million right.
Speaker 4: Take Tokyo was going to donate.
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 4: The property to and.
Speaker 10: They could not afford the money to make it usable because of the asbestos and the lack of wiring in it. And I in the interest of full disclosure, my property is across the road from the right of heights. And when Jeff Romaine was selected economists, he would torment me by saying they're never going to be able to afford to fix that and they'll be living across in a by a blighted, vandalize piece of property. Really. And and so I'm hoping you will prove him wrong. But but it is beautiful. And there's a lot of open space. And I'm very excited about the vision of preserving the quadrangle. I think it's ambitious to try and preserve that theater, although like the whole community, I would love it. I, I think we're in a little bit of a catch 22 because the plan as is being developed really limits heights and limits density. And without that, I don't know how you pay for it. So I'm a little concerned about that. But I think that what's being proposed is the the best we can expect for this level. Mark has asked sometimes me and Melissa has had from housing about what kind of housing will expect from him for affordability. And we've warned him more than he'd like to give us. And but I think that he listens very well to the people there who really wanted a parkway facing the grand entrance. He really wanted Dartmouth not to go all the way through. Who really wanted the quadrangle preserved? He's working with his district in hopes of preserving the theater. I have my concerns about whether that's still going to be possible, even though, of course, I would love to.
Speaker 4: Have you toured the theater with Kimberly Desmond as well.
Speaker 10: I. As well there because I saw it as a potential neighborhood equity initiative because we don't have that level of arts in southwest Denver. And there's actually a lot of open space on the lower level. And I thought it could be a great nonprofit space. But the financial evaluation that you had done came back pretty daunting without even considering that it needed a new roof and you needed parking for it. And so so I have in my heart a line in myself to the possibility we won't have that. But I'd love to not have a blighted area there, and I'd love to see that administrative building being used again because it's really gorgeous.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'll take this opportunity then to remind everybody in case the mayor is still up and watching that. At the last community meeting, Mayor Hancock made the announcement that we will save the theater. So I asked him at my next occasion, okay, how do you plan to do that? So we'll find out.
Speaker 10: And selfishly, I'd love to see that, but I. I would like to see us invest in more affordable housing there. I mean, we have to pick priorities. We don't have enough money for everything. And it's a beautiful opportunity. And I do want to apologize. So we we were involved in trying to make that Latino town hall happen and the mayor's office fired. We went to Southwest Community Coalition and talked about it. And Alves Rubio, who is our West Denver neighborhood representative, went out and met with his contacts in the area and we still got really poor attendance. And it was really quite a humbling experience to think about what is. There was childcare. There was food. It was held completely in Spanish and we still could not get the community to come out. And so I apologize. We did make an effort to have the Latino community in particular there.
Speaker 11: Do you recall that successful recall.
Speaker 4: Senator, that way or. Dr.. What I call what do I call you now?
Speaker 11: I mean.
Speaker 4: Do you do you recall also that our DPS representative yeah, we did backpack fliers from college view and.
Speaker 10: We did we sent local fliers home, we did everything we could. And it was really unfortunate that we just could not get the population to come out for this.
Speaker 4: Okay. And it was held offsite. It was held.
Speaker 10: It all started. All Saints Church. Yeah. You went for the Catholic route. It's. That didn't work.
Speaker 11: All right. Thank you, friend. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. I'm not seeing anybody in the queue. Still on questions, so I'm going to go ahead and close. This public hearing for Kels was 745 is closed and we're moving to comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Mr. President. Just to quickly repeat what I said during the questioning earlier, that metro districts are often remarked to be the absolute worst vehicle for doing things like this except for all the others. And it's a hard choice to make. The fact is the city doesn't go in any longer. And build roads for developers. We don't build sewers and water and drainage. We don't do any of that anymore. We used to two decades ago, I think the first special district I became familiar with when I moved to Denver almost 40 years ago was one that was in place for 60 years and and built one of the most well-known public infrastructure projects that was privately owned. And that was the Moffitt Tunnel District. And they taxed the homes and businesses and property of of thousands of residents from what was then Denver at the time, all the way up through Jefferson, Boulder, Grand, all the way, I believe, to Craig to Moffat County. And and that was that's now owned by Union Pacific. So there's a long history of successful use of special districts as a as a vehicle for accomplishing what private financing and what other methods of getting that infrastructure done is simply worse than a worse option than what we're looking at tonight. This is an opportunity to get something done right. Not only in southwest Denver, but in the city. We have an iconic. Site. It is among the highest points in the chart, the highest point in a city. But it's it's darn close to it. And and this is a chance that to build something that in 50 years through the use of this vehicle and others, because this doesn't provide enough capacity to build something that when someone comes here 50 years from now, they will know that this was a campus. This is a different place. This could be southwest Denver's living room or family room. And we want to make sure that it's done right. We want to make sure that the streets, the public works understands that this is going to be a place we want people to come to and not pass through. We don't want it to be porous. We don't want Dartmouth to go through and siphon traffic into the neighborhoods off of off of Federal Boulevard, because this is a campus and we want it to remain a campus. It's a sacred site, if I can even use that word, as Sister Mary Nell said about the cemetery, I would apply that to the entire campus because for almost 130 years, when Sister Pan Croatia first designated that site as the future home of an extension of Saint Mary's Academy, it's it's been a revered site in southwest Denver. Not the oldest fort Logan beats it by a few years. But this is our chance to get it right. And this is. Probably the worst vehicle to do it other than all the others. And so I asked my colleagues to consider that, to consider the track record in Denver of special districts being successful and and vote to approve this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Are there any other comments? All right, I am going to. I'm sorry, sir. You can take a step outside, or you can wait for us to deliver it. So, sir. I'm asking you to please stop or to take your comments outside. We have closed the comment period and now we're deliberating.
Speaker 11: On campaign funds should recuse themselves from this trade.
Speaker 1: All right. So, you know, other comments, I will finish this out before we vote and just say, first of all, thank you to Councilman Flynn. You know, this is right at the edge of my district, technically in Councilman Flynn's district, but a place that is very, very near and dear to me. As you heard earlier, my mother is what brought her to Colorado was to go to school here. My parents celebrated 50 years of being married this year in January. And we went driving through what is a very sad campus right now because there is no use, I mean, other than people throwing rocks through windows and breaking things because we have a developer who didn't charge through and say, I'm going to go build, I'm going to go build. But I will take a pause to meet with community and understand what the community wants and develop that. But we took a drive through to, you know, got to hear my dad talk about those are the steps where I fell in love with your mother. And, you know, my mom lived in pancreas a hall. And to hear plans for that building, you know, not the historic of our name, the historic landmarked administration building, but plans to retain that and bring people back to living there. And all my mother's stories about party line phone, only one phone for the whole dorm. And you had to wait in line to call home the history of that area. And, you know, I, I know that we're just talking about the metro districts. I'm not trying not get to astray, but also my constituents on my side. You know, again, college view, literally, a neighborhood is named for its view of the college. And I'm Claire Harris, also a graduate of Loretto, who was probably the most skeptical person in the city when this site was purchased and walked out of this community process. As one of the staunchest advocates to say, okay, hey, we had a voice at the table. Now go find a way to deliver on this dream and vision. And this is a tool, you know, to get us there and to deliver on something that is, you know, not just another development. It is a special place, a sacred place for our city. And so I will also be supporting this site. And I want to say thank you to everyone who put the work in to try and get this right, despite the fact that it has, you know, been hard to watch that site sit and see the things that people do and you don't have any activation on it. But I think we're getting closer to a day where we can all be very proud of of what's here. So with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Black. I see. Tobacco. No. Gilmore, I.
Speaker 11: Herndon, I.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman by.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 8: I. And I just want to say a quick thank you all for your patience and sitting through this long night.
Speaker 3: Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please trust voting in those results.
Speaker 3: One 911 eight.
Speaker 1: 111 nine Constable 745 has passed and yes, thank you, Councilman Ortega. Thank you all for sticking it out on this late night, seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving Service Plans for the creation of six (6) Title 32 Metropolitan Districts, the Loretto Heights Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5 and the Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District.
Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 1, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 2, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 3, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 4, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 5 and Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District, in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0838
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Any other announcements? All right. So, you know, the announcements, there are no presentations, there are no communications. But we do have one proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Sandoval and Councilwoman Torres, are both of you reading? All right? Will you please read Proclamation 838.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Proclamation number 838. Celebrating August 25th, 2019, as La Raza and Barnum Park, a cruise down Fed Day in Denver, Colorado. Whereas Denver has been home to a thriving and vibrant Chicano community for generations. And. Whereas, Chicano communities have enjoyed cruising along Federal Boulevard since the 1980s, when, as Cynthia Throw founder and executive director Tony Garcia wrote, The cruisers connected the immigrant communities of South Federal with the Chicano communities of the North Side and the suburban expats of Federal Heights in a symbolic trek through the city's Latino dysphoria. And. Whereas, Denver's communities of color have long suffered from racial disparities and have taken the burden of involuntary displacement, notably to build a very a campus targeting by police of young Chicano men in the 1990s who cruise their vehicles down federal boulevard. And recent gentrification in Denver. And. WHEREAS, Cruising Culture, Lowriders and car clubs collectively install a sense of pride and community resilience within with within many North and West Side Denver families and neighborhoods. And. Whereas, a new generation of leaders have learned from and been inspired by Chicano movement leaders, including Rudolfo Corky Gonzalez, the Gonzalez family, Toni Garcia, Dr. Ramon de Castillo. And I'm going to add my father this late, Senator Paul Sandoval, and recognizes Denver Police Department's chief of Police Pop Hasan's recent efforts to rebuild within communities of color , along with the recent election of five Latinas to Denver City Council. Now, therefore. Now, therefore be it.
Speaker 6: Proclaimed by the city, though the Council of the City and County of Denver, that in the pursuit of the shared goals and responsibilities of promoting knowledge about Chicano culture, cultural traditions.
Speaker 2: Unifying communities, and combating prejudice and eliminating discrimination. City and County of Denver, Colorado does hereby proclaim August 25th, 2019.
Speaker 6: As La Raza and Barnum Park a cruise down feds day that the clerk a thank you and the clerk of the city and county of Denver self-test and affix the seal.
Speaker 2: Of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation that a copy be transmitted to the Denver Latino Commission, the Denver Agency for Human Rights and Community Partnerships. Ben Upton Chavez. JOLTS of Get It.
Speaker 6: Get to Your Garden. Armando Janeiro, Juan Fuentes, Bobby La Free Beret and the governor of Colorado, Jared Polis. They club.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And Councilwoman Torres, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Sorry I wasn't trained in.
Speaker 1: One of you like to officially make the motion to move the proclamation. Three eight be adopted.
Speaker 6: So moved.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sandler.
Speaker 2: Thank you. So I would like to thank several people here. And first, I would like to note, most notably, thank Ben for bringing this to our attention. And Ben, then Councilwoman Torres, myself, Senator Gonzalez, Julie Gonzalez and State Rep Sarina Gonzalez Gutierrez together on federal for a meeting to come up with this idea of how we could all collaboratively work together to show what our culture is in the north side and the west side. And as a native of North Denver, I will admit that when I was in high school, I closed down federal. I had a great time. I met a lot of people. I went to North High School and I met people from different high schools along that time. And I just want to say that with the gentrification and the displacement of the North and West Side, this is an honor to sit up here and proclaim this day and have all of you backing us up here in council. So as I said, a lot of times when I was running, it takes a village. And honestly, this is both our village is coming together to support us as the Latinos up here. And you're elected to support Senator Gonzalez and support Rep Gonzalez Gutierrez. So thank you. And I'll pass the mic to Jamie.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. It's a reminder.
Speaker 2: Amanda really kind of set up the framework for how.
Speaker 6: We ended up here. But for me, there's this visceral reaction.
Speaker 2: For car culture and lowriders, and it's about art.
Speaker 7: And I found this wonderful article written by.
Speaker 6: Alicia Inez Guzman in New Mexico that I wanted to share a bit of what she wrote about, because it really does speak to why this is so important to Chicano.
Speaker 2: Communities.
Speaker 7: Lowriders have a certain magic about.
Speaker 2: Them perched.
Speaker 6: Just inches off the ground. They cruise through the streets in that Sunday drive. No hurry kind of way, catching the glint of the sun and turning heads. The glistening custom paint jobs, chrome embellishment, spoke tires and white walls forge a work of art on.
Speaker 2: Wheels that often.
Speaker 6: Inspires a well-timed.
Speaker 2: Dam. And if you stare long enough, the driver will likely give a slight nod of the chin, as if to say, Oh, really? Oh, really? Who wouldn't want that work of art? I just want to thank Ben Jolt, Councilwoman Sandoval, Senator Gonzalez, Representative Gonzalez Gutierrez, everyone on this council, because this is a turning corner, I think, for how.
Speaker 6: We appreciate.
Speaker 7: This particular form of art. It isn't something that inspires this fear of trouble. This is something.
Speaker 6: That we value in artistic expression and creative endeavor. And it's wonderful to be here, to be able to put this forward. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Just one. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank my colleagues up here, my proud Chicana sisters, for bringing this forward in a time when our communities really are feeling the pressure of being policed and raised by their neighbors. And this is a strong stand to say, we're here. We're not going anywhere. This is our culture. Enjoy it with us. And so for any of you insiders out there, I would love to see us caravan down 46 through Globeville, up through 38 to get on Fed. So if anybody's down to do that, reach out. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank thank you. Councilwoman comes from Santa Barbara. You back.
Speaker 2: Up? Yeah. So I forgot to give everyone details as we were talking. So this is happening on Sunday. We're meeting at La Raza Park. And if you get confused in Denver, the actual name is Columbus Park. But we don't national centers don't call it that. It's called La Raza Park. And so we'll be meeting at La Raza Park at 1 p.m. and Aztec dancers will give us an official blessing at 130, and then we'll be cruising up 38th and we'll hang a left. We'll head south on federal and we'll end up Barnum Park in the Culver SAC and we'll have speakers at four and we'll have some festivities. So please join us anytime through that time. And if you have any questions, please feel free to call Councilman Torres or myself and we'll be happy to answer them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Well, thank you so much for bringing this forward. And I like this tag team because, you know, I'm not sure where you guys are coming from on either side. So thank you so much for bringing this forward excited. To support it. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Hi. Torres.
Speaker 3: I black. I see the Barca.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega. Sawyer. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please. Because the voting announced results.
Speaker 3: 1313.
Speaker 1: As proclamation 838 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes set aside for proclamation acceptance. Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Torres, is there anyone you'd like to bring up to the microphone?
Speaker 2: We'd like to bring up Ben and Joel to accept the proclamation.
Speaker 8: What are they? Thank you for having us this evening. Council Members. Before I get into my little spiel that I have, I want to acknowledge the indigenous peoples of this land the Arapaho, Cheyenne and the Ute. First of all. Secondly, movements are not faces. Me and Joel and the other brothers that have had the blessing and the opportunities to help organize this are just servant leaders. We are standing on the shoulders of our ancestors and people who've come before us and in the Chicano movement, in the low riding scene. And we just want to go ahead and acknowledge those individuals. Standing behind me are OGs in the Denver low riding scene, and that is going to be final. And Sam and these two men, if you could stand up and I could get a little round of applause for them. His men are staples in this community and have been building lowriders from the ground up for years. Other than that, the only thing I can say is thank you to the council members. You know, you get up here, you think you're going to have a beautiful thing to say. Any kind of flees your brain, you know? But thank you for allowing us to be here and working with us and collectively collaborating on this. And we'll see you on Sunday. Slow and low already.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much for that.
Speaker 8: So there's not much that I can say that hasn't already been said. Other than acknowledging how proud I am to be a part of this generation and to see the young men and women of my generation doing things from the heart, from the passion that represent this city, that has, has, has brought us and grown this culture within our hearts. And to continue that and have the support of you all to do so is beautiful. I think that we are in a time where Denver needs this. Denver needs to celebrate what it is because at times we kind of have a bit of an identity crisis and forget about what has been going on here for so long. So the opportunity to celebrate that and stand among all these amazing people and be before all these amazing people is just something that I feel very fortunate and very proud to be a part of. So thank you all very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Also, one thing I didn't get to say was thank you for all of the car clubs and presidents and members of car clubs that are here right now coming and standing in solidarity with us here in chambers. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Instead.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much. That is our only proclamation this evening. So that brings us to the bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating La Raza & Barnum Park Day - Cruise Down Fedz on August 25th, 2019.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0744
|
Speaker 1: final consideration. Note items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Anything, Miss. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Barker, go ahead with your question or during questions and votes. Madam Secretary, do you want to put this on the floor before we do questions or you to do questions first? Oh, we go ahead and put it on the floor. Councilman, can we please put Council Bill 744 on the floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill seven 4419 does 744 be ordered published?
Speaker 1: It has been moved. If I get a second, it has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Steed, welcome. You wanna go ahead with your question?
Speaker 2: It's actually just a statement at this point. A lot of people don't know how these processes work. And so my commitment to community is my word. My word is my bond and my votes are my word. So I want to make sure that even at this first reading, I go on record with my position on this plan . I want to read the ordinance request for those of you getting ready to dig into these proposals, I know this is only first reading but still want to make my concerns known and go on record as not supporting the request, said the general objectives of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions as well as to stimulate growth and redevelopment. The plan establishes the framework for Future City Council approval of public improvement projects and private redevelopment projects within the East Colfax Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area and the use of tax increment financing for those approved projects post-World War Two. Federal urban renewal today is widely viewed as a failure, yet cities are repeating the mistake with tax increment financing. Tax increment financing is the new urban renewal. Our local urban renewal projects of the past were rooted in the idea that if you cleared out cities, bars, cheap hotels, homeless missions, you could attract a new wave of capital . The federal government was pretty much handing out money to cities that did this, and often they used the power of eminent domain to forcibly purchase land that would be cleared out and resold to private developers. These efforts resulted in the demolition of poor communities. Denver and other cities corrected the blight of poverty by eliminating the poor, driving them into other neighborhoods or public housing. These efforts were often referred to as slum clearance and were justified because it was alleged that substandard areas breed social and economic ills of the worst kind and that most of the displaced people are black, brown and poor people. The policies have generally favored large developers embodying crony capitalism. Urban renewal also imposed unwanted esthetic replacing humans. Neighborhoods with outsized structures. Even when these policies were determined failures and federal money waned. Urban renewal entities needed to find local funding sources. And the one that was most settled on was tax increment financing. This method allows local or state agencies to draw boundaries around an area for redevelopment. The agency's then sell bonds and use that money to create incentives, usually cash or free land for target businesses. Future sales or property tax revenue that comes from within the boundary is then used to pay the bonds. TIFF is now a go to funding source for stadiums, retail condos and other developments having become urban renewal as modern incarnation. TIFF still shares urban renewal problems, for example, by perpetuating crony capitalism. At first glance, its subsidies don't seem like handouts, since they supposedly pay for themselves through increased revenue from new projects. But it is unclear whether these revenues truly increase because of these projects or from inflation, and the money that pays for them would otherwise fund core services, causing misplaced priorities in many cities. TIFF also plays an unfortunate role as an enabler for eminent domain, which could otherwise be unaffordable for cities. I encourage you all to review the indicators of blight and recognize who is targeted and disadvantaged by these efforts that are top down rather than community driven need based formats for community development . For all of these reasons, I'm taking this opportunity on first reading to go on record as a no for this plan and will continue to vote no on final consideration. I encourage all of my colleagues, especially the new ones, to do your research and make sure that we're representing all of our constituents, including and especially those who will be victims to our ambitions. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: I remove my request to speak and get back on the list at the end. Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca, for your for voicing your concerns. This is actually in District five, and I have to just step in. We can discuss this more next week, but I wanted to just make it very, very clear from from the outset that I have been a part of this process. I've been going to these meetings and participated in this for.
Speaker 2: A little over a.
Speaker 7: Year now. And I can't speak highly enough.
Speaker 2: Of the job.
Speaker 7: That Tracy has done with Sarah that the entire community has done to come together to ensure that some of the the problems that absolutely exist in urban redevelopment.
Speaker 2: These days.
Speaker 7: Are not happening on East Colfax. Everyone in our community recognizes that gentrification and displacement of communities.
Speaker 2: Of color.
Speaker 7: Are a major problem and that East.
Speaker 2: Colfax and this area is.
Speaker 7: Someplace that could be the next real.
Speaker 2: Area of a problem.
Speaker 7: And I just can't I can't say strongly enough how much that our community, how much the city is doing to make sure that that does not happen, how they recognize exactly what's going on, that they share that concern and that they're doing everything they can to get community involved to make sure that that does not happen. So I just wanted to really put that out there because I think it's very important to recognize that Councilwoman CdeBaca has concerns are valid, and historically speaking, they are 100% true. But in this case, I can't say enough about what has been done to try and stave off those kinds of concerns and that gentrification off of that . So we can discuss this more next week when it comes to in front of council. But I just wanted to put that out there right now. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Black, understand that we have a technical issue to correct.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. There is a mistake in the bill. The title of the bill, it says it said in the tax increment area. But it's actually only setting the urban renewal boundaries. And I'm going to offer an amendment. But in the meantime, if anyone has any questions, I'm sure our dear director Tracy Huggins could answer them.
Speaker 1: All right, so you want me to come back when you're ready with the amendment to fix the title?
Speaker 2: I have got the amendment right here.
Speaker 1: All right. I do have Councilman Herndon in the cue in mind if we bounce to him and then we'll get make sure we do this right. All right. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I was just going to encourage my colleagues, since this is on first reading for publication, there will be a public hearing next week. We'll have the opportunity to go in depth about what the east area urban renewal area does and does not do. I think there is some misinformation, but I want to be respectful of people's times and hopefully we can have that conversation next Monday, and I would encourage my colleagues to support it. Thanks, Mr..
Speaker 1: President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. All right, Madam Secretary, how would you like us to proceed with this amendment? Do we just need to clarify for the record, or do we need to do an amendment to the bill?
Speaker 3: Okay. Go ahead with Councilwoman Councilwoman Black's amendment.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I move to amend 19 dash 0744 as follows on page one, line seven strike and the Andrew Place with quotes, period, quote, end quote. And on page one, strike line eight. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the establishment of tax increment areas. The amendment does not require republication.
Speaker 1: All right. We have that amendment moved. Do we need a second or did we get a second for the amendment?
Speaker 3: It's been seconded.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn, and seconded the amendment. So any questions or comments on the amendment will vote on the amendment first and then tomorrow on the bill. Okay. I don't see anybody in the Q on this who will vote on the amendment. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca, i. Flynn, Art Gilmore, i.
Speaker 5: Herndon, I Hines Hi Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can h.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Ortega Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I sawyer i torres i.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. I'm secretary please cause voting in US Results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Bill 744 has been amended and now we're going to go ahead and vote on Council 744 as amended. Yep. Anything else you need from us before we vote on that? All right. And seeing nobody else do roll call, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: CDEBACA No black eye.
Speaker 3: Flynn All right.
Speaker 6: Gilmore I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Hines Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman I can each I. Ortega Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I. Sawyer, I.
Speaker 3: Torres.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes, one name.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes, one nay accountable. 744 has been ordered published. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilwoman Canete, will you please vote? Council 745 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area.
Approves the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions as well as to stimulate growth and redevelopment in the East Colfax Corridor, generally bounded by Monaco Parkway on the west and Yosemite Street on the east in Council Districts 5 and 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0745
|
Speaker 1: 12 eyes, one nay accountable. 744 has been ordered published. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilwoman Canete, will you please vote? Council 745 on the floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1907 45 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. We're going to do you have questions on this one or just a comment again, Councilman CdeBaca?
Speaker 2: Just a comment for my colleagues.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This this request is asking us to have to approve certain deviations from the city's model service plan, including maximum debt service mills and maximum operation mills authorizing 85 mills for debt. And I am encouraging my peers and people in the audience who will be testifying the next time to dove deeply into what that means. Deviating from the city's standard or model service plan is very problematic because Mills will fundamentally change who can live in those spaces. And so just wanting to give people a heads up on research. My goal here is to make sure that the public is learning how to participate in learning how to do the research. And so this may feel premature for some of the incumbents, but this is my way to inform community as many times as I have the opportunity. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman CdeBaca. See no other questions or comments? Madam Secretary, call.
Speaker 3: See Tobacco.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Black. Flinn Art.
Speaker 6: Gilmore High.
Speaker 5: Herndon High. Hinds. High.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: Kenny Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Sawyer.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes, one nay.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes, one nay. Council Bill 745 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens and before we go, because I'm going to put an amendment, we'll put this one on the floor, too.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving Service Plans for the creation of six (6) Title 32 Metropolitan Districts, the Loretto Heights Metropolitan District Nos. 1-5 and the Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District.
Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 1, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 2, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 3, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 4, Loretto Heights Metropolitan District No. 5 and Loretto Heights Programming Metropolitan District, in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0803
|
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes, one nay. Council Bill 745 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens and before we go, because I'm going to put an amendment, we'll put this one on the floor, too. Councilwoman, can we please put council for 803 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill 19, dash 803 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black, you'd call this out for questions before we have a couple of potential amendments here. Do you want to go ahead with your question first?
Speaker 2: Whatever you would like me to do. Questions first or you.
Speaker 1: Have questions on the bill? Or do you have questions on the amendments?
Speaker 2: Questions on the.
Speaker 1: Bill. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: I have some legal questions. So I don't know if someone from the city attorney's office is here who can answer them, but I'll just ask. A couple are related to Tabor. Hi. How are you? Good. How are you?
Speaker 8: Depending on what your first question is, it'll either be myself. Liza's active at the city attorney's office. My colleague.
Speaker 5: Rob McDermott. City Attorney's Office.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. So I have three questions related to TABOR. So TABOR requires a rational basis for applying a tax to one group and not the other. Can you explain if taxing one group, which is can commercial and industrial? Is in compliance with TABOR. And not taxing all customers.
Speaker 9: And at this time, I do apologize. I only got this a handful of hours ago offhand. No, I'm not able to answer that question for you. I can get back to you at a later time and send that response to you.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 8: And I can add there. So my understanding is that so long as there is a rational basis and yes, you can tax one specific type of group so you could tax commercial, you could choose not to tax residential. A concern with the bill as currently drafted, however, is that rational basis may not be within the bill as it currently exists. In particular, the purpose provision in this tax bill states that it's intended to to pay for the new office. It does not correlate why it's taxing a certain segment and not another segment.
Speaker 2: And so do you think that would be a problem if it were on the ballot?
Speaker 8: I think as it's currently drafted, it's certainly an issue. Again, you can tax a certain group and not another group. But in order to ensure that there's not a legal issue, I would recommend that that's clarified either in an amendment to the purpose statement or actually that's that's certainly what I would recommend.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, I will look to the sponsors to addressing that. My other question regarding TABOR is so when more money is collected than as is anticipated, would the money have to be refunded back to the.
Speaker 8: I don't know that off the top of my head. You can certainly. Councilwoman Black, this is Troy Britton, Deputy Legislative counsel. Yes. If if the the number and the question is over, what if more is collected than the number and the question then yes, under TABOR, it has to be refunded. Back to your previous question. That's not really a TABOR requirement. That's more of an equal protection question. And as the attorney stated it, it's true that you can have different classes of tax classifications as long as there's a rational basis for it. You know, whether it's in the bill or not is debatable, but I think it is established in the record from the committee hearing on Tuesday.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then if the financial modeling is incorrect, would TABOR require that the bill go back to the voters?
Speaker 8: Incorrect. In which way? If if more is collected than the number in the question, then there needs to be a refund. If less is collected, then there is no TABOR violation. Okay.
Speaker 2: All right. And then. I actually have a long list of questions. I don't know how long I want to go. Okay, so so this isn't Taber related, but it is sort of state related. So utilities are regulated by the state. And so I'm wondering if it is allowed for Denver to to tax the utility.
Speaker 8: So the Public Utilities Commission does regulate rates for utilities, but not taxes. So the public the PUC, would not have any jurisdiction over different taxes on utilities.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. I'll defer to Councilman Flynn for now and I have others.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Press. I just actually wasn't going to comment at this point. But to follow up on Councilwoman Black, could you produce for us a list of various Denver taxes that are not uniformly applied before next week's hearing? Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Guzman. Flynn. Guzman Black.
Speaker 2: Do you? Well, I guess this is for the I guess it's for the attorneys. But do you see any sections of the tax bill that attempt to grant the city authority it does not have, such as examining the books and records of Xcel Energy?
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Black, if I may answer that one, this is Troy again. That language is in other parts of our tax code when other entities other than the city collect, collect and then send the tax to us.
Speaker 2: Okay, great.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Ortega. I think your microphone's on there.
Speaker 6: I think I'd like to ask a question of someone here from Xcel, if you wouldn't mind, coming forward. And it's related to the collection and remittance of the tax that would be collected. I asked this question in committee and thought maybe you've had some time to take a look at this. So if you wouldn't mind addressing whether or not Xcel would charge a fee to the city for collecting and remitting the tax. Under this ordinance as it's been drafted.
Speaker 8: So Jerome Davis, regional vice president of Xcel Energy, and Holly Velasquez Horvat, director of community relations with Xcel Energy as it relates to the collection of the tax. Our position would be that we really, in terms of our business, try to avoid anything of what we term cost shifting. So the cost of administration of this as it relates to this is something that Denver and Denver itself wants. Our position would be that Denver itself would pay for in administrative costs related to this.
Speaker 6: Do you have any idea what that cost would be? So it'd be a cost passed on from you all to Denver for administering or doing the collection and the remittance of the funds?
Speaker 8: Correct. We we really don't know what that cost would be. For example, when you talk about exemptions and say you want to exempt all the nonprofits, we don't code our customer base like based on nonprofits. So someone would have to give us the list and we would have to manually each one of those, exempt them within the system, and we would have to do this on an annual basis. Someone would update us and then we'd have somebody that would go in and look at this, have to manually watch it because the system is not set up to do that.
Speaker 6: Okay. So other than doing that aspect of the work, what are some of the other procedural steps that you all would have to go through to analyze the data over the three year period? And in that kind of thing that's spelled out in the bill.
Speaker 8: We'd have to have a full understanding of what is meant by commercial and industrial customers. We classify them by rates, so transmission general, secondary general, primary general and commercial class. So we would need to understand from your perspective where you see that being fit based on with the way the bill is written. We need to have understanding of what resources it just says electric and gas. We don't have a clear understanding. Is that also mean our steam customers or are they exempt in this? There would be a number of questions. Gas, transport, are they? Our assumption is that they would be collecting it on their own, the third party gas transporters and remitting it to the city in some other form or process. We certainly aren't set up to accept that from another third party and then take it and then remit it back. Additionally, we don't understand on the rebate piece. Is the rebate coming directly from the city or is the rebate going directly to us to then remit as a credit on a customer's bill? We just don't have a lot of enough information to give you a clear assessment of the impacts.
Speaker 6: Mr. Davis, were you all involved in the committee that was working on shaping the bill as it was drafted that came before us?
Speaker 8: So I myself personally was not. But I'll let Holly talk a little bit about if any actions we had in that process.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everybody. Holly Velasquez Horvath, director of Community Relations. From my initial response would be that we met early on in May with President Clark and a couple of his key stakeholders that were working on the ballot initiative that did not get enough signatures to be on. Other than that, we were not asked to participate in helping formulate this piece of policy.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then just one last question. Is it easier to convert steam heat? That is is fueled by gas. Or I'm just trying to understand how you how you convert steam heat to electrical.
Speaker 8: Well, right now the process would utilize a resource like natural gas. There may be other technologies out there that are available to use now or will be available to use in the future. We don't know them right now. We just would operate the system, sort of how it is set up right now. And I would add, I know that there was a comment about that. The commission has state authority as it relates to the company over rates. I would probably say if, for example, there all of a sudden were multiple cities that wanted this, say, ten or 20. My guess is that the commission would step in and say, Whoa, we need to look at this and understand the full impacts on the company in terms of administrating it. And I think they would exert authority on how that would work.
Speaker 2: I would also add, if I may, around steam conversion, if that's a you guys might all be aware in addition to the city of Denver.
Speaker 7: But we recently went through.
Speaker 2: A steam rate case with the Public Utilities Commission asking for a rate.
Speaker 7: Increase.
Speaker 2: Because of our system and the upgrades that we need to make. The Commission recently approved that case through the settlement process, where we are roughly looking at about a 30% rate increase for all steam customers.
Speaker 7: In Denver through.
Speaker 2: A phased approach over the next three.
Speaker 7: Years. That is now in place.
Speaker 2: Through that process, we did.
Speaker 7: Agree through.
Speaker 2: The settlement with the commission and also our customers that we would start a study over the next several years to figure out how we could potentially move off of steam on to electric. But we have just begun that process because we understand that potentially that could be significant costs onto customers.
Speaker 7: If we were.
Speaker 2: To go through that path. But we are.
Speaker 7: In that current initial phase of studying that.
Speaker 6: So other than the city and county and Denver, a number of our buildings are steam on, steam heat. What percentage of the downtown buildings would you say are heated through steam heat?
Speaker 8: We don't have the exact as it relates to the percentage, the number of customers far between about 115 and 149 have that exact number. That's the total number of Steam customers.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have no further questions right now.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Kinney.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to share some information that I have been working to develop since the proposal came forward, and in particular with regard to the revenue estimate. The estimate put forward at committee is $35 million. I'm not clear if we have several amendments in front of us, so they may or may not be changing that estimate. I haven't quite absorbed that yet. But in terms of setting community expectations, I think that the expectation that I understood that was that there would be $35 million for for climate work. And so as I have gone through and examined the exemptions that were described by the sponsors during the committee hearing, in particular the exclusion of all governmental and all nonprofit entities with 100% rebates. In the case of the nonprofits, I did my best to clarify what information was used by the sponsors and then to go check that with some of the other sources. It's hard. As Xcel mentioned, they do not have a system that separates out nonprofits from other types of commercial properties. But I went to our assessments of the city. And so in the 2018 abstract of assessment, it has a list of all of the properties that are exempt from property tax. In particular, there are four categories religious entities, private schools and charitable entities. Those are exempt from property tax. They are, by definition, nonprofit. They are not the only nonprofits I will state. But I worked with the with the assessor to come up with an estimate of our commercial property. So see if you can follow me here in this revenue estimate. And I did check this with the sponsors. 82% of the revenue is being generated on the commercial side. Okay. So the vast majority of the funds come from the commercial side, not the industrial side. 39% of Denver's commercial property is nonprofit or government. 39%, which means that that portion of commercial is is almost cut in half just with the religious nonprofits. This does not include secular nonprofits that pay property tax. We have other nonprofits that don't fall under this religious or educational category. And so therefore they pay property tax, but they would be exempt under this ordinance. So for folks to understand where this estimate comes from, it's quite possible that those dollars will be collected. But over half or potentially half of the funding will go right back out the door. And rebates. This is not counting rebates to small business that are also written in the bill without really any parameters, as well as rebates to potentially high intensity energy industrial users. I understand the importance of trying to protect those who are vulnerable, but as I pointed out in committee, we have multibillion dollar nonprofit entities in this city who are major sources of energy usage and are capable probably of paying this tax along with the rest of our community. So for me, I just needed to put this on the record before folks vote so that we understand that the realistic amount of funding that this could produce is is somewhere more in the neighborhood of 10 to $17 million. So I just wanted that to be transparent. The 2018 abstract of assessment is available on the city's website, and for me, it's a it's an important reason why I hope we'll be continuing to work on an alternative set of immediate actions so that we can go back to the table to start over on any discussion about a climate tax for something that will generate a larger and more meaningful base of funding, as well as to correct some of the other errors, challenges and omissions that have been made in this rushed process. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Kennedy, Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. May I also ask questions of Excel, Mr. Davis, or your designate? I apologize to make you do seated pinball, but. Here we are. This hopefully will be quick and painless. So my first question is, other than President Clark in May. Did anyone ask you to be involved in the stakeholder process?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 5: Did you tell anyone that you would not participate in the process until there was a bill? There was bill text available.
Speaker 2: No, not that I remember.
Speaker 5: And then the last question is about Steam customers. I think I heard between 150 and 140 Steam customers. How many customers do you have? Total.
Speaker 8: 1.4 electric and 1.1. 4 million electric. 1.3 million gas.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you, sir. And ma'am. And, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Hayes. Any other questions before I jump in here? All right. I'm not seeing any. Just a couple quick things. I will point everyone to Slide 13 in the deck from committee presentation. I'm happy to entertain an amendment if we feel that this is more appropriate in the bill. But as our esteemed attorney over here has stated, I don't believe it's necessary, but having to put together some more materials on the stated case on why some customers, not others. But Slide 13 is the one that I presented that shows that industrial and commercial customers pay a lot less to pollute than residential customers do. And so I'll just point to that slide in the conversation that was had in committee to officially get that back on the record as well. Also, you know, I do have an amendment that I'm about to go through that, you know, there was some talk about what can we do as an exemption and what can we do as a rebate. And concerns around the rebates, as we've heard from Councilwoman Cannick on the amounts of the rebates, but also on the logistics of administering a program where we're collecting tax and returning it. So, you know, again, this is different than if we were levying a new addition to our sales tax where we can very quickly pull the numbers based on what other people have exempted in the past and know exactly the number. If you do an exemption per TABOR, it's a little bit harder because we are blazing new, new a new path, new territory, which is exactly where I think we should be on this issue. We need to be we should have been doing that a couple of years ago, and now here we are. How exciting to blaze that path. That path is a little bit more complicated because we don't have that immediate data set ready for us. We were able to get down on, you know, customers, federal government, state government, municipal government, K through 12th grade educational institutions and are able to offer an amendment today that would provide an exemption so that money doesn't have to be collected and given back instead of a rebate. I'll also say that while I respect capsule mechanics thought process and where she's again trying to grab data, where there isn't data immediately ready, which is again why we're doing it as a rebate and not as an exemption. The numbers that we've run don't show that the reductions are anywhere near the numbers that she has. So, yes, there will be refunds and and rebates. And, you know, we don't know the exact number of that. If we knew that number, then we could put it in as an exemption. But again, we're forging new territory and we're trying to to create a pathway where we are generating money, you know, way more money than we're currently investing in in this in solving this huge problem that necessitates even more money than this, while at the same time being respectful to the concerns that this is something that is going to immediately destroy Denver. And so that balancing act between collecting the revenue that we need, doing it in a responsible way, creating pathways so that we're not creating unintended consequences and hardship, I think is, is, you know, we're getting attacked on both sides from that. But I believe that means we're probably striking just the right balance. I just want to point out that I believe the steam numbers you just gave her, a 30% increase phased over time. And no one is running in screaming. That saying that these businesses were facing a 30% increase in their utilities will be destroyed forever and will will have to rise from the ashes. What we're talking about here is a very small fraction of that. So with that, I am going to offer my First Amendment here, and it is I would like to move that council bill 19 0803 be amended in the following particulars. Number one on page two, strike lines 25 through 27 and substitute the following e exemptions. The following Electricity or natural gas customers are not subject to the taxes levied in accordance with Article nine one. The Federal Government, State Government, municipal government, or kindergarten through 12th grade educational institutions, and to a domestic customer whose meter serves a multi-family residential building or other residential common area. Two On page three, strike lines 19 334. Three on page four strikes straight lines one through 11 and substitute the following shall city and county of Denver tax has been be increased by 30,391,224 annually, commencing July 1st, 2020, and by whatever additional amounts are, is annually thereafter. By authorizing the city and county of Denver to levy a climate action, sustainability and resilience excise tax upon commercial and industrial customers consuming electricity and natural gas with a first year electricity rate of $0.0060 per kilowatt hour for both commercial and industrial customers. A first year natural gas rate of $0.030 per therm for commercial customers and a. First year rate of $0.015 per therm for industrial customers. The electricity portion of the tax expires when Xcel Energy Grid reaches 70% renewable energy. The natural gas portion of the tax does not expire and increases 10% annually. After January 1st, 2025. The excise taxes for the purpose of funding the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency show the full proceeds of the tax and any earnings therefore be therefrom be collected and spent without an additional limitation or condition under Article I , Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other law. So that is the motion. Looks like it has been moved and seconded. The purpose of this amendment is again to move what we could get good data on from rebate to exemption to lessen the amount of time that will have to be spent administratively collecting money and giving it back where it was possible. And then also to clarify and provide a clear and concise ballot title. We had a request in councilmembers off from the clerk's office to try and tighten up our ballot language, to assist with, you know, everything that our clerk does. And so that was the second part of the reading was on the ballot title. So we have the amendment is now on the floor. And I said to people would like to buzz in on the amendment. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms..
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Quick question for counsel. I had thought we might have had a conversation that when there was an exemption and a Taber question, it had to go in the ballot title. I see that it's in the ordinance, but I don't I'm I'm reading it and I don't see it in the title. Am I missing it?
Speaker 8: No. So I think what we may have been discussing is the number. This has a new number in it. So the new number includes the exempted out areas.
Speaker 7: Okay. So it's not a requirement that the governmental entities being exempt be named in the ballot question?
Speaker 8: That's correct. It's just the number has to reflect the exemption.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And then I will continue conversation on some of the estimates when we get to maybe discussion on the amended bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Come on. We can eat each. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Mr. President. I oppose the amendment. I have a serious question about the equal protection issue. And when we're considering an excise tax, the consumption tax, everyone who consumes it should be contributing to it. It matters. It doesn't matter to me highly that residential properties emit only. I think it was 12% with single family homes and 25% was multifamily or whatever it was. It matters to me that everybody contribute to it in Boulder. The average tax for for homeowners is about $21 a year. Everybody needs to be part of the solution to this problem. And when we start picking winners and losers on an excise tax, on a consumption tax, I think we're going down the wrong pathway and I don't support that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. See no other question or comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca Eye.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Gillmor. Herndon Hinds.
Speaker 2: High Cashman.
Speaker 3: High Carnage. Ortega.
Speaker 2: I. Sandoval, I.
Speaker 3: Swear.
Speaker 6: I. Torres.
Speaker 3: I can eat. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, do. Did we get everybody? Yeah. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results to arise.
Speaker 3: One day.
Speaker 1: 12 hours, one day. Comfortable 803 has been amended. So we don't need the Second Amendment because that passed. So. The only amendment. Troy that was the only amendment that I need for that owners. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we have the bill as amended now on the floor. Councilwoman Kennedy, did you indicate that you wanted to discuss that before we vote on the bill as amended?
Speaker 7: Yes, I have a comment on the bill as amended. Thank you. As I mentioned or alluded to previously, I believe that a climate tax may be something that this city needs to seriously consider. I also believe that it's critical that the entire community be engaged in our climate change. I supported the energized Denver ordinance and actually helped to work with the department to shape it, which focused on buildings over 25,000 square feet. I also supported the revisions to the Green Roof Initiative and actually supported the original ballot measure as well. In my personal vote at home and then the fix that several colleagues did to try to make it more effective, including energy efficiency upgrades with credit, we have done two major components around the commercial sector and it is the largest source of greenhouse gas, which is why those policies were appropriate and its way that a tax on those sectors may be appropriate as well. Residential is 21% of the greenhouse gas emissions and we have passed precisely zero policies, incentives or approaches to help incentivize reduction of greenhouse gas usage in the residential sector, particularly below five stories. Buildings above five stories are subject to the Green Roof Initiative, but smaller apartment buildings and single family homes. Single family homes on par generally use more greenhouse gas, create more greenhouse gas emissions than multifamily for the same square footage. So I believe that the path to climate change involves all of us. And I also believe the sponsors have made a persuasive case about the need for powerful revenue. I, I am very confident in the numbers I ran. I checked with the staff numbers. And I just want to clarify. He admitted to only including buildings greater than 25,000 square feet because that's what he had access to. There was not a data source that was available with the nonprofits other than the assessor data. So trust me when I say that the estimates provided by the staff were not complete, and the sources show that they show that they only included, for example, under religious entities, those greater than 25,000 square feet. The exemptions are not narrow that way. So the numbers I have given you are real because they are based on the entire commercial sector, not just data sources that were used by the staff. And I. It's hard. Our staff did the best they could, but the research did not as we would have perhaps gotten in a longer process. I firmly believe I outlined in committee that I believe there is a path for us to continue to examine this source. I will probably be bringing forward amendments depending on how things go in the next week, to create a path for us to create a data based discussion about a climate tax, potentially with a deadline of reporting back to this Council May of 2020 for the purposes of considering and doing it on track to be able to consider it in November of 2020, I believe that means we have to involve everybody, including our friends. I have a lot of friends. I come from the nonprofit sector. I have a lot of friends who live in residential buildings. I believe that where you have a modest tax of 50, $60 a household, even some taxes in the hundred dollars range for moderate and other income households, that is not a make or break to a housing budget. We can create exemptions for those who have equity issues, but we need to have all sectors at the table and we need to be able to generate more than 10 to $17 million if we're going to do this right, if we need to make it worthwhile. So we need to go big. I believe that we can do that conversation while taking some immediate actions to better fund things that could be done immediately to reduce the climate impacts from the city's own impact. If you remember, we had a presentation at Safety. The city of Denver is responsible for 10% of the greenhouse gas emissions. If you combine the airport and the city and the climate, frankly, doesn't care where the reductions come from, if we can immediately make some reductions in our own building stock in the next 12 months while we work on a ballot measure, the climate wins. So I believe that path still exists. I'll be voting no on this referral tonight and I will, you know, save my comments on the on the ordinance related to the office for a moment. But I believe that saying no to this bill tonight is saying yes to a much longer term victory in terms of a bigger and more meaningful outcome, in particular, avoiding the potential for a veto, potentially avoiding the loss of a poorly crafted measure in the fall ballot, and therefore preserving our potential to win in the long run. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Counsel. Mechanic Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to adopt and echo the remarks that Councilwoman Cohen each made. And and then also to reiterate that my no vote on this is also related to the equal protection issue of of an excise tax applying only to certain people who use this commodity that we plan to tax and would wish to reduce the use of, but not to others. And I do not believe that that would pass, at least my interpretation of what is equal protection and constitutional. And I look forward to the list of what other taxes that we levy broadly on only one certain consumer of a good and not on others. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I we're going to talk about this again next week anyway, right?
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 5: So I shouldn't be too loquacious. I'll just repeat what I said in committee. I talked to the residents of District ten over and over. We made more than 40,000 voter contact attempts by far. If anyone was a single issue voter in District ten, by far the number one issue was climate change. And I said that I was going to take bold steps for climate change. I released an ad that said a mailer that said that I am in favor of climate change for poor those here who's sleeping. Denver City Council's first council dog is had a little surgical mask over his his snout and it was somewhat of a joke. But we do have the brown cloud coming back. We do have serious issues with our planet in Denver and beyond. And I committed to providing quick, bold steps about climate change. And so I'm a yes vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Hines. All right. See nobody else. I will. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make a brief statement, and I won't repeat what I said in committee. But the most important thing is that we're solely focusing on commercial and industrial buildings. And when you look at the fact that the next category that contributes to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation industry , we're not even looking at that. And I think for us to just hone in on one category and not be more broad in the work that we're doing and and looking at accelerating the the goals that the city has set in, looking at how we move that needle faster to reduce our overall carbon footprint, I think is is critical. And this bill only looks at one sector of our industry in terms of where the tax will come from. I think there's room for some middle ground here to be able to look at how we address this issue faster. But I don't believe this bill gets us there. A lot of our. Key stakeholders that will be directly impacted were not at the table. And I think that's important because we want to make sure that, for example, our city buildings are doing what we can to reduce the emissions from our city buildings. I want to make sure that our fleets that we have at the airport and with public works and with our police department, as we're buying new vehicles that we're looking at technology that reduces emissions in this city. We're looking at hydrogen as one of the technologies. As you know, the state has moved for us being a zero emission state, and we're going to see a whole slew of bills that will come up in this next legislative session. And I think that for us to just hone in on one sector and not that it's not important because we know in Denver it is the highest sector, but we're not including the other categories. And I think this bill kind of misses that Mark. I would love for us to have more of a conversation about how we get at funding the improvements that we want to see happen, bring our stakeholders to the table with both sides represented, and be able to, you know , have something that is is a little bit more thoughtful in terms of the the the depth of looking at how we get there. And so I'm not going to be voting for this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Or take a council woman GILMORE If you don't mind, Councilman Owens, I'm going to go to Councilwoman Gunderson, Chairman, and.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Clark. You know, I thought quite a bit about this over the weekend and with, as you can readily see, the immense push back to trying to do something that really is well-meaning and that we needed to do many, many years ago. And I just for the public who are watching tonight and who want to get up to speed up to speed where we're at in the Safe House committee. Last Wednesday on August 14th, the city a couple city agencies came in and did I believe it was 94, 92 slides around climate change. And so I would ask the public to look at that slide deck. And I'm going to call out a few slides because I think it's important for it to be on the record, but then also for the public to take a look at it. So Slide 15 has that at least 224 locations around the world set an all time heat record in 2018. Slide 16 talks about the average temperature temperature of Colorado rising two degrees over the last 30 years. Slide 17 heat wave days in Colorado are expected to jump from ten per year now to nearly 50 per year in 2050. Slide 19. People of color are exposed to more air pollution. Colorado is one of the states with the highest exposure. Slide 29 Central American Farmers Head To U.S. Fleeing Climate Change. The New York Times. Slide 40 Solar installer and wind turbine service technician are forecast to be the fastest growing job categories in the U.S.. You've got to scroll forward in the slide deck. But on slide 70 for our progress, the cities progress towards our first 80 by 50 goal of reducing building energy by 10% by 2020. We went up. We didn't make a difference. And in commercial we went up by 0.26%. We're aiming for in 2020 to reduce that by 10%. We're not even getting close. And lastly, slide 80, where it talks about HEA emission reductions and that the 80 by 50 goal is by 2050, 100% of heating emissions must be eliminated. Okay. 100% of heating emissions must be eliminated by 2050. And you might ask, where's the plan for that? Will the next slide? Slide 81 tells us right where we're at with that plan. It's called the Strategic Building Electrification Roadmap, and it's under development for 2020. I hope that this is serving as the clarion call that. We're up against. A monumental barrier. And yes, I want to get more money. But the Office of Sustainability, which created this system, a voluntary program for buildings and industries to benchmark their usage, have ignored residential. I haven't had focus groups in my neighborhood. I haven't heard from the Office of Sustainability on how my residents can get access to programs that would help them weatherize their home, would help them pay for solar panels on the top of their roof, maybe 50 or $60 a month for some residential works. But I know seniors and I know others in my district that are on fixed incomes that they go out without medicine, they cut their medicine in half so that they can save money. So 50 or $60 a month is massive for them. And so I just want the public to know where information is to get more information about what we are doing as a city. And I hope that this is the clarion call because, you know, we might have seven co-sponsors of this bill. We would need nine to have a majority where it won't get vetoed. If it gets vetoed, yes, we will have a long stakeholder process that will be filled with lobbyists and others who are representing industry and commercial. I'm sorry, but my residents don't have a lobbyist. They have a councilwoman who cares dearly about them. And I want the commitment. To have any sort of stakeholder process begin immediately and please do not have it in the city and county building. Please do not have it in the Webb building. Please have it in our neighborhoods where the folks that we are all supposed to be representing can get there and share their concerns and share what their barriers are on. They want to do good, too. And they would pay if they knew what they were getting. And they knew that they weren't going to have to fight like hell to get what they deserve. And that is exactly why we put equity language in this bill. It's so important. And if we miss that, then we're not walking our talk. Denver We're not. We're doing this on the backs of black and brown people. Not with them. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I echo many of the sentiments just shared by my colleague, Councilwoman Gilmore, but I did want to also add and point to the hypocrisy in a lot of the statements you've heard here today. We heard from another colleague that we won't generate enough even if we're only generating between 10 to 17 million a year. That is the same colleague that was the lead on the linkage fee for housing, which only was intended to generate $15 million a year to address our top crisis in the city. We also heard about the equal protection clause from a colleague who I have frequently seen. Not put equal protection at the forefront of our decision making. The biggest generator of pollution is transportation. Yet many members who had that complaint have also voted to expand roads, and that incentivizes the use of the transportation causing our problems. So the difference here seems to be who's being taxed and the profit generating entities. It is what distinguishes the industrial and commercial from the residential. There's profit to be lost here, and it seems that that's all we want to protect. And so I urge my colleagues to see through the thinly veiled attempts to protect profit before the planet and our people. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. See nobody else in the queue. I'm going to give a quick second just to make sure, because I'm going to say a few words and then we're going to vote. Everybody good? Okay. I'm not going to go on at length today because I see I see people here today, including Cathy, who's tried to speak twice on this, a public comment and missed the deadline. And I know is in opposition of this. And I think she deserves, you know, a chance at the microphone. I see a lot of folks who have been in these conversations and in the trenches on this for a long time, who deserve a shot at speaking at our microphone. And that's not scheduled for tonight. So I'm not going to go real long here other than to say that I will echo a lot of what my co-sponsors have said, and they've said it better than I can say it. So I'm not going to say it again. And just one more statistic to pull out as I'm dropping my kids off. I'm no more elementary school kids have two middle schoolers. It was a big day for me. And as I'm dropping them off in a school that was not designed to function in the climate we have today , when it's going to break a record for the heat. This is not something that is happening down the road. This is something that's happening today. And this is not something that we can afford to wait to take action down the road. It is something where we have to take action today. And so I will beg and plead and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this, on first reading, if even if you intend to vote no on it, on second reading, so that we can get to second reading and allow everyone on both sides of this issue to have their moment at the microphone to share with us their thoughts. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Voted zero three.
Speaker 2: Black. No.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Can each. No. Ortega.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: Sandoval.
Speaker 6: I swear, I. Torres. No.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 756786 nails Constable zero three has been ordered published final consideration with a courtesy public hearing will be Monday, August 26th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and cancel them, can you please put Councilor 805 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing an excise tax on electricity and natural gas for commercial and industrial customers to fund the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state coordinated election on November 5, 2019.
A Bill for an ordinance establishing an excise tax on electricity and natural gas for commercial and industrial customers to fund the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state coordinated election on November 5, 2019. Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19. This item was postponed to 6-1-20 at the City Council meeting of 8-26-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0805
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 756786 nails Constable zero three has been ordered published final consideration with a courtesy public hearing will be Monday, August 26th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and cancel them, can you please put Councilor 805 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 805 be published. This be ordered.
Speaker 1: Published has been moved and seconded. I didn't see any broad questions on this one, so I'm going to jump right into the First Amendment. So I would like to move that Council zero five be amended in the following particulars. One On page ten, line one Strike Board and Substitute Board. Executive Director of the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency two. On page 17, Line 33, Strike Section ten does 301a and substitute Section ten, that's 301a, Sections 11.5 Dash 19 A on page 18, line 22 straight year and insert year comma effective for on page 18 , line 31 strike section 11.5, dash 20 A and substitute section 11 start five Dash 19 A comma on page 20, line 20 Strike Board of Public Health and Environment and Substitute Board of Public Health and Environment. Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency on page 22, Line 33 After Resiliency Insert or their designees on page 24, Line nine, strike Article 13 and Substitute Article 13, Article three on page 24, Line 11 Strike the Department of Public Health and Environment and substitute the Department of Public Health and Environment, the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. The motion to amend has been moved. And second again, this is the purpose of these amendments are to correct some conforming language in the Bill of the Office as it pertains to some of the duties related to benchmarking in green roofs to clean up some clerical mistakes that were not referencing the correct things and the movement of those pieces of the bill. Are there any questions or comments on this amendment? All right. Seeing no, no. Ask for a yes vote. And, Madam Secretary, recall.
Speaker 2: Black.
Speaker 3: I see tobacco.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: So when I Gillmor I Herndon Hines I.
Speaker 5: Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Coinage I.
Speaker 6: Ortega, I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval, i.
Speaker 3: Sawyer. Torres.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Comfortable. 805 has been amended. Councilwoman, can each you also have an amendment? So go your go ahead with your motion to amend.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I move that council bill 19 dash 805 be amended in the following particulars on page 24 after line 26, insert the following subsection H Prevailing Wage Subsection one Payment of Prevailing Wage. Every city contract in excess of $2,000 that requires or authorizes covered work on noncommercial property and every city contract in excess of $5,000 that requires or authorizes covered work on commercial property, whether for an individual contractor subcontract or in aggregate where a contract or subcontract may require or authorize covered work across multiple properties. Expanding green building fund moneys must require that every worker, mechanic or other laborer employed by any contractor or subcontractor for covered work must be paid the prevailing wage , as described in Section 20, Dash 76 GRC Subsection two covered work. For purposes of this subsection H covered work shall mean drainage or construction, alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance or demolition, and the work of a doorkeeper caretaker, cleaner, window washer, porter, keeper, janitor or similar custodial or janitorial work. This subsection eight shall not apply to any person excepted from prevailing wage coverage by 2276. A DRC Subsection three Record Retention. A contractor or subcontractor that is required to pay prevailing wage in connection with a contract in accordance with paragraph one of this subsection H must keep and preserve for a period of at least three years payroll records and other suitable books and records as may be necessary to determine the prevailing wage to workers for covered work. The auditor shall be entitled at any reasonable time to examine the books and payroll records of a contractor or subcontractor related to such a contract and to make copies of their content. Subsection four Certified Payroll A contractor or subcontractor performing covered work and receiving compensation from the Green Building Fund in excess of $50,000, whether for an individual contractor or in aggregate must furnish to the auditor each pay period during which work is in progress in connection with the contract. A true and correct electronically certified copy of the payroll records of every person performing work related to the contract. The certified records must show the number of hours worked hourly pay and deductions made from pay and the net amount of pay received by each worker for the period covered by the payroll. Subsection five Enforcement. The auditor has the authority and duty to enforce the provisions of this subsection H. The penalty complaint and review provisions of Section 2276 E, F, and G apply to violations of this paragraph h.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each the motion to amend has been moved and seconded comments on this amendment. Councilman Kit.
Speaker 7: Thank you. This is to make sure that if there is the creation of a fund, that any new dollars that flow into the community where the city isn't the direct contractor for those contracting construction dollars would still be covered by prevailing wage standards to ensure that we are meeting the equity goals of the ordinance to make sure that these are good jobs and not just low road jobs. So the certified payroll is the typical way the city does prevailing wage, but it's a it's a new computer system. And we didn't want to make sure that, you know, newer contractors or smaller contractors who don't typically do business with the city would have to do that full reporting system. So the majority system established in this amendment is a complaint system where you have to keep the records as the contractor. If a worker complains that they were not adequately paid, then you have to furnish those records to the auditor. But for large contractors, if you're doing work over $50,000, you probably know how to do certified payroll because you've probably done some government work before. So there's two systems here. And then the enforcement provisions that are referenced include penalties and back wages and things like that so that we can make any workers who are underpaid. Hold thinking. Oh, just if I may add, I did work. We had short time, but we worked with the auditor and did share this with some of the individuals in the construction industry who work to advance the protection of workers wages. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman, can you see no other questions or comments on this? I'll just add, I thank you. I appreciate you bringing this forward and in helping, I think, make our bill better. And I think this is very much in line with the vision to lift up our communities and our workforce as we tackle this climate change . So thank you very much. I will be supporting today, Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 2: Can each I black I see tobacco. Yes.
Speaker 8: Flynn, I Gillmor I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Hines yes. Cashman, I.
Speaker 3: Ortega I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval, I. Sawyer I.
Speaker 6: Torres, I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce Results. 13 Eyes 13 Eyes Council will 805 has been amended. I didn't see if I called this out specifically for comments, but I still see you in there. Councilman Kennedy, did you have comments on this bill before we vote?
Speaker 7: I did. Go ahead. Thank you. Before we discuss this bill further, I wanted to take a moment to direct us to our council rules. Rule 9.6 is our rule for decorum. And one of the things that that rule asks for is that members not question the motives of other council members or disparage other council members. I believe that this is a very important debate we're having, and I believe that everyone up here cares about the climate. I have serious concerns that I outlaid, but I believe that some of the debate we had on the prior bill violated this rule or came very close to it by disparaging the intent of individuals who believe that a different method or in a different approach might be better. I think we are strongest when we have disagreements and we find common ground, but I do not believe that we need to disparage each other, to disagree. I care about equity and I believe that there are ways to address that equity through rebates. I think the fact that I'm interested in different approaches does not mean that I don't care about equity. And I certainly don't believe that some of the other comments that were made were necessary for us to degree disagree on the policy . So I invite our President as the presiding over this meeting, to think about our Rule 9.6 and help hold us all to it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman can. All right. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, please call on accountability. Zero five.
Speaker 6: Black.
Speaker 3: I see tobacco. I swim.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. I. Torres.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. Comfortable. 805 has been ordered published. Final consideration with courtesy. Public hearing will be on Monday, August 26th. I believe, Madam Secretary, is that okay? That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. 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 an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman, can you please for the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency.
A bill for an ordinance establishing the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0576
|
Speaker 1: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can we please put council will 576 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you. I move that council bill 576 be adopted on second reading and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 576 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Let me get this open. Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I apologize for my voice. I'm getting over a cold. So this is a map amendment for 4600 South Kipling Street. The request is to rezone from open space B, which is private open space to suburban row house. Two and a half storeys. So the location of the property is City Council District two in the Marston neighborhood. The request again is to rezone two suburban context rowhouse two and a half stories. The suburban context is a single unit and multi-unit residential area with commercial strips and centers and office parks. The primary building forms allowed in this zone district are suburban house, duplex and row house with a height 30 to 35 feet. Again, the subject site, the zoning is open space B, which is private open space. To the north is a PD. Some mixed use two story and some row house, two and a half storey and then to the south and east. Chapter 59, r one, which is single family residential. To the west is Jefferson County R-1 A which is also single family residential. The property itself is vacant. There are a few barns and that kind of thing on the property because it was used for agricultural purposes a while. Back to the north is commercial strip mall and a gas station. South, east and west are single family residential. This just gives you an idea of the location of the property with a larger view. So the form and style or scale of the surrounding properties, the property itself is the center top which is vacant, and then three property, three single family homes to the southeast and west are the to right hand pictures in the lower left and then the commercial property upper left. It shows you the scale. So informational notice on this went out in January of 2019. Planning Board held a hearing in May of this year and unanimously recommended approval. Rudy Committee saw this on June 18th and passed it on to full city council. And of course, we're here tonight at a notice that has been properly noticed. So there is one R.A., the Glenbrook Autumn Run and Park West Neighborhood Organization. And then there's ANC. The R.A. has submitted a letter of support for this. And then there are three letters of opposition from individual neighbors, one expressing concern about the loss of open space. Another expressing concern about the drainage from the project. And another expressing concern about traffic to and from the project. So the criteria is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The two plans that apply are Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver 2019. Current Plan 2040 speaks to Equitable and Affordable Housing, inclusive housing, strong and authentic neighborhoods and environmentally resilient neighborhoods. And the details are in your staff report. Blueprint Denver talks about this as a suburban. In the suburban context, it's single family and multi-family residential commercial corridors and those commercial centers. The residential intensities are generally there can be some residential intensities, but they're generally separated from each other. And of course, there's not the regular grid street system that we're used to in the inner city, but curvilinear streets and irregular blocks. The future place that blueprint classifies. This is residential, low, medium. This is mid to low scale residential, with multi-unit buildings interspersed in single and two unit residential at a height of no more than three stories. Kipling Street is a residential arterial which basically tries to balance access and mobility and a few future growth strategies. All other areas of the city, which is anticipated to see 20% of the new growth in the city and 10% of new employment. Housing and Inclusive. Denver speaks to creating affordable housing in vulnerable, vulnerable areas and in areas of opportunity and promoting equitable and accessible housing options along the housing continuum. This suburban rowhouse will allow development of a mix of new housing units that is on an opportunity site. So staff believes this is consistent with our adopted plans that by using a standard zone district, we're furthering the uniform application of our zone districts and by allowing development redevelopment that is in character with the neighborhood in scale and intensity, we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare justifying circumstances. This property under Old Blueprint was originally single family residential and only would allow single family. Under the new blueprint, the residential low does open the opportunity for a place type that offers a little more diversity of housing, including multi-unit. So with that change, Steph believes that's a correct justifying circumstances change. Circumstances is justified. And we did. Excuse me. I'm losing my voice. We didn't talk about the neighborhood context, the suburban context. And Steph believes this zone district is consistent with that. And so staff does recommend approval.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you signed up for this one, feel free to come up to the front row. I'll call you up when I call your name. Come right up to the microphone. You have your 3 minutes. First up is bonny nasal like.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Bonnie. Angelic with Norse Design 1101 Bannock Street. I'm here representing the applicant and also the potential homebuilder, which is Meritage Homes, who is here in the audience this evening. Thank you, Miss Lucero, for your very thorough staff report and summary. As Ms.. Lucero noted, the proposed MAP amendment to as RH 2.5 enables development that is in character with the surrounding single unit properties. It enables development at the same scale as the surrounding properties, and it encourages development where infrastructure and services are already in place. We have been working with the Glen Brook Park, West Village, West Neighborhood Organization on this MAP Amendment, and we're part of a large neighborhood meeting last fall. As a part of this outreach, we have established a good neighbor agreement with the neighborhood, and I want to read two sentences from that agreement. So it's clear what we're proposing for use limitations. The owner agrees that with respect to any portion of the property located within 100 feet of the eastern and southern boundaries thereof and located adjacent to lots containing existing single family detached residential dwelling, the property may be principally used and developed exclusively for single family detached dwelling units. With respect to all other portions of the property, the property may be principally used and developed exclusively for single family detached dwelling units or two family duplex detached dwelling units. So on page two of your staff report, it notes three different building forms the suburban house, the duplex and the real house as available within the stone's stone district. We would be limiting it just to the suburban house and the duplex. Based on our conversations and in our agreement with the neighborhood association. Unfortunately, the R.A. president was not able to attend this evening, but she did include a letter of support in your staff packet. Thank you all for your time this evening and our team is here if you have any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Curtis Williams.
Speaker 5: I'm part of the team.
Speaker 1: If you could come, just state your name for the record and state that you're here for to answer questions. That would be great.
Speaker 9: Hi. Good evening. Curtis Williams, engineer on the project and here to answer any questions if you have any.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Next up, Alyson, all Tara's.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Allison. Terrorists without and Johnson. Legal counsel to the applicant. I'm just here to answer questions if there are questions.
Speaker 7: Especially as they pertain to the good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Glenn and Glenn near. Good evening, Glen. Near with Meritage.
Speaker 5: Homes.
Speaker 8: And I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Alicia Hemet.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Alicia Hammett. Amateurish design, and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Chairman Sekou Blackstar. Some movement for self-defense representing the oppressed, the poor. The homeless, the elderly. The youth disabled. I'm having a conversation earlier today. We talked about how we can do better. And then. We do the same old, same old like. This is my last hit. I'm a crack head, and as soon as God delivered me from this, I'll never do it again. Then come back around. I'm on the set of crack head legislation because I know you can do better than this. Come on, man. Who got occupied this poor people. No. No. So where do we go? Does anybody care? Anybody here in us, we need to know what is it that is going to resonate with you? What is it going to take? Or maybe later. I mean, for you. Come on, go. This is not affordable housing. Before people. And yet you act as if there's no poor people in your district. And we're everywhere. Everywhere, including the help in the mountains and universe of you. Where do we go after we work? Well, we got to go live in Milton. We got to go in Westminster. Oh, we got to go anywhere but the city county of Denver. And yet you talk about this is the place for everybody. Why don't we stop lying? And that's not casting aspersion on nobody. That's not talking about nobody's bad intent. I've been down here for 15 years. I know what your intent is. So you ain't got to protect that because you talk out of both sides of your neck with this book. And those are conjunction that negates everything that follows that. And we're talking about this will be about this and that, rich and poor. But it's just chatter. So here we go, little rascals. Here we go. Adults playing like children because chicks are for kids. How long do you think you can get away with this?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 5: I do not want to go home.
Speaker 1: And not see him. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: And thank you, Mr. President. Bonnie, or the attorney, could you address what form the agreement with the R.A. takes? You said it was a good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 2: So the actual format, it's called a development agreement. We currently have it signed by the landowner, the prospective developer and the registered neighborhood organization, and it can be recorded assuming the map amendment passes.
Speaker 4: Okay. It will be recorded. Yes. Okay. Right. As long as you're here. Just a couple of quick questions. One of the concerns that was brought out was the traffic on Kipling. This is a landlocked parcel. And Mr. Van Orden, the owner, has been trying for years to find some kind of a development concept that would work here . Jefferson County came in maybe 20 some years ago and put the median down. Kipling So this would only be a write in and write out or are there other have there been talks with Jefferson County about allowing a left turn in from southbound, as they did with the the development up north by Quincy, that that is in the county and not in Denver.
Speaker 2: So we've been working with city staff as we've been preparing a site development plan, working with public works and traffic to work through the details of access. And we'll continue to work through those details as we do the site development plan and the transportation engineering plan. I think our civil engineer might be able to give a few more specifics of those conversations.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Just quickly, I don't I don't need, you know, chapter and verse, but there was a concern from one of the folks who wrote a letter, one of the three letters of opposition that he had been struck by a truck on trying to cross Kipling Street some years ago. And he's so he's concerned about traffic having to make U-turns at Stanford if they cannot get out to go southbound otherwise.
Speaker 9: Yeah. I appreciate your concern. We have been working with the city engineers on requesting a left turn lane in the median for access on our south access point. And we were denied through the city engineering. They reviewed it and they came back saying that they feel that the situation of the right in, right out is acceptable. And so they did deny that left turn movement. Okay. We would prefer to have it, but it was denied.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thanks.
Speaker 4: And one more question. Maybe for Barney or I'm sorry, the engineer there, the bowls lateral irrigation ditch that cuts diagonally through the property. Is there has there been any talk with the ditch company as far as reconfiguring that? And along with that, having a sort of a public access.
Speaker 8: Access.
Speaker 4: Easement because the wagon trail park trail dead ends at Tim's property and it would be great for the community to have that daylight and for all the the pedestrian and cyclist to who right now are kind of winding their way around Kipling in order to get through.
Speaker 2: We have spoken with a Dutch company and we are trying to set up some additional meetings right now to talk about the details of that. We have discussed relocating the easement and or the ditch and have received favorable comments towards that. But we do need to discuss the details of the trail. We believe they will need access for maintenance of that ditch. And so we are pushing to have a trail, but we do need to work with the ditch company and make sure that they agree to that. But we will continue to push for that.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. The ditch company, as you probably know, has under grounded some of that ditch on the west side or on the east side closer to Wadsworth or to Dudley. And, you know, they they probably will want you to do that, but they do have access along that.
Speaker 2: Well, make sure to remind them of that.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just have one question. Councilman Flynn asked a couple of my questions. Can you tell me if there will be new roads put on the site? This is, what, about an eight acre site? So to give access to the new homes that will be put in there, I'm assuming. So, first of all, can you tell us approximately how many homes that can accommodate? And then talk about the the roads that would be put in there.
Speaker 2: There will be at least a road planned through there. We currently have two access points. And so with only those two access points, we will use those connect to connect a road so that the homes will be accessed off of a local street, not Kipling. The current yield studies that we've done and we have submitted a site development plan for show, it's in the low fifties. I forget the exact number, but between 50 and 55 homes.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 576 is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I've lived down. This is my neighborhood as well, and I've lived down there for the past 38 years. And Kipling was still a two lane street. And this was an Gordon Tree farm, I believe. And I know that the family has been wanting to have this turned over and developed in some fashion for for many, many years. And there have been many attempts to do that. And and it's good to see a solution come along that introduces a new mix of housing type as well to the neighborhood. There are some duplex and there are some townhouse just to the north of that along Stanford. So being right on Kipling I think is an advantage. I wish we could work out that with the city engineer and with Jefferson County work out the left turn as well, though. But other than that. Mr. President, I'm very happy to support this and ask my colleagues to do likewise. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Flint are black.
Speaker 2: I see tobacco. I.
Speaker 5: Gillmor, i.
Speaker 3: Herndon Hines. High Cashman. I can teach Ortega. I've seen the vote.
Speaker 2: I swear, I.
Speaker 3: Torres. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. I'm secretary. Please. Cause voting in no results.
Speaker 3: 12 hours.
Speaker 1: 12 hours counts. Bill 576 has passed. Councilwoman, can we please be accountable? 577 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4600 South Kipling Street in Marston.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from OS-B to S-RH-2.5 (open-space to suburban row-house), located at 4600 South Kipling Street in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-18-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0577
|
Speaker 1: 12 hours counts. Bill 576 has passed. Councilwoman, can we please be accountable? 577 on the floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 577 on the floor for final passage. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Sandoval, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final and that final consideration of Bill 0577 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, September 16th.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sandoval Yes.
Speaker 2: This was a rezoning that came through under Councilman Espinosa and it was sent to mediation. And during that time I was in a council aide in his office, and then I left his office to work for the fire department in November. And when I came back to office, I learned that the mediation had stalled and I was able to bring parties back together on Wednesday, this past Wednesday, and with I just want to give the applicant and the community more time and that's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. See no other comments or questions, Madam Secretary Roque on the motion to postpone.
Speaker 2: Sandoval I Black Eye.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca Eye for an eye.
Speaker 3: Gillmor Eye.
Speaker 5: Haines Eye.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 6: Right. Sawyer Eye.
Speaker 3: Torres Eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 hours.
Speaker 1: 12 hours. Final consideration of Council Bill 577 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, September 16th. On Monday, August 26th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council 744, approving the East Kovacs Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East COVAX Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area and the East Colfax Corridor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard in West Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from U-RH-3A and U-SU-C2 to U-MS-2 and U-MS-3 (urban row-home and single-unit to urban main-street districts), located at 1634, 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-18-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 21%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08122019_19-0698
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And I apologize. And thank you, Councilwoman Black, for grabbing. I totally missed it. But Councilman Hines and Councilwoman Torres, did you buzz in on the last ones? So, Mr. Steinberg, if you might come back up. I'm sorry about that. Councilman Hines, you want to go ahead? Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a quick question. We do not have the funds today to purchase this property. Is that correct? Correct. And but that is something that we're that we have the option and we're considering to do at some point in the future.
Speaker 8: Yeah. The lease itself has options that commence at month 18 and continue every six months until month 54 for a fixed purchase price. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilman Royce.
Speaker 3: That was the same question I had.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And apologies again for missing you on that one. All right. I believe that brings us to quick real quick.
Speaker 3: Real quick.
Speaker 0: Councilman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: What is that purchase price at 18 months?
Speaker 8: At 18 months, the purchase price is $10 million. And then every six month period thereafter, it increases by two and a half percent.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and CAGSPI 4650, LLC to meet the city’s warehousing and storage needs while preserving future development opportunities located at 4650 Steele Street.
Approves a lease agreement with CAGSPI 4650, LLC for $7,854,353.98 and for 87 months with an option to purchase, to lease approximately 120,907 square feet to meet the city’s warehousing and storage needs while preserving future development opportunities of the site, located at 4650 Steele Street in Council District 9 (FINAN 201950262). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-26-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-23-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08122019_19-0701
|
Speaker 0: Those those six, 98 and 699 there? All right. So, Madam Secretary, if you put 701 up on our screens and then. Go ahead, counselor.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Did I miss people? Thank you for the last one. And it's.
Speaker 3: No, no, she she knew.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Lisa Lumley, assistant director of Real Estate.
Speaker 3: So I'm a newbie and just have a couple of questions on this lease change because it's a $10 change and an eight month addition. Can you explain a little bit about the purpose for this change?
Speaker 7: There is a service agreement that was already approved by city council and the lease.
Speaker 3: Just supports.
Speaker 7: That service agreement. The service agreement goes through December of 2019. The underlying lease for this space expired in March of 2019. So we're just bringing it current to go through the end of this year.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Just thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. And I apologize. And thank you, Councilwoman Black, for grabbing. I totally missed it. But Councilman Hines and Councilwoman Torres, did you buzz in on the last ones? So, Mr. Steinberg, if you might come back up.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendment to Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and La Raza Services, Inc. for property located at 1391 Delaware Street.
Amends a lease agreement with La Raza Services, Inc. by adding $10 for a new total of $20 and 8 months for a new end date of 12-31-19 for office space to operate the Transition from Jail to Community program, located at 1391 Delaware Street in Council District 10 (FINAN-201841647-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-26-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08122019_19-0760
|
Speaker 0: All right. So next up, we have 760, I believe. Madam Secretary, if you'd put that one up on our screens. And Councilman CdeBaca, this one's yours as well.
Speaker 3: Is there anybody who can answer questions? Can you introduce yourself?
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Brendan Doyle. I'm an analyst with the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Speaker 3: I this, I think, deeply affects my district and I think it's important information. Can you explain the substantial changes here?
Speaker 9: Sure. So just a brief summary. We have a three year HUD led based paint hazard control grant. We're in year two of that grant. And our charge is to mitigate 130 low income homes to be safe from lead based paint hazards. We administer this grant with our partners at Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And basically the three minor changes that we're proposing for amendment is that we can increase up to 10% of homeowner occupied units may receive assistance without a child under the age of six living in the unit or spending significant time in the unit. The second piece is we can work on up to five vacant units. And then the third piece that increases the grant amount provided to landlords that enrolled in the program from up to $6,000 increase to $10,000. So they would be receiving a grant of 10,000 to replace the additional the previous grant of 6000.
Speaker 3: Awesome. And then on the vacant units, are there any charges to the owner if they were to sell within a certain amount of time? How do we recruit those dollars if it's improving for a sale?
Speaker 9: So there is a there's a three year affordability clause that goes into all all of the contracts with the landlords that they have to keep the unit affordable for families either that are in the unit currently or if they do have a vacant unit. So there are clauses in our contracts with all of the landlords to keep those units affordable, to avoid, you know, landlords just flipping the properties.
Speaker 3: And is there a place where we can track those properties that are being abated?
Speaker 9: Sure. Yeah. I mean, we have the records in our office and also Denver Renewal Authority attracts tracks those quarterly. And I'm happy to provide that information as you as we need it.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Thank you for the changes to.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. All right. That brings up 727. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: Question on this same way.
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Can you just highlight why the changes? Because if it were the was the target primarily on properties that had children?
Speaker 9: Yes, that's a HUD regulation. So we typically have to work in homes that have children under the age of six or have children that spend significant time in the home under the age of six. So per HUD regulations where we're able to work on up to 10% of homeowner occupied units on the grant that don't require children under the age of six. So by this year we're opening up the eligibility a little bit.
Speaker 7: So was the issue that we couldn't find the homes with children under six?
Speaker 9: I don't think it was. It just HUD has allowed us to to open it up because we have had some we've had slower referrals than we thought. So part of their regulation is to to allow jurisdictions to work on homes that don't have children under the age of six. So it's just another tool in our bill to try to recruit families.
Speaker 7: So I know a lot of times it's just a matter of how we advertise and let families know about this. And I would hope that we continue to target households with children. Now, not that we you know, if we've exhausted that, that makes sense. But if we have not, I would like to help make sure that through my newsletter we're getting the word out so that the families with small children are the households that are benefiting from this program, as HUD has historically targeted.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's absolutely that's absolutely the intention. This just allows us, you know, if we have a seven year old in the home, this allows us to work. And when we've had a couple of those that we've had to press pause on. So we just hope that this will open up the eligibility. And again, it's just 10% of homeowner occupied units.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that makes sense. But what didn't make sense to me is households that have no children, where we're we may not serve some households with children if we're going to serve homes that don't have children.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I don't think we're necessarily targeting those homes. It's just if they self-refer themselves into the program and they qualify otherwise that we we wouldn't necessarily turn them away as all.
Speaker 7: So how do we typically advertise this program?
Speaker 9: We have a contract with Korea results. Who does a lot of the door to door outreach campaigns for us? We've met with a number of council people. We do our counseling in the community meetings. We have yard signs, we do advertisements through our we do leaflet droplets at libraries and public schools and rec centers. So we're trying to get the word out is as best as we can. So we would solicit any help that your office.
Speaker 7: So last question when the work is done, are Leanne's put on the properties.
Speaker 9: Yes. For for landlords. They are. Yes. If it's a homeowner, homeowner, homeowner occupied units, it's a street grant.
Speaker 7: Okay. And if they sell within a certain period of time then they have to pay it back. Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, by modifying the scope of work, to assist the Department of Public Health and Environment with administering the Lead Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program.
Amends an intergovernmental agreement with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) by modifying eligibility and financial requirements for the administration of the Lead Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program (LBPHC), to mitigate lead paint hazards in low income homes, citywide. No change to agreement amount or duration (201843088). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-26-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08122019_19-0727
|
Speaker 7: Okay. And if they sell within a certain period of time then they have to pay it back. Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. That brings us to 727. Madam Secretary, if you put that on our screens, Councilman Ortega, go ahead with your question.
Speaker 7: Just a question on this. And I'm not sure if there is anyone here from the public works that can answer a question, if not maybe somebody from the mayor's office. Okay. So this is approving a rescission of $900,000 from Denver Public Health and Environment to the Department of Public Works, and it's to their Fleet Special Revenue Fund . So my question is, as we in this city have moved to address our carbon footprint. Can you tell me if any of these are proposed to be electric vehicles? And if so, what would that percentage be? So Councilman Ortega, Guy Stewart.
Speaker 4: Mayor's office, these are.
Speaker 3: Compost vehicles. So they're large, heavy duty vehicles. I don't believe there is an option for electric vehicle purchase for that type of.
Speaker 4: Equipment, but.
Speaker 3: We can certainly double check that and get back to you.
Speaker 0: I'm seeing Charlotte pick back, you're saying shaking your head? No, but.
Speaker 2: Obviously you're.
Speaker 0: Here. Not an option. But Charlotte, did you want to come up?
Speaker 10: Charlotte Pit Solid Waste Management. They're currently testing technology for electric garbage trucks, but it's not completely, 100% viable yet. We are hoping to demo some, but I don't think they're going to be in place by the time we make this purchase.
Speaker 7: How many does this get us?
Speaker 10: This gets us 13 trucks.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. That concludes, Councilman Hines. Sorry. You have a question? Yes. How many trucks are in the total fleet? So we just got 13 trucks. And I'll wait until you go away so I can ask the next question.
Speaker 10: We have about 120 total trucks in our fleet. That's between trash, recycling and compost.
Speaker 0: So about 10%.
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you. This would actually double our capacity for composting. So it really gives us the opportunity to grow that program.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Hines has been the night for late breaking entries. I'm going to take a breath, make sure everybody is done. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from and an appropriation in the Environmental Services Enterprise Fund, transferring cash to the Planned Fleet Special Revenue Fund, and authorizing a capital equipment purchase from the Planned Fleet Special Revenue Fund.
Approves a rescission of $900,000 from the Department of Public Health and Environment’s Environmental Services Enterprise Fund, makes an appropriation, transferring cash to the Department of Public Works Planned Fleet Special Revenue Fund, and authorizes the purchase of capital equipment to support the City’s composting program. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-23-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08052019_19-0570
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. And just to be clear to all the new members who might want to join us, the four mile all downhill leg is mine. All right. That concludes our presentations. There are no communications this evening, but we do have one proclamation. Councilman Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 570?
Speaker 7: I would be happy to. Proclamation number 570. Is that right? Yep. Sorry, the number was not on my copy in front of me. This is recognizing the annual Brothers redevelopment and Denver employee volunteer opportunity, otherwise known as Devo Paint Athon Day in the city and county of Denver on Saturday, August the 10th. Whereas, through a partnership with Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities, Devo and Brothers Redevelopment Inc 100 plus Denver city employees will volunteer their time to paint homes of deserving senior homeowners. Four Brothers Redevelopment Inc's 41st paint a thon. And. Whereas, all painting will be completed free of charge for homeowners saving the city's fixed income seniors thousands of dollars in home maintenance cost. And. Whereas, volunteers will be beautifying homes and preserving home values in Denver neighborhoods as a result of their participation. And. Whereas, The Paint Athon is a great way to show the city employees that city employees take pride in the community and care about its residents. And. WHEREAS, the paint a thon truly makes a difference in the lives of many Denver residents. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes the day of August ten, 2019, as brothers redevelopment paint a thon day in the city and county of Denver . Number two, that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Devoe board.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: I move for the adoption of proclamation number 570.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council of Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. We are very lucky to have this nonprofit who has been doing this community service for the last 40, now 41st year. I have gone out on several occasions and participated in this alongside my city employee colleagues. And the homeowners are just so, so gracious.
Speaker 9: And we are so grateful for the city. So we. I see. Yeah, I. So we.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: So, Mr. President, I just wanted to acknowledge some of the city agencies that participate in this annual event with employees who, you know, recognize the importance of stepping out and doing this volunteer work for seniors in the Denver community who really otherwise would not be able to get this work done on their own because most of them cannot afford the costs to do some of these repairs. So our Denver County Courts, Denver Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver International Airport, Parks and Recreation. The Denver Police Department. Human Services Office of Human Resources, City Attorney's Office, members of Council have have participated in this. And so, as I said, over 100 employees from these various departments have stepped out to recognize the importance of of helping seniors in our community and to the staff and the other volunteers from Brothers Redevelopment. I just want to say thank you for continuing to do this year after year and really making a difference in people's lives . Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And thank you so much for bringing this proclamation forward. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Ortega i.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 1: I see tobacco. I. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore. I. Herndon. Can each. I. Sandoval.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 1: Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 11 days 11 is proclamation. 570 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes set aside for proclamation acceptance. Councilwoman Ortega, do you have someone you'd like to invite up?
Speaker 7: Yes. The executive director or president, as he's known Jeff Martinez with brother's redevelopment. And then I believe that's Chad with you. Chad Nibley, who is the program manager with Brother's Redevelopment Payment Fund. And I believe Derek Hoyt might be here with the DEVO program. That's you. Okay, so would you all please come forward?
Speaker 2: Well, good evening. Thank you. Council President. Members of council. Thank you so much, Councilmember Ortega, for those kind words. I'm Jeff Martinez, president brother's redevelopment. And on behalf of our team, we're really excited and honored to be here again to share our excitement as we team with Denver employee volunteer opportunities or DEVO to paint the homes as part of the 41st season of our annual paint a thon. And as many of you know, the paint a thon is brother's redevelopment signature event. Each year, we recruit teams of volunteers to paint the homes of income, qualified senior and disabled homeowners across the city. And Deveau is one of our longest serving volunteer teams. Since this partnership, I think, formally launched with the city in 2005, the devotees, as we like to call them, have painted more than 113 homes, donated 13,000 volunteer hours in getting there. And it's just such a tremendous gift for our homeowners in the city. And through their efforts, they've also added luster and value to the seniors. Most important investment their home. To date, Divo volunteers have saved clients more than 285,000 during that period in home maintenance expenses and preserved property values along the way. Volunteers also restore hope in the process. As one Denver senior whose home was painted this year as part of our event, they shared with us in a letter. My home is now beautiful. I feel a new sense of pride and home ownership. I no longer feel that I rundown my neighborhood. I've always tried to give anything and everything I could. Now I have been given back tenfold. I can't put into words what your volunteers who painted my home have done for me. We volunteer, we make a difference. And each year, Deveaux helps us all paint the picture of a caring city, showcasing the value of volunteerism to our neighbors, our elders and others. So this Saturday will see city employees up on those ladders, not too high liability issues, and we'll also see them bearing brushes once again in the Globeville , Elyria, Swansea and Park Hill neighborhoods, volunteering their time to show our seniors how much the city in this community cares for them. So we hope you'll be there. We have Precious for you. We're going to put them out. But now we can give you some. We hope to see you there this Saturday. Painting smiles at a paint a thon site near you. So we welcome you to join us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you for all your great work. Before we move on to our bills for introduction, I missed I believe we have State Senator Robert Rodriguez still here in the House. Welcome. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 7: And Representative Paul Rosenthal, former Representative Paul Rosenthal is also in the honorable.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for being in our chamber with us this evening. All right. That brings us to our bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A Proclamation Recognizing the Annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, August 10, 2019
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08052019_19-0673
|
Speaker 0: Okay, I. Madam Secretary, please vote in the results. Now, I think we have 12. Thank you. 12 eyes. Gainesville, 584 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Resolution 673 on the floor?
Speaker 13: Yes, I will, Mr. President. But if I could have a moment of personal privilege. Good. I just had an email from an associate who informed me that my former colleague and long time reporter John Insulin was found dead in his apartment this morning. He worked for the Rocky Mountain News for many years. SAT at that table for many years covering city council and recently returned to Colorado to work for the Colorado Politics Online site. And we all got to know him because he was covering the city council here. And so I just want to let my colleagues know that of that event and how profoundly sad I am, because John was such a great force in journalism in the city. With that. Mr. President, I move that council resolution 19, dash 673 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. We are going to do a combined public hearing for Council Resolution 673 and Council Resolution 674, and that is now open. Speakers may come and comment on either or both items, and after the conclusion of the public hearing, council will vote separately on each item. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 11: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council Greg Morrow, director of Community Corrections with the Department of Public Safety. I'm here to provide the staff report on both resolutions six, seven, three and 674. I'm going to go through a few slides to kind of frame what these resolutions are. These contract agreements are part of they're part of the overall community corrections system and program in Denver. And I think it's important for those to understand what the services provided do. I know many of you have seen portions of the slide deck, so I promise to move fast. So what is community corrections? Community corrections provides secure residential and nonresidential reentry services to both individuals who are transitioning from incarceration, from prison or being diverted from prison and can safely be managed in the community. It's a successful collaborative partnership between the state and local government, and we rely on our service providers to complete the direct services . Colorado's model is one of local support and decision making and how that's accomplished. Why?
Speaker 8: They've got a fourth grade.
Speaker 9: Sorry.
Speaker 11: My apologies. I was saying that Colorado's model is founded on this one of local support. How that's accomplished is through the formation of community corrections boards. These boards are authorized to review and decide which clients from the Department of Corrections or from the courts are approved for placement in the programs. There's essentially two populations that are served. Those coming out of prison are called transition clients. Those being diverted instead of going to prison are called direct sentence or diversion clients. So what are the benefits? The benefits the programs are they provide 24 hour structure, offering programing and supervision. It allows for employment and a wide range of services targeting the person's needs. Participants pay into restitution, child support, supervision, costs and the tax base. It's a reduced cost. It's cheaper than prison or jail. And most importantly, there are specialized behavioral health programs, drug and alcohol and mental health treatment provided. It's a risk reduction model. We know that by reducing risk, we can reduce recidivism and it provides gradual step down reentry services. And the thing we have to think about is over 90% of the folks that are sentenced to the Department of Corrections come back to our communities. This slide here just represents the significant oversight provided by both local and state agencies in the model. The center tree represents the Division of Criminal Justice as well as local government. The outer trees are the state judicial department and the Department of Corrections. In addition, if there are behavioral health services provided, the Office of Behavioral Health also regulates these programs. I mentioned the community corrections boards. Each of Colorado's 22 judicial districts has formed a community board. The Denver board is comprised of the individuals on the right of the slide. The authorizing ordinance is to the left. I want to mention the service providers. These programs provide safe alternatives for individuals to serve their sentence outside of prison or jail. There's no perimeter fencing, nor is anybody in a cell. The facilities are designed as residential programs that offer gradual and individualized reintegration services and treatment, support and skill building. There are four service providers that have been part of this program. They're listed on the bottom of the slide. Corecivic Inc. runs four facilities. Jail Care Reentry Services under the subsidiary of Community Education Centers runs two programs. Independence House has two programs, and the University of Colorado Addiction Research and Treatment Services has two programs. This slide represents the ten facilities that are part of this program. There's an additional facility on South Federal Boulevard that's zoned as community corrections. However, it's not part of this state and local system. The contract is with the Bureau of Prisons. The slide shows which council districts the programs are located in and the approximate zoned capacity of 748 beds. I want to mention the outcomes. Community corrections is an effective option and a safe reentry strategy. Less than 2% of the individuals are terminated for the commission of a new crime in placement. We talk about risk reduction. We see risk reduction across both the diversion and transition population, as well as the male and female population. We talk about recidivism for those that successfully complete community corrections, the residential capacity, three out of four remained crime free one year later. Now specifically to the two service providers whose contracts are up for consideration, just like. Independence House and the University all provide case management, employment assistance, life skills, financial planning, mental health services and substance use treatment. Specifically, CORECIVIC provides the intensive residential treatment program for substance abuse. The William St Center by GEO provides gender responsive programing for women and is one of only two placements for the female population. And the Geo Tully Hall program as part of a demonstration program for the state offering intensive cognitive behavioral therapy. Listed. Here are several items to consider if if the contracts do not move forward. One, the programs, the community corrections programs, partners own the facilities in which these individuals are placed due to the zoning and the restrictive zoning. There are no other viable alternatives. If these contracts are not approved, up to 517 individuals who are appropriately being monitored in the community will go back to jail or prison. If these contracts are not approved, the program will be severely limited in its ability to place individuals in the community. There will be dramatic increase in the economic burden placed on the city's taxpayers. There will be increase in jailbird costs, in prison bed costs. There'll be reduction in the ability to provide residential services and substance abuse to some of our most vulnerable residents. And as far as the need. Currently today, there are over 200 people who have been approved by the board and are waiting to come into these beds from the from the Department of Corrections and 40 individuals who remain in our jail waiting for a bed. I think there are some items to consider whether these move forward or not. I think that there needs to be continued efforts with city council in the mayor's office through the group Living Code to address the zoning issue. When we look at the availability or lack thereof of qualified service providers, it comes back to zoning because of the limited ability for a provider to have a building to offer these services. This would address the future capacity. It would increase reentry and substance abuse and reentry and supportive services, including mental health and substance use. It potentially could expand the service provider pool. It would modernize our structures. And most importantly, it could reduce the number of people in jail and prison. The city could also consider the cost of construction of a facility on city property that could either be operated by the city or outsourced. That concludes the staff report.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have 22 individuals signed up to speak this evening. If I could ask if we can keep this front bench clear. Just to get try to get through everybody. We have one hour for this courtesy hearing. We'd like to get to everyone. So I will ask that I'm going to call five at a time up. If you could come up and be ready to step right up to that microphone, because we are going to start your time as soon as your name is called to make sure that we have time for everyone that we can possibly have time for. So when I call your name, please come up to the front bench and be ready when your name is called to step up. So the first five, if you can come down. Are David Morales, Erika Giuseppe, Bree Zeiss, Asia Alvarado and Dana miller. If you can all come to the front and David Morales, you are up first. Go ahead and step up to the microphone.
Speaker 2: Hello, counsel. My name is David Morales, and today I'm speaking in strong opposition to resolution number 674. As a concerned constituent, not a lobbyist or representative of special interests. As we know, this resolution would authorize a contract worth over $6 million between Denver and, of course, Civic in a city and county as diverse as Denver. It is shocking to think we would even negotiate or entertain a contract with a corporation. That subsidy substantially profits off of detaining immigrants in inhumane manners. Thus, we have the right to be concerned and skeptical. Just last week, a immigrant mother had to file a lawsuit against Court Civic because her one year old daughter died due to poor conditions and a 2400 bed detention center that was managed and operated by Core Civic. There CEO Damien.
Speaker 1: HENNINGER has even.
Speaker 2: Bragged to investors about the robust profits he makes over private prison.
Speaker 1: Mistreatment and.
Speaker 2: Detaining immigrants once again in inhumane manners. Unfortunately, I can continue to cite all of the mistreatment immigrants and private prison inmates have had to experience under core civics watch. The worst part of it is, however, they continue to get away with all of this human rights abuse because of the simple fact that cities and states across this country continue to rubber stamp contracts such as these. Thus, it is no surprise that they rake in over billions of dollars annually for counsel, which claims to stand in solidarity with immigrants. It is appalling that this was considered to go through the consent agenda once again being rubber stamped as public servants. You have a moral and ethical obligation to stand against injustice regardless of the efficiency and profit that comes with it. I ask all of you to be bold and stand against this contract, because if you do not, you are simply enabling core civic regardless of what service they are providing. Please remember we elected a new council for a reason. That is to challenge the status quo, not to simply rubberstamp it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is. I appreciate that we have many people who are passionate about this issue. But when you clap and cheer after every speaker that does eat up time into our thing and some people might not get to speak. So I would ask if you could hold your applause so that we can get through everyone. Erica Jewell I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Gillespie Thank you. Thank you for your time. Again, my name is Erica Gillespie. I am the facility director of Core Civic Dahlia, ten Northeast Park Hill. I've been working in community corrections since 1997, and I have.
Speaker 1: Over 20 years experience working with individuals that are in the Community.
Speaker 3: Corrections Program. I am a witness to people's.
Speaker 1: Lives being changed by our programs.
Speaker 3: We work every day to deal, to work with individuals and.
Speaker 1: To help them become productive citizens. They are working full time. They are engaging in therapy.
Speaker 3: They are financially compliant, paying restitution, their child support, paying taxes. And they're also having time to reengage with family in a way where they're sober.
Speaker 1: And where they're making good decisions.
Speaker 3: We work hard every day to ensure.
Speaker 1: That the individuals in our programs are productive.
Speaker 3: We are changing lives, and we're seeing the impact every day as we do the work. And I've been doing that over 20 years. My experience of working in community corrections has been positive. My experience working with Corecivic has been positive also. They have been able to provide additional.
Speaker 1: Resources such as GED programing in the.
Speaker 3: Facility where residents are able to work on their GED. Outside of work hours, we don't have a lot of programs where they're able to.
Speaker 1: Engage in during the business during business.
Speaker 3: Hours. We're offering cognitive behavioral therapy, life skills, substance abuse, mental health training. And this is helping them to continue the treatment outside of our facility. So as they transition, they're continuing to work with their therapists and they're able to do so and have this additional support when they need to. I'm I just want to support and continue to support community corrections and the work we do. We work hard every day. We are we are working hard to ensure that the individuals that we working with are healthy and they are supportive and they are getting back to their families to be productive citizens. Also, I wanted to say that core civic offers competitive training, competitive salaries and giving people opportunities for career advancement.
Speaker 1: We run evidence based programing.
Speaker 3: And we continue to work hard on innovative ideas that are presented. We want to do what works for the.
Speaker 1: Individuals in our community so that they're going home in their being fathers.
Speaker 3: In their being husbands.
Speaker 1: And they're doing the work that we need to do to keep safe communities. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Bria Zeiss.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your time this evening, Counsel. My name is Breezy and I'm here representing myself to oppose the renewal, of course, civic and geo contracts for community corrections. As many of you may know, the national conversation about private prisons has put pressure on governments to end their relationship with companies such as Core, Civic and GEO. In doing so, many states such as Colorado have moved to increase rehabilitation programs, and in response, companies like CORE, Civic and GEO have been transitioning their business model into other facets of our criminal justice system, such as halfway houses. According to the 2018 Community Corrections Report, 82% of community corrections facilities are now owned and operated by private companies. There are numerous barriers in accessing information about these companies financial positions and profits, their annual stakeholder reports and FCC filings aggregate information on a national scale. But most state specific information is cited as proprietary information to avoid public release, which includes audits. This lack of fiscal and operational transparency is extremely concerning. A report produced in 2018 by the Department of Corrections tells us that 48% of the people interviewed who are currently incarcerated refused or waived a referral to community corrections due to hearing mostly negative things about community corrections. And 36% of respondents noted that they were concerned about the cost of community corrections. Furthermore, a third of survey response respondents reported that they did not receive the help they needed from community corrections staff and 13% reported to not feel safe in community corrections. And national data tells us that facilities owned and operated by private companies offer less staff training, offer lower salaries and have higher staff turnover. This begs the question of how much of the rent and subsidies paid to the halfway houses are being funneled into the profit margins of private companies instead of going to programs and services. And for this reason, I urge the Council to vote no on renewing these contracts and consider an alternative to privatized community corrections services.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Aisha Alvarado.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Rachel Prado and I am a facility director at Core Civic All-Star in Denver. There is a saying that you choose a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life. Community corrections was not my first career choice. I didn't choose community corrections. It chose me. And I have enjoyed my work and community every day for almost six years. I believe in what community corrections does for not only for the community and the residents in the program. My reward for working in community corrections is not based off of financial compensation, but my reward is getting these residents from the day of intake that these guys are at their lowest. Watching them grow and successfully leaving the programs. I have received numerous thank you letters, phone calls and also visits from previous residents that went through our program and sharing how they have maintained their freedom and sharing photos of their families and their children. I am I take pride in and pride in that because we share a small part in their success because of the work that my staff and I do with these individuals daily. We could have taught them just something as small as for activating their first debit card because they've never had a savings account or a checking account. Teaching them how to write out a money order because they've never had to do that before. Just these small things that's rewarding to us. That means that we're teaching them something. They're learning something. These individuals that are accepted into our programs are set up for success and not failure. When they arrived to community, they are guided and given all the tools necessary to be successful. When they're not when they're no longer in a structured environment. We partner with community agencies to assist residents in our programs with job readiness and employment opportunities. I have been at a Denver facility for two years and our employment rate has been less than 10%, even 2%. At times we partner with local employers that come to the facilities and give them applications and give them job opportunities because those are the partnerships that we have built. We provide mobile dental, where mobile dental services come onto our properties and give our residents the dental care that they need. We have assistance with medical and medical coverage. HIV and Hep C testing, transportation, clothing and housing. Our focus is on assessing each individual's risk and need and prioritizing their top criminal genic needs. Treatment matching.
Speaker 0: And I'm sorry about your time is up. Next up is Dana miller, and I'm going to call the next five if you could come up to the front row. Our next five are Rene Romero, Joel Zimmerman, Jean Franken, Anna Rodriguez and Jesse Paris. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hi. Hello, everyone. My name is Dana miller and I represent Indivisible Denver. And when I was thinking about the kinds of remarks I wanted to make tonight, I realized I really didn't understand a lot of the background. So I reached out to my friends at American Friends Service Committee, and Gabriela Flores sent me some information, some reports that they have done around this issue. So I'd like to read a little bit from one of those reports. It helped me learn a lot more about kind of the background and the context of where we're speaking. As states pursue sentencing reform, efforts to reduce prison populations and the federal government continues to grapple with comprehensive immigration reform . The private prison industry faces pressure to adapt to a shifting penal landscape that is moving towards alternatives to incarceration. In response to these developments. The private prison industry began rebranding and re and expanding into subcontracted things like prisoner health care, forensic mental health treatment and other alternative programing. The American Friends Service Committee, Grassroots Leadership, and the Southern Center for Human Rights identified this emergency emerging trend as the treatment industrial complex. There were some findings that came out of the report that Gabriela sent me, and I'll do four of them. For profit prisons, corporations like Core Civic and the GEO Group are moving to expand their their holdings in the community corrections area. Both have acquired smaller companies that hold contracts for electric monitoring, day reporting, intermediate sanctions and residential reentry. Both every brand rebranded themselves as providers of rehabilitation services with a focus on recidivism and recidivism reduction. Number two, the niche market of community corrections is continually expanding, with new companies moving in to take advantage of lucrative government contracts and opportunity to extract payment from those under supervision. Number three, the profit is it profit? Ization of community corrections poses a serious threat to the movement to end mass incarceration due to their extensive economic and political influence. Corporations such as CORE, Civic and GEO are able to exploit reform efforts for their own financial gain. They can outcompete smaller, community based service providers for contracts. In addition, their extensive lobbying and campaign contributions are being leveraged to influence the direction of sentencing sentences, reform efforts and other policy decisions at the state and local levels. The alternatives to incarceration movement should be resulting in a strong downward push, reducing the number of people incarcerated, but also moving people more quickly off all forms of supervision. This should all be happening at the front end where.
Speaker 0: Over time as it makes up for a narrative.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hey, counsel, I want to thank you all for allowing me to appear on behalf of Geo Care with the William St Center, located in Denver, Colorado. A quick introduction by myself. My name is Rene Romero. I have been employed with the company for a little shy of nine years at this point, so I've been in community corrections for my whole experience. At this point with the William Street Center, we are able to hold a capacity of 80 women at one time. I am at full capacity and at this point we have we have a need to create a bigger facility to house more women, whether it's through our diversion population or our transition population, with those that are releasing from D.O.C.. I've seen many changes from my start in 2011 to where we are today, and a lot of it is through our programing that we've developed a long time. We have the Be Smart model, which is behavioral shaping model and reinforcement tools, which really focuses on our sanctioning grid in our incentive grid. This has shown a lot of improvement with the population we work for. Allowing the residents to actually improve their strategies with with their incentives allows them to do more things in the facility. We are also transparent as a company with the residents upon intake that if if they have any questions about what some of the rules are , we provide them a residential handbook. We also make sure that we are transparent with what kind of sanctions are imposed if they were to violate any rules that we are transparent in the forefront with. We also want to make sure to touch base on the progression matrix, which really focuses on unique programing for each resident that walks into our building. We want to make sure that each individual is recognized for who they are, where they came from, and where they want to be. They are highly involved in developing the matrix with their case manager and they meet with them on a weekly basis. So they have that went on when care. And we have a lot of gender responsivity trainings through Stephanie Covington, a curriculum like Helping Women in Recovery, which focuses on substance abuse as well as trauma. We have healing trauma, which is a brief intervention for women. We also hold MRC through Gregory Littleton's curriculum as well. We work with a lot of programing and resources out in the community, like Dress for Success. I've been involved with throwing fashion shows for the women. It's very important for them to be able to be involved in things outside of the day to day. We also work with work option for women, which allows them to get their Surf Safe certifications, and we post those in the facility to recognize that you achieved an accomplishment while being in our program. Little things like that really reflects on their skill development and also their self-esteem, which they lack and they don't get enough of when they're in incarceration. So I really want to make sure that everyone understands we're here to help them succeed.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Joel Zygmunt.
Speaker 1: Council President and city council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is George Zimmerman. I am a resident of District ten and I'm here representing myself. I am here to ask you to vote no on council bills 19 0673 and 19 0674 and to not renew the contracts for residential and nonresidential community corrections services with GEO and of course Civic. My work is not related to immigration or criminal justice reform. I am an elementary school music teacher who worked for two years and Jeffco Public Schools, an education union organizer. And I'm currently teaching music privately. I once pursued sober housing when I was living in Austin, Texas, and was denied services by a gender segregated program as a transgender person. This is my first time giving public comment at a city council meeting. I don't have to be an expert in the fields or be personally affected by it to know that what these companies are doing is morally reprehensible. Both companies have a long record of abuse and neglect that is very public. Both companies are clearly more interested in their profit margin than human dignity. Both companies do not provide transgender and non-binary, affirming services, and both companies spend significant money on lobbying policy and funding candidates who strengthen regulations on drugs and immigration so that they can further profit from incarceration of people of color. I do not want the company running the ice detention facility in Aurora to be given $3 million by my city. I recognize that they have a monopoly in this field, but there are other states like New York who are leading the way by taking a stance to divest from private prisons. I believe strongly that Colorado can also lead in the conversation about what a just alternative to providing these services could be. There are other options. Voting no on renewing these city contracts with geo and core civic for transitional and diversion housing is a tangible way that Denver can start the divestment process. That is the Denver. I want my students to grow up in private prison. Corporations thrive when no one pays attention. I am grateful that Councilwoman CdeBaca and others have given us this opportunity to take them out into the light. Thank you, city council members, for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, shame. Jane Franklin.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Jane Franken. I'm a long time resident of Denver. I also have served for many, many years as the chairman of the Denver Community Corrections Board. And it's in that vein that I'm here tonight. I'd just like you to think about three things. I think I sent you all a letter. I hope you had a chance to read it. If you didn't, well, so be it. Number one is public safety. One of the things that the Denver Community Corrections Board has always been concerned about is public safety. And we believe that the services that are provided by all of our our facilities are critical to maintaining and to enabling prisoners who otherwise would be incarcerated to actually find themselves. And those services are so important. I think Greg mentioned that three out of four who graduate after a year are not involved in criminal activity continuing forward . We have intensive residential services. The impact on civic and civic on city services, if you are to not approve these is going to be pretty tremendous. We'll have 500 people, 500 convicted criminals who will be either sent back to prison or who will be sent to the county jail. And I will tell you that because of the Department of.
Speaker 1: Corrections, where.
Speaker 7: They are right now, those people will come back to our community and they'll come back with no services at all. So I'd like you to think about that. It was said that there are a lot of other options. Well, I can tell you right now there are no other options. The zoning for community corrections is very, very limited, and we've worked for years to try to change that and would continue. We would love to continue to work on that with city council and the mayor's office. Second thing I want to say is we have 500 clients. They've all worked really hard to get in to community corrections. Despite what's been said earlier, I talked to them. We review them.
Speaker 1: On a weekly I mean, on a monthly and bi.
Speaker 7: Monthly basis. I think it would be a tragedy to throw these people out back to the wolves when they've all they've done is try to be good. I also want to say there's one facility that deals with women that well, there two. One is it is a therapeutic community that only has 30 beds. The other is William St Center, which has 80 beds for women. It's one of the only women's facilities in the state of Colorado. So I would hate to see that closed. The last thing I want to say is we have staff, we have 150 staff who all care deeply about these clients. And I'd like you to think about them, too, before you make these decisions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up in a Rodriguez.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name is Anna Rodriguez, and today I'm representing Colorado People's Alliance and the American Friends Services Committee. I'm here speaking against the renewal of the contract for GEO and CORECIVIC. Both of these corporations are for profit corporations that are managing detention facilities as well as these type of halfway houses. And we've heard continuously with the detention centers that they operate, one of which is in our own backyard in Aurora, Colorado. They're inhumane practices on a daily basis. Two men have died in that facility. And I speak regularly with individuals who are currently being housed in detention or whose loved ones have recently come out of detention that speak about the horrible situations that were put in there before. One of the folks that I've been speaking with recently was sharing about how he was put in solitary for a month for forgetting to put on his bracelet. One of the folks we've been organizing with had his hand broken by a guard just a few months ago and still hasn't received the medical care that he needs as he's awaiting something to happen with him as his immigration case. So we're constantly hearing that these for profit detention facilities are not meeting basic human needs of the people in their care because they are a for profit corporation. They're very system requires that they be tight fisted on everything from services to staffing to medical care. This is the same model that is operating in these community corrections halfway houses. It's the same model that prevents them from investing in the community the way that a different type of model would allow for the investment into services, investment into better buildings, investment into safer situations for our people. So I ask that the that the council vote again for the renewal for these contracts. We need to not only divest from this for profit, these for profit corporations that are growing and profiting from the detention machine, that is deporting our family members. And we also need to be taking a step away from the for profit system in these halfway houses and to move towards a community run model that allows for us not to be kind of at the hands of these for profit corporations that are the only ones that can own buildings because they're the only ones wealthy enough to own buildings that house our people. So let's move in a direction that actually honors the immigrants that we claim that we're standing up for. Let's divest from these for profit corporations that are hurting our communities, not just these for their detention centers, but as well as how they're operating their community corrections as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 10: Hard act to follow. Jesse Paris represent for Denver Homicide Law Black Star similar for self-defense and positive action can move for social change and I was on top of the ballot for at large just past 2019th May 2019 election got almost 15,000 votes with no money. What we have here is the difference between right and wrong. And if we want to continue to do wrong or if we want to do rights, we know that privatized prisons is not the answer to our crime problem, if you will. We need to stop warehouse and people in cages and people. My people have been caged for 400 years in this country. Nobody talks about that. But now immigrants are being caged up. So now everybody's in the same boat. Similarly, we need to not approve this contract. It is not morally right. Like previous speakers have said already. These for profit corporations do not care about people. All they care about is profit. We've spent our whole campaign making sure people were putting people over profit. So if the current council members approve this, we'll know exactly who is exactly putting people over profit and who is not. So with that said, I accept you vote no on this deal. As we heard this whole past campaign. We can do better. So let's do better and stop detaining people because of their status or you don't want them here or you don't feel like they belong here. Because like I said, my people have been dealing with this for 400 years. Enough is enough of this madness. Vote no on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, I'm going to call the next five, our Rachel Crowe, Tennis, Paul Rosenthal, Meryl Carter, Michael Anderson and Michael Tenant House. If you could come up to the front and Rachel Tennis, you're.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Rachel Pretenders. I'm a Denver resident. I wanted to thank you all for having me here tonight. I'm here to oppose the renewal of the contract, and I want to talk to you about it through someone who I'm going to call Carlos. It's I've really there's been a lot of statistics here tonight, and I want to share an individual story with you as well. Carlos has been detained in the GIO Detention Center in Aurora since June of 2017. That's two years and two months. I am a volunteer from Casa de Paz. I've been visiting him for the past one year and seven months. It's been either every week or every other week, and I've gotten to know him. I want to tell you about him and some of his experiences at the GEO Detention Center. First of all, just so you know about him, he's a man of faith, compassion and empathy. He's creative. He makes art, poetry and bracelets. He's lived in the United States since he was a child. The reason he got to where he is now is he was falsely identified for having committed a crime. When they realized that it wasn't him, he was turned over to ICE and has been in the detention center in Aurora ever since. Some of our visits are visits are conducted by speaking through glass, through a glass while we speak on the phone that connects us. And it's like that for us and for everyone else there who, you know, a lot of them are fathers who have to speak to their children, who aren't able to hug them or touch them. There is in the visitation room in the lobby, there are signs that talk about the superior services that God provides phones, which they're only able to use if they pay doctors who may or may not be trauma informed and able to provide the correct assistance and time to each person. And the open air rec facility, which is really just high walls with a gap that allows for some air to get in. Carlos was put in solitary confinement due to an issue and was left there for longer than he should have been because there was overcrowding and he wasn't able to go back to his original unit. Having suffered from other mental health issues. This is really problematic. According to the ICE 2018 budget, these private prisons are making $140 a day, more or less, by detaining Carlos for the two years and two months that he's been there. That's roughly $111,000 that they've made. And their goal is cutting costs to bolster profit.
Speaker 6: Where there's a lack.
Speaker 3: Of concern around health and safety. This isn't who we are as a community or state. And I'd ask you not to I'd ask you to. Thank you, Neal.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next to Paul Rosenthal.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, members of council. My name is Paul Rosenthal, and I live in Councilwoman Black's district. I'm honored to be here today to speak with you. By the way, while I'm up here. Could you get some cushions for the benches? It's kind of important. So for the past 14 years, I've had the pleasure to serve on the Denver Community Corrections Board alongside Jane Franken. And you're going to hear from Mike Anderson. We also have a very diverse board. I've served six years in the legislature pushing for criminal justice reform, among other issues, and when not in legislative session. I have been and am now a teacher in the Division of Youth Corrections Day, as we call it now, for ten years. So helping youth and adult offenders is an important part of my life. I agree with everyone who has come up here to condemn the awful conditions at GEO facility in Aurora. In fact, I took in my own home an asylee for a few weeks so he could get his feet on the ground. But ice is not the issue here before you today. Rather, your decision is on the renewal of a one year contract with GEO subsidiary and with Core Civic. Let's be clear what that means. If you do not renew this contract over 500 years, 500 people from Denver will be returned to prison or to jail. So I'm here to advocate for them, including the African-American, Latino, Latina women and men who are in the halfway houses, which will be shut down if you vote no. I'm here to advocate for our people who do not have a voice, our offenders who need opportunity, who need hope, who need to be reunited with their families, who need a job, who need drug and alcohol treatment since many are not getting in prison or jail. Or in the community. I have asked a friend of mine who is currently in a halfway house Where would you rather be in a halfway house or in prison? He's like, Oh, I'd rather be in a halfway house. And he supports these contracts be renewed if these contract renewals pass today. Tomorrow you can begin the tough work of assessing bids on new contracts land use, zoning code, community corrections, capacity backlogs, program quality, more treatment and services, more providers and possibly new facilities. Modernize structures, reduce our jail populations and prison populations to transition offenders back to community. Please give these offenders, many of whom are people of color, women and men who are our family, our friends, our fellow members of the community, giving them a chance to come back to the community. Vote yes on these contracts.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Meryl Carter.
Speaker 9: First, I just got to talk about the term offenders. Right. Many of these people have been offended. They're not offenders. I'm not going to waste a lot of your time up here at all. You guys got a big decision to make. It's. Which side are you on? Are you on the side of immigrants and refugees and people that have been have their lives destroyed by the prison industrial complex? Are you on the side of companies that profit from pain?
Speaker 0: Can you. I'm sorry, can you say can you state your name for the record? Merrill Carter. Thank you very much. Next up, Michael Anderson.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And council members. My name is Michael Anderson. First time generation native to Colorado, grew up in lower downtown Denver around five points currently. And Councilman Hern and. District. I've had the pleasure, along with that, of serving the city and county of Denver for 34 years as a Denver police officer from 1973 to 2006 . In 2009, Governor Ritter appointed me to the Colorado Board of Parole, where I served the state on the parole board, traveling throughout the state to the different prisons. I can tell you that. There are individuals that are in prison today that should not be there. I can also tell you that there are people, prisoners that should never, ever be allowed to leave prison. And my concern is for the citizens of the city and county of Denver. I have great empathy and and pain for our immigration system, which is a national issue. It's something that our country has to deal with along with our prison system. So the issue today for me is in support of core and go.
Speaker 0: For the concerns of the citizens of.
Speaker 2: Denver. You've heard it said there's going to be over 517 individuals that are part of that program.
Speaker 0: They're going to be.
Speaker 2: Returned to the city. And you have to understand, our legislatures have mandated that these individuals have mandatory release date. There isn't a question of whether they're. They're just going back to prison. They're coming back out. So the question is for you, for the city and county of Denver, do we want individuals to come out with support and with with our care?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Michael Tennant house and hour called the next five up to the front bench. Vincent Bowen. Pastor Terrence Hughes. Chairman Sekou Amy Schumer. And I'm a Urbano. Go ahead.
Speaker 10: I'm just an outraged private citizen, Gio. And, of course, Civic should never get another dime from taxpayers. I might accidentally refer to, of course, Civic as Kia. They changed. They rebranded their name to get away from their dirty reputation. There's plenty of evidence that private citizen correction is not actually save taxpayers any money or provide any benefit all the like. Advertise saving to taxpayers is accounting trickery. Privatization obviously creates a perverted financial incentive to not rehabilitate and cut corners on expenses everywhere possible. These for profit prison corporations are engaged in slavery. They make tons of money from unpaid, coerced labor. There's no amount of semantics and B.S. about job chain training that can change the fact that they profit from involuntary labor slavery. These businesses prey upon and exploit the most vulnerable people in our society and traffic in human misery. These halfway houses will never have an occupant that's half as evil as Geo Group's executives and lobbyists. These two corporations are a vile threat to our American principles of liberty, justice and human rights. If you hate freedom enough to give money to these monsters, you should at least check to see if the Taliban will make a lower bid. CCR is currently in federal court facing accusations of securities fraud because they lied to their investors. Both C.K. and Geo's credit ratings are classified as junk by Moody's and S&P global analysts. JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Baker. America refuse to do business with them. Why are we these these contracts should go to local businesses, even though they should really be nonprofits. They're just. I mean, it's a black it's just a playing right and wrong issue there. Yeah. Oh, I see what time it was, too. They do? Yeah. Pennsylvania government audit found that graduates from the S.E.C. halfway homes, just like the ones that are up for contract, were significantly more likely to re-offend than inmates who had just been released on the streets. Um. Yeah, there's. I'm not in Washington. State's attorney general is currently suing GEO for illegal enrichment and violating state labor laws on a massive scale. It's these are just evil corporations that don't deserve a dime of taxpayer money. And I hope you guys really just look at the morals and ethics. They're trying to hold this 500 prisoners hostage over your guy's head. Every single person that's voted for this bill has had a career interest or financial financial interest in getting this contract or in their industry getting more money. We we have the number one highest incarceration rate on the planet.
Speaker 0: All right, but your time is up. Next up, Vincent Van.
Speaker 10: Hi. My name is Vincent Bowe. And I'd like to thank Candy CdeBaca for pushing us to think about things that have been the status quo in a new way. I mean, Park Hill in Councilman Herndon's district. I am part of the leadership team of Black Lives Matter, and I was a senior executive of a company called Correctional Health Care company CHC from 2010 to 2012. It was then the largest provider of health care services in over 250 jails around the country, including in several counties in Colorado, some intimately aware of the economics of this industry. I was responsible for securing new contracts and evaluating potential corporate acquisitions. I worked specifically on evaluating a potential acquisition of Boulder based Rocky Mountain Offender Management Systems Almonds. We did not acquire CHC did not acquire almonds, but it was subsequently acquired by Core Civic and it is now the provider of the services that we are talking about . I am talking speaking against renewing this contract because taxpayer interests are not served by it. Beyond the moral repulsive ness of this for profit community corrections contracts with their focus on collecting fees for service are inherently motivated to maximize neighbors under supervision, while our community is best served by maximizing rehabilitative success and minimizing neighbors under supervision. So I heard from some very passionate folks Erika, Ghaleb Gillespie, Aisha Alvarado, Rene Romero all clearly very professional and passionate about their work. But you know who I didn't see in here? Is George Slowly or Damon HENNINGER. Right. They are the CEOs, of course, if it can go. They made over $10 million combined last year. So I want to ask this council, why aren't we paying the folks who were doing this service? Well, in our community, the money that's going out of our community not being reinvested and not adding to our collective good, instead of paying these fellows who I'm sure are lovely people, but they're not, actually, why are we paying for them rather than paying the wonderful professionals who understand this to do this? So I think we need to think about a model that takes away the privatization, keeps the great providers of service. But why are we paying for profits for nonresident folks that do not provide the services here? There's margin in there. There's waste in there. There's abuse. There's a moral hazard to reduce costs at the expense of the quality of care. And we have great people who can do this.
Speaker 0: But your time. Let's do that. Thank you very much, Pastor Terrence, you.
Speaker 13: I'm Presbyterian Sues New Covenant Christian Church, helping them bigger ministries and the Colorado Poor People's Campaign a national call for moral revival. I'm saddened that this was going to be pushed through without the voice of the people, but hopeful that this new council will hear the voice and cries of the people. The city and county of Denver has moved away from partnering with community based providers, including stakeholders in the process of transitional services. GEO was the largest reentry private prison corporation in America. They have an unfair competitive advantage over local reentry programs. They have no connection to Denver, nor interested in rehabilitating inmates or reducing recidivism from a profit model. A local review gave them two and a half stars out of five. The relationship with the city and county of Denver is likened to the convict leasing program, a post slavery days where the city county of Denver is in the role of the southern states and the south, who entirely gave up its prison control to a private contractor. There were numerous abuses then, and there's numerous abuses now. All for profit. This creates a moral dilemma for Denver. Everyone deserves a fair opportunity to be rehabilitated for a second chance when all power is located with a third party with no real oversight or connection to the city in which it operates. It puts profits over people. Denver has the capacity, through its partners and stakeholders in reentry to provide for its citizens without compromise. The last moral dilemma Denver places is the prison camp in Aurora. That Denver tax dollars are, by extension, subsidizing by reauthorizing GEO. Denver needs to divest from this prison corporation. Now it's GEO. If GEO has no problem running a prison camp, Denver should have a problem having a financial relationship with them. The prison industrial complex is broken, is a broken system, and having a relationship with GEO makes Denver complicit, complicit with all of its business dealings. I'm a preacher from a preacher. So I ask you this for Mark. What shall a prophet, a man, if he shall gain the whole world to lose, sold his soul. What should a prophet council members to gain? The whole world. What should a prophet? A city to gain the whole world and lose its soul? Denver's soul is at stake. Denver's soul is at stake. It's time to divest from this evil corporation. Yes, those who are working there will get jobs with the other corporate, with the other companies. Just like when Geo moved in and they start taking over companies, they were hired to do them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. September 2nd. Chairman Seiko.
Speaker 9: Has made. When I was chairman, Suku founded Black Sox, a movement representing poor, working, poor, homeless. Voiceless, the oppressed. What was said by a mentor of mine that. To have a moral argument or to present a moral case to people who don't have a conscience is crazy. It's not going to work. This is about power. This about organization is about land. This is already a done deal because you don't have the votes to get it through opposition. That's the truth. It wouldn't be on the floor and it was already approved on this dog and pony show and going to work. So for the people who want to look at the practicality of this, who are going to vote for this politician because of bland, oh, he got to blend this. All right. Everything people say about this corporation is private thing and the truth. And the other truth above that, too, is presidents don't go nowhere in any society, especially European society. Does prison ever work a duck? So you need to ban all present, period. But in the meantime, because we got to do this tonight. And most of the people who are advocating to close this thing down for people who are already in there, that's it. More. If they don't get the funding tonight, what do they do? What is the alternative? You ain't propose. What? So you have much more argument about that. See? So I propose a solution. Well, simple. Let's get $10 million. The following two people in there. So why don't you do this? Get to 500 people.
Speaker 8: The 10 million does get it done, and I get to everybody. A president will want that.
Speaker 9: Kind of program to bypass all the overhead expenses and they get how much money is it? Should I go to jail for that?
Speaker 0: German Speaker, Please watch your language.
Speaker 9: Oh, I'm sorry. That was. Okay, so give the fight for the prisoners, folks. Peru. Pass this thing because there is no other alternative for justice because they've done the time. Person and all of you on that are opposed to this, doing it with the prisoners and get them out of jail.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Your time is up. Next up, Amy Koppelman. Next up, Amy Poehler.
Speaker 12: Hi, my name is Amy from I am with the Above Waters Project. It's a local nonprofit here in Denver that focuses on community corrections. It was founded by the late Tammy Jerry Williams, who went through community corrections for nearly a year and came out extremely dedicated and committed to exposing what was going on inside and championing championing the respect and dignity, dignified treatment that people going through incarceration or community corrections should receive. There are about 33 facilities here in the state of Colorado. 31 are privately owned. What we do is research, policy, advocacy and education around how they intersect with the criminal justice system. In a nutshell, there are a ton of problems, almost half of them, if not more than half of the percentage that people fail out of the Common Core programs. So when we're talking about possibly 500 people going back to prison, roughly half of them probably are already. We do want these programs to be successful. But of course, we've always stood against the private. Private profit model.
Speaker 9: E.
Speaker 12: Of course, civic NGO have long lobbied for harsher sentencing, which obviously should be a direct conflict of interest. If you run, let alone own prisons, they also. In 2013, converted their businesses to real estate interest trusts. So I don't know if you're familiar. I'm not as familiar, but basically they are developing companies and hiding behind this real estate names. They do, you know, lobby. They do political contributions to whoever will basically maintain the supply of prisoners. Right. Because that's their business. In 2016, under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice actually wanted to phase out the use of the contracts with your own core civic. Unfortunately, in 2017, that phase out was ignored and their revenues have increased. Part of their appeal to the counties and government contracts is that they do this more effectively and cheaper. But that's not necessarily true. According to the Colorado Department, stats costs about $22,000 to jail someone and it costs about $20,000 to put someone in community corrections. Not including what the residents themselves have to pay, which is if they were to serve there for a year. It's around $5,000. Being that there are now real estate investment trusts, they've been able to avoid paying taxes, substantial taxes. In 2017, Joe was able to avoid paying 44 million.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry that your time is up. Next up is Omar Urbano and I'll call the last three, Denise Mays, Dr. Calderon and Pam Clifton. If you could come to the front bench.
Speaker 5: My name's. Oh.
Speaker 1: My name's Elmer Bueno. I am in District nine. Candy, said the Bacchus District Swansea neighborhood. I am against the renewal of contracts with geo and core civics. Geo and Core Civics receive a large amount of profit from holding undocumented immigrants. So I am here to speak as a nonresident alien immigrant who could arguably be affected by the continued partnership between Denver and these corporations. My family is undocumented. I hold a permit from Dacca that could very well go away if the Supreme Court decides soon. What happens then? Well, my family and I end up in one of the geo in core civic concentration camps that profit off of us. I encourage you to find a better solutions to the so-called halfway homes that don't do much to prevent our own children from entering into modern slavery. Whether it is for this or to other or to offer other services to pay a corrections corporations to exist and benefit from the pain of our families is shameful. And given our federal executive branch, it is deadly. I am here in fear for my life, my safety, and with the worry that my city will sign my life away along with my taxes.
Speaker 3: Please show me.
Speaker 1: With your vote tonight that you want me to exist, to contribute. Continue assisting and contribute to supporting our city without feeling the shame or having a city that supports and signs agreements with modern slave holders and corporations that place people like me in detention centers take a chance to invest in your immigrant communities, at least as much as you seem to want to invest in this corporations. We, undocumented immigrants are so poor that taxes are going to the functioning of the city system. We also contribute to the public safety of our home. Denver. We matter. Investing in us would be a better way of preventing all of our people from entering the corrections system. Please vote no to go and core civics for the sake of our Denver, this so-called place that claims to love immigrants. I understand this may be a tough for some of you. I hope you let your values guide you as this is all I will see tonight when you make this decision. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Denise rants.
Speaker 1: Members of council. Denise My yes, I am the public policy director for the ACLU of Colorado, and I'm here to challenge these particular initiatives before you. Quite simply, based on the fact that we got to quit feeding the beast a for profit in our criminal justice system, for profit providers are answerable to shareholders and not the people within their facilities. You as elected individual officials.
Speaker 2: Your shareholders.
Speaker 1: Are the people of the city and county of Denver and therefore you will be better caretakers of the people within your communities. Indeed, all of us here should ask the question that since when did the laudable goal of going from prison in to the community, what allow individuals to become commodities? And that's really the question that I present before you. And we seem to have bought this model wholesale that will just continue to do it the way we have always done without really asking the hard questions of if if it works. We do a great deal of work with Mr. Morrow, and I have a great deal of respect for his work. I'll quibble with two things. One, he says that a measure of success for community corrections is that 2% of the individuals will drop out of programs. How does that translate into transitioning into community? Second thing, he says, is that three quarters of the individuals getting out of community corrections are crime free. I don't know what data he's looking at, but the Department of Criminal Justice tells us that that 41% recidivate within two years of release from a halfway house. So maybe he's looking at a very, very brief period of time that's not successful transition. And even if you look at those unique positives to a community corrections facility, it's not unique to a for profit entity. You. The city and county of Denver can run your own community corrections program. And by God, I am sure you will do it far better.
Speaker 9: If these measures go through.
Speaker 1: Today. I do hope that you will look at county community corrections programs that are working that are not for profit. Go to Garfield County, go to Larimer County, go to Mesa County, because those counties have amazing success and they're doing it internally and they have great goals and they're making the numbers. You don't need to feed the for profit demon because at the end of the day, I know you believe each of you in people over profit. And I want you to show the people of the city and county of Denver that you embrace that goal wholeheartedly. Thank you so.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Next up, Dr. on.
Speaker 1: Lisa Calderon I'm here in my personal capacity as a former criminal justice professor, former reentry provider and researcher on this very issue in which I got my doctorate. And I'm here to bust a few myths that have been shared today by people supporting this contract of which I am opposed are both of these contracts. The first myth is that we must rely on the private prison industry to transition people to freedom. There is no proof that freedom comes under coercive control, under threat of being sent back to prison. Myth number two is that transitioning people into halfway houses results in better outcomes than straight parole. There is no research that indicates that that is in fact true. So we are continuing to feed a beast that has no better outcomes and just paroling people into the community. Myth number three is there is no connection between inhumane conditions, human rights violations, keeping people in cages, labor exploitation and this contract or these contracts before the city. They are all connected. So simply picking and choosing which which freedom we're going to pay attention to, I think is unconscionable. SMITH For that, simply providing programing is a sign of effectiveness. It is not. I study this as part of my doctorate. So, for example, just offering life skills program as part of your repertoire doesn't mean that that's in fact in fact, it's one of the least effective modes of educating people. So you need to use evidence based programing. Simply looking at program completion just simply means that people got a certificate for attending your class. Myth number five By calling yourself your agency, Community Education Center doesn't mean you are in the business of community or in the business of education. And as an educator, I am offended that our community, our education has been co-opted and rebranded by these for profit industries to, as someone had said earlier, essentially hide the poor records. For example, Corrections.
Speaker 7: Corporation of.
Speaker 1: America, NGO. Myth number six that if you don't approve this contract, people will go back to prison.
Speaker 7: Crime will increase.
Speaker 1: And there will be chaos in the streets. We've been hearing that since the Clinton years, since the Nixon years. We know that we have an incarceration, a mass incarceration problem, and we have an opportunity now to do something about it. And myth number nine, that private prisons, well, this problem was unforeseeable. I thought when I ran a reentry program, Geo and other corporations, I warned the city that this day was coming. So this is an opportunity to form a work group, to divest from poor, for profit prison industry. And we can do this. It's never too late to do justice. And I'm imploring you to do justice now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, 1050.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Pamela Clifton and the communications coordinator for the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. I'm here today to share our concerns about the four private prison companies that currently contract with the city of Denver to operate community corrections facilities. Now, I'm here because part of my job entails answering phone calls, letters and emails from people that are in prison, in community corrections, and their families who are caught up in the community, in the criminal justice system. CCJ RC is fundamentally opposed to the use of private prison companies, not just as private prison operators. In recent years. They've, as you've heard, diversify their business model to include alternatives to incarceration. And that's not just saying that out loud. They've actually.
Speaker 7: Bought by, which.
Speaker 1: Was the Reporting and First Alliance, which did use testing because there's a lot of money to be made in service in the criminal justice system. Now, first of all, we are very encouraged that the city council is looking more closely at this issue because it needs to, especially since private prison companies now operate six out of the ten community corrections facilities in Denver. We're concerned that there's inadequate oversight by the city, especially with regards to ways that residents can lodge complaints. This is one of the number one problems. There's no meaningful way I this is the actual voice of people that are that are in community corrections. There's no meaningful way for people to to complain anonymously about issues that they're dealing with because there's no outside ombudsman office that is empowered to investigate or address grievances. We've heard numerous examples of people who've walked away from halfway houses because they are frustrated with the programs that they're in. They have no one to talk about it without fearing some kind of retaliation. Obviously, this can result in people being charged with escape and sent back or or returned to prison. There are also seems to be little consistency in programing or staffing. There are constant complaints about things as simple as the food. It's availability, the lack of privacy. Some facilities are clean and others are not. Now I want to address one place and facility, one facility in particular, and that is William Street. It's owned by Geo. They housed women. It's one of the few that are out there. The concerns that I have are that staff are concerned only about where they are not concerned about how they are. And this is important when it comes to women, when you're talking about trauma informed care. There are constant complaints.
Speaker 5: About.
Speaker 1: The way that people are talked to by line staff. And that's who the culture of the community of community corrections are, the people that they deal with every single day. The staff are short with folks and often rude to them and their families.
Speaker 7: So research by the Division.
Speaker 1: Of Criminal Justice indicates that county run community corrections, including race in Larimer, have better. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: But your time is up. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers this evening. We are going to move on to questions from members of council. And again, we were in a combined courtesy hearing. So you can ask questions about 673 or 674.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman CdeBaca I have a pretty extensive line of questions for Mr. Mauro. Can you come up? These can be short answers, if you like. Yes or no will do. Unless otherwise. Unless you feel otherwise. Are you aware of the human rights violations being committed by GEO nationally and locally in any of their facilities?
Speaker 11: Councilwoman. I'm here to speak to the Community Corrections Program and the renewal of these two contracts for community corrections services.
Speaker 3: That's not the question I asked.
Speaker 11: I understand that. But respectfully, that's the answer I'm giving.
Speaker 5: How many times have we.
Speaker 3: Renewed this contract with GEO and of course Civic?
Speaker 11: So the community corrections contract for GEO GEO acquired community education centers in 2017. So this will be the third renewal Corecivic Acquired Correctional Management in 2006.
Speaker 3: We heard that GEO does not make their audit information public. Do you have audit information for either of these entities?
Speaker 11: I do. Both my staff from the Community Corrections Board audit these programs regularly, as well as audits from the State Division of Criminal Justice are available upon request.
Speaker 3: We would love those, please. Do you? What is the per diem costs per resident at these facilities? From the state side of it.
Speaker 11: So there are several different podiums. The base bed is for fiscal year, 1920 is $45 and 40, $0.84. I had to get back to you on that. I don't remember. Off the top of my head, there's also specialized program per diems for the residential adult diagnosis program, for the Therapeutic Communities, for the Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Program, and for all of those were provided to counsel in a follow up to Safe House presentation via an email. The Exact Rates.
Speaker 3: What's the top of that range? I'm asking on the record for the public's benefit.
Speaker 11: Can I have a minute to look at my notes?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Are you going to need a little bit of time or you have that pretty quick?
Speaker 11: Yeah, I can have. And I can try to multitask. Councilwoman, if you want to ask questions.
Speaker 0: Or Councilwoman, I'm happy to go to somebody who wants to question something else and come back when it's going to take a while. But I'm up to you.
Speaker 9: You got to.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Excuse me. This is the time for council members. Ask questions and ask if you'd like to watch on TV. Talk rule out next door. Councilman, would you like to continue?
Speaker 3: It looks like he has the answer.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 11: The combine per diem for the cognitive behavioral treatment program is $95.02.
Speaker 3: So between 90, 45 and 95 is that range.
Speaker 11: And for clarification, the standard residential podium is 4845 for fiscal year 1920.
Speaker 3: And what do the residents pay on top of that base costs from their own money.
Speaker 11: So for the specialized programs, the residents are not expected to pay subsistence, which is a requirement in the footnote of the long bill each year that the General Assembly puts forth. But for the base bed of 4845, they're authorized to collect up to $17 per day. I can tell you that the collection rates are well short of that. You'd have to ask a provider for those exact rates, but they are not $17 a day. And again, that's an expectation of the General Assembly.
Speaker 3: We visited a course civic one on Columbine, and there's a 17 hour residents provided free food, free clothing, free laundry or any other free services.
Speaker 11: So all of the facilities provide free food. Three meals a day are provided. The menus are approved by a dietician. As far as clothing know the resident, the facilities are not expected or contracted to provide clothing. They will work with community agencies or support systems of the client to obtain clothing and essential needs. And then as far as paying for laundry, I'll have to get back to you on that one and poll each provider. I know some facilities have laundry on site. I'm not sure if they allow clients to access that free of charge or fee for service.
Speaker 1: So I pulled up the.
Speaker 3: PowerPoint that you had shared during committee, and one of the reasons for renewal was that.
Speaker 1: This reduces the cost. It's a reduced.
Speaker 3: Cost for halfway houses than prisons. I looked up the data.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 3: Private prisons per.
Speaker 1: Diem, and that is.
Speaker 3: $57.37 a day. It's looking like at even at the lowest end of our bed costs, plus the $17 we're exceeding that amount of private prisons. Is that accurate?
Speaker 11: Well, I think when you're comparing the cost of a prison, but you can't just compare the cost of a private prison, you would have to kind of average out the cost across all facilities in Colorado. And that's why the number I reported was an average of $90 a day.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that a corporation that's getting.
Speaker 3: Millions of taxpayer dollars should be more transparent?
Speaker 11: I believe in transparency for everyone.
Speaker 3: Do we know how much profit is being made by these entities here in Colorado?
Speaker 11: I do not.
Speaker 3: Which demographic of residents do worst in these programs?
Speaker 11: I'm pausing to think through the in the annual reports. I don't know if I have that information to provide tonight. I can certainly follow up. There's also a report published by the Division of Criminal Justice that goes back and looks at programs across the state by race, ethnicity, legal status, all sorts of different interventions and provides those outcomes and recidivism numbers that I'm happy to share.
Speaker 3: Two more questions. What percent of services are directly.
Speaker 1: Provided by GEO.
Speaker 3: Or CORECIVIC and not by partner agencies?
Speaker 11: I don't have a percentage for you, Councilwoman. I can tell you that you know that all clients are assessed and their basic treatment needs are met. Sometimes those facilities will provide services in-house or even when they're outsourced. That's covered by the community corrections funding. But when you say all services, that's a pretty broad category. If you'd like to narrow that question, I'd be happy to try to respond.
Speaker 5: Well, my question is.
Speaker 3: Mostly because we heard from some who were testifying that nonprofits and community are relied on to provide the services as partners to the halfway.
Speaker 5: Houses.
Speaker 3: I visited the Columbine facility and they also said the same thing, that they primarily.
Speaker 1: Rely on.
Speaker 3: Nonprofits in community to provide the services, but they connect them to them. Is that accurate?
Speaker 11: I don't want to say it's inaccurate, but it deserves explanation. I think when you're talking about behavioral health services, those services are directly provided either by the facility or through the contractual funds that the facility outsources. There are many great community providers out there offering supportive work or work around employment, and I know our programs work extensively with them. The city of Denver has a formalized contract with Second Chance Center to complement the work going on in community corrections. I think that's the model. I mean, I think having a partnership with community partners as well as having the structure of these residential programs can work. We've just begun that. We're hoping that we see better outcomes because of it.
Speaker 3: So you're saying that the we pay geo or course Civic.
Speaker 5: And we pay.
Speaker 3: The nonprofit organizations to deliver those services.
Speaker 11: Deliver different services.
Speaker 3: And final question. What is your plan as the head of community corrections to win the city off of the private prison industrial complex?
Speaker 11: Well, I think as many others have stated, I think it's necessary to form some type of study group or work group and look at what the future holds. We've talked about zoning a little bit, but I think it's been ignored. The reason that we have ten facilities operated by the four programs is because there are no other options for a residential structure. So unless that, changes will continue to be right back where we are with four providers who have ten buildings where this use can occur. There's obviously a conversation that can occur with with the public run programs. I concur with with Ms.. Clifton, who talked about the great success of Larimer, Mason Garfield. But there's there are costs there, too. Those programs are more expensive to run. The counties have to subsidize the funding in order to make them work. I think that could be a model Denver could explore. I think there's a lot of different options, but it also has to start with zoning.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions for you, Mr. Morrow. I just want to clarify some things I feel like the public comments are we're talking about three different things here, but tonight we're contemplating these two contracts. So specifically addressing those, if these do not pass, what will happen to those 517 people?
Speaker 11: So if these contracts do not pass, we would have to move to proceed to to not renew the contracts and there'd have to be a plan invoked to what happens with those individuals. The individuals that are sentenced directly by the courts are under a direct sentence to community corrections. So the only option is to return them to custody, to the Denver jail, until the court could review their case and decide whether to send them to the Department of Corrections, possibly to probation or some sentencing alternative. It's unlikely that many would be sentenced to probation because community corrections serves as an interim step between those who are unsuccessful or probation in prison. The individuals under the authority of the Department of Corrections are here under a statutory scheme that only allows them to be placed in a residential center under our current statute. So all of them would have to be returned now. They could be reviewed by the parole board. The parole board might parole some. They could look at other jurisdictions to try to place them. But across our state, we have a waiting list for community corrections beds. So the short term response, councilwoman is they would all be returned to custody in very short order.
Speaker 5: And what is the timeline for all of this? So if if they failed tonight, would all this happen tomorrow or happen next month when all of this happened?
Speaker 11: That would be a conversation with the city attorney's office and others to have a plan to move forward to safely close essentially six facilities.
Speaker 5: Okay. And the contracts that we're contemplating are for one year, is that correct?
Speaker 11: That's correct.
Speaker 5: And are they always for one year, or is just this just a one year extension? Correct.
Speaker 11: There are always one year renewable contracts.
Speaker 5: And so just a few minutes ago, you were talking about issues that we need to deal with as a city related to zoning. Are there other people who run these kinds of facilities who might be able to submit a proposal?
Speaker 11: So, Councilwoman, if you look across the state, there's a limited pool of providers in our current system. In addition to GEO, of course, you have Independence House, which is a private corporation that runs two programs in Denver, plus a third program for the Bureau of Prisons. There's a I think there's five other private providers of services in the state. There are three county run programs, as was mentioned earlier. Now, with different zoning and different land use issues, could you have smaller facilities that would be operated by community, not for profits or for from other providers, maybe? I think that would be very interesting and exciting to look at. It just doesn't exist. You know, we've been dealing with very restrictive zoning for a number of years, and I think this is part of the reason we're here.
Speaker 5: Okay. I have two more quick, quick questions. So I don't think there's anyone here who is okay with the ice detention facility and or anywhere else. But are you receiving complaints of. Abuse at any of these halfway houses.
Speaker 11: We receive complaints that cover the spectrum of I'm not moving as fast as I can. The staff member isn't treating me in a way that I should be treated. And we look into those, we address them. But there have been no instances of abuse that have alleged a civil right violation in the community corrections program that I'm aware of.
Speaker 5: Okay. And my final question is, Amy Coffman said in her remarks that half of the people in halfway houses probably will go back to prison. But I think you said something different in your presentation. Can you please clarify that?
Speaker 11: Sure. So we're talking about we're talking about two different statistics. She is correct that about 50% and this is a very generalized term of individuals placed in community corrections, will not successfully complete the program. Some will be returned to custody because that's the supervision component. Some individuals will break rules and not do what they're supposed to and be returned to custody. Some will walk away from the program. Some will commit a new crime. That's that 2% figure I discussed. When I talk about recidivism, it comes from the same department, the Division of Criminal Justice at one year post-release from successful completion of Common Core. It's roughly three out of four individuals are crime free 12 months later. But the average success rate is going to vary across program and service type. It's as high as 70% in some of our specialized programs, and it's as low as 45 to 50% in other programs.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just need a little bit of clarification, if you don't mind. On the financial portion of this.
Speaker 1: Den are Denver tax dollars being used.
Speaker 6: To fund these programs?
Speaker 11: Let me answer with clarification and then maybe answer your question. The the money that Denver receives to fund the residential contracts is appropriated by the General Assembly. It travels to the State Division of Criminal Justice, where they contract with each of the Colorado's 22 judicial districts. So those are state funds that pay for these services.
Speaker 6: So this is essentially we are this we the city of Denver and county of Denver are essentially a pass through.
Speaker 11: Correct. With the exception of $600,000. That goes to support the infrastructure of your local oversight and review of the programs.
Speaker 6: Okay. I was just a little bit confused with some of the comments tonight that people were were making when they were saying specifically Denver tax dollars were being used to support these facilities. So it is actually the vast majority of the almost $10 million we're talking about here is actually state tax dollars that are simply passing through the city and county of Denver via these contracts.
Speaker 11: You know, the funding is all derived from the state general fund as well as, you know, the state cash funds. There are no city funds that go into out of the general fund. There are no city dollars that go into paying for these contracts.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you for clarifying them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Catwoman clementines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions as well. So several of my questions have already been answered. But you mentioned that public facilities are more expensive to run. Can you help me understand why a private company would be cheaper when they have a profit motive and then a public facility?
Speaker 11: So I want to be very careful not to report numbers that I've heard in conversations with my colleagues from Larimer, Mesa and Garfield. I think if this becomes a focal point of any future study, I think we need to ask those counties, too, to articulate what the true costs are. But I know for a fact that Larimer County and their commissioners last year were seeking additional funding, funding in excess of several hundred thousand dollars to me to continue to fund the program up there. Part of it is salaries. As county staff stay longer, the salary costs are more expensive than in some of the private, private vendors. That's that's a factor. And we're also not just talking about we're only talking about the year to year operations. When I hear those figures from Larimer, it does nothing to speak to the capital construction cost of their facility. Larimer, Mason and Garfield all chose to go this direction Larimer and Mesa in the beginning of community corrections in the 1970s and eighties. They've always been a county run program. They've always been a single provider. They're smaller districts. They have a smaller number of beds. So if you have more questions about the costs of a public run program as compared to a private, we can certainly work with those jurisdictions. I just I don't want to provide misinformation to this council.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And thank you for describing what you know versus what you under you've heard. So and also thank you for I mean, this is it's it's not fun being in the hot seat so not usually so thank you for thank you for being here and answering our questions. So next question. You mentioned that you don't have a contingency plan should the contract not be renewed, like you have to figure out what to do next or when the contract would wind down. Is that and I don't mean you haven't done anything, but like just how much thought had you put in or have you put into , should the contract not be renewed?
Speaker 11: Well, I put a tremendous amount of thought in. But, you know, the Safety Department has no other options. Again, it goes back to that zoning issues. If this was an easier decision and it was about rebidding these contracts, I think that would have been done. I continue to point back to the land use restrictions that kind of put us here. Each year when we evaluate how to proceed with these contracts. There's no other options because there's no other buildings. If you don't have a building, you cannot provide residential services. It's just a no starter from day one. Until that, changes will continue to be in the cycle or we look at city property or would you change the zoning?
Speaker 4: And then one last question, Mr. President, you've mentioned that state funds are are given to the city excuse me, to the judicial district. And the judicial district then decides where the funds I guess the nature. My question is, does. These are state funds. Does the state decide the recipient of these contracts or does the judicial district have authority on bidding and deciding the contracts?
Speaker 11: Yeah, let me clarify, Councilman Hines. So, no, a judicial district is not an entity to contract with. So in Denver's situation, the city and county of Denver is the second judicial district. So the funds from the state are received and contracted. So the decision to contract with a provider is the city's.
Speaker 4: Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I thought Councilwoman Ortega might have been in front of me. I wonder if the computer is not working. I am happy to defer to her.
Speaker 0: I don't see you at all.
Speaker 7: I was on there, so I'm not sure what happened.
Speaker 6: She was on there before Councilman Hines, and I think maybe we can apologize. So can I defer, please? No.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Sorry I jumped the line, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I do have a few questions as well. So let me first start, Craig, by asking if you could just highlight the history of locally owned community correction facilities. I was looking through the list and recalling that at least a couple of them that are now owned by a major corporation were locally owned. Columbine, as I remember, was locally owned. So was Fox. Obviously Fillmore and Independence House are. So can you just talk about some of that history of. Just sort of the challenges that have sort of transpired as a result of big corporations buying them out. That kind of.
Speaker 1: Stuff.
Speaker 11: Councilwoman Ortega So I can go back as far as my history, which began in 1996 with the city. The University has always run the Peer one in Haven program on the grounds of Fort Logan. Those are therapeutic communities under their addiction science and treatment services model. Independence House, either through Independence House, family or R.K. Enterprises, has always run the Fillmore program in Independence House, Paco's Independence House, as well as a local corporation. Prior to 2016, Correctional Management Inc. ran the four core civic programs we discussed today Ulster, Dahlia, Fox and Columbine. At the same time, correctional management operated programs in Boulder and Longmont and in Arapahoe County. Beginning in 2016, we began to see that that acquisition of first CMI. Then there were programs purchased in Arapahoe County and then Adams County by Core Civic. Community Education Centers operated the William Street and Tully Hall program. Prior to that, it was Community Corrections Corporation, so they were sold once before. And then the jail group acquired CSC as a subsidiary in 2017. I think when we think about what's happening not only in Denver but across the state, this is relatively new to see these large vendors purchase the programs that were once owned locally. We're still studying the impacts. We've talked about some of the things or at least some of the concerns have been expressed here tonight. But there's also been some some advantages that I've seen. I've seen Corecivic invest in training and development of its staff. Both Geo and Core Civic recently provided raises to their staff. Now, will that matter in terms of outcomes? I think that remains to be seen. But I also just want to point out that there have been some advantages to this larger infrastructure. I think it's important to have a sense in the community and you heard from the program directors that they live and work in Denver. They care about this community. And I think that's important.
Speaker 7: So let me go on to my other questions. Do we know what the availability of beds both in the jail as well as in the prison are, so that if for some reason these contracts were not approved. And I'll ask another question later about what happens to another bill we have on the agenda tonight accepting the full amount of money from the state. But do we know what the availability of beds is, if that were to be the case? Do we know the jail has room to take the 40 people that are? Well, that's a whole separate group. We've got 240 people on the waitlist in addition to the people that are currently in the programs. Right.
Speaker 11: Yeah. Councilwoman Ortega, if I can clarify some of the numbers. So in addition to the people that are occupying beds today, there are 200 individuals referred by the Department of Corrections who have declared Denver as their destination of release, that our Community Corrections Board has said they're acceptable and willing to take them. So there's 200 people on a waitlist that would also have to find somewhere else to go.
Speaker 7: And those people are still in prison.
Speaker 11: That those people are still in prison. Of the 500 beds that are currently occupied between the geo and core civic programs, roughly two thirds are Department of Corrections clients. Our historic utilization of DOC versus our direct sentence is about two thirds to one third. So you can approximate that two thirds of that 500 would be returned to U.S.. The vacancy rate in the U.S. is low. If you read the papers or you pay attention to what's going on at the legislature, you know that number is extremely low. There's a prison population legislation that's been introduced calling for reports to be generated to elected officials, to the judiciary, to the parole board and others whenever the vacancy rate falls below 3%. I've heard reports recently that there's less than 100 vacant male beds in the Department of Corrections.
Speaker 7: So do do our demographics of people who are in our community corrections system pretty much parallel the population of people who are in the prison system. I.e. mostly black and brown, both men and women.
Speaker 11: So I can provide those numbers. The numbers of the demographics of the Denver Community Corrections system looked different than the statewide community corrections system. I don't know the numbers or the specific percentages of the prison population. I can tell you roughly there are about a third African-Americans roughly there, about a third of Hispanics and roughly about a third Caucasians in the Denver system.
Speaker 7: Okay. What are the state licensing requirements for an operator? So if we were to take a different path and say, you know, maybe, maybe we approve this for the next year or maybe, you know, if we can extend the existing contract for six months and look at accelerating, looking at a whole different point of view, i.e. maybe city owned properties, we have been asked to purchase a property on Vasquez Boulevard, for example, in Swansea, a neighborhood we own a property over on. I think it's Jason Street in southwest Denver. So what would be those licensing requirements for an operator, whether it's us finding a local operator or the city deciding they might want to run this?
Speaker 11: So. Councilwoman Ortega So the first step, assuming that a building or a site could be secured, it would depend upon putting.
Speaker 7: The zoning aside for a minute, knowing that that's got to be addressed.
Speaker 11: It would depend what services are being solicited. What I mean by that is for substance abuse or mental health treatment, the division of Behavioral Health would have to step in and license and look at, you know, all the requirements they have under their rules and regulations. There's no specific licensure either at the city or state level for a community corrections facility. It's really a land use designation. There does have to be a level of expertize because we select which providers operate. But the D.O.C. and the judicial department also have to be comfortable with the providers that are offering those services, otherwise they won't refer place.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I think that's it for now. I may have a couple more and may want to be put back in the queue.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilwoman or councilman glitch.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I was wondering if I could ask those who testified against the contract tonight whether which none of which in my notes had any specific ideas or proposals for the 500 people who two thirds of which would be returned to prison, a third of which would be returned to jail. If anyone has any specific suggestions on how that should be managed, if anyone who testified and said we should kill this contract tonight immediately, whether anyone would like to share any chance now that you've heard some about the implications, I would like to know what transition, sir? Would you like to step forward? And please reintroduce yourself. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Sure. I'm Vincent Bowen and I. I think Chairman Saca actually had a proposal, so. I mean, that's a statement of fact. But I think that you even just spoke of renegotiating the problem with killing the or the problem with extending the contract is it doesn't give the impetus to actually start doing something, but perhaps renegotiating leases. The providers are not going to have any use for the buildings if they are not the contract provider. So perhaps an interim lease could be renegotiated. You could also just extend the lease or extend the contract a shorter amount of time and work on a transition because there are providers in the community. You can also work on transitioning the people who are employed by the for profit company into a community corrections owned by the city or operated by the city or nonprofits. But there's definitely transition plans. It can be done if there's the will to do it.
Speaker 6: Yes, sir. I just want to clarify a couple of things you described are not factually correct. So, Greg, can you clarify the ownership of the building that these are not leases, these are not city facilities? Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
Speaker 10: I know that. I know that, of course. But if you are a provider of the services and tomorrow you have no services, what are you going to do with the building? You'd probably be motivated to negotiate a lease back to the city, correct?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I hear you. Thank you for that clarification. I would like to talk not just to Greg, so either you or the administration a little bit about this idea of a task force. I guess I'd like to know how firm this idea is. And particularly, I'd like to ask a series of questions about the topics that we've heard about tonight and get some responses from from you all. So. Are you are you forming a task force? Is that a commitment that's being made tonight versus an idea yet?
Speaker 3: Sky Student Mayor's Office. Greg and I have had a conversation about that and we are committed to doing that. We have formed the exact make up of that group yet, but we have talked with a few different people about including council and community members. So we are committed to working through what that looks like and a structure going forward.
Speaker 6: And so one of the things I heard about is that when if we contract for these services, it has to be relevant what the performance has been at other facilities. And so is that having contracting criteria related to other facilities, not just our own program history, but that a concrete contracting term could be whether or not there have been health or safety violations in other facilities that that could be considered. Is that something you're open to having in this task forces agenda? Contracting standards?
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. Happy to have that be part of the conversation and have talked about that.
Speaker 6: I've heard a request to look at a concrete alternative for public provision. Is that something that. Yes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. You heard about a few programs tonight. Greg has mentioned those in the past as well, that other county run facilities. It's something that we would be willing to look at in more detail and try and understand what the mechanics of that are going forward.
Speaker 6: I wanted to ask about we heard some concern that there is not a mechanism for making anonymous complaints. And so particularly at the county level, I don't know what may exist at the state level, but since these contracts are with us, are you open to having a conversation about an anonymous complaint and and investigation system that would be at our level with those with whom we are contracting so that people have a method to safely make complaints.
Speaker 3: Sure. I think we're open to all of those things. Sorry, Greg and I hadn't talked about that one specifically, so I just wanted to check in and see if he had particular thoughts. But yes, I'm open to having all of those things be components of this conversation. Okay.
Speaker 11: Councilwoman, may I.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 11: I just want to clarify. There is a grievance process within community corrections. So at each one of these ten sites, there's an assigned Department of Corrections Community Parole Officer. So the residents have an opportunity to speak to their CPO. If there's a concern within the standards published by the State Division of Criminal Justice, each program has to have a central grievance file. My team goes out and reviews those grievances to make sure they were addressed in a timely and appropriate way, as does the Division of Criminal Justice. I know Ms.. Clifton gets complaints, my office gets complaints. So there is remedy for people who feel like their placement isn't being treated in a way that's professional, ethical or to standards. So I just want to clarify that there is a process now to field complaints, so.
Speaker 6: I just want to clarify in that process an individual would be known to the parole officer they're making the complaint to the request was about the ability to make an anonymous complaint. Now, clearly, I just want to state for the record that I'm aware some anonymous complaints have enough facts. They can be investigated. Some do not have enough facts. And without the names person, you can't really investigate. But is there any rule prohibiting us from having an anonymous complaint system?
Speaker 11: Councilman No, you're correct. And I apologize for talking about the the No. One complaint. Yeah, but we do receive anonymous complaints. Sometimes they're difficult to follow up for the reasons that you mentioned, but we take each one seriously and we will usually send a team in to kind of look at the issues that were raised to see if there's any cooperating.
Speaker 6: Facts they are right to provide such an anonymous complaint is the procedure for making such a complaint posted in the facilities? Is there potentially more work that could be done to make that complaint option a more robust option?
Speaker 11: Yes, Councilwoman.
Speaker 6: Is that something that this group could consider? Great.
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 6: So I've got four things then that you've identified. One of the things I'm not sure if it goes on the list or not is a technical question. And it has to do with this question about is parole more effective than community corrections? So I have a question. If we were to decide as a county that we think parole is just as effective, would we have the ability to make the parole decision rather than the referral to community corrections? What influence would we have if we were to look at that question?
Speaker 11: Councilwoman Connie, you should know the city or the county has no authority on parole matters. That's a state function. The governor's parole board makes the paroling decision.
Speaker 6: So that may be something that is a statewide issue, which I've, you know, been educated on in the last week, but is maybe not something that is something that we could affect the change on, even if the data were further fleshed out.
Speaker 11: That is correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I guess I want to ask, very few hands went up when I asked for those who testified against about a transition plan. I guess the question I have is I can't. Okay.
Speaker 3: Dr. Calderon had her hand up.
Speaker 6: Okay. I missed that. So I'd like to know about weighing the and I'm going to you know, I'll go go with Dr. Keller. And I need to understand, weighing the ability to make a plan for 500 individuals over the course of a year with a certain plan and the sending of 500 people back to prison, which I find to be unpalatable as an alternative. So I'd like to know about the. In terms of of weighing it, because I believe there is a potential transition plan. But everything that I'm sorry to just look back at my last page of notes here, Mr. Bowen mentioned our steps that take time and that is not something that 500 individuals have. They will immediately have to go. And so if you Dr. Calderon, if you'd like to address that, I'd love to hear from you. And then I have a question for one more attorney, and then I'll cede the floor. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman, can you really appreciate that question? Because I asked Christy Donner with Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. Exactly. That also conferred a little bit with Denise Meyers as well with the ACLU. So no one said that this was going to be easy, but we didn't. We also know it's not impossible. Service providers serve more than 500 people a year all of the time. And so I think that we take the approach of putting everything on the table. But first, starting with the premise that we transition out, that's the goal. Right. So looking at what would phase out look like what needs to be in place and what would be the timeline for that. And so it could range from everything from when if buildings are the issue, then maybe we lease the building and then put in other providers as when when phase of the the phase out or the transition out to a transition lease. We also look at need to look at some of the buildings. I think that you all looked at places like 46 and still there's talk of using the old pat off, which is the old jail is converting to a another police department. And yet we have needs of these critical services for a population and incarcerated population that it's not even part of that conversation.
Speaker 7: So we have to look at some.
Speaker 1: Of our current uses of our current sitting bid at buildings that are already zoned for this type of population. And, you know, re reprioritize. We also need to drill down on this population. So as I was speaking to earlier, you know, we tend to lump all incarcerated or formerly incarcerated people into one box. But what we really need to do is to drill down and really ask which ones are would be eligible for parole. Which ones? You know, so what is that spectrum instead of putting everybody together? I think it does require a sense of urgency, commitment and prioritization, but it's by no means is impossible when we actually put everything in the pot, as long as we basically state that our intention is to phase out this contract, knowing we need steps, knowing we need time. But that's our intent.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Mr. President, do you want me to sit or. I have two more questions.
Speaker 0: You have two more? Well, you wrap it up.
Speaker 1: Okay, thanks.
Speaker 6: Q I just want to clarify the zoning timeline and councilwoman are taking our both on are both on this. So I know the timeline, but I'm not supposed to speak. So can you please share the soonest timeline that community planning and development expects to have an ordinance that would bring forward changes to the zoning? Or I can answer if I'm allowed, but I think it's important that we get that out.
Speaker 3: Councilman, you should probably answer because I don't have that timeline off the top of my head.
Speaker 6: With the president's forbearance.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 6: The as soon as they expect to have a draft ordinance is the end of the year, which means adoption would be into early 2020. And there is a moratorium. There is no site that can be legally used for this purpose as a community corrections facility under the current ordinance. So that's the situation we're in. It doesn't matter what its current or past uses, it is a moratorium in the in the ordinance and so it is physically impossible for that to be passed before early 2020.
Speaker 7: Just a point of clarification. I think the moratorium expired. So but if there were to be any industrial site that was identified, that's that's the whole nuance.
Speaker 6: It's all Chapter 59, zoning. No, anything that's re zoned into the new code is not eligible.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're you're both correct. The moratorium did expire in May of 2018. But the way the zoning code is structured now, there is no possible way for a new facility to be put online until those changes are made.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate that. One last question is, so we have 300 individuals approximately. That would be D.O.C. decisions. It would not be our decision. So whether they were appropriate for parole or not, it would not be our decision. It would be Doc's decision. There's an individual here, Triston Gorman, who has a letter that's been put into the record, if I may ask Kristen to speak to what the potential space solutions D.O.C. has been looking at when faced with an influx of residents. I just want us to understand the full implications of us potentially sending 300 people back to D.O.C., what may happen, and how it could impact the state conversation about correctional prison space. So if you would, Miss Gorman.
Speaker 15: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Council members. My name is Triston Gorman. I'm a practicing criminal defense attorney. I'm also the legislative policy coordinator for the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. My understanding at the Capitol, I do believe Mr. Morrow is correct that there have been recent reports that the vacancy rate in DC has fallen so low that there are around 100. Vacant male beds. I currently sit on an interim study committee for prison population management because this has become such a dire emergency in D.O.C.. For several years now, D.O.C. has been coming to the Capitol just demanding more money for more walls, more bars and more guards. We have been trying to keep them from reopening prison facilities like CSP, too. I would be shocked if we suddenly sent more than 300 inmates back into the custody of DC. My estimate, based on that two thirds out of 517 is approximately 340 inmates. I would be absolutely shocked if DC did anything other than run to the Capitol and demand that we reopen CSP too and put all these people in now. It's also important to keep in mind that DC does not directly handle parole matters. The State Parole Board appointed by the governor. They are the only people in the state who can handle parole matters. Until this legislative session, they have been limping along with seven members to handle tens of thousands of parole hearings every year. There was a bill passed this legislative session at the state level that increases parole board membership all the way up to nine. But my understanding is that hasn't actually been implemented yet. It's an incredibly difficult job. It's incredibly difficult for them to even get through the number of hearings that they have on their dockets every day. So what ends up happening? They end up erring on the side of public safety and not paroling people. They end up with over a thousand inmates well past their parole eligibility date who haven't actually been given any kind of real consideration for parole. And to think that if we send an influx of Denver inmates from our community into the State Department of Corrections where there are no beds for them, that somehow that's going to translate to an overworked, under-resourced state parole board. Paroling more people, I think is a fallacy, and I see no evidence to support it.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. Can I ask the gentleman? The bone from Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry. Thank you. Hearing your concerns, hearing your concerns about the private for profit. I'm wondering, do you have any concerns about the other two providers that we already have contracts with, particularly the University of Colorado, which runs the Pier one, the arts program, and the Haven down in my district at Fort Logan or with the Private Independence House. Are there any concerns with those?
Speaker 10: Yeah, my my concern is not with particular programs is with the model.
Speaker 13: Concept.
Speaker 10: Of. Yeah, the concept. I mean, I mean, it's just a simple fort. We have a service to provide. We have people in need. We have people who are profiting off of that. It's a moral hazard.
Speaker 13: Could I ask you, would you have that same concern with the University of Colorado as a contractor, but as a public institution? Do you have that same concern also?
Speaker 10: Well, I actually do, because my my brother in law is a heart surgeon who worked for the University of Colorado. And as a profiting entity, they did some very poor service issues with health care.
Speaker 13: All right. Thank you. That's good to hear.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 13: Greg or Sky who just ran back to our chair. Maybe Greg can handle this or maybe Jane Franken can answer. You've been with the community corrections since 96. Correct. And has this I just want to make sure I understand the history. Has Denver County, the second judicial district. Have we ever operated community corrections ourselves as a county entity? And then we transitioned to private? Do you know?
Speaker 11: We never. Councilman Flynn, we've never transitioned to a private. For several years, we had an additional provider operated by the Denver Sheriff's Department. It shared a building with the work release program. It was called Phase one. Mountain parks and individuals who first were coming out of prison would come into then building 18 or building 20. They would stabilize for about 60 days and then go into one of our community based programs. If they were struggling, they could be returned, placed on a work crew or are given some booster support services and then have another opportunity in lieu of going back to prison or the sentencing court to go back to community corrections. I want to say in 2013, that program was suspended. The Denver Sheriff's Department at that time was operating okay.
Speaker 13: But that's entirely different than the county or the judicial district, like Larimer and Garfield and Mesa operating their own system entirely. Correct. Okay. Agenda, is that is that true? So we started in in the 70 and the community corrections came in in the seventies. It has always been private providers. Jane, do you want to come up? Maybe just so because we're on TV. And there may even be people still watching.
Speaker 1: I can't add.
Speaker 7: Very much to that, except to say that we did have the Phase one program at the jail. Right. And what ultimately happened was the jail got overcrowded and they just didn't.
Speaker 1: Want to do it anymore.
Speaker 13: Okay. But we always had the private providers.
Speaker 1: Always. Okay.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Greg, the other of the 517 you estimated about or the attrition actually estimated at 340, some would be doxy clients, but the others are direct assignments to community corrections from the courts.
Speaker 11: Correct. Correct.
Speaker 13: What would happen to those?
Speaker 11: So in the likely scenario, would they be returned to the jail.
Speaker 13: Or adjudication by the.
Speaker 11: Court would have to review whatever court it was. And then they would the court would have to decide whether to impose a sentence to the Department of Corrections, which many times community corrections is a suspended sentence to DC. So if it can't be fulfilled in community, it would likely result in a sentence to the department. Furthermore, most of the folks that wind up in community corrections on that direct sentence side weren't making it at probation for whatever reason. Usually it's about structure. They were unsuccessful, so the court would be highly unlikely to sentence them to probation. So you're left with the unpleasant reality as many of those folks would end up in the Department of Corrections as well. Yeah.
Speaker 13: And maybe if maybe Sky can answer this or Greg, if you can, he would relieve her of having to walk all the way over again. Oh, you have a blank. Would one year be enough time to work on a transition plan and to examine whether the whether Denver County should be running its own community corrections as Larimer , Mesa and Garfield would one year be enough time.
Speaker 11: I can offer my opinion. Sky. Would you like me to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, Greg thing.
Speaker 11: So, Councilman, I think that's a great question because this isn't this would not be an easy transition. I believe there are other counties that have considered moving their privatized operations to a county run facility. At least one has concluded that it's not feasible for the county. And I believe that study took a year to two years to look at. So that's a great question. And I think that would really be left to what what does the transition look like? Is the transition to make a clean break from the current providers? Is the transition to bring in additional providers? I think those are very different timelines.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Greg, just a couple questions for you on the capacity issue and the numbers that we currently serve. Can you clarify for me? Individuals can indicate if they're in a state, the city anywhere in the state of Colorado, that they can designate Denver as the place where they want to be their be released or do community corrections. Is that right?
Speaker 11: That's that's correct. So there is nothing in state statute that requires someone to go to community corrections from the Department of Corrections from the county of sentence. The thought process is an individual may have committed a crime in Adams County, but actually has ties or interest or a reason to want to parole to Denver County and that therefore the transition services are usually set up, set up in that release destination. But that is an inmate choice. There's nothing that prescribes how the doc case manager or the D.O.C. makes that referral. It's inmate choice.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering on that, that question in particular, because I do know that kinship based release or reunification programs tend to be more successful. But in visiting and talking with some of the folks today, Denver is a difficult place to be released. Denver's a difficult place for any new job to find a new apartment. And so I'm wondering if our climate, our economy, our financial kind of future for folks being released is actually conducive to what they're thinking their success rate might look like?
Speaker 11: Forgive me, Councilwoman. I'm not sure I'm following.
Speaker 1: That might have been a statement more than a question. The other was, how is it determined that we serve 700 individuals? Is it based on beds? Is it based on growth? What's that number been determined by?
Speaker 11: Councilwoman, It's really been the need for additional beds has driven the amount of beds we have. So there's roughly 748 zoned beds in Denver. We run a population between 680 and 707 ten on any given day. And with the 200 plus people on the waitlist in The O.C. and the 40 individuals waiting for services in the jail . The demand is increasing. I would just like to maybe comment on what some others have said, and I do believe that we can do a better job in engaging and partnering with the community. That's never been what this is about tonight. This is about limited options to provide reentry services. I absolutely concur that we can do a better job and should do a better job to engage with the community partners where all of these residents are going to, you know, end up someday. So I just want to make that statement for the record that we can do better there.
Speaker 1: And then my my final question. When we saw this in committee, it wasn't because we had an RFP. Right. Can you walk us through maybe how the vendors are these the only foreign number that can possibly do this job? That may be the case, but how were they competing for a seat at the table?
Speaker 11: So, Councilwoman, it gets a little complex. So bear with me and the explanation. Some of the services were through a competitive bid process at the state. The residential dual diagnosis program, the IRC program, the CBT program were all competitively bid when the state issued an RFP and Denver said we would support that service here in Denver. But the providers were selected as far as the facilities themselves to offer the services. We did not go out to bid on these partly because, as was mentioned just a few minutes ago, up until from 2008 through 2018, there was a moratorium. So there was no ability for a new facility to be sited in Denver. Because of that, coupled with the land use going out to bid, is an exercise in futility. If you don't have a building, you can't be awarded the contract.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Tourists. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So, Greg, can you explain a little bit more thoroughly about the moratorium and exactly what that looked like and the timeline? Because we keep talking about zone beds. Correct. And I don't think a lot of people understand that. We also have this problem in Denver called NIMBYs, not in my backyard. And so can you please explain the timeline, how we got there, what that looks like? Because this is actually a really complicated land use issue. And when you throw out terms like moratorium and not giving the specifics around that and when it expired and why it went in, I think that's confusing for people in the audience to understand exactly why we are in this predicament right now in 2019.
Speaker 11: I'd be happy to your Councilwoman Sandoval and Councilwoman Ortega, maybe you can assist if you have the history on this as well. Let me go back to, you know, as I've been told in the 1970s and eighties and community corrections, the land use allowed facilities to be zoned in residential neighborhoods. In beginning in the mid-nineties to early 2000, there was a resistance from from neighborhoods and from community members that these this type of use should move out to the heavy industrial parts of the city. So zoning laws were changed and at the same time, there was a capacity in terms of the number of residents that could be in at that time. And I want or I too zoned district it was placed at 60 residents in 2006. The Department of Safety, through the Community Corrections Office and the Community Corrections Board, recognized that we needed more beds. The land use issues were very similar back then. Our providers were telling us not only local providers, but providers that were offering services elsewhere in the state told us there's no available land in Denver, or if there is a small sliver, it's not affordable. So we worked with the mayor's office at the time and council too for three years to expand the number of beds at four different facilities in the I1 I two zoned districts at the time. Eventually, three of them were allowed to raise their resident capacity from 60 up to 120. One of them was only allowed to to expand from 60 to 90. At that time is where the moratorium came into play. And what the moratorium essentially said was that from May, April or May of 2008, through May of 2018, there could be no new facility zoned anywhere in the city for community corrections use. And if someone from planning is here, they can correct me if I'm wrong. But the definition of community corrections use is quite narrow as well. It's three or more unrelated individuals who are moving from a place of confinement or criminal justice supervision in a single dwelling. So it's a pretty restrictive definition in and by itself. So all that together brought us to the moratorium. The more the conversations, as I recall them, we're about to study the impact that having more or additional beds in communities. Would it cause any harm to neighborhoods or community? And they wanted to wait ten years to see that play itself out. I was there for all ten years. Anecdotally, I can tell you there was there's no additional complaints. There's been no wave of crime. I think people talked about there's a fear factor out there that if you have people who are returning from prison or jail in the community, that everyone's out there doing harm to two individuals. And that's that's not true. There are people who do bad things. And as Mr. Anderson said, I'm in the camp that we need prisons. I don't think we need as many as we have. I don't think we need to build anything more. I think we need more alternatives. But the alternatives that we have or the programs that we're discussing tonight.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman CdeBaca, you back in with more questions?
Speaker 3: I am. I have three more questions. But while I ask the questions, I saw two hands up for solutions that didn't get acknowledged. Pastor Hughes and Ms.. Mayes Wood, can they respond with their ideas for solutions?
Speaker 0: The floor is yours. You can ask them any questions you.
Speaker 1: Like so.
Speaker 3: You guys can come up while I ask Mr. Mora these three questions. What's the required zoning?
Speaker 11: Forgive me, Councilwoman, because the new zoning code is even more complex than the old one. It used to be. I wanted to. Is there another city attorney maybe that can answer the specific zoned districts?
Speaker 3: So Kirsten can correct me if I'm wrong, but I want to know who you became. I and I b and I cannot remember off the top of my head if I am ex allows these as well, but I do not believe so. And it looks like Councilman Carnation Councilman Ortega shaking know at me and they've been closely involved in this conversation so I and it would be the answer. So the 46th and still least that we just engaged in for 87 months is an I 110,000 square foot warehouse. Second question, what's the what is the.
Speaker 1: Range of.
Speaker 3: Square footage needed for these sites?
Speaker 11: So in addition to councilwoman, in addition to what zone district they can be located in. There are a number of buffers that come into play. They have to be there's distance requirements to residential zones, there's distance requirements to schools, there's distance requirements, two other large residential care uses. So when you start to look at just sort of the a map that shows what zone districts it's allowed, but then you begin to buffer and filter out the other space and density. That's where we say there's no dirt available.
Speaker 3: And help me understand the numbers. So I'm looking at the 3.8 million and I am trying to figure out how that matches up with the $48 per bid that you mentioned for the 116 that are in the go contract. The numbers aren't quite lining up. What are those.
Speaker 1: Discrepancies?
Speaker 11: Councilwoman CdeBaca So the, the 4845 covers every bed that's available in that contract. So it's 73 beds that truly haul in 80 beds at William Street. So roughly 113 to 115. In addition to that, that's cognitive behavioral treatment per diem is applied for the for 48 of the beds of the 73 at Troy Hall. The facilities also receive what's called a facility payment distribution appropriated by the General Assembly that seeks to help reduce caseloads for case managers. There's a cap of one case manager per 20 residents. There's expectations on base salaries and salary and benefits that all all providers in the state have to achieve. And there are PREA reporting requirements. PREA is the Prison Rape Elimination Act. There are federal requirements and audits that are associated with brain being pre a complement of client and that allocation includes that. There's also the Correctional Treatment Fund. These are dollars that come to Denver and then go to our service providers in order to provide mental health and substance abuse, either in-house or outsource with community providers. That's how we're able to contract with Second Chance Center is we use the correctional treatment fund for those services. There may be in other funding lines, but it's hard to just equate X number of beds times 4845. I'd be happy to send you the actual allocation worksheet that shows you exactly how the funding equals 3.8 million. And if you would, if the Council would like it for course Civic, I could do that as well.
Speaker 3: Okay, those that's it for the questions with you. I have one more that Skye might need to answer. So we use eminent domain a lot against private residences and private businesses for public uses. Public benefits. Tell me what prevents us from being able to use eminent domain against corecivic or GEO for their facilities.
Speaker 1: Knowing that those buildings those facilities would have no other real value.
Speaker 3: Besides what they're serving us for. So I would say we don't use eminent domain a lot at all. But I'm going to hand this over to and Crawford. That's really more of a legal question.
Speaker 1: In my neighborhood, we do.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman CdeBaca, this is Commission.
Speaker 6: Crawford Legislative.
Speaker 3: Council.
Speaker 6: The the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution does not allow the city to just go in and take private property, certainly without just compensation. And there has to be a legitimate public purpose. And it would not be a it would not be an acceptable legal use of the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution to take the course of civic, ergo property. In this particular situation, I think maybe you and I should spend some time off line on this particular issue because it is very complicated.
Speaker 3: I do want to have this conversation online, actually, because we're using eminent domain for event centers. We use eminent domain for institutions of higher education.
Speaker 5: For public highways.
Speaker 3: For a range of different things that really don't rise to the level of public safety. And so we're talking about public safety.
Speaker 1: What are some of those criteria for eminent or public use that.
Speaker 3: That don't fit with public safety?
Speaker 6: So can you please clarify your question?
Speaker 3: What's the criteria for implementing eminent domain for public use of land?
Speaker 6: It's hard to. I'm having a really hard time doing this, like putting on the spot like this in this particular situation. I just can tell you for for the use of this property, we would not the city would not be able to legally take this property and then, I guess create. I guess. I'm. I'm struggling. I mean.
Speaker 1: How about that? How about the lease.
Speaker 3: That we just entered at 46 and still that zoned I a. Is that.
Speaker 1: Not a public publicly.
Speaker 3: Leased.
Speaker 1: Piece of land.
Speaker 3: With substantial amount of time that could be used for that, considering it's.
Speaker 1: Zoned.
Speaker 3: Appropriately? So, Councilman, I would say there's no way to answer that on the spot tonight. There's a lot of analysis. Greg talked a little bit through that. There are spacing requirements. There are a lot of other components of the code. There are also building code issues. Typically, a warehouse space is is not easily converted into a residential facility. So those are all things that we would have to have conversations about. I can't answer that for you tonight, whether that facility in that specific location would be a future option. But it is certainly something we could continue to look at and talk about. And that's great. And just to.
Speaker 1: Let the public know, it's within.
Speaker 3: Blocks of several of the other three facilities that are located in my district along that same exact corridor. And it several of the other facilities look very similar to warehouses. And so I believe it is an option. Pastor Hughes, would you be able to come up and denice on deck?
Speaker 13: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Candace, you asked for solutions, and I'm glad you did. And although I wasn't prepared at first, but as Dr. Caldwell stated, this will require some work and a robust partnership with the D.O.C. and City County, Denver. So if D.O.C. evaluated or in SLAs escalated those. We're talking about 500 folk who are ready to move home to home monitoring. And they can they can then receive their additional services from service providers that are already being contracted, as was already stated, and then expand titers for services that would be lost to the contract by opening up contracts the by the former employees who are already training and doing case management and other services. That's the way we could do that. And then also Denver could move. Denver jail could could move low risk and low band people from jail to home monitoring, therefore opening up more beds to just those left over from the 500 . Put the remaining not going to home release. Let let them utilize that jail as a home as a work release process where they'll go out, get their services, get their additional trainings at their name, and then return back to the facility at night. Is it just like you do with work release? And in essence, it would be operating also like a halfway house, but that's a way of opening up beds, utilizing the folks we have, and then moving people from one place to the other. That's that's what that's what this process does anyway. So it would just take a matter of really reevaluating those who are already in the system, who are already working to come home, reevaluating, see where they're really at, and then moving them there and then moving open up those beds in the different county jail. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca and Councilwoman CORNISH, for your question of solutions. And honestly, I had a lot of the same comments that the pastor did. I think there's a lot of things that we could do if you realize that these 500 individuals are already being sent to residential treatment. So doing that in a home detention type with an ankle monitor or what have you, which I'm sure is probably owned by some other for profit entity, but there would be at least a way that they would be at home. And so that's certainly permitted. And I also do wonder if you are being given the false choice of signing a one year contract versus something that's month to month versus something that's only for six months and allow certain other solutions to kind of work themselves out over a period of time. And probably two last things and I'll be quick is it is actually incorrect and I hate to do this since Miss Gorman has left, but I told her I was going to do this was to correct a little bit of the prison population numbers. The fact of the matter is, is that the prison population is not nearly as big as Department of Corrections has led us to believe, as we have discovered. That is not to suggest that we send these individuals back to prison. So but I did want to correct that small record. And then the last thing I'll say, which I think should be part of the bigger study and it maybe some of it can be done more current is residential type treatment programs that Denver has that Denver doesn't fund enough. You're going to get money from House Bill 1263, which is the bill that do felonies is simple drug possession. You will be eligible for a grant program. You'll get money and funds from that to help people with substance abuse. So there is a way to take care of some of these individuals because I'm sure they're suffering from some form of substance abuse that could be funneled into a House Bill 1263 type of program. There are lots of solutions here. It's unfortunate that you feel like you are forced into a false choice, because I think there are several that we could look at. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Welcome to Micah, Council of Ministers. How you jump back in. And that was originally your question is are your questions follow up on the same line?
Speaker 6: I have a correction to the answer about the zoning code.
Speaker 0: Councilman Hines, do you mind if I let Councilman to jump in first?
Speaker 4: I don't mind.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: I shook my head. No, on the Impact Zone district and then went to my records from the group Living Zoning Code to double check my answer. And it is allowed in the impact zone district. But the challenge is that it has to be 1500 feet from a residential zone district and most of our impact zone districts are used as a buffer between residential and industrial areas, so there are almost none of them. I sent the council members an email with the problem statement about the zoning code so you can see the mapping that was done about which areas might be eligible. Some of those areas, as you can see on the map, don't have the type of buildings that would be appropriate. Like there's a spot right near City Park that is on the map as potential but, you know, is a built out area. So anyway, I just share that information since we don't have someone from zoning here today, I wanted to correct the record for the second time tonight. I'm for two. But anyway, I do think it outlines parking requirements and the distancing requirements are what essentially eliminates the the use of those spaces. And so you all have that in your inbox now. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Miss Myers, are you. His my is are you here in your personal capacity or in your professional capacity?
Speaker 0: Could you could you please come up to the microphone? Answer So everybody are a rabid viewers on Channel eight can hear your answer.
Speaker 1: Your sidebar conversation was in my personal capacity, just so that were clear. No, I am here as public policy director for the ACLU of Colorado, but a very proud resident of Council District nine represented by the wonderful. Oh, one. Sorry, Councilwoman Sandoval. See, I know where I live. I promise.
Speaker 4: I will. Wait. Don't go away. So thank you, Ms.. Myers, for coming. And thank you for being here on on behalf of ACLU. I want to ask, does the ACLU have a relationship with either of these vendors that we're dealing with tonight? And by relationship, I mean, you know, judicial. Have you sued either of them?
Speaker 1: I got you. Because I was wondering, because we don't really like each other so we wouldn't have a good relationship. But no, we are not in any litigation with either of the entities that are subject to the contracts, either Corecivic, GEO or any of the others.
Speaker 4: And why is it you're talking about present tense?
Speaker 1: Have you tracked and I do not recall, at least for the ACLU of Colorado, that we have been involved in any litigation with either of these entities.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you for the clarification, because I read that ACLU was in lawsuits, but you're referring specifically to ACLU of Colorado. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Um, I have one other I have two other sets of questions. The first is I just want to see if anyone from the audience is here who would be willing to speak about some of the non the vendors that aren't part of this, like Independence House. Is anyone here willing to speak about Independence House tonight? Well, yes, of course I do. Oh, do you want me to give you the question that I want to ask? And you can decide if you want to come up.
Speaker 0: If you wouldn't mind reintroducing yourself.
Speaker 1: Hi, my name is Rose Rodriguez. I am in District one and a family operated community corrections center in Denver.
Speaker 4: Okay. And you're with the Independence House?
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm the chief of operations.
Speaker 4: Awesome. Thank you. So I want to get a different perspective other than certainly we've heard from from people who work at both of the entities that are under consideration tonight. We've had a lot of conversation about we can do better, we can pick other vendors. And so if you're willing, I'd be interested in two questions. The first, how might you operate different than the two vendors that we have under consideration tonight? And the second question is, can the independents house support additional clients or are you at capacity?
Speaker 1: We are currently at capacity. We're actually under kind of a grandfathered zoning. So we can't change our zoning, open up any new beds. And even within the process that we have been doing this zoning committee, my idea I don't have an idea. The only thing that I have is the experience. And. The opportunity to work in this field that has shown us to be different. It's just really about us being a family business and we work on culture a lot. It's difficult work. I share the same thoughts as the other ladies that came up here. It's a lot of training, it's a lot of passion that we all have into it and we are different because we're a family and it's just the way we treat people. It's the type of people that we find that we hire and how we treat our employees seems to make a difference because it also goes down to how the how the clients feel in their success. But overall, I think Denver is a good place to work, and Greg's always been very helpful and helping everyone. So I don't have any ideas. Could we have capacity? No. Would we do it? I don't know. It's hard. It's really hard. You mentioned Denver and affordable living. You know, things going on here. There's a lot of clients that come back to Denver.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I certainly want to engage as many people as I can or as many organizations as possible. So thank you for your time. So I've got kind of a technical question. I suppose we've talked about going month to month or six months, is that I don't think that's within our power, is it? It's either we vote for the contract as it is, which is a year or we don't. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Councilman Skye Stewart Mayor's Office. It is true that council cannot negotiate contract terms. So the contract in front of you, you would have to vote up or down logistically on the rest of it. I, Greg, would have to answer whether there's an ability to pass the state funds through differently. But that is not something we've contemplated. That's not the contract we negotiated. So that's not what's in front of you today.
Speaker 4: Is there a willingness it sounds like we've had several people talk about six months. Is there a willingness to consider a six month contract?
Speaker 11: Councilman Hines. I think that would be a deeper conversation with the administration. I do want to just we haven't talked about this, but I've been having a conversation with the community corrections board chair who mentioned this to me, and I think it deserves being said. There's no guarantee that those providers wouldn't contract with the feds or another entity to provide services if these contracts aren't renewed. So in addition to the complexity of what happens with the residents currently in program that might be returned or would be returned to to incarceration, both of them could renegotiate with the Bureau of Prisons, with the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Office. They could seek to have other contracts come in in those facilities. And we, at least from a community corrections lens, would have no authority. At some point, the state could consider getting rid of the local partnership in this model if if we don't create an opportunity for folks to come back to community . There's been references made at the Capitol before about that, and you could potentially see the state change, the contracting. There's nothing that prohibits the state from directly contracting with a provider so they could take Denver out of the equation in selecting its service providers. So that's why I say this is a very complicated issue, and I think it's hard to answer it in the span of 2 hours.
Speaker 3: And Councilman, I would just jump back in and also point out that the timing for the change in the zoning code would not happen within six months. So we will be locked down with issues there until that zoning code change happens, which will not be for at least another six months. So I would be really reluctant to have a conversation about a six month contract knowing that we will not have further tools available to us before then.
Speaker 4: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Two last questions. Greg, can you talk a little bit about the role that the Crossroads Shelter has played for people who are released that have reached their mandatory release date? Oftentimes people come out and don't necessarily have a place to go to. But I know that Crossroads has had sort of a contractual relationship with the. So can you speak to that? And so part of where I'm leaning is whether we also see a percentage of folks that come out that don't have that support system to help them get a job, to help them, you know, react fully back into society, especially if they've been locked up for so long in the world, is so different with technology and, you know, everything being so what's the right word? I want to use animated or you know, if you're not connected to the Internet, you don't know how to use, you know, all the new technology. It's harder for folks to get adapted to being back out and and being successful. So can you just speak to that for a minute?
Speaker 11: Councilwoman Ortega. So I believe there's a similar question raised at committee, so I'm going to try to answer it consistently. I would prefer not to speak to the operations of the Salvation Army because I don't know what relationship, contractual or whatnot they have with the Department of Corrections. What I would say is. More than 90% of the incarcerated population, those in the U.S. come back to communities. So there are choices to be made. Do you want those individuals reaching their mandatory release date and returning without services? Some some might be successful. Some absolutely need to go just to parole supervision. There was there's been discussion about the ankle bracelet program that's referred to as ESPN mate. I ASPI one thing, there are different eligibility requirements for that. So it's not an option to look at ISP on everybody that would be returned to prison. You have to be within six months of your parole eligibility date in order to be to qualify for ISP. So there's again, it just becomes more and more complicated as we even begin to think about other solutions. My professional opinion is if you lose this type of capacity in Denver, you will see an increase in the number of individuals that patrol homeless into Denver County. That would probably place a higher burden on an over tax shelter system to begin with because people lose their housing when they're in D.O.C., they don't necessarily always have the support of families, and so oftentimes they don't have anywhere else to go. And these residential programs create an opportunity for safe placement.
Speaker 7: Okay. My last question and this is both to you and to Sky as as we're talking about creating a new a new opportunity for looking at how we do community corrections, different. Number one, what would be the timeline for trying to ramp that up to have a committee in place and begin the conversation immediately? And then I would like.
Speaker 1: To see.
Speaker 7: And we've talked about this in our our meetings on the Group Living Ordinance as we are discussing the community correction component, the inclusion of social enterprises to be part of that. You know, I've been to the Delancey Street Foundation out in San Francisco. We've got a model that's looking at moving in here that mimics that, that some folks saw in Salt Lake City that are that are planning to open one right here in Denver. I believe they're going to serve 25 people. But the role that building in businesses and jobs and creating a more stable environment for the entity, for the people, I think is is one that has been a proven model and it's not something we have incorporated into our community correctional facilities. Frankly, we should be incorporating it into our homeless shelters as well. So is that something that you all would would be open to having on the table as part of those conversations so that we're not looking at long term, forever dependance on government resources to allow these to operate regardless of who the operator ends up being. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 3: Sure. I think, you know, in the course of the next week, we can start putting on paper what that plan would look like. Who would be involved? Certainly open to suggestion from you all would want to make sure that we have a chance to reach out to partners, too, to get the right people formulated into that. But, you know, there is a lot to discuss there. And I think we would have to get on a cadence to have those conversations quickly. And and throughout the next several months, up to a year, we'll obviously know more as the zoning code amendment is coming forward, what that will look like and what opportunities we have there . But, yes, I think, you know, anything people think is an important component to talk about should be put on the table and let's have those discussions. There may be barriers that I'm not aware of or Greg is not aware of that we would need to talk about. But I think having the discussion about any of those different opportunities is is important and having a group available to flush those out makes sense. So I know you have some time constraints of heading out of town, but maybe in the next few days we can get some ideas put on paper and circle back with a couple of council members and continue to flesh that out over the next.
Speaker 7: Couple of weeks. I just want to make sure that I'm hearing you correctly. Are you assuming that nothing would happen until the work of the group living ordinance occurs or that we could do something on a parallel track?
Speaker 1: Oh, no, on a parallel track.
Speaker 3: I think my point is only. Yeah. That we will. As that work continues on and that community process continues on, we'll have a better sense for what additional opportunities.
Speaker 7: Because I think one is going to inform the other.
Speaker 3: Yeah. They would they would have to layer together but be informed by each other. Yep.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions. Just quick clarification. These are not general fund dollars. If these contracts were turned down, they don't go back to the general fund. They go back to the state.
Speaker 11: That is correct.
Speaker 0: And they you they're not they can be spent for this use, but they could not be spent. We're talking about different creative solutions. This is what that money can be spent for. If we don't use this money for that, it goes back.
Speaker 11: That's correct. Mr. President, the JBC line items how community corrections funds can be used. We can't deviate from them.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. So no other questions. The combined hearing, public hearing for council resolution 673 and Council Resolution 674 oh, I'm sorry, is to go on hearings, closed comments by members of council. What we're going to do procedurally, comments on 673 and 674. We will vote on them separately, but make your comments for both the second one. We'll just go vote and not have a comment section. So this would be your time to comment on both before we vote individually on each. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all for being here so late. I appreciate your passion and your interest. And thank you, Greg, for being here. I know this is a very difficult conversation, a very complicated issue. I also want to thank my constituent and my former state representative, Paul Rosenthal, who just snuck out. He and another one of my constituents, Diane Tram. You Tola Lawson, have both served on the community corrections word for many, many years, and they both have dedicated much of their lives to criminal justice reform. And they both keep me apprized of these issues that arise in that area tonight. I feel like there was a big disconnect and we were really talking about three different things. One is the immediate problem at hand, which how are we going to ensure that 517 people don't return to prison now? And the ways we can prevent that from happening is to approve those contracts. The other two topics that came up a lot in the public comment is our great concern with ICE and the ICE detention centers. Again, I don't think there's a person in this room who is okay with that. And I've asked. And our concerns with for profit community corrections. Perhaps there's a way we can address all of those things. One, we can allow for 517 people to stay in community halfway houses rather than going back to jail by passing these one year contracts. And then to move forward with a task force or some process that you are all promising that will allow us to look at different options. And for those reasons, I will be supporting these contracts.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I really like the discussion that we've had tonight, and I like the the resolve to examine how we're doing things right now, whether that's the way we ought to be doing things. But to transition to a new model does require time, and it requires much thought and insight. And it can't be done in a chaotic outcome of or the chaotic result of voting down these contracts and having to deal with it in crisis mode. I like the one year extension. I think that gives. Probably not enough time given the testimony we heard during the hearing that might require more time to study this. Other counties, other judicial districts have had to take more time to examine their options. But I do like that we're committed to seeing if there is, in fact, a better model for doing this to to vote down these contracts. However, would, in my opinion, based on what we heard tonight, do too much harm to too many people too quickly. And I can't do that. So I will support this contract. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 3: So thank you all for staying late tonight. We've busted a lot of myths, and the people have called for more than rhetoric and good intentions. They're asking for action, and we hear you loud and clear. I don't think there was a disconnect. I think that you all have elected us, tasked us with the job of walking and chewing gum at the same time. And we have to make sure that we are like a lens zooming in and out to understand how our micro actions.
Speaker 1: Impact the.
Speaker 3: Macro level of things. And this is definitely an issue that I'm glad we're having a conversation about, even if my colleagues choose to vote this contract through.
Speaker 1: We're faced with the moral dilemma tonight.
Speaker 3: We have to in front, we have to confront mass incarceration in all of its forms and ugly faces. All of us watched 13 and felt enraged and wanted to do something about it. And this this is one of the examples of an opportunity we have to do something about mass incarceration on a small scale right here in our backyard.
Speaker 1: This machine is bigger and smarter than the big, slow, clunky systems of our government.
Speaker 3: You've watched them adapt. They are.
Speaker 1: Nimble. They have the ability and resources to adapt the.
Speaker 3: Language to to move and maneuver in ways we do not. You've heard.
Speaker 1: 17.
Speaker 3: People tonight tell.
Speaker 1: You repeatedly that this machine has adapted to our good intention language and shifted services to exploit our good intentions. We've watched these large entities gobble up smaller providers and public dollars with little to no accountability or transparency. These monopolies are market failures, and we as a government have a.
Speaker 3: Responsibility to intervene. These entities are essentially the Wal-Marts.
Speaker 1: Taking away.
Speaker 3: The businesses from our mom and pops, and they're taking away our ability to serve our community in ways that we would.
Speaker 1: Know are best for our community because we're part of that. We all know the long record of bad behavior of these companies. We know of their rebranding, of their accounting trickery. We know of the involuntary employee labor that they're employing. We have several court cases of employment discrimination.
Speaker 3: Across the country for multiple levels of.
Speaker 1: Their services. We have models of halfway houses that work and we're ignoring them. We know this one.
Speaker 3: We're allowing it to exhaust nonprofits and their small budgets to do the services while they collect money. And we have no idea of how to track that money or to know.
Speaker 1: What.
Speaker 3: They're doing with our taxpayer dollars. Yes, Denver is part of Colorado. And so we pay into those taxes that come down to us kind of like rain clouds.
Speaker 1: Pull up rain before we get.
Speaker 3: The precipitation. I'm here to advocate for the folks who are in jail.
Speaker 1: Facilities of all types who don't have someone here, don't have geo or course civic staff speaking to support them. There are no records of abuses likely because.
Speaker 3: They're investigating themselves.
Speaker 1: There's no.
Speaker 3: Research.
Speaker 1: Indicating that.
Speaker 3: Community corrections versus straight parole is better at transitioning people. And it's not true that most of the 155 parolees will be sent back to prison. Many will still be eligible for parole. We've heard solutions from county run facilities, zoning, that is.
Speaker 1: Or properties that are now available.
Speaker 3: And zoned appropriately to transition into this space. We've heard people who have expressed a willingness to start a study group. We have to do better and we know of models that work.
Speaker 1: We've renewed twice these contracts.
Speaker 3: Again, we've not given an impetus for them to change. We know that denying tonight is invoking a new plan.
Speaker 1: And that seems like an excellent catalyst to get our zoning conversation and the accountability conversations expedited.
Speaker 3: And so for those reasons, I will be voting no on both of these contracts tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Come from the sea. Dr. Catherine McGrath.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank every single speaker here tonight and that you've endured a number of hours to make sure that we understood where you were coming from and what you're passionate about. And the folks who took the time to call or email my office about these two contracts, but also about big pictures . I was able to tour a couple of facilities today before the vote, and I want to thank them each and every one of you for your time and energy and what you put into what are clearly very demanding and likely very stressful jobs. And the individuals participating in those programs were thoughtful and grateful for their opportunity to skill build as they prepared to leave jail. I clearly saw today the need for support systems for those exiting jails and prisons and the commitment from staff to provide those services. It is an absolute shame, though, that the owners of the companies are who they are for me anyway. On Wednesday, July 17th, I entered the Safety, Housing, Education and Homeless Committee. It was our second day after being sworn in to council. We were reviewing the set of contracts community corrections. During the presentation, the Association of CSC with GEO Court. All of our attention. And it wasn't something that I was expecting even walking into the room. And what I appreciate is that it's opened up this sizable conversation over the past three weeks about Geo Group. Their fingers in the city and county of Denver and Core Civic as well, because their presence is the owners of the community correctional services is relatively new for Denver, and we have to acknowledge that too. Of course, Civic Acquired Correctional Management Inc 2016 for $35 million. Geo Group acquired community education centers in 2017 for $360 million. And to your point about salaries, they've doubled between 2016 and 2017 for the top five individuals who run those companies. Behemoth has been the word used to describe these two. It's been an education, though, to learn why we face this situation. We have both a problem of limited capability in zoning and limited capacity and providers able to step in. Enter core civic NGO Group. Those paying attention to our own backyard know the many issues that the geo detention facility in Aurora faces today. And historically, we know in our backyard on the backdrop of immigrant rights work, unsafe, unsanitary, forced labor complaints and inhumane practices are reported across the country. There's also a larger argument that services with a profit motive run counter to the long term interest in reducing the need for their services, not increasing it. They're under pressure. They're under no pressure to have unionized labor, and they're generally exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Yes, immigration is a national issue, but that doesn't mean we leave it at D.C. doorstep. I stepped into this space for counsel after 13 years spent promoting immigrant integration and strong pro-immigrant policy and practice for a reason . Because I think we can make better decisions at a local level when we have the will and support of leadership. Local policy work in immigrant integration has turned a corner nationally because we're looking at what we can control, what we can shift, and what what requires thoughtful planning. I understand the reality of over 500 individuals receiving services that would be impacted. In addition, 147 staff employed by the two entities. But I cannot vote in favor of the two contracts before us. That said. That said, I also don't want to be here a year from now with the exact same dilemma and not having give substantial time to exploring what we can do about it. We have a working group that's making important strides in Cuba Group Livings Quarter matters but have not yet begun to really tackle community corrections. We need to put pressure for that to shift. I would like to put more imperative toward working on a device divestment strategy so we're not in a position where 60% of our bed capacity and the success, the successful futures of those needing services hangs in the balance. I thank you all for being here tonight. This is absolutely why I sit in this seat and why I am a proud resident of Denver. And again, I'll be voting no.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman towards Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And I also want to thank everyone here tonight. Over the last few hours that we've had testimony, I've I've been conflicted. I came up with a prepared statement. I wrote a whole lot more notes, which is kind of confused me and made me more conflicted. But, I mean, frankly, we're in a box, not like the kids in cages, but we're in a tough spot. And there are only 11 places in the city where these facilities can go. We don't control any of them directly. So we have a tough choice on whether to renew the contract or not. If we renew the contract, we're supporting organizations that provide a valuable service to more than 500 people and more than 140 employees. We're also supporting organizations that put kids in cages, run concentration camps, and. Have illegal recordings of attorney client meetings, falsify financial records, provide inadequate medical attention across the nation, including deaths and rampant long term scabies in facilities that's just core civic or CA. And then in other class action lawsuits there, kickback, bribery schemes there. They've destroyed evidence in court cases. We're supposed to represent the people. What are we doing? Getting in bed with companies that clearly do not represent the people. But if we don't renew the contract, we make a statement that it's not okay to treat anyone like how immigrants are being being treated like in our facilities or. We also need to find another place for 550 people. Some will go to jail. Many will go to jail. And I guess it's I'm a little still confused as to whether they can all go to jail or they don't. We only have 100 beds left in our state prison. And so that's an issue as well. Ultimately, again, government represents the people. And I agree with Ms.. Myers and other people who have said this is a false dichotomy, that we have other options that aren't being described tonight. And I will be a no vote in government.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Come some nights, Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Comes President. So as I sit here vacillating back and forth and thinking about this reentry program, I just have to take a moment in personal privilege. I've had a cousin who's done reentry program and he said he would not have made it through if he had just gone to parole. He would not have. He had to be reintegrated into society. He had to be reintegrated through a halfway house. And so these programs work. And yet, at the same time, I have a mom who is a member of the Sisters of Loretto who go down and who has gone down several times to the detention facilities and has spent hours there and has protested. And so I'm one of the speakers tonight said you have to vote with your values. And so I sit up here feeling very conflicted because my values are representing my cousin who had a reentry and who actually went to one of these facilities ten years ago and is a member of our society and is a participant and is a proud father. And I'm so proud to have him. And yet also I sit here and think about the immigrants who are being detained. And so doing my homework. I watched a video yesterday and it was of a woman who had been speeding and talked about being her daughter, was detained from her because she was breaking the law. And I as a mother, I that rang true to me. And what am I going to do? So there's a lot of things that we can move forward with. And I hope that the administration I hope that it's true that we do start this working group. Many of you may not know. I worked for Councilwoman Monteiro in 2012, and I remember sitting in her office talking about this, talking about the moratorium. And here we are seven years later, not having dealt with anything, and that is not okay. I do not feel okay with the fact that I sat in that office in 2012. I knew that this was going on. We worked in Council District nine. I talked about these facilities and here I am seven years later, having to make this very, very, very challenging decision in front of all of you. And so as somebody whose family owns a restaurant, I keep thinking about the people who work. And I was able to go to two facilities today, and I saw compassion and I saw how you like your work. And I saw the workers who were there who connected with the people in a residential facility treatment center. And that is not easy work. I want to thank you for your work. I want to thank your employees for your work. I don't think that they go home at night and don't take their work with them. This is a job that also I go home at night and I take my work with me as well. And so I can relate to the people who work in those residential treatment centers and that you probably worry about your clients at night and you worry if they come back and what are we doing? And at the same time, I have to just go back to where do I vote with my values? And my values are the people. And that's why I'm here and that's why I am up on this stage. And that's where I know that I was elected to do. And so in good conscience, I cannot vote for these two contracts.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval.
Speaker 0: Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I am. I am. I'm so torn. I had the opportunity to tour a couple of facilities on Friday. Thank you very much to Greg and to everyone who opened the doors to me to be able to take a look at the facilities and meet some of the residents and meet some of the workers . It was it I've had lots of sleepless nights in trying to figure out what to do about this because it's so personal. I feel like there is that we have an ethical obligation to the people of Denver and to the residents of Denver to make sure that we are, you know, keeping them safe. And part of this is a safety issue because if we are releasing people back onto back into prisons and then eventually back onto the streets of Denver without giving them the supportive services.
Speaker 1: That they need.
Speaker 6: That could lead to, you know, some major problems and some dangerous situations that that maybe could have been corrected if we had provided supportive services. On the other hand.
Speaker 1: We have a moral.
Speaker 6: Obligation to society at large to not be giving our money to companies that are putting children in.
Speaker 1: Cages. And I'm a mom and I can't I can't imagine. And I have to look myself in the mirror every morning.
Speaker 6: And know that I made the decision for, you know, that was right for my soul. And and and I just I don't know I don't know what to do. I'm I'm this is just a really awful tough situation. And, you know, I just I really hope that the the decisions that are made tonight, the discussions that have been started, that we that we follow through on these for real, because this is this is just this is an awful place to sit. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clark. You know, I've taken a lot of notes and listened to what everybody had to say tonight, and. Honestly, I don't think it was presented as any successes. I can't say that the current providers, the contracts that we've been re-upping year after year, that there are great successes and that we have to do different . There were some solutions here tonight. Ankle monitor monitoring. Having people go back to community. More nonprofit support, really. We were put in a no win situation. And I think it's pretty clear that. It was thought that it was going to just kind of push us over. And I appreciate the testimony tonight. I appreciate people sharing their personal perspectives. I have family members that have been in halfway houses that have been incarcerated and the system fails them. It failed them and it fails us over and over and over again. And I have to vote with my conscience. I have to believe that the 517 individuals that if it's an either or really. We have to go back and revisit that. There has to be some different solutions and I don't want to be back in the same position one year from now. It's on all of us sitting here, the public, everyone in our communities. Because if we start saying, not in my backyard, this is why we have the for profit side. And so we need to start wrapping our arms around and taking care of our own and making sure that we're demanding accountability. I don't know what the safety record is. I don't know how many complaints were lodged. I don't know how many complaints were taken care of with these providers. And I have to, at the end of the day, vote my conscience. And I cannot vote yes on something that is going to put money into these businesses. And so. Respectfully, President Clark, I will be voting no tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes from Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is absolutely an important policy issue that we need to be taking on. I have been serving on this. Committee that's looking at the zoning. Looking at where we can create some flexibility not just for community corrections, but for other group home categories that create greater opportunities for people who are struggling to live in the city. Whether you're somebody that's come out of prison and is is trying to find affordable housing, whether you're somebody coming out of a correction facility and trying to get into housing. And for, you know, almost eight years, I served working on homelessness. And a lot of the people that come out of prison that have no support system whatsoever are in our shelter system. Their lion's share of the people in our shelter system. And when they come out and they burn their number, they don't get resources. The people in our correction facilities are being paid for with state dollars that provide the support services to help them be successful in finding a job. And we're plugging in a bunch of these people into work on I-70, into these apprenticeship opportunities that we have created to make sure that we're rising all tides as we see so much wealth being built in this city and making sure that people aren't being left behind. And this is one of those opportunities that by making sure that our city contracts have goals and that we're creating opportunities for everybody, and we specifically say in the RFP, send in the contracts. Reentry, you know, are one of the categories that you have to go after and make sure that these are people we're creating jobs for. Yeah. It would be really easy for me to sit here and say, Yeah, I'm a no vote, I'm a no vote, and you have the votes that you need for this to go down . But you know what? I care about the people that are in these facilities. What the hell are we going to do? Just saying, wow, we'll just throw you out in your ears. I think we have a commitment, a solid commitment. And I'm signing up to be right there, working with my sleeves rolled up to find some solutions. I also know that we have a Latino business, a family business running one of these facilities. Do we just cut everybody out off from from underneath, you know, the legs? I've worked side by side with the staff from these facilities because I'm on the reentry committee on the Group Living Ordinance, and these are good people. But I also do not agree with the fact that. These facilities are owned by a corporation. No different. Then the corporations running our schools. That control the pipeline of how many of our kids fail in school that end up in the prisons that they operate and they control two of the biggest pots of public resources. So if we're really serious about addressing this, let's revive our city school coordinating committee. Let's look at the prison the school to prison pipeline and truly focus on where some of these systems breakdowns begin to occur. And when we're not educating our kids. And we're letting our schools be controlled by private corporations that are more focused on putting the dollars into the pockets of their shareholders than they are educating our kids. That is contributing. And the majority of the kids, you know, that are failing, that are ending up in our prison system, are black and brown kids from our communities . And that's where the majority of our schools have been changed over and over and over. I can tell you, Greenlee Elementary School, they're probably on at least a dozen times that school's changed over. So there's some there are some real systems issues that I think we need to work with, with our school district. But in terms of this particular issue tonight, we have two things facing us. We have these two contracts and then we have the dollars that we're accepting from the state. So if these contracts go down, then we're going to be dealing with the contract with with the state, the ag with the state. I'm not willing to to just throw these people out. I am willing to change the narrative of how we are dealing with community corrections in this city. Because as one member sitting on this task force, I think looking at social enterprises, Inc. is one way that we need to help move, move the paradigm of of how we're reentering people into our community, how we're working with our shelter system, because if we just solely rely on government resources to run these facilities. I think we're missing the boat. And I've seen some remarkable models that that we're not really looking at and trying to figure out how we incorporate. We've just continued to do things the same way we've been doing them. And so sign me up for for the committee. But I will be supporting this tonight because I think the people who went through the process got paroled, got, you know, approved by a community correction board to be allowed into these facilities. And, you know. Can we have 240 people on a waitlist wanting to come back into our community, but we have no beds for them, so we need to look at a solution that looks at the bigger picture and truly addresses this more holistically. And I see your faces. I see your, you know, you guys cringing and and and, you know, I'm here because the voters asked me to make some tough decisions. This is a tough decision. And you can you can look at me with your your your scowls on your faces. But at the same time, we're talking about lives of people, too. And yes, yes, we are talking about the lives of our kids who are being caged in these ice facilities. I don't support that. As a matter of fact, last week I spent time with local progress, which are all elected officials from cities across the country. And I challenged them to look at what we're doing here in Denver tonight and turning flipping this on its head so that we could look at doing community corrections in a whole different way. And many of them were going back to their cities and they were going to look at their contracts and look at how they could change this. So, you know, it's not just that easy to just say, yes, I'm there. No, I'm not. Without having these tough conversations. So I will be supporting this tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to appreciate my colleagues and the community for having this honest conversation about this. And anyone who sits up here, no matter which way that you choose to vote, to imply that we do not care about the lives of the individuals that our country is treating inhumanely at best is unfortunate that they would accuse anyone on the council from doing this, from saying that. What I believe we have the opportunity to do is.
Speaker 2: This is a.
Speaker 10: One year.
Speaker 2: Contract and we have the commitment that we're going to put.
Speaker 10: Together a task force to figure this out. If this was a34 extended contract and it would be.
Speaker 2: Absolutely make sense to say absolutely not. We're making the statement, but we made a statement tonight that we're going to fix this problem and get.
Speaker 10: To some lessons, better solutions from some of our surrounding municipalities. But they're human beings. Lives are at stake if we choose to vote down this contract, in my opinion. And I.
Speaker 2: Believe that by supporting this commit.
Speaker 10: Supporting these contracts, we can continue to serve them and then at the same time figure out how to better do this. That's what I heard. And that's why I why I will be supporting this contract. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Are there any other? I thought I saw some. Oh, councilman connection.
Speaker 6: I don't really want to speak to that. I've served in this position for eight years, and I don't think I've ever been to this point. This is one of the most important conversations we've had in my entire time in service. And I want to thank both the community and my colleagues for bringing this hearing forward. I think to imply that there's only one moral choice here is really, really unfair. To folks who've been convicted of crimes and. So I believe those that voted, you know, to to to shoot down these contracts or indicated that they're going to are voting from a moral position. And I also believe it is moral to say that folks should not be sent back to prison on a whim of of making a message to a multinational corporation that, you know, is a drop in the bucket to them. Both are moral positions. They're not the same, but they are both moral. And I know what kind of emails I get tomorrow if I vote yes on this contract. I know. And I think that that's sad to me, because what it means to vote no on this contract tonight is a gamble. It's a gamble. First and foremost there, folks optimistic that Department of Corrections will send them all to parole. That's a gamble. We have no guarantee we're gambling with people's lives. And it's a gamble that, you know, some folks might get, you know, another placement. That's what we're doing. Perhaps we're gambling that the administration will negotiate a shorter contract. I'm not hearing from most of my colleagues that a shorter contract would matter to them. I'm hearing that this is an all or nothing. So they have very little incentive to go back and negotiate a month to month contract or a six month contract unless they get a message from us that that would matter. So we could choose a path that says, let's not gamble. Let's find some answers and let's ask them to go back for a six month contract or a month to month contract. But that's not what I've heard here tonight. I've heard folks say that they're willing to gamble. And, you know, I don't want to vote for this contract and I don't want to gamble with people's lives. But ultimately, this is about our willingness to continue to dig in and do more work about whether we can find a path that doesn't force that. I feel like it's fine. I mean, I'm offended, frankly, by the clapping to indicate that there's so much happiness with us sending 500 people potentially back to prison. That is not. And I will tell you the other thing we're gambling on. I want to go back to what Councilman Ortega talked about. We're gambling that when and if we as a city get a group living code through that our communities are going to open arms and build these facilities. I got to tell you, I watch Facebook feeds. Raise your hand if you see the feed where someone says, God damn the border and everything Trump is doing to immigrants. And then in the next sentence is in their next post saying, Did you know the city is trying to put another homeless shelter in our neighborhood? It's outrageous. This is the biggest violation of our rights I've ever seen. Tell me if you've seen that post threat from the same people in the same registered neighborhood organization.
Speaker 1: Because I sure have.
Speaker 6: I have seen the same registered neighborhood organization have a conversation about immigrants and how much they love them, and then tell me how they better not build any facilities in their neighborhood. So we're gambling that our communities.
Speaker 1: Hearts are is open.
Speaker 6: To all of these future options. So those are the gambles we face. I don't know that we have the votes to pass this tonight, so I don't know that my vote matters. I you know, if you're doing your counting, it's looking like this is not going to pass. But I will say to clap if that's the outcome disrespects. The potentially 3 to 500 people who may end up in prison because we did not force a plan. First, we could up here force a plan. We could say, you have six months. Give us the plan and tell us D.O.C. how you will house these folks and where you will house them and what you will do. And we could force that. So I don't know whether anyone's interested in finding a path. And I know it's hard because I'm speaking last and folks have now staked out their votes and they've gotten their applause. And I very well could vote no on this contract, too, but I don't want any congratulations. If I do. If I do, I'm gambling one vulnerable group of people for a symbolic fight that won't actually change the plight that I want to change. And I believe me, I want to do that. I really, really do. But I also don't want to accept that that is my only choice. I heard the statement very clearly. Everybody in this room agrees that there could be a plan. The simple disagreement we're having is whether or not it's worth it to take the time to do it, or whether we have to make our statement tonight. And it will feel good to make our statement tonight. But then someone else, frankly not us, will be figuring out the mess. No one in this room makes a decision about who gets parole or not. No one. And if we're okay with that, I will stand by the decision of this body. But we got to be super honest about who we're playing with here. And we do have a choice. We could assert a different position with this administration. I don't think we can make a motion to delay it. A week and a week wouldn't matter. The right people couldn't figure it out in a week. But. We could. We could vote the contract down with a message that a six month contract or some other structure might be possible. Would they accept it? Would they sign it? I have no idea. But we have that option. So I am just throwing that out there before, you know, we take our vote to see whether or not we can really live with the decision that it seems like we're headed for tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Each. See no other comments. I guess that leaves that leaves me as the only one left. I will echo so much of what has been said by my colleagues up here and I will say before I get into the specific issue. The. I'm so proud to serve up here with all of you, no matter what your voting or you've said you're voting tonight to sit in this spot and two way representing 55,000 people on an issue that a lot of people want to make, black and white, but is so many shades of gray. It's a huge weight. And anyone who has ever accused anyone on this body of having pre-decided or banning the things that have been said in this chamber tonight and all over social media doesn't have a clue. And if you can't hear that from these people, then then you are the one who's already made your mind up and is guilty of the things that were accused of the weight of this decision and how everyone up here is weighing it and what their decision is. Does not come down to something that we can clap for or we can shout out and disrespect someone who is the voice of 55,000 people, one significant portion of our population. Everyone up here is struggling. Everyone up here is trying to weigh and that is leading people to different decisions. And that doesn't mean that someone is wrong and someone is right. It means that this is hard work. And I appreciate all of the time and all the passion and all the effort of you being here and you being a part of this conversation. Forcing this conversation. And are some of our new councilmembers, Councilwoman CdeBaca, by bringing this forward. But that doesn't mean that it boils down to who's wrong and who's right. It is tearing all of us apart. If you can't tell that and you can't see that, I'm going to say it. And there are a bunch of people up here who are voting one way who 2 minutes ago were voting the other way. And I don't need to rehash all of the reasons that everyone has said more eloquently than I will about why they're voting the way or how they landed on which side of the fence. But to say that I'm grappling and struggling with the same thing. And so this is really difficult for me. One of the hardest decisions in four years that I've had to sit here as and to see a divided council that all really wants the same thing and doesn't see a clear path to that solution. There isn't a silver bullet. There isn't an answer. We're here it is. We get to have our cake and eat it, too. We don't. And so we're all going to carry with us. We're all going to go home. And we're going to struggle to sleep tonight. We're going to struggle to look at our kids and look at our family members and know the people in our lives were touched on both sides of this. So. I just want I just wanted to voice that because I do. I share. Councilwoman, can you just frustration that this is not something to be cheered for? This is not something to be celebrated because someone in here is getting their way of what they think we should do, which should be celebrated, is the way that we have deliberated, the way that these people up here have weighed this, put their put themselves out there, stood up and talked when I'm not sure any of us wanted to talk about this as we're grappling with it inside when we're on TV and we're going to be in the news. That's what should be celebrated. That's what should be clap for. In the same way that all of you should be thanked for taking the time to be passionate and share your perspective and why you believe we should be doing something that should be celebrated, but not that somebody won because there are a lot of people who lose no matter what we do tonight. All that being said, I will jump right now on the bandwagon of.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 0: It's not in our power. Right? Our power is we have a contract. It's up or down. We don't get to say, hey, can we come negotiate this? Can we do six more months? Can we do a month to month? Can we solve this? Everybody here wants this solved. Everyone here wants to take care of these people. Do a better job taking care of the people. We're in these services while also not spending a dollar, whether it's our money or the state's money on these corporations. There's nobody up here who disagrees with that. We all want. That solution is not here and it's not within our power to amend it. You, the citizens of Denver, have given us a city charter that doesn't allow us to do that. You've given us a yes vote or no vote. So I am in the camp that says maybe somewhere in there there is a pathway that we don't have the power to do, but people have the ability to do to come back to us with a plan. And we could either vote yes and say we are not voting yes. This will be the same body a year from now. We're not voting yes in a year. So you've got a year to figure it out, but we won't let these people fall through the cracks. Or we could say we're going to vote no and come back to us with a plan. I don't know if that's reasonable. I don't know if that's possible. So what do we do? And I think at the end of the day, for me it's extremely difficult. And this is not a black or white issue. This is 49, 51%. And I think for me tonight, I will and I am asking you, no matter what I say, I don't want any applause. As I said before, I don't think it's appropriate. I think tonight I'm a no vote. In hopes that we can get there. And I don't know, maybe I have taken the wrong gamble and now I have to sleep every night knowing that people's lives have been affected in a very real way because of my vote. But that's the situation we're in. And right now, that's where I'm at, 51 to 49.
Speaker 7: I have a procedural question.
Speaker 0: It comes we're going to take a procedural question before we go.
Speaker 7: And I want to ask the city attorney. So it's very clear the votes are not here for this to move forward. And we have a contract to accept the funds from the state. So procedurally, unless you all have plans to turn around and file a new bill for a shorter contract, what happens to the bill for the $18 million that's.
Speaker 13: Already passed.
Speaker 9: Pass?
Speaker 13: It passed all.
Speaker 1: Along.
Speaker 7: Okay. So that would. We'd have to come back and rescind or.
Speaker 3: So from a legal perspective, I think we'll have to figure that up. Now, you've already approved at least one contract that those funds flow to. So we have to accept some of those funds. I don't know. I mean, we're going to have to go back into that conversation.
Speaker 0: That's not something that we can or need to solve tonight. Correct. We do.
Speaker 7: You remember something that we had not already approved it. So we'll just have to focus.
Speaker 0: On the outcome here. We will have to revisit that. Okay, Madam Secretary, and remember, councilmembers, we are voting separately on these two. We are not going to entertain comments. We are just going to vote through on 73/1 and then 74. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 673.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca No.
Speaker 9: Black Flynn.
Speaker 3: Gilmore No.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 4: Hines no.
Speaker 1: Cashman. Sorry. Kenny Ortega.
Speaker 7: A reluctant I.
Speaker 1: Sandoval. Sawyer. No. Torres. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce results.
Speaker 1: So eight days for ice.
Speaker 0: It is for ice. Council Resolution 673 has failed. Councilman Flynn, will you please for council resolution 674 on the floor?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver to be administered by the Department of Safety, Division of Community Corrections in consultation with the Denver Community Corrections Board and Community Education Centers, Inc. for residential and non-residential community corrections services.
Approves a contract with Community Education Centers, Inc. for $3,894,401.16 and for one year for residential and non-residential community corrections services (2019-50108). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-26-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-17-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07292019_19-0730
|
Speaker 0: We got everything all right. And then under pending. We have no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item up on our screen. All right, Councilwoman CdeBaca, what would you like us to do with this resolution?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to postpone consideration of Resolution 732 Monday, August 5th, 2019. And I'd also like to request a courtesy public hearing to be held on this item on August 5th.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Resolution 730 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: I move that resolution 19 dash zero 730 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman CdeBaca, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 1: I move that consideration of Resolution 730 be postponed to Monday, August 5th.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions and or comments by members of Council on this postponement. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Do I? Is this where I get to comment on why? So I'm actually pushing this out because I think that we need time to let the community weigh in on what this appointment means on a nomination committee that really is responsible for overseeing a very important entity in our government.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem, I wanted to kind of give a background on how this particular ordinance came about since I was intimately involved in this appointment. So for those who aren't quite as familiar with the Citizen Oversight Board, I'm going to read from our website on on exactly what it does. And the Citizen Oversight Board consists of nine citizens appointed by the mayor and City Council to assess the effectiveness of the Office of the Independent Monitor, to make policy level recommendations regarding discipline, use of force and other policies, rules, hiring, training, community relations, and the complaint process to address any other issues of concern to the community. The S.O.B., the Monitor, the executive director of Safety, the chief of Police, the sheriff or the fire chief. And to review and make recommendations as to closed internal affairs cases where the findings were not sustained as appropriate. So I know my colleagues and maybe some of you in the audience will remember and maybe Councilwoman, can you can remind me the date as the months fly by. But early this year or late last year, Councilwoman Kennedy each and then Councilman Lopez and myself put forward an ordinance that was then passed by city council to strengthen the role of the independent monitor, as well as strengthened the purview of the Citizen Oversight Board. The main thing we did for the oversight board was to increase the board from seven members to nine. Now, previously, those seven members were all appointed by the mayor. The change to the ordinance make it so now. Four Appointed by council, four appointed by mayor. One is a joint appointment in order to set up a process by which those appointments would be made. We also created the a nomination committee for the Citizen Oversight Board that would have be a three member board, one council appointee, one mayoral appointee, one joint appointment. Should a vacancy in the CLB or on the CLB occur? The first appointee would be a council appointee. The next appointee would be a mayoral appointee. Until we go through eight appointments, the ninth would be a joint appointment should a vacancy occur. The ordinance specifically requires the nominating committee to seek from the Citizen's Oversight Board itself what they need. Do they need a lawyer to fill a particular role, or an accountant or someone with specific safety experience? Then the nominating committee must, by ordinance, put out a public call and compile a list of three candidates to be given to the appointing authority. Should that authority, either the mayor or city council or as a joint appointment, not find any of those three applicants sufficient? They can reject that list and request a new list from the appointing authority. So how how specifically did we get here today? Well, not long after the ordinance was passed, we had a situation where I believe there were three openings. There would be well, I think one actual vacancy on the board, and then the two new members that raised the total board number from 7 to 9. We got word from the CLB that they were very anxious to get their nominating committee formed and operational so they could get up to their desired new strength. Councilwoman Kennedy and Councilman Lopez were other occupied at the time and asked me to lead that search, which I agreed to do. Both the interviews that were held were conducted by me, along with our legislative staff member and a representative from Councilwoman Kennedy, his office, the S.O.B. itself. Through the board President Katrina Banks provided us a list of and I don't have it in front of me. I'm remembering six or eight members, six or eight previous board members that they suggested would be good candidates for the. A position, one of which was Mr. Sherman, who we're considering this evening. We reached out to the individuals on the list. We had two responses one from Mr. Sherman, one from another designee. At the same time, council also put out a call through some council newsletters. We received two responses from the newsletters I interviewed, along with the others that I mentioned before. I interviewed the two previous CLB members and decided against nominating the others who had applied because they had no no experience with the CLB, no additional board experience. And I think while they may make good candidates for the board itself, I felt for the nominating committee that it made sense to have people who were intimately knowledgeable about the functions of the board and would be able to know and know what to be looking for. If I had been dissatisfied with the two candidates who responded from the board, I would have gone back to the CEO by asking for additional suggestions from from the board itself. Let's see here. Yeah. So as I said, I interviewed both board members, recommended Mr. Sherman as the council appointee, recommended the other candidate as to be considered for the joint appointment. So that's how we got here. So with that in mind, Madam Secretary, Madam President, pro tem, I'm finished with my comments.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Kenney.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. I just wanted to underline perhaps a few of the points made by my colleague, Councilman Cashman. First of all, it's improper to call this body an oversight body. The nominating committee has no oversight functions whatsoever. It is simply a screening committee that is its role. Its role is to recruit and screen. It advises neither the mayor's office, the safety agencies, the S.O.B.. It has no advising functions whatsoever. And the ordinance is quite clear on that. So it is not an oversight body as a recruiting body. The key question that members of the S.O.B. had is how is a group of people who have never served on this board or isn't aware of it? How will they know what to tell people? So if someone says, How much time does the board require? Or What are the typical things we might be doing? When might we hear from the community? Is this a controversial position? How will it feel to be in this role? It was really important to this job that someone who had served on it and had experience would be a part of this. And that was a commitment we made to look for folks with that experience. I will just say to a little bit, so so not an oversight body, it's a screening. It also does not select members. Be very clear, as Councilman Cashman described, it provides a slate. We will be the decision maker of the council appointment. The mayor's office will be the decision maker of that appointment, and we will decide correctly. So this body has, frankly, a lot of work and very little power. Might be why we didn't have a lot of applicants for it. But we also, again, we're emphasizing this need for experience. We do have a number of new members elected to council. And so just to talk for a minute about process, the way that we try to find folks for boards and we try to get input is we let folks know when there's vacancies we ask folks to take a look at. And then we also ask folks to take a look at names when they're on consent. That might have been hard for members of this body who are just taking office. So I want to acknowledge, but it is really our ideal process that we have these conversations in a way that's respectful because they're in some ways like a personnel decision. Right. I do respect that individuals may have, you know, their own conscience, that they need to vote about how they feel about individuals. But because we are now being faced with the potential for a postponement and a request for a public hearing, I will just share that. I do not believe that is necessary in this case. I believe that the qualifications were very clear. The two the three concerns I've heard from from those who've emailed me or communicated with me. One, most folks believe this is an appointment to the Citizen Oversight Board. It is not. So I've clarified that. Secondly, folks have asked about conflict of interest. The nominee for this position has no contracts related to safety or safety oversight that pose any conflict with their ability to screen applicants and recommend them. And third, the applicant or the nominee has significant experience not just serving on the COB, but actually coming to the city council and advocating for stronger oversight in a specific area like, for example, body cameras. So for those who've said to me, I'm afraid that appointing this person might not be in our interests because they might be too favorable to the mayor's office. There's simply no evidence of that, because in their role on this job, this nominee actually advocated publicly in our body for stronger oversight that happened in a prior council. So I recognize that folks who may be newly elected might not know some of that history. So I'm sharing it now for the record that there are both qualifications, experience and a proven record of being a strong voice for police accountability. That is what I am looking for as the co-sponsor of the ordinance that created this. I am looking for someone who has experience with police oversight and strong standards and a willingness to look for those who have those same strong standards. I have received no facts that that is in any way that there's any anything to undermine that that sense of independent oversight. For me, that is the key value that we as a council need to represent with this appointment. Is this person going to find people who believe in strong oversight? And if I have evidence of that, it's an appropriate appointment. So I will not be voting in favor of the delay tonight. I hope some of the history might clarify questions that folks have had. And in the future. I also hope that folks will pay close attention both to announcements of openings for boards as well as to the consent agenda so that they can raise these questions, you know, in a way that doesn't put individuals through, you know, a floor discussion, again, realizing that that would have been hard to do it in this particular time period. With that, I thank you, Madam Pro-Tem.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I don't think that this is an issue or a question of qualifications. I think this is a question of access and consolidated power. We know that recently an article came out about the three lobby firms that essentially run this city and CRL happened to be one of them. Roger Sherman is a well known member of S.R.L. and and has recently led the opposition to 300 where we know that there are incredible police violations and we're actually selecting someone to nominate people to oversee that entity. I think that's very problematic and I don't think it's about him making a decision of letting the people that are nominated onto the board. I think that we know people know very limited groups of people. And with the context that Mr. Sherman has.
Speaker 5: I still.
Speaker 1: Am doubtful that he is someone who would be nominating or recruiting and screening the appropriate set of people for this role. I think that what you mentioned earlier about him having prior experience on the Citizen Oversight Board is valuable and that could that information could be transferred to a nominee or a person for this position through an orientation interview. It doesn't have to be him nominating people and recruiting them. And I also think that recycling people who have been in these spaces is another form of consolidating power. We should have somebody who has safety experience or direct connections to community that demanded this role and this board. And I think that to many people up on this stage have received campaign contributions from him to vote tonight in favor for him and not under the illusion that this is an unbiased vote. And so if people are going to vote yes for this appointment tonight, I think that you should make it clear whether or not you've received campaign contributions from Mr. Sherman or S.r.l..
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. I want to go a little bit farther further than councilwoman coinage and suggest that those who oppose this appointment should simply vote no on the on the resolution and rather than postponing it for a week. The sole reason to postpone for a week would be to hold an unprecedented. Courtesy hearing on an individual in all my years. And Councilman Ortega may be able to speak to this. In this room, I have never seen a courtesy hearing called for the sole purpose of bringing people in who would raise issues that have nothing to do with the appointment at hand. It would raise issues, in fact, that are tangential and would would speak to the criticisms of CRL and Roger Sherman's activities. As Councilwoman PANITCH pointed out, his service on the S.O.B. prior to this and his advocacy for strong civilian oversight powers, and the preference that Councilman Cashman spoke of, that the members of the selection committee, the nominating committee, rather, not selection. The nominating committee should be people who have had experience with the system in order to give us the best qualified candidates should should determine how we vote. Tonight, I would oppose the motion to postpone it for the sole purpose of holding a one hour hearing where we have a parade of folks coming up to talk about issues they have with Cyril's other activities. I think that's an abuse and a misuse of the council's time and. And I strongly recommend against it. Thank you, Ms.. Madame President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Two questions of parliamentary procedure. So if we postponed, will this go back to committee? And I apologize. I'm new here. Just one question. Number one, I don't know to whom I should ask that.
Speaker 0: We'll go ahead and have Kirsten Crawford, our city or our council secretary makhija.
Speaker 2: To postpone the consideration of a resolution would just postpone it to council. You would actually need to re refer it to committee in order for it to be sent back to committee.
Speaker 6: Great. So that second question of parliamentary procedure, if we vote against the postponement, will there be opportunity to comment before voting on 0730?
Speaker 0: We were mostly mostly doing comments right now just from the fact of the conversation here. But, Madam Secretary, I'll defer to you.
Speaker 2: Yes. So you would be. Right now we're commenting on the postponement. If the postponement were to fail, then you would have another opportunity to comment on the resolution itself, because then you would vote on the.
Speaker 5: Resolution itself immediately after.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilman Cashman, were you?
Speaker 4: Yes, I think there were a couple of things I had meant to mention before. One is kind of in line with my colleague's comments about contributions. Since I was so intimately involved with this process, I wanted to be very clear. My name was included with a number of my council colleagues as having received contribution from Mr. Sherman. That did not happen. The article has since been corrected by David Sachs there, where there was a check on my one of my financial forms that was mis entered and the the it was $100 payment was actually from a friend of mine with the same last name and a different first name. The other thing is I wanted to just say a little bit more about why I found the nominee suitable for for the post. As we've talked about, you know, he has the experience on the board, but he was vetted by the CLB chair in reference to providing his name as, as a suitable candidate. Speaking with another individual who worked intimately with the candidate in his time on the S.O.B. and presented him as a very aggressive candidate in in search of increased powers for the for the board and as well as for oversight by the Office of the Independent Monitor. So I left those out of my original comments. I apologize for that. And I as well will be voting no on the extension, because I think this chamber tonight provides an opportunity to to express whatever views our colleagues have. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Pro tem. So it's really given power to our lobbyists as term limits. And the fact that, you know, the changing the ever changing players of of people that sit in these seats means that, you know, first term lobbyists know more about how our city works than than, you know, people first coming in here , unless you've been part of the city system and understand how it works. When I ran for city auditor, the applicant ran. Some actually worked for my opponent. And over the years, we've, you know, become friends and have had to work together on many, many different issues. And I have received money from CRL, I've received money from lots of different organizations and individuals because it takes a lot of money to run citywide to get elected. But that doesn't mean that anybody owns me. And, you know, when the fire department was working to put the issue on the ballot, to have the employees from Denver fire live outside of the city, the first time around, when they endorsed me, they gave me the maximum amount they could, and I opposed that. Years later with the fact that our housing situation had started to climb drastically and it was becoming harder and harder for firefighters, police officers, teachers, other people to live in our city because of the cost of housing. I supported putting that on the ballot and the voters passed that. So I think the fact that we have lobbyists that play a very strong role in many of the issues that come before this body doesn't doesn't mean because they've given us money that any of them on us control our votes. I certainly look at issues on a case by case basis, and that's how I make my decision. It's based on the merits of every issue that comes before us, not who put it forward. You know, who wants me to vote, which way I will vote on the merits of the issue. And on tonight's issue, this is very clearly one where the individual will take names, many of which actually come from us doing outreach to our community. And that's what happened with this particular application. There was, you know, quite a bit of outreach to community and not a lot of names that had come forward in. Councilman Cashman, you could probably speak to this in terms of the length of time that that was the lag between how many notices kind of went out in that outreach to community. And typically, you know, through our newsletters, they go pretty far and wide, but not everybody wants to serve on an unpaid board because that's what this is. And this is hard work and it's very important work that needs to happen in vetting people who will serve on the Citizen Oversight Board, which, by the way, is one of our more diverse boards in the city that reflects age as well as the ethnic diversity of our city. And I, for one, will continue to make sure that that board is reflective of the population of our city. And I will be voting for this to move forward because I think it's important that we have a seated body that can help us vet those names that are then referred to us and to the mayor, where we make the final decision based on the names that are submitted to us. It doesn't mean that they're handpicking anybody to be on that on that citizen oversight board. They're simply vetting names to refer to us. And then we make that final decision. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca back up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I want to respond to my colleague, Councilman Flynn's comment about setting an unnecessary precedent. I think with our recent elections, we set a precedent that really was saying to this city that we want more checks and balances and accountability. And so I don't think it's unnecessary or inappropriate to ask that community be more extensively involved in these processes, especially because this is our opportunity to represent our constituents. We're not here to vote how we want to vote because we feel like we're here to represent our constituents. And that parade of folks that you mentioned are our constituents. And they should have the opportunity to raise any concern about any nomination to any committee or any appointment. And that's what I believe we're here to do. And any college recruiter across the country will tell you that who's.
Speaker 0: Recruiting is.
Speaker 1: Important. And we should take note of best practices when it comes to recruiting. If we really want people who represent a diversity of experience, experience in these spaces. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Seen no one else in the queue? Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement, please.
Speaker 1: CdeBaca I. Black no.
Speaker 2: Flynn. No. Herndon.
Speaker 6: No. Hinds no.
Speaker 1: Cashmere.
Speaker 2: Carnage, no. Ortega No.
Speaker 1: Sandoval No.
Speaker 2: Sawyer Yes. Torres No. Madam President? No. Oh, sorry. My mind was showing up drunk. Who's been. Get that. I'm sorry. No problem. I hit the road. But you have ten days to ice.
Speaker 0: Ten days? The postponement of Resolution 730 has failed comments by members of Council on Resolution 730. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem I. I want to, I guess, first disclose that I did accept $2,000 from Roger Sherman. It was after the runoff. So I he also donated $1,000 to the incumbent and $1,000 to another candidate who maxed out to just about everyone in my race. I want to thank you, Mr. Sherman, for all you do for Denver. As people who followed my campaign know I was a citizen lobbyist of the capital before getting elected to Denver's perfect tent. It was my role to educate legislators on the merits of my bill and explain why it makes sense to move that bill forward. I participated in the political process. Like all of you who are here tonight and all of you who write or phone our council office or attend our meetings. And now that is now that I'm an elected official, it's my role to make decisions on what I believe is best for Denver and Denver's perfect tent. It doesn't mean that I'm supposed to know everything. And instead, part of that role is to get as educated as I can on each issue that comes before a council and people like Mr. Sherman help me to in that education. I firmly believe in that principle. I also firmly believe that it's my responsibility to have a healthy understanding of the role of an influencer like a lobbyist, just as I should have a healthy respect for the lobbying. I should also have a healthy respect for second sourcing, anything that that the lobby presents, just to make sure that I have a balanced viewpoint. Some feel that some people feel that city council doesn't provide an independent review separate from the executive branch. As one District ten resident reported on April 11th and as already referred to earlier the same article, it is sometimes difficult to know where the city ends and the lobbyists began. So thank you, Colorado Public Radio, for that comment. By the way, if we move this bill forward, I believe we're hurting our perceived impartiality with Denver residents and we injure the perceived impartiality of an oversight board designated designed to be independent. Crow is the lobbyist, the largest lobbying firm in Denver, and Mr. Sherman is the managing partner of zero. We have 700,000 residents in Denver and another 300,000 people who come to Denver each business day. I think this is an opportunity to find someone who's less connected with municipal politics. I believe this is an opportunity to demonstrate that there should be a distinction between where lobbying ends and where the city begins. So in closing, I'll say this together. Denver, we can do better. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to disclose that even though I voted this down, I did not accept or receive any money from Roger Sherman or Sierra. But I also am new in this role, and I want to respect my colleagues who worked really hard to get a new oversight board. And I acknowledge your work. And a lot of times when you are new on the council and you're new into government, you have to look at those who came before you. And I know I stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. And so in that, I was vacillating back and forth as I was sitting here. And I do respect my colleague from Councilman. Can you and Councilman Cashman and Councilman Lopez, because at that time I was working for the Denver Fire Department when this ordinance was coming through. And part of the ordinance was going to impact actually some of the fire department in the work in that arson division. So I was well versed on that because the arson division, they carry guns. And so I just want to thank my two colleagues and thank everyone on this day for having a very robust decision, a discourse like this. And I think it actually does bring awareness to what's going on in city council. And also, I also do know and acknowledge that it is very hard to get people to want to sit on boards. It's time consuming. It's a lot of responsibility. And I saw these notifications personally go out three different times. And for that to go out citywide and only have to nominate, people want to come and join that board. I think we have to respect that process. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Torres.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. In the spirit of full disclosure, I did also receive campaign contributions from Mr. Sherman. I have only known him less than a year, and it was directly related to campaign discussions about the future of my district. My background is includes direct worked with boards and commissions in the city and including the predecessor of the Office of the Independent Monitor's Citizen Over Oversight Board. I was first hired on just to staff the Public Safety Review Commission 18 years ago. It is incredibly important and difficult to find volunteers who are diverse, who effectively represent communities, who are committed to the demands of the boards and commissions they sit on for anywhere from two to upwards of 5 to 7 years, depending on the Border Commission. I recognize the work that my colleagues have done to create a screening committee and to find the people to fill that committee that know and have experienced the work. Recruitment is also our responsibility as council members and direct.
Speaker 0: Responsive and direct.
Speaker 5: Connection to our residents to find people to sit on the sea lobby and every other board and commission. 130 across the city. It's important for our residents. It is important for their leadership and it's important for their voice throughout the city. So when these recruitment announcements come available, it's important for all of us to get that word out and find people who are committed to that service and for them to apply and to serve. I'm also dismayed that only two people responded to this one. This is a really challenging one to fill because you're looking for very specific information, and I honor and respect the work of my colleagues in the past few months to do that and will also be supporting this this resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilman Sawyer.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. So, in the interest of all honesty, I actually did not accept a contribution from Mr. Sherman, but accidentally reported that I did so by apologies, Mr. Sherman, for that. And it was nothing personal. I just made a commitment to my constituents that I wouldn't take contributions from big developers during the campaign. And so it was, you know, nothing personal at all. Just your connections to big development was sort of a gray area. And I think that you would probably do a fantastic job in this role. If it were up to me personally, I would absolutely support you in this. But I believe that my constituents put me here on the dais because they are ready for change. And so I am going to vote against you for this because I think that that is what my constituents want me to do. But I want to thank you for your engagement in our community and for all of your hard work. And I would like to ask you to continue that in some other capacities, because I think you're doing a great job. And I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful comments today. I know that it's a difficult conversation to have. The city is in a in a tough place right now where we are having some some very big discussions about some very deep divides in our community. And it's hard to stand up here and stand up for what you believe in when it's something that maybe most of your colleagues don't agree with you on. So, you know, I just want to thank all of you for your your fortitude and your thoughtfulness and all of your your, you know, votes, however, and sticking with whatever you you believe in. So thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. I just wanted to add that within the last week of posting about this, I've had multiple people inquire about how and when this position was made public. And I'm sure that if it were at all possible, we could get other people to respond to the call to serve. I do know several people who would gladly serve as volunteers. And so if that's the issue, I think you have a new council and new opportunities to engage people who have not been engaged before, who deeply want to serve our city. So please consider that as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines, your backup.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to also talk about Councilwoman Sawyer's comment about constituents. We we received a lot of communication about this particular nomination, and we vetted each person to see if they were in District ten or not. 100% of the correspondents that reached out to us in District ten wanted me to say no. So, again, citizen lobbying, this is what this is where you also get to to participate in the political process. Mr. Sherman lives in ten, and I didn't I was so awkward. I didn't know if I should reach out proactively. But then we looked at the that the the people who weren't in town and who provided comments to the district in office, 100% of them also asked me to vote no. So no one has has reached out and lobbied in favor of 19 0730. So I just want to point that out as well. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Seen no other speakers, Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 730, please.
Speaker 1: Black.
Speaker 2: I see tobacco. No.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Her name. I.
Speaker 6: Hinds name.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sawyer. Nay. Torres. Hi. Nine eyes, three knees.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes, three knees, nine eyes. Resolution 730 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on this next. Next one.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. My question is regarding the use of the almost $2 million to provide eligibility determination for our TDS live program. I just want to know a little bit more about how this $2 million is going to be spent.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Roger Sherman to the Citizen Oversight Board Nomination Committee.
A resolution approving the City Council appointment of Roger Sherman to the Citizen Oversight Board Nomination Committee. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-17-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07292019_19-0682
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. My question is regarding the use of the almost $2 million to provide eligibility determination for our TDS live program. I just want to know a little bit more about how this $2 million is going to be spent. It seems like a pretty large amount to get people enrolled when your existing case managers might be able to be trained on how to do that. So is anybody here to perhaps explain? Thank you.
Speaker 0: If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself.
Speaker 1: It's not. Good evening, everyone. My name is Lorraine Archuleta. I'm the division director for Human Services, the Family and Adult Assistance Division. And the eligibility services fall under my purview. And so your question is a very good one. So we have approximately 244 eligibility technicians in our division. This program is new and it falls under seven jurisdictions within the metro region area. So it's not just determining eligibility for Denver Human Services in the Denver metro region. It's 46 other jurisdictions as well. So the $2 million is not just for this year, it's for five years. So it's a five year term for the contract. And so it's determining eligibility not just for the live program itself, but controlling for all of the other benefits that our clients may be eligible for. So I'm not sure if this statement of work was included in the figure and in the information that you guys received. But that's also included. We plan on determining other benefits, including in the live lab program. Does that help? So does that mean hiring new people? Does that mean some trainings? What does that look like? Julie So what is happening now is what we did is we took four experienced workers and we train them in this program because they are having to train in the peak pro system. That's the system that these applications are going through. So we have the peak online system. That's the state's eligibility system. This is a little bit of a different path that these applications go through on the back end. And so these technicians have to go through this system to retrieve the applications. So they had to be trained on that in all of the procedures for these for the program. So then we had to backfill the positions with new staff. Now, why the the current technicians cannot do this is they have to they are committed to other programs and other services. And so, as I stated, we have 244 eligibility technicians within our division. Our caseloads are approximately 120. We serve one in three in Denver Human Services. I'm sure you've heard that statistic before. And so we serve approximately 121,000 Medicaid recipients, approximately 44,000 SNAP recipients. And so, as such, you know, we have our technicians serving all of the other citizens that are receiving the other benefits. So we want to make sure that this new program was being launched and we did not disrupt the other services of our other citizens of Denver Human Services. And do you see this 2 million being renewed every five years, or do you see it as just a seed funding to get it off the ground? Well, it's not city funding or our TDs paying for that service. So as such, we're going to be meeting with RTD in 90 days to see the data and reevaluate. And then we'll be doing that every 90 days. Every 90 days will be doing that to ensure that all of that data. Yeah. I'm sorry. So I was saying seed funding, like to Sudan or. Yeah. I apologize. So, again, I will be meeting with RTD every 90 days to look at the data and look at the staffing to see are we on target? Did we overestimated? We underestimate. So I think as such, we're going to be ensuring that our. A did we again overestimate the funding? An underestimate because we don't know. We're unsure as to what the estimates are. Again, we're looking at seven jurisdictions, Denver, Jefferson, parts of Weld, Adams County, Arapahoe County, Boulder County. So we're looking at all these jurisdictions. We don't know how many people between the ages of 20 and 64 within these jurisdictions that meet these qualifications, that fall between the 185 FPL federal poverty level. Awesome. Thank you. I ask the questions just because I don't know if it's going to get we're going to get it again in five years. And then will our techs need more funding? So thank you. No, you're very welcome. Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Loraine. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Or you all get on the questions. All right, great. Madame Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilman Flynn, what would you like us to do with 0581?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver, through its Denver Human Services Department, and the Regional Transportation District, to provide eligibility determination and enrollment into RTD’s LiVE Program.
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for $1,835,299 and for five years for RTD to fund up to four Denver Human Services Eligibility Technician II’s, who will provide eligibility determination and enrollment into RTD’s LiVE Program, a fare discount program for low-income individuals, citywide (SOCSV-201950941). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-12-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-9-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07292019_19-0581
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Loraine. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Or you all get on the questions. All right, great. Madame Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilman Flynn, what would you like us to do with 0581?
Speaker 3: Madam President, I'd like to have a separate vote on this so that I can vote no.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 581 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I move that resolution ordinance 581 be adopted.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 0: Please don't. Placed on.
Speaker 1: My.
Speaker 2: Consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Awesome. Very good. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. That that mumbo jumbo, I think, actually is has meaning to it. It has to be verbatim. Yes, Madam President, I comment on this last commented on this last week, because it does away with the requirement that members of the Municipal Public Defender Commission be people who actually live in Denver and our county court district. And in the meantime, I asked our staff after the meeting last week to go through all the boards and commissions and try to find out how many of them require Denver residency, do not require Denver residency, and are silent on it. And I really want to thank the fantastic works. I didn't think we could get it done by Emily lapel on our our legislative staff who put together at least 79 of the 3,482,000 boards and commissions we have but 79 of them and found that of those 37 require Denver residency. 20 specifically do not. And the remainder are silent on. And so one would assume that you could or could not be a resident of Denver in a time when at least my first term I worked a lot with for the southwest side and with former Councilman Lopez on the West Side to try to increase the representation from folks west of the Platte River on boards and commissions. But I often found it frustrating when we appoint people to advisory, even just simple advisory boards who live in Golden or in Littleton or in Brighton or in Aurora. When we have, we are the largest county and city in the state of Colorado. About 716,000, I think, was the last estimate from the ax, from the census. And I believe that it is possible to find qualified candidates, particularly for boards such as this one, that deal with our county court system to find those applicants and those nominees from within the city and county of Denver. So for that purpose and that purpose alone, Madam President, no reflection on the presiding judge on the court who who supports this. I just wanted to vote no on it. I'm not asking that it be voted down unless other people feel the same as I do. But I just wanted to register my continuing support that we dig deeper in our communities to find folks from underrepresented neighborhoods such as those west of the Platte and elsewhere in the city to serve on our boards. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Pro tem like Vacca. What Councilman Flynn said, as well as kind of. Piggyback off a lot of what's been said by Councilwoman CdeBaca and some others this evening. While I understand the reason for this ordinance, and I understand that we're having trouble filling boards and commissions, but this may just be a signal that we need up our game all across the board on reaching out. And I think that's the tact that we should be taking. I wouldn't want this to lead to a string of these changing to looking for representation from outside of Denver. So I'm going to join my colleague in voting no on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I agree completely on broader outreach, and I hope that our news outlets who are following so closely tonight will be willing to put all of our openings in their and their blogs and newspapers so that we can get the word out to people who don't subscribe to our thrilling newsletters. That said, one of the things a number of our boards and commissions have on them is a need for particular expertize. And I will say that there are times where I want for my residents a person with outstanding, maybe harm reduction expertize who happens to live outside the borders or some other specialized expertize in child development or things like that. And so I don't want to sacrifice the good expertize for residency. And this board, I believe, has some of those very particular qualifications for some of the seats where you have to have a very specialized knowledge, you have to work in a particular role. And so where those types of positions are at play, I am much more willing to look at nonresidents than I am for just a community voice. Community voice, as I believe should be our residents and where we can find experts who are our residents as well. But I don't want to lose the best substance abuse expert or child development expert or whatever it may be. And so for that reason, I will be voting for the bill tonight with the absolute doubling down on the recruitment side so that we don't need to go to nine. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to second our echo councilman ten inches fights. And I know that there are people who call this city the mile high income city. Whether you agree with that or not, I think that we all agree that we have a challenge making sure that people can afford to live in the city of Denver. And we want to make sure that we have the best people with the right thought process and the best qualifications for our for our boards. And so I look forward to having a robust set of people who can apply for this, who meet the particular criteria. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. See no other speakers. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 2: Flynn? No black. I see the Barca. No Herndon. I find.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 2: Kenny Ortega. No. Sandoval. Sawyer. Nay. Torres. Nay. Madam President, I. Seven knees. Five eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. Seven nis council Bill 581 has failed. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 14-131 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to delete the residency requirement for the Municipal Public Defender Commission.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07222019_19-0581
|
Speaker 0: called out. Did I miss anything? All right, Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Councilman Flynn, please go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to know that I'm going to vote I to pass this forward to final reading, to publish it. But I do want to determine and I've asked staff to help with this as to how many of our boards and commissions still have a requirement to be a Denver resident to serve. Here we are opening up one of our commissions to service by people who do not live in Denver. And I don't know how other council members have approached this, but I know in southwest Denver and on the West Side in general, we have been seeking to have more of our own residents serve on these boards and commissions . So I want to understand a little bit better before final next week what kind of efforts we've taken in that regard. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilwoman, can each go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Bill, 6 to 8 looks innocuous enough. It's a little change to the building and fire code of the city and county in Denver. But sometimes embedded in mundane city regulations are either barriers to those who are fighting for an equal opportunity to live and thrive in our community and opportunities.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 14-131 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to delete the residency requirement for the Municipal Public Defender Commission.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07222019_19-0628
|
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Bill, 6 to 8 looks innocuous enough. It's a little change to the building and fire code of the city and county in Denver. But sometimes embedded in mundane city regulations are either barriers to those who are fighting for an equal opportunity to live and thrive in our community and opportunities. And so this is one of those changes which has been needed for some time to help pave the way for more tiny home villages. I want to first commend our building officials, Scott Prisco and his team, and all the folks who found ways to do variances repeatedly to be able to build the first tiny home village and then to move it to a new fight site. But we don't want there to have to be special exceptions each time. And so this building code amendment is a first step to making sure that relocated buildings can be built without foundations where they meet certain zoning requirements that will go through in a parallel ordinance that is going to be hopefully before this council at the end of the summer and into the fall. But it will also just enshrine some other minor changes to the bathroom codes and other things that will hopefully lower the barriers for tiny home villages. So I'm not calling this out for a vote, but I just want to call it out to thank the staff who is really my partner in finding a path to get this before the council much quicker than it would have if it waited for the rest of the building code amendments in the fall and to the beloved village and the folks with their team, both architects and construction folks who've really helped the city understand the kinds of flexibility needed to make temporary uses like this a little easier to get through the city system. So with that, I'm excited that this is on consent and it's the final reading. So after this, they will be able to take advantage of it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Kenny. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Our bills for introduction are ordered published and we're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver.
Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to add amendment package 6 to the Denver Building Code and Denver Fire Code Amendments, to implement a new occupancy group, the R-X Occupancy Group, that generally provides for residential occupancy in sleeping units with an associated detached community building. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-2-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07222019_19-0449
|
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. Calls me Cashman. Will you please be accountable for four, four, four, nine on the floor?
Speaker 5: And first, God bless you, Mr. President. Yes, I'd be glad to. I move the council bill 19 0449 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bill 449 is open. May we have the staff report and you are not? Teresa Lucero I also have it on fairly good authority that today is your birthday, my goodness. And you are hanging out late with us on your birthday.
Speaker 4: Indeed, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Well, happy birthday and thank you. Thank you for your hard work.
Speaker 4: Yeah, my name is Kyle Dalton. I'm with the Department of Community Planning Development, and I am substituting for my colleague who was out sick tonight with a public hearing for 2701 Lawrence Street. This application is located in Council District nine in the five point statistical neighborhood, and it is requesting to rezone from the general urban multi-unit, residential zoned district of up to three stories to the U.S. Max two zone district, which is an urban context district that allows a mix of residential and commercial uses, but only up to two stories. The Zone District is intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods while allowing transitional commercial development that allows townhouse, general and shopfront building forms up to a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet. I'll go through some slides that describe the existing context. I'll explain the process, and then I'll go through the five review criteria for a rezoning application. So this site is located at a transition point between primarily mixed use zoning to the north and the West, illustrated in the pink color and multi-unit residential zoning to the south and the east and the orange color. So it's currently zoned Gma3, which as I mentioned, is a multi-unit residential district which generally does not allow commercial. The existing the existing building on the site is a one story commercial building that was built before the zoning was put in place . It's allowed to continue as a commercial building, but it cannot expand and there are limitations on the reuse of the structure for other commercial uses. So they're seeking to rezone in order to expand the one story commercial building to a two story commercial building, which they cannot do under the current zoning, which they could do if council approves their rezoning. Tonight, in terms of the land uses of the surrounding area, that red color on the site indicates that it is an office building today. You see near the north and west, generally red and purple colors that are office commercial industrial again to the east. In the south are the orange colors indicating residential. The deeper yellow color, deeper orange is multi-unit residential. So again, this is right on the edge between a residential area and a mixed use commercial area. Here's some pictures of the existing context around the site. The top is the subject site that one story commercial building around it. You see a mix of residential and commercial structures in the surrounding area ranging in height from 1 to 2 stories and occasionally three stories. In terms of the process. This application was first filed last August for a different zone district for a more intensive mixed use three storey zone district. They revise their application and submitted a new application to us in January of this year for the zone district that you have before you tonight, the UMass two story zone district. After review, a notice was published of the Planning Board Public Hearing and the planning board heard it had a public hearing which they unanimously recommended to approve the application. The Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee move this forward on May 14th and the public hearing tonight has been properly noticed in accordance with the code. In terms of the public feedback we received on this application, there's one letter support from a registered neighborhood organization, Curtis Park Neighbors, Inc., who have included an executed good neighbor agreement that they have reached together with the applicant. And there are four other comment letters received for the original request for up to three stories mixed use, all in support of the proposal. So there are five review criteria that staff have to review, planning board after review and making their recommendation and that City Council ultimately reviews in making the final decision. I'll walk through them briefly one at a time. There's much more detail in your staff report that Theresa submitted to you. So first, is that a rezoning application must be consistent with adopted plans. There are three plans that city councils adopted that apply to the Site Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver 2019 and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan , which was adopted in 2011. I'll briefly walk through each of them. The comprehensive plan 2040 adopted earlier this year has a number of goals and strategies that we found advanced and were consistent with this application, including promoting infill development at a center city location where infrastructures and services are already in place and promoting small, locally owned businesses that reflect the unique character of Denver. So we found that it was consistent with comp plan 2014. Turning to Blueprint Denver 2019. Again, there are a number of stated goals in Blueprint Denver that we found that this application was consistent with, including supporting a welcoming business environment and enhancing the overall character and sense of place of neighborhoods . But Blueprint Denver also includes a lot of mapping that I'll go through as it relates to this application. First Blueprint Denver mapped the city in terms of neighborhood contexts and this map and blueprint. Denver identifies this site and that light orange strip as being in the general urban context, which is a transition between the urban center context to the north and west and the urban neighborhood context to the south and east. Generally speaking, to a blueprint, Denver describes the general urban context as being primarily multi-unit residential, along with one and two, yet residential and commercial embedded in the context. And there are regular grid block patterns of streets. The urban neighborhood context that the applicants have requested is rather similar in that a regular grid block pattern is present of streets. A generally has more smaller multi-unit, residential and commercial embedded within one and two unit residential. They are asking for a UMTS two zone district, which is consistent with this context description, but it's also consistent, generally speaking, with the mapping of this area. Given that blueprint, Denver does indicate that context are mapped broad scale at a citywide scale and not block by block, and that some limited flexibility can be used in interpreting whether to approve a rezoning, an application based on the application that the applicant submitted and the feedback that we received from the neighborhood and the neighborhood organization that this was an appropriate zoned district for the site. We found it consistent with the blueprints general direction in this area blueprint Denver also identifies future places in this site is is at the edge of a high medium residential future place which is described as something having a mix of low to medium scale multi-unit residential areas with embedded mixed use distributed throughout the place. Heights are generally up to eight stories in the general urban context, or up to five stories in the urban context. Again, with the request for a two storey zone district. This is within the maximums that are proposed by Blueprint Denver. A Laurence Street is a residential collector street, which is primarily residential with other uses, and it generally is a higher traffic street than a local street. It collects movement from local streets and conveys them to arterial streets. The Cross Street 27th is a local street, which is designed for high property access and not high movement of vehicles. And then Bluebird Denver identifies different growth areas within the city. It channels most growth to regional centers, community centers and corridors and some other districts. But it also acknowledges that other areas of the city which this is mapped, as are expected to see some growth, more limited growth and blueprint. Denver sets a target of around 20% of new housing growth or 10% of new employment growth by 2040. In areas such as this one. So on balance, looking at all of the plan criteria, we did find that the application was consistent with Blueprint Denver. Finally turning to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan adopted in 2011. It provides guidance both about land use and height. The land use concept here is urban residential, which is a higher density residential, primarily with some complimentary commercial called for in the plan, a mixture of various housing types. It's located in areas that transition from residential neighborhoods to more intense, mixed use neighborhoods as this one is. And in the height map, it's recommended for up to three stories in height. So again, with a few emacs toos on this story zone district proposed here, we found that it was consistent with these plan recommendations. There also are additional plan goals and objectives identified in the plan that highlight the goals of, of and of retaining existing buildings, whether they're historic or not, and that generally promote the kinds of built form character that the mix to zone district would enable. The plan also specifically calls for re-using existing commercial buildings for commercial purposes and accommodating them on a case by case basis in consultation with the neighborhood. And again, as I mentioned earlier, this applicant did consult with the neighborhood, reached agreement in terms of both a letter and a good neighborhood agreement for the use of this existing commercial building. So we found it consistent with the specific goals of this neighborhood plan. So that concludes our analysis of the first criterion. The second is that district regulations must be uniform because their rezoning to a standard zone district that applies the same standards as in any other home to zone district in the in the city, there would we would be applying the zone district regulations uniformly. Rezoning must also further the public health, safety and welfare. And we found that this application would, by allowing a moderate level of reinvestment in this site, consistent with the area character and consistent with the adopted plan direction of the city. The fourth is that there must be a justifying circumstance, some change that justifies the request to rezone the property. In this case, there are at least two that this site meets. Since the date of the approval of the existing zone district in 2010, there have been changed and changing conditions in the surrounding area, including some nearby residential development and commercial development that generally would support an increase of a second story into this office building and also the neighborhood plan adopted in 2011, pointing in the direction of of different zoning possibilities in this area are appropriate change conditions to justify rezoning the property. Finally, the rezoning has to be consistent with the neighborhood context and the intent and purpose of the zoned district as articulated in the zoning code. Again, there's more detail in your staff report, but as I indicated earlier, we did find that the site was an appropriate site for an urban neighborhood context, for mixed use, for up to two stories. And so we found it consistent with this criterion and having reviewed it against all five criteria and found that it met all the process requirements of the code, we recommend approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you signed up to speak on this one, please come up to the front bench and I'll call you up. First up is Justin Fries.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Justin Frieze, studio architecture representing the client. So just a little background on this building. It is kind of a collection of some bungalow houses and commercial building. That was the City Laundry established back in the late 1800s. It's been a commercial laundromat in some form up until I think about the seventies. The reason for the rezoning request is that the current zone district would not allow any commercial development or expansion as a coworking space as they try to expand or change walls on the inside of the building. It requires a special use for a variance permit. Any time a construction permit is filed. For that reason, we submitted originally a you are agmx3 zoning that still only allowed for about 50% mixed use. So then we went back to the neighborhood with a um x three and two planning and discussed that one. The U three district was pretty broad and there's one building in the district that's the Greyhound bus depot building that allows that use. So in back and forth with the neighborhood, the, um, x two, which they've utilized throughout the neighborhood on a couple of a couple of smaller projects, seemed to be the best fit. There was still some uses within that district that the neighborhood was a little bit hesitant on. One was drive thrus, another one was something more of a autobody garage type of use. So the Good Neighbor agreement that was signed between Curtis Park neighborhood and the owner of the building Limited those uses as as as the planner mentioned . The neighborhood plan mentions dealing with these embedded commercial structures on a case by case basis, which we think we've kind of step through the process, noting that along the way. And I believe that's all I have for you. I'm here to answer questions and so is the owner. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 9: Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm represented for Denver Homicide. Low Black Star Action Movie for self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I was an at large candidate for the May 2019 election. I was on top of the ballot, almost got 15,000 votes with no money. I was needed for against this one. Very familiar with this building, the laundry, you know, as an east side native, you get familiar with these things when you've been in the neighborhood for 20 plus years. My questions were what is going to be the AMI level for the housing that was proposed for this this rezoning and exactly what businesses are going to be here? Because right now, this is a hub for a lot of nonprofits that do a lot of awesome work in the community. And I would hate to see that be lost. So so, Michael, please answer my question, as I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeff Baker. Sir Geoff Baker. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Kyle, could you.
Speaker 7: If you know the answer, why was why was this not given an appropriate Southern district to have the use in 2010 to have the use be conforming in the first place?
Speaker 4: Sure. So in 2010, when city council rezone about 75% of the city, the criteria that they established for that process through their zoning code task force were threefold. One was existing conditions. So if they were zoning only to existing conditions, they might match the commercial use that was there. But the other two were adopted plans and then existing entitlement. And so the existing entitlement here was R3, a multi-unit residential district that's very similar to the zone district that they have now. And then they adopted plans. Urban, residential, we're generally speaking about a mix of either multi-unit, residential or commercial. So on balance, at the time, the council decided to lean more towards the previous entitlement than the current use of.
Speaker 7: The current year. So what we're doing or what the request is, is to apply a district designation that acknowledges the current use.
Speaker 4: Right. And the other way.
Speaker 7: That's always present.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 449 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 2: This is a great space.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: This is a great space that has.
Speaker 6: Housed many community organizations, as Jesse mentioned, honors that honor the history.
Speaker 1: And legacy.
Speaker 6: Of this building and continue to use it in a way that open space to community. I fully support this reason and would love to see.
Speaker 1: More people who are doing reasons that.
Speaker 6: Actually respect the communities that they're in and reason in this manner.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. See no other comments. I'll just add. Thank you very much for being here and pinch hitting on your birthday. Appreciate it. Thank you to the staff for the great staff report. I think that this clearly meets the criteria and I'll be voting yes this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca I Black.
Speaker 3: Flynn I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon, i.
Speaker 4: Hanes I.
Speaker 2: Cashmere. I can eat. Ortega. Sandoval.
Speaker 1: I saw you. I. Torres. Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting and Notes Results.
Speaker 2: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 I accountable for for nine has passed. On Monday, August 19th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 576 changing the zoning classification of 4600 South Kipling Street and a required public hearing on Constable 577 changing the zoning classification for 1634 1640, 1642, 1650 and 1680 Sheridan Boulevard.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2701 Lawrence Street in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from G-MU-3 to U-MX-2 (general urban multi-unit to urban, mixed-use), located at 2701 Lawrence Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-14-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07152019_19-0586
|
Speaker 0: Nothing has been called out under Bill's on final consideration, though, items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. And I miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first items up on our screens. Councilman Hines, you've called out Resolution 586. What would you like us to do with this resolution?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call out 586 for a separate vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Black, would you please put Resolution 586 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: I move that Resolution 586 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to I want to thank the airport. So we just as you may know, we just got inaugurated today and and then we had photos and then we had lunch and then we had more photos. And I want to thank the airport for all the work that you have done to educate us on this issue that we have to vote on right now. And and it's kind of a difficult, difficult position for the for the new folks to immediately be here and and and and guide policy. But I believe that the reason we're here tonight is because the voters asked us to lead. And and so we're we were elected to serve four years. So here we are. I think all my questions have already been answered in the back and in the back and forth of through email and in person communication. So I'm happy to make a statement. Or should I make. Should I wait until other people have questions that they may want to ask the airport?
Speaker 0: We're doing questions and comments, so you're free to do other. Let me do a quick check in. Councilman Flynn and Councilman Cashman. Do you have comments or questions? A question, if you don't mind, Councilman Hines, I'll go to Cashman first since he has some questions.
Speaker 5: Don't mind.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And I do have a couple of questions, some of which we went over last week, but I think they're pertinent for our new members. So one thing new that came before me this week is concerns expressed that there are a lot of employees at the airport that are kind of hamstrung by no or very little help with transportation to the airport. They end up having to park and lodge far from from their job site and are looking for more help. Is the airport doing anything along those lines?
Speaker 1: Sure. So at the airport, in addition to the city employees at the airport, there are 44 employers that offer Igo passes to their employees. That being said, that's the cost of an eco pass is a large burden for either an employer or that individual to bear coming out to the airport. So we as a team have been working in partnership with Dr. COG on implementing their way to go program more comprehensively out at the airport. What their way to go program does is they have a partnership with Enterprise Rent, a car that provides large 15 person vans, pays for the insurance, pays for the gas. And all you have to do is have one dedicated driver that commits to driving the car for the team. And that program is about $20 a month that could either be paid by the employee themselves or subsidized by the employer. And we think doing an analysis, we've run the zip codes of every employee working at the airport. And we think that's one step that will help a lot of folks that are either not located near transit or have, you know, economic barriers to using for, for example, the airline. So that's that's one example of what we're working on. We're also working with RTD to see what we can do to reduce some of those costs for specifically employees who are trying to get out to the airport each day.
Speaker 6: Do you have any clue, Rachel, as to how many employees are taking advantage of these programs or on their own or taking mass transit as opposed to how many are driving their own vehicles?
Speaker 1: I don't have the exact data in terms of employees that are using these programs. There's sort of a mix. I have data on how many people are coming through, either on the airline or RTD or some of these Vanderpool programs. But we don't differentiate. I don't or I don't have the data on which are employees and which are travelers. That being said, one of the things we're working on, we've partnered with RTG and Dr. COG, and they're coming both to the all city employee picnic and the all airport employee picnic with a brief survey to try and understand those demographics a little better so that we can target transportation solutions specific by the type of work you're doing out at the airport, what shifts you may have when you're arriving, when you're leaving, and what mode of transportation you're using now, and why you might not be choosing some of the multi-modal alternatives that we offer.
Speaker 6: Okay. One more question, Mr. President. Last week, and we had a rather lengthy discussion on this bill. And one of the things that was talked about was the airport had made a commitment to start a structured conversation with the Denver Park Streets Partnership over one of our larger advocacy groups pushing for multimodal solutions and reduction of single person auto traffic. Has anything happened yet in that regard?
Speaker 1: Yes. So in addition to sending some follow up information to those folks, we were able to collect a little bit more data than we had at the ready Monday evening. So we sent along that information and we have scheduled an initial meeting with them for the first week of August with ten representatives, leadership and the Streets Partnership Organization.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That's for Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Oh, I see. Councilman Ortega, do you have questions or comments?
Speaker 4: It's a request.
Speaker 0: A request.
Speaker 4: Just.
Speaker 0: To do that before we get into comments here. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: So we also have the Northeast Denver Transportation Connection entity that works in Montello, the G.S. neighborhood. So those neighborhoods along that I-70 corridor. And I would just encourage that when you have that meeting that they be included as well, because they are the team for that corridor, that that quadrant of the city, so that we're making sure that we've got inclusiveness as part of the conversation, because they work very closely with these grassroots low income communities.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. That's very helpful to know. And like I said last week, we're always interested in the more intelligent people we have around the table, the more likely we are to come up with solutions to these complex issues.
Speaker 4: And I just want to acknowledge that we also have our TDI board member, Ingeborg Petit, who is in the audience, and she happens to be the director of ETSI. She's in the back row, so make sure you to get connected to exchange cards.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Hines, you go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So, again, thank you to the airport for all the work you've done and all the stakeholder engagement and and member engagement for us. It's my first day. It is. I believe it's our job in government to shape Denver's future. In this situation, we have an opportunity to shape the future of a region instead of just the city and county of Denver, because of the strength and importance that that the airport has. I'm really concerned about our planet. Climate change is real. And we need to make. We need to take steps. We need to take immediate, bold steps to to make sure that we take care of our planet. And actually, it's not our planet that's going away. It's our habitability on the planet that is at risk. And increasing lanes and allowing more single occupant vehicles, I don't believe is the right answer for us as we shape the future. The second thing, in addition to the planet, is multimodal transit. So I ran a lot. I'm one of my primary platform ideas was on the planet and climate change. The second was on multimodal transit. We're expecting an additional 200,000 people to move to Denver, the city of Denver by 2040. And while we might be able to extend lanes on Penna, we can't widen six or eight. And and we want I believe we should encourage people in the city of Denver and beyond, but in particular, District ten, to try to have alternatives to cars. And so I'm a little concerned about feeding the traffic monster and having more more lanes. I also have a concern about citizen engagement. And the airport was in our back and forth over the weekend. And today has helped allay some of those fears. And and as I understand, there was a robust conversation with Dr. COG. And but I also want to make sure that we have conversations. We have the northeast area plan that was just adopted. I didn't see Penny in it, but but thank you for sharing with me that that Penny was specifically called out in the Dr. COG plan. So I just want to make sure that if we have public funds, it should have public accountability. And I recognize that the airport is a little different than other areas of the city. I also recognize that the airport has a different kind of focus than than many areas of the city. As far as specific neighborhood engagement and. And that really puts me in a tough spot with having being inaugurated and then immediately having to make a decision. So. Should I tell you how I'm going to vote?
Speaker 0: That you are more than welcome to or not.
Speaker 5: So I will. I. I intend. Just as I. As I'm fighting for increased citizen engagement. I think it would be remiss of me to make a decision tonight with the short time frame. And and so I will likely abstain because it would be hypocritical of me to say we need to the airport needs to engage the community , but then me not have a meaningful engagement with the airport. So I will likely abstain.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilman Flynn, you were in here and then you disappeared, and I think I might have done that. Are you still in the queue for comments? You can make people disappear. I did. I didn't mean to. Can I. Can I give you a list? Councilman Flynn, the floor is yours. Thank you. I would respectfully ask my colleagues to support this. And I say this as someone who, as a journalist, wrote about the development of the plan to do the airline and the airport and then who worked at RTD as a project manager on that very project and as someone who, since the day the airline opened, has never driven to the airport. I've only ever used the train. But I recognize that it cannot be the only option because, as Councilman Hines pointed out, the unique nature of the destination and of the travelers there. I did a little math over the weekend, which is always dangerous, but I think it's correct that even if every airline trip in the course of a day, there are 144 trips of four car trains. And even if everyone was at Crush Load, as we used to call it, when I was at when I was a project manager for communications, they told me, don't call it Crush Load, but even if every car was packed to the gills, don't count luggage don't count, strollers don't count wheelchairs don't count bicycles. And we carry about 800 people. And over those trips over the course of a year, you would have to fill every trip from 315 in the morning when 800 people aren't going to catch planes yet until 130 in the next morning. When Service Day ends, you would have to fill every train to carry just the originating and destination passengers who are flying out of or flying into Denver if they were to use the train. So we have to keep up maintenance and expansion. Yes. Of the roadway. And I want to remind folks that the roadway also carries busses, shuttles, hotels, shuttles, mountain shuttles. So there's a lot of multimodal travel that has to use the Penn Boulevard as well. The whole idea of multimodal travel is to offer options that work for whatever reason. You need to choose whatever it is you're choosing. And if we don't keep up with that, we will have. Right now, Penn Boulevard concrete is turning 30 years old, some of it this year. So some of it needs to be replaced. And the the expansion of lanes, three new lanes, one of which is dedicated to the commercial traffic, which carries multiple passengers, carries the busses, the shuttles, the hotel busses, etc., to the commercial level five. So this is a project I think is needed in the overall integrated mobility network to serve the airport. And I urge people to vote. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to take a minute to thank the airport staff for really being very open to all of our questions, working on the weekend and going above and beyond to get us a lot of information so that we could educate ourselves and be able to make this vote if we felt comfortable doing it tonight. So thank you very much for all of your hard work on that. And I just wanted to comment that what Councilman Hines said is absolutely correct, right in the issue of induced demand is a major problem in widening roads and we need climate change action now. But that said, I think the airport is a very different place in that it is the number one revenue driver in the state of Colorado and that it is the number five largest airport in the country. And that means that unlike many of the other decisions that we make as a council, this doesn't just affect the city of Denver. This affects the region and the country and the world in some ways. And so while I absolutely agree that climate change is a concern and that we need to we need to do a better job of working on different all different modes of transportation and finding funding for that. In this case, I think, you know, when there are people coming from Wyoming, when there are people coming from the mountains, when there are even families coming from Denver, my family. You guys have. What we look like trying to get to the airport. It's ridiculous. So, you know, being able to provide different options, even if that means waiting the road, even if that's really not what we want to do, I think is valuable in this case. And and I also think that we need to remember that that really is only 6% of this part of the project, that there's so much more here, including bringing some economic I'm sorry, environmental benefits to the airport in terms of moving the parking lot for Lyft drivers, Uber drivers, taxi drivers, limo drivers closer to the terminal so that they won't have to drive as far. It gives them a better quality of life and shows that we respect the work that they do and that we want to be supportive of them as our first line of customer service coming for people coming out of the airport, because right now they sit idling in their cars in a lot and they use porta potties if they need to go to the restroom. And this provides them a place where they can have running water, where they can have, you know, heat or air conditioning lights where they can turn off their vehicle so they're not idling for an hour while they're waiting for a ride. And I just wanted to point those things out as well, that that this is a tough call because it is, you know, we need to to move on climate change. But at the same time, we've got these two other big issues where we are providing our workers a better quality of life. And we are recognizing that this is in some ways an international access issue. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 1: First of all, I would also like to thank the airport staff for making themselves available and for answering the questions throughout the weekend. I'd also like to thank the Honorable Councilman Espinosa for helping us to postpone this vote until now. I think it's really ironic that my first vote is very similar to Espinosa's first vote, when he had to vote on I-70, which deeply impacted my life as I lived three blocks away from the I-70 expansion and catalyzed my race. I do want to really stress the importance of understanding that we have to make we have to have priorities in this city. And Councilman Flynn noted that we, even if packed to the brim, are our trains would only transport 800 people per day. I think that's then an impetus for us to start talking about adding rail cars instead of continuing to incentivize bad behavior. We know our planet is on fire. We know what the risk is of induced demand, and so we know better. Why aren't we doing better? Councilman Flynn also mentioned expansion and maintenance in the same sentence, and I think those are two very different things. Maintenance is one thing and expansion is a very different thing. And so, yes, we absolutely have to continue to maintain our roads, the ones that currently exist, but we do have to curb our use of single occupant vehicles. And this is not the way to do that, especially to the airport. I live one block away also from the A-Train, and that is a system we are spending a lot of money on, continuing with lawsuits and everything. And I think that we have to understand and recognize that we have limited resources when it comes to multimodal transportation. And our multimodal transportation is suffering here in this city and not advancing in the way we need it to. And so we need to do better and understand the real impacts of how we spend every single dollar. And this 93 million is a significant amount of money to be making a decision on in my first evening. But I do think that there is a reason for me to encourage my colleagues to vote no on this, and that is how I will be voting. So thank you. And there are also other ways to integrate Lyft and shared ride services in a more streamlined fashion, in a in an efficient way. And all we have to do is look to other cities. We don't have to reconstruct what is available. There are other ways to integrate them into the shuttle services, the shuttle lines where people are picked up.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Clark. I very much appreciate the comments and the direction of my colleagues on council. I know that this is a difficult decision, especially given your first night. And I want to also thank the airport and the immense work that they've done. We just finished up 20 months of community engagement that was very robust, that was very intentional with the far northeast community, and that includes Montebello Park Field, High Point, Green Valley Ranch. I did that work in collaboration with Councilman Herndon as part of the Far Northeast Neighborhood Planning Initiative. And the community is very engaged. They have lived with this issue for over 25 years. Pena Boulevard, by default, is their only way into and out of the community. And, you know, the airport in 2016 did some revolutionary work in getting Congress and the Appropriations Committee to really allow us to treat Pena as. A city and county of Denver roadway versus only a Denver International Airport road. If we are not able to do improvements on this roadway, there was talk of it having to be a toll for folks to get out to the airport. Now, we know we never want to do that because that would stifle our growth. That would be hard for residents. That would be hard for other folks. And so with that work that George and his team did, they were able to negotiate with the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the airport to put funds on to airport, but then also look at phases two, three and four. And I want to be part of the conversations moving forward. I want to hear all of your new ideas. And how can we address this? Because I have constituents that can't get to work. And these are constituents that have food trucks, that work in construction, that own their own businesses. They have work vehicles that multi mobility isn't necessarily going to work for them. They have to drive on our roadways. And we, for over 25 years in the far northeast, have not had the investments nor appropriate expansion of our roadways, especially when you're talking about 56th Avenue and Penn Boulevard. Our life and safety is sometimes at risk because of bumper to bumper traffic that we have on these roadways. And so I look forward to the ongoing conversations. But respectfully, I do ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this. And a reminder that in 2019, we are going to see almost 70 million passengers coming through Denver International Airport, and we need to make sure that we can accommodate that. But then moving forward to making sure that we're getting those single occupancy vehicles off of our roadways all throughout the city and the region and allowing us also to grow in a responsible way in the far north northeast. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I was pleased to join Councilman Espinosa and a number of votes against the I-70 project, and we don't need to go into the politics of that. But I felt its impact on the community, etc. made that a project that was ill conceived. I feel differently about this project for a number of reasons, as Councilwoman Gilmore alluded. The road was was built to handle a different volume of traffic. Then. Then it turns out our airport is generating in the numbers in the future keep going higher and higher. I believe the A-line was built. The stations were built to accommodate eight cars as opposed to four.
Speaker 1: So the airport, in trying to futureproof our station, built our station to allow for eight cars. We also built for an entire nother people mover to be built. And and at the airport, however, RTD built the rest of the stations to accommodate four cars.
Speaker 6: Right. Thank you. There's limitations on while the the airport, the A-line and the station was built to accommodate another people mover of a current landscape has no idea where that might come from. I believe FAA guidelines prevent the airport from constructing that. The plan as it exists is not just widening lanes. In addition to the the the ride share facility, it's going to make the those that need to circle back to the terminal quicker and safer and easier. I just think that this while when I first saw this bill come through and saw Lane widening, the remaining hairs rose on the back of my neck. And it was something that I started grumbling and cussing about under my breath. But after looking at it in more depth, I think it's something that is justified. And so I will be supporting it this even.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. At some point you have to tell me what that experience of feeling of having remaining hairs is like. I see no other comments. I will just add quickly, I will echo a lot of what's already been said. But you know, for me, first of all, it is so exciting to hear this new council. And when I say new council, I'm not saying new members because we are one council or 13 individuals, but we are one body. We get to make one decision. And so this new council, I'm so excited to hear how this new council is talking about climate change. And I hope that we will take big actions quickly because we don't. We might be elected to serve for four years, but we can't wait around four years to to make some big decisions when it comes to the climate. For me, with this, in addition to what's been said, I just want to point out a couple of things that I've been getting emails on. Only 6.4% of this contract is expansions when he mentioned that. Of that expanded lanes, there are three lanes. One is a bus shuttle lane and the two others are about safety moving in and out. Right now we have areas where it is chaos getting in and out. And so that expansion is really revolves around that. And there's a small portion of this contract. Also a lot of emails about rather spend this money on sidewalks and stuff like that. This is airport money. This is not your tax revenue. This money can't be spent on those things. It has to be spent at the airport. It's money that is generated at the airport and can only be spent on the airport. So just want to set that straight. So I will be voting to support this this evening. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 3: Hines.
Speaker 5: Epstein.
Speaker 3: Black. I see tobacco. Nei Flynn. I Gillmor.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, i.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Kasich, i. Ortega. By Sandoval. I. Sawyer.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Torres, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes, one knee, one abstention.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one nay, one abstention. Resolution 586 has been adopted. That concludes the items that have been called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered, published and were now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. concerning design and construction services for Peña Boulevard at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. for $93,479,841.20 and through 05-30-22 to perform design and construction services for Peña Boulevard Phase 1 including widening and reconstructing both inbound and outbound Peña Boulevard, and reconstructing portions of Jackson Gap Road and the Jackson Gap interchange at Denver International Airport (201628522). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza postponed this item at the 7-8-19 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 7-15-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0540
|
Speaker 1: Comments? All right. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item up on our screens? And this is 540. Councilman Lopez, what would you like us to do with this one?
Speaker 0: I wanted to put it on the floor for a vote. All right.
Speaker 1: All right. Councilman Gilmore, you please put Resolution 540 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 5: I move the resolution 540 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I brought this out not because.
Speaker 1: I'm going to vote against it, but I wanted to vote for it and I wanted to actually bring this out so it stands on its own. So this council resolution.
Speaker 0: 540 is the sale agreement between the city and county of Denver and the purchaser for the and Marston Road Center, LLC, for the purchase of property located at 4320.
Speaker 1: Morrison Road.
Speaker 0: Now, why would this be anything special? Because. On Wednesday, July 18, 2007, 12 years ago. Have the minutes and hours to turn this into the library sometime soon. But this was our Infrastructure Attack Priorities Task Force. This was the 2008 bond. And those of you who are in this room 12 years ago know that I put up quite a fight. This is my second day in office, and I put up a fight for one reason, because that bond that we were all footing the bill for. Right. Right before the the recession hit was missing something, and it was missing almost an entire council district. And it missed, especially the need for our rec center and Westwood High cardiovascular disease rates with high diabetes rates with no access to rec center facilities. This was our top priority. And we fought for it. I got out, did my plea to try to amend the 28 bond and didn't move forward. Didn't catch the vote at this Finance Committee meeting to move forward on the council and didn't go to the ballot for voters to vote on. So that put us 12 years, 12 years with community working and working every single one of those years to make sure that this happens. Now, I was ready in the last I think it was at the last go round in the bond. We put it in there and it was accepted. It was approved. I knew, however, there was a good chance that because it was in this bond, I wouldn't I wouldn't be the person to see it through. However. What we have in front of us on my last day in office is the first thing I ever fought for . And this is our rec center. And that's $4,080,000.
Speaker 1: To acquire a property.
Speaker 0: On the corner of Raleigh and Morrison Road to build our rec center. And I. I know Adriana had.
Speaker 1: To go because her mother was in town from.
Speaker 0: Green River. But they worked so hard. We work so hard to get this rec center done. And I'm very glad that at the last day on this dais, I'm going to be able to vote. A Yes on five for you of 2017 and finally put these notes into archives where they belong.
Speaker 1: So for those of you didn't see.
Speaker 0: I got the exact same picture of this for my aide, and I just gave it to her in the hallway.
Speaker 1: Because on the back of this little girl's shirt.
Speaker 0: Says Love. And that's the one thing that's guided all of us in this office and this neighborhood. And I think on this council, that's our first park with the promise that one day.
Speaker 1: We'll have a rec center. So, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am more than happy to ask my colleagues for one more time as a city councilman to vote yes on Resolution 540 of 2019.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Let's vote. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 0: Lopez I.
Speaker 5: Black. Brooks.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 7: Espinosa, i. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I. Cashman I.
Speaker 5: Commit I.
Speaker 0: Knew I.
Speaker 10: Ortega I.
Speaker 7: Susman I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1313 ays Resolution 540 has been adopted. Congratulations, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Under resolutions, you called out 586. Madam Secretary, if you can put that on our screens, and what would you like to do with this one?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Morrison Center LLC for the purchase of real property located at 4320 Morrison Road.
Approves a purchase and sale agreement with Morrison Center, LLC for $4,080,000 to acquire property located at 4320 Morrison Road for the buildout of the Westwood Recreation Center as part of the Elevate Denver Bond Program, in Council District 3 (201948958-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-18-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0586
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1313 ays Resolution 540 has been adopted. Congratulations, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Under resolutions, you called out 586. Madam Secretary, if you can put that on our screens, and what would you like to do with this one?
Speaker 2: I just have some questions, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Well, first, I want to thank people and even in the team at the The Denver Streets Partnership for reminding us in view of the passage of a blueprint, Denver in the comprehensive plan recently the importance that as we're considering any substantial road widening projects, that we be sure to ask the questions that as this was being designed or conceived, that alternative forms of mobility were considered and included to the greatest extent possible. As this airport Pioneer Boulevard widening project is the first major road widening to come up since that passage. We thought it was more than appropriate to to ask some questions. I appreciate both the Street's partnership bringing it up, the airport's willingness to engage not just tonight in questions, but in an ongoing basis and answering these. So I guess. Thank you, Rachel. Stepping up. The first thing I would ask is how can you say that this project does support the goals in the new Blueprint Denver plan, as well as Denver's Vision Zero Action Plan to eliminate fatal and traffic fatalities and injuries.
Speaker 11: Sure. So thank you, Councilman Cashman. And thank you also to Denver Streets Partnership and all of the advocacy organizations that are out there elevating this conversation. I think it's an important one and it's one that the airport is very committed to. So we look forward to engaging in the conversation in terms of blueprint. Denver We've encouraged mode shift at the airport for a long time. We invested $350 million into the transit center for the A-line. We built out, gave $30 million to build out 61st and pioneer. That being said, we can always do better. We have plans to build out a bike network, and that's part of Suzuki's work on a done real estate strategic development plan. We also are promoting a walkable, transit oriented development at 61st and pinion as recently as a few weeks ago, are pushing the developers there to truly make it a dense, walkable, bikeable transit hub at that station and were among the major partners, along with Sierra and RTD, to create mobility next partnership and collaborate around connectivity and embracing the advancement of the next generation of mobility. So in everything we do, including this project, we're looking with an eye towards mobility and transit development and connectivity at the airport.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. So we discussed earlier that at this point in time, it doesn't sound like, again, has a specific goals for ride share, shift and reduction of trips and single occupancy vehicle is then willing to commit to working towards establishing such a goal for reducing SUV mode share in line with Blueprint.
Speaker 11: Absolutely. I think we're we're always committed to engaging that conversation. Quite frankly, the more people that choose alternative modes of travel out to the airport benefits not just the city, but the airport as well. As part of this project we have we are building out the ride share lot, so creating a designated lot for Taxi Uber, Lyft , and that will include electrification of that lot so that folks that have electric vehicles and are doing Uber and Lyft have the ability to charge out there. That being said, we we recognize we can do better and in the ways in which that we can engage these advocacy groups. RTC Dot. Dr. COG in evaluating new and creative solutions around getting people out of single occupancy vehicles. We are committed to that partnership and committed to meeting with those organizations.
Speaker 2: Okay, Mr. President, I have some additional questions, but I believe some of my colleagues do as well, so I'll defer.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Hi, Rachel. For the public, can you explain where phase one, where phase one, this phase one project of Pena Boulevard is?
Speaker 11: Sure. So phase one of this Pioneer Boulevard design build project runs from Jackson Gap to the terminal.
Speaker 8: And Jackson Gap is essentially the last overpass or approximately. Yes, that crosses Pena Boulevard to the western, you know, the proper terminal. You know, we have a congestion problem in lots of parts of the city. When does it get bumper to bumper in that section of the highway?
Speaker 11: So what time of day or.
Speaker 8: What sort of congestion problem do we have there?
Speaker 11: So we I don't know if this helps answer your question. In 2017, we had a traffic study that was done that takes into account ridership at the line bus travel and evaluates past traffic on Pioneer Boulevard and then evaluates Dr. Cods, Dr. Cox Transit Use Study and then projects out to future traffic and existing traffic on Pioneer . We've also done our own internal studies on traffic apnea. We're about to hit around 70 million passengers flying out of the airport every year, and that's definitely putting some pressure on the infrastructure on Pioneer.
Speaker 8: So when we had our briefing, I'd ask the question, how much of that traffic, that 70 million passenger load originates in Denver?
Speaker 11: I don't know that there's a way for us. Do you mean Denver as opposed to Aurora or Commerce City or Brighton? I don't know if there's a way for us to track that.
Speaker 8: How about that goes that traverses phase one of Penn Yan Boulevard.
Speaker 11: That. I'm not sure I understand your question. If you're traveling out of Denver, you're either taking the airline or you're traversing that section of Montana.
Speaker 8: 70 million people, there are some that are coming into the airport via airplane and then leaving our airport by airplane.
Speaker 11: Okay. Original trips.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So is your question tonight from here.
Speaker 5: I'm going to.
Speaker 11: Look back to my team to see if. My understanding is 60% of 70 million. So it was originally projected that 40% would be originating in Denver. 65%, about 65% or 70 million. And my math is not great on the spot. So whatever number that.
Speaker 5: Is.
Speaker 8: And the other question I had that didn't have an answer was what is the design load for the commuter rail for the airline to how many what what number of passengers originating passengers could and workers could do the rail? What's the capacity of that rail?
Speaker 11: That's a great question. I do know that RTD has planned for future expansion of the number of cars that are on each truck. I don't know off the top of my head what our TDS projected a full maxed out capacity of the airline once they add in all the cars is.
Speaker 8: So I actually have the old vision zero letter and it was funny that I came across it as I'm cleaning out my desk, which talks about hires. I mean, very clearly states high speed skill. Obviously we don't have a lot of pedestrian traffic traversing the road out there, but we do we don't have a lot of congestion like we do at other airports where you're just you're in a in a crawl as you approach. So what I've been struggling with this entire time is you recall in our briefing is what is the problem that $93 million worth of money needs to be? Because if the city is using the congestion argument as a mode shift, you know, argument in the city, why would widening the road, expediting the ease of travel via vehicle encourage greater use of the A-line? If you go on the line right now, there's not one, but there's one trough where the train runs and there's a whole nother trough there to essentially expand the capacity. Why aren't we using why? Why couldn't you? Is there some federal prohibition that prevents you from partnering with RTD to either reduce the cost of those trips, to encourage more people and more families to get out of their car and not pay for overnight parking, but to take the train ? Was that part of your analysis and why did that fail?
Speaker 11: So I think there are a couple questions for me to respond to. Their first, a big part there is congestion. So just because somebody hasn't anecdotally experienced it on their trip out to the airport, there are certainly times when Panya is backed up and is very heavy from a congestion standpoint. That being said, a large part of this project has to do with operational safety and traffic flow that involves the turnaround. Right now, if you've ever done, you know, the loop to come pick somebody up, there's a situation where you're having to cross multiple lanes of traffic and it's from a vehicle safety standpoint, it's not great. And a large part of this project addresses that issue in terms of partnering with our TD to increase capacity of the line. You talked about a little bit about dollars. And so I want to take this moment to say the FAA won't allow us to they allowed us to build the transit center. They allowed us to invest in 61st, and now we can't put further dollars into build out of the airline. So that's something that we the airports federally prohibited from doing at this point in terms of encouraging ridership. We are advocating every single day. We're working closely with Councilwoman Gilmer mayor's office, with RTD, with Dr. COG in figuring out ways to reduce, especially employees. We have 35,000 people working out at the airport, especially in encouraging them to use our TD and figuring out what those barriers are to ridership and how we might be able to act as an advocate and a partner in reducing those barriers.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I am deeply concerned that the airport is once again maybe missing the big picture here, which is that you're expanding and widening and fixing the area closest to the airport, which would somehow encourage more traffic, but that the bulk of our congestion problems on PIA are actually from I-70 to Jackson Gap. But you're doing you're spending $93 million on the on the part. That's not that.
Speaker 11: So and the $93 million, as I said, it includes an Uber and Lyft and Taxi lot with an associated building. It includes changing the interchange at Jackson Gap and includes rerouting traffic to and from the airport, including one lane that's dedicated for bus travel into the airport. And so it's not I think calling it simply a widening project is just.
Speaker 8: Join us. You understand encouraging Uber and Lyft and simplifying that again is counterproductive to the investment that you have already made at Penn Station and at the transit center.
Speaker 11: I think our goal is to encourage multiple different forms of transportation. I think Uber and Lyft offer a great opportunity, especially if you're using a carpool option within Uber and Lyft to reduce traffic counts and to encourage multiple forms of transportation access to the airport.
Speaker 8: But neither one of those companies provide the same level of worker protection as are organized labor in the taxi companies.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Clark. Rachel, could you talk a little bit more about the I guess, the research or when, you know, there's a phase two that's associated, assuming that this gets through, but that split between tourism or, you know, folks that are actually Denver residents or Colorado residents, that transit might work for them. Could you talk a little bit about did you have those those splits so that we could get a better idea of what the congestion might be looking forward? Because we know that it's congested at certain times of the day. But as you continue to uptick on your passenger counts, we might very well get to a place where it's bumper to bumper congestion.
Speaker 11: No, I think that's a great point. And it's really important when we're making any sort of decision at the airport, especially one of this magnitude or future decisions, long pina that we're equipped with as much information and data as possible. So I think leading up to this, we have done a number of studies in terms of traffic on PDA, including studies with surrounding jurisdictions to look at which traffic counts are originating at the airport or traveling to the airport and which are merely passing through, which I think will only increase as neighborhoods around the airport build out . That's something we're we're constantly studying. We're also studying, like I said, how our employees are getting to work and what works best for them. And I think that'll be a really big component as the airport grows and our employee base grows is really encouraging. Figuring out, like I said, what the barrier to transit or car sharing or Vanderpool may be for our employees and what the airport can leverage to remove those barriers.
Speaker 5: And then my last question regarding this phase one, I you know, Councilman Espinosa touched on it a little bit, but I want you to be very clear so that there is no mistake. You know, talk a little bit about the FAA and the restrictions around a diversion of revenue.
Speaker 11: Sure. So all the commercial airports in the United States are built with federal dollars. And so the FAA has strict requirements on what we can and cannot use airport dollars for. As those of you on council are very familiar with, but I know this is new to a lot of members of the public. The airport is an enterprise fund within the city and county of Denver and airport dollars have to go to airport uses. Any use outside of airport use is barred by the FAA. So those include community benefits. Those include any other type of investment within the city. I think sometimes folks look at investment at the airport and wonder, why can't that money go downtown or go to different communities? And it's because the federal government, through the FAA, prohibits use of any revenue for airport revenue being diverted to other uses.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman, if you're okay, I'd like to ask a few before I get back to. Okay. I want to first thank Denver Street's partnership for for pushing this issue and shining a light on this. I think we're all adjusting to having new plan and new blueprint. And what does that mean and how do we look and having a new way of talking about growth and talking about our roads in particular. And so I also want to thank you guys for being willing to engage in this conversation, especially because Panya is a street like no other in the city and county of Denver that it falls under. It really is seen by the federal government as your driveway, not as a city street in the way that many of us think about it. But at the same time, every, you know, car trip that uses pioneer originates or ends somewhere in our street network. And as we are trying to provide real alternatives and options for people to choose, it's a key component for that. So it's an interesting balancing act that we're doing here. But in my conversations with the partnership and with the community, there are some things that I think are important to get on the record that hopefully are easy things to commit to, or maybe not, but like to ask them and see if, you know, don't need to get in deep. But just some things that maybe you can commit to that I think will help them representing the mobility community feel better about projects moving forward beyond this one. So can you guys commit to studying how to accommodate future travel demand through non-core modes and doing some real deep dove studying into how to do that?
Speaker 11: Absolutely. And then real estate, which is a division of the airport, is actually in the process of undergoing a transportation study starting now that will evaluate. They are very committed to modern multimodal transportation as we look at building out more parts of the airport land. And so I think we can absolutely commit to to studying those options.
Speaker 1: And how about committing to I think part of the frustration was a feeling that there wasn't a lot of engagement and transparency within, again, this world of all the different worlds that you guys operate in. And so can you make a commitment to greater transparency, engagement of the community in developing the plans, especially these plans when it comes to mobility that do impact the.
Speaker 0: Rest of our street.
Speaker 1: Grid and the broader community?
Speaker 11: Absolutely. I said to Councilman Cashman earlier today, I think a commitment to further public engagement is always a great thing. You know, we sort of had our heads on this project deep into the workforce component and thought through the mobility and transit conversation, but didn't engage that conversation early on. And this was a great reminder, to be sure to loop in all stakeholders early in the process.
Speaker 1: And the Denver Streets Partnership, who represent a broad slice of our community. Can you commit specifically to working to with them to ensure that multimodal transportation is adequately incorporated into future plans for transportation infrastructure.
Speaker 8: At the airport?
Speaker 11: Yes. So we we have been and will continue to be committed to forward thinking when it comes to transportation and mobility options. We're working on a number of initiatives right now, and I always love smart people in the room as we try to tackle tackle those issues at the airport and as a city, we encourage, you know , Dan is very committed to these issues. It's a it's a priority of ours to be advancing transit and multimodal options at the airport. And, you know, we encourage, you know, other agencies, other projects to be pushing this issue as well, to be, like you said, in line with Blueprint Denver and what it calls for.
Speaker 1: Great and change. Back to something that you talked about a couple of times, this Uber Lyft taxi kind of infrastructure. But as I think has been pointed out, not every ride in a car share is the same. I can call a car share and I can write all by myself. That's the same as a single occupancy vehicle, even though there's two of us in there. But a lot of the technology is moving towards a pooling where you ride with multiple people, which is a carpool of sorts, and does require fewer cars to move more people. Do you currently collect data from those companies on what percent of rides to the airport are pooled rides and carpool versus essentially an SUV ride share? And if you don't, can you commit to attempting to work with the companies to get some data on that, to really understand if we're building out infrastructure that further encourages that mode ? Should that mode be really classified as savvy travel or as pool travel?
Speaker 11: Sure. So we do collect data today from the ride share companies. I will say that I do think as somebody who was car less for six or seven years of the past decade, that while I may have taken an Uber out to the airport prior to the airline being built, that option, while it was a single occupancy vehicle ride for me out there, allowed me in every other commute in the city to not be in a car. So I think we can collect that data. It doesn't tell the full, full picture. And like I said earlier, I think having a wide menu of options for how you can get to and from the airport really encourages, you know, all these goals that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Great. And I apologize. A bunch of people have gotten in line. I thought it was just Councilman Cashman I was going to when I got done. So I'm going to get to a few other people. But I will also say that as someone who has converted and exclusively uses the train to get to the airport, which is a phenomenal asset that we have, that I thank you for your investment in that infrastructure and share a little bit of the fear that as we look at other investments, that we don't do something that leads to a reduction of service, that we're doing things that lead to better service in that line, because I think it's an amazing way to get people to and from the airport. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Mr. President, I wanted to bring a few things out to light. Just briefly, Rachel. It's true, isn't it, that the airport, when it built a transit station for the airline, built the platform for the ultimate build out of eight cars?
Speaker 11: That's correct.
Speaker 6: So the airport did prepare for the ultimate build out already?
Speaker 11: We did. And we also built future proofed that stop so that there could be a people mover attached to their on the east entry on the east side as well.
Speaker 6: I don't know how you're going to get through the that the Xbox there but that's that's a whole other story. But the fact is that RTD is already running its MAX service to the airport. Is that not true? Because they are. They have started four car trains in within the past six months. The trains that run throughout the day are four car trains, not the two car trains that they open with. That is true.
Speaker 11: Correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. And the fact is that RTD built all the other station platforms along the line only to accommodate for cars. They did not build to eight car platforms.
Speaker 11: That's a great question for our team. And I know you're the resident outdoor expert. So I.
Speaker 6: I worked on the I worked on the project and yes, we built only four, four car platforms. It will take years before the airline is ready to handle eight car trains, but the airport already is preparing for that. The only other thing I wanted to bring out is that you mention a dedicated bus lane as part of this expansion. And I want to remind folks that expanding the highway is not just for single occupant vehicles. Busses use that. Not everybody that rides RTD rides the train. The the train, as I mentioned in our hour memorial. I'm sorry, in our testimonial. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Pardon me.
Speaker 6: Is the east is the east corridor and it serves from Union Station to the airport. But for folks going to from Boulder or from Commerce City, the A-line is probably not their transit of choice if they were to take transit. So we need to have that roadway prepared to accommodate multiple, multiple modes. And I would dare guess I don't have the figures, but I would dare to assert with the privilege of taking it back if somebody proved me wrong that Panya Boulevard is probably one of the most heavily mowed, split or mode shared streets in the metropolitan area. When you talk about the mountain shuttles, you have a ski area shuttles, the hotel shuttles, even the rental bus shuttles that only go to Jackson Gap. So expanding that roadway does help preserve the efficiency of our of our other modes other than single occupant vehicles. All that is true, correct?
Speaker 11: All of that is true.
Speaker 6: Okay. That's why. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: You know what? I had a whole diatribe that I was going to try and get to. Council President, you got into most of the details that I want to do. And Rachel and I got a chance to talk earlier today. And and I would just say it was just an opportunity missed in committee when we were discussing this about outreach, about an analysis when we're talking about these type of things. And that's why we're here today. And I think if we can get to some of those commitments in the future, I think we're going to have a total different, you know, outcome, especially when it comes here to the floor. I think for for anyone in Denver who is just thinking that we're going to widen roads without an analysis of a multi-modal approach. Those days are gone. And so that's what we're we're doing and that's what you're hearing from the community. And I'm glad that where we are changing kind of the way we do business in the city.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Rachel, I just wanted to ask a question about the area from Jackson Gap to I-70. That's a whole separate project that she has partnered with Dan on looking at how to address non airport traffic. Can you just sort of give us an update of number one where that's at in the process? And number two, that that will include an environmental impact statement, which is a whole community input process. That's part of that. Church.
Speaker 2: Hey, Councilman George Merritt with the airport. Thanks a lot. It's a great question. And your you're about on it. So now it's going back to Councilman Espinoza's question about why we're doing this part now versus the other part and to diversion of revenue in 2010, during a letter exchange that had to do with Tower Road on ramp going towards I-70. The FAA wrote us a letter and said a couple of things. One, you need to expand Panya Boulevard. Two, because now so much local traffic uses that you're no longer allowed to pay for it because it's a division of revenue. So we spent several years doing this analysis, and in 2016 we did a big lobbying effort. And what we worked out with the FAA was that from we basically.
Speaker 8: Bifurcated Penn Boulevard and from 472 I-70.
Speaker 2: We are now they have allowed us to pay for about 75% of the expansion and maintenance on that section of the highway. Pro-rated to our traffic on the road. So about 25% roughly. If you spread it out from 470 down, the.
Speaker 8: I-70.
Speaker 2: Is commuter traffic. This goes back to Penn Boulevard being, frankly, a unique roadway across the country.
Speaker 8: So we will at some point.
Speaker 0: Need some.
Speaker 2: Other funding to fill that 25% gap, be that highway grant, be that, you know, some other form of revenue. The FAA has said you can't pay for 100% of that. So that's where our partnership with Sit were with sit on. And Dr. Carr will come in when it comes time to do that. We first have to fill in that 25% gap for us to do that funding. We can pay for 100% of the work from 470 into the terminal because if you're that far down Penn Boulevard, you're coming to the airport and we can.
Speaker 0: Pay for 100% of that.
Speaker 10: Do we have Adams County committing to participate in that cost sharing with.
Speaker 8: You know, we passed.
Speaker 2: The hat and we you're not going to believe it. But it was a little a little reluctant to come forward with some with which.
Speaker 10: We know what percentage of that traffic comes back and forth from.
Speaker 2: ADAMS Our partners, you know, we serve the state of Colorado in the metro area, and that's that's part of the region. You know, we want to be driving this conversation not only in Denver. Right. But we are let's I mean, recognize where we are. We want to be able to to to help facilitate a conversation about mobility across the region. We are, you know, on the other side of a 25 square mile.
Speaker 8: Wildlife refuge from.
Speaker 2: Denver. And, you know, we are in a neighborhood with surrounded by Aurora and Commerce City and Brighton and Adams County. So, you know something.
Speaker 10: There. So the bottom line is we're not there yet in terms of having funding, being ready with any kind of project that is anywhere near an environmental impact statement for any potential expansion of Penn Boulevard from 472 I-70.
Speaker 11: We're not there.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Cashman, thank you for your patience. Do you have anything you'd like to propose?
Speaker 2: Yeah, just one last question. And if the people coming to and from the airport don't just come from the metro area, but all over the region, are you working with the mountain towns, I mean, other communities this spring shy and on how we might better utilize mass transit to to to and from those destinations.
Speaker 11: That's a great question. I don't know historically what the airport has done. I can say that is part of our conversation with RTD and Dr. COG in terms of how we're moving employees. We ran the zip codes for everybody that works at the airport to try and figure out where folks are coming from and what might be the best tool for them to get to and from the airport. And there are actually a lot of people that work at the airport that live up in the mountains, that live in Wyoming. And that opened the door to, you know, not only are there employees, but there are travelers, to your point, that may need different options . And we've been having that conversation with Dr. COG, who actually has a lot of programs for getting folks from those areas to the airport. And so we're in ongoing conversations with Dr. COG about what the right fit for each community might be.
Speaker 2: Okay. And in full disclosure, you have agreed Dan has agreed to an ongoing substantive dialog with with the Street's partnership to continue digging into these critical issues of mobility.
Speaker 11: Absolutely. You know, Denver. Values our Denver Street Partnership's values. We think we're very much aligned. And and as I said, we welcome the opportunity to have more creative, smart people in the room as we try to tackle what are sometimes difficult and complex issues around mobility.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. concerning design and construction services for Peña Boulevard at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. for $93,479,841.20 and through 05-30-22 to perform design and construction services for Peña Boulevard Phase 1 including widening and reconstructing both inbound and outbound Peña Boulevard, and reconstructing portions of Jackson Gap Road and the Jackson Gap interchange at Denver International Airport (201628522). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza postponed this item at the 7-8-19 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 7-15-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0296
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. So that leaves to 96, if you can put that one up on our screens. Madam Secretary and Councilwoman Ortega, you had a comment or question on this comment.
Speaker 10: Go ahead. First of all, I want to thank Chris Pacheco and Tim Sanders for providing additional information on the cost sharing that actually is split among four different city entities, one of which is National Western that makes up this contract. And that's the piece that was not clear when this bill came forward that we've got Elevate Denver bond money, see IP dollars, National Western and wastewater funding that all makes up that one contract. And so I just want to thank Chris. I think you're still here in the audience for for sitting down and walking me through the map and the cost sharing. And I have no further questions on this. There is just one related to at some point asking council to have project updates on where we're at in the scope of the project. How far along are they and where are we with funding? Have we added new dollars? Have we used only the dollars that were built within those projects on plot to Park Hill and on the National Western Center? I think having those periodic updates to council is going to be important to just track how we're doing with them
Speaker 1: . All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. That concludes the items we called out this evening. All bills are for introduction, are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Design Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and RS&H, Inc. for professional design and engineering services.
Approves a contract with RS&H, Inc. for $2,637,093.94 and for one year for professional design and engineering services including the redesign of Washington Street from East 47th Avenue to East 52nd Avenue, improvements along Washington Street from the South Platte River to East 47th Avenue and the Globeville Landing Pedestrian Bridge over the South Platte River as part of the Elevate Denver Bond Program in Council District 9 (201948451). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-15-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-2-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0446
|
Speaker 1: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill four for six on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, President Clark, I move that council bill 19 dash 0446 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 446 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Good evening. Council President and council members. My name is Liz Waghorn with Community Planning and Development and this is an official map amendment application. Four 5231 5301 through 5307 5335 leads, dale drive and 420 and 450 South Grape Street from planned unit development 6 to 27 and B three with waivers and conditions to SCC three. The MAP Amendment is located in Council District five in the Washington, Virginia Vail neighborhood. It is located on along Lee's Dale Drive between Forest Street and Hudson Street on the North Side. It's approximately five acres and it's currently developed with two retail buildings and undeveloped land. As I mentioned, this is a rezoning from former Chapter 59 custom zoned districts to the SCC three district, and this is requested to facilitate redevelopment of the site with mixed uses. The requested zone district is in the urban edged neighborhood context. It is a commercial corridor that would allow up to three stories or 45 feet. This district allows for a mix of uses that's intended to balance the need for pedestrian, skilled, diverse areas with need needs for a convenient automobile access. It allows the general drive thru services and drive thru restaurant forms. The subject site shown here is currently zoned within former Chapter 59 and I'll go through the details of those. The surrounding properties are generally single unit to the north and then a mix of districts, commercial districts, residential districts and other custom districts along Leeds. Dell Drive the Putty, which is a large portion of the proposed parcel, was established in 2009. This was an update from a previous PD and a portion of the site is also zoned as B3, which is a commercial district in former Chapter 59 with waivers and conditions, and that dates back to 1998. Both districts generally allow commercial uses, but they specifically prohibit residential. They include setback requirements, use limitations, requirements for buffering and screening, and also a maximum heights in elevation. There is a large grade change that happens on the site from leads due to the north. There are portions of the PD that are not included in this application and they would remain empty. 627 Going forward. As I mentioned, the subject property is currently developed with retail and there is some undeveloped land there, single unit residential generally to the north and then a mix of retail office and residential along Leeds Dell Drive. This is an image of the site looking north where you can see the existing buildings on the site and these are images of those buildings. Here are some retail commercial and office uses to the east. Here you can see additional retail office uses along sorry to the west and then some of the residential use that are to the north along Dakota Avenue that the MAP Amendment went to the planning board on May 1st, where the planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. Three members of the public spoke at that hearing, related very much to the public comments that I have listed on this slide. We had comments from to our nose in the area, the preservation of Residential South Hilltop Neighborhood Association and the Dakota Hills Homeowner's Association. Also, the Dakota Hills are now they have been working with the applicant over a couple of years now to establish a covenant agreement that would go along with this rezoning between the applicant and the neighborhood they were. That was still in process. Also when we brought this to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, they have since come to an agreement that includes additional use limitations, a height in elevation for the site and set back requirements. And that agreement has been signed and we now have a letter of support from the Prishtina Neighborhood Association. In addition to that, we did receive two emails also in support of the application. I will go through the five review criteria that is set forth in the Denver zoning code for maximum applications, the first being consistency with adopted plans of which we have a comprehensive plan. 20:40 a.m..
Speaker 8: Blueprint.
Speaker 5: Denver We do find that the MAP amendment is consistent with our comprehensive 2040, a number of plan, guidance and strategies that we have around infill development, encouraging mixed use community communities, and putting infill development in places that have amenities and access to transit, which you do have long leads. Dale Drive Blueprint Denver calls out this area as the urban edge neighborhood context, which is predominantly residential and tends to act as a transition between urban and suburban areas. A commercial and mixed use development tends to be found along corridors, which is very consistent with what you see in this neighborhood. This area is called out as a community corridor and blueprint, which provides that mix of uses and a mix of larger and small scale buildings. In the urban edge context, particularly, some of them can be set back from the street to accommodate parking and it says its heights can be generally up to five stories that just to the proposed SCC three district is consistent with this. This is a commercial corridor district that would allow that mix of uses and particularly is called out in the intent as being appropriate along arterials such as leads to so leased out in Blueprint. Denver is also called out as the commercial arterial street. These are designed for a high amount of through movement and they typically contain commercial uses such as shopping centers along them. The blueprint over growth strategy says that generally in the city we should be directing our growth to community corridors with with them being anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth and 20% of new employment growth by 2040. And providing this growth in these centers and corridors increases access to amenities for alternative Denver rates. And this gives us makes us move closer to our goals for complete neighborhoods. The proposal rezoning that would allow for residential uses along with site is consistent with our growth strategy. CPD staff does also find that the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the uniformity of district regulations or results, in that it would further our public health, safety and welfare by being consistent with our adopted plans and also bringing this site into use by the modern zoning code regulations that are in the Denver zoning code. The application calls out changed and changing conditions for justifying circumstance, specifically that this site remains in former Chapter 59 zoning and this rezoning would bring it into the Denver zoning code. So we do find that to be an appropriate justifying circumstance. Lastly, we find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. As I describe the urban neighborhood, urban edge neighborhood context primarily has single and two unit residential uses and that commercial uses a mixed use are generally around local arterial and main streets of the commercial corridor district specifically are intended to ensure that new development contributes positively to neighborhood character and improves that transition between commercial development in adjacent residential areas. And specifically the SCC three district is intended for arterial street corridors and again that is what we have a long leads do. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We do have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you signed up to speak on this item, I'll ask if you can come up to the front bench here and if you make some room for them to come up here so that we can get through everybody. So when your name is called, step right up and your time will start. First up is Grant Nelson.
Speaker 0: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Grant Nelson and with Republic Investment Group here. On behalf of the applicants, the applicant in this property is 226 Monroe. It is local family. Paula Arnold and her son Ken Arnold are the owners of this property. They originally purchased the property to move their businesses to the property, and she currently operates a business that her and her family have operated in Denver since 1947 on the property. So they did not start out to be real estate developers or owners. In this case, they bought one property to build a building on. Determined it wasn't a great property to build a building on. The natural grocery building came for sale so they bought that to move her business into and it's always a good idea if you owned properties on either side to the one in the middle as well . So they ended up buying the one in the middle to make sure that they can control their own destiny. They have been working for the last couple of years on this rezoning, and we've been working hard with the neighbors, Brad and the the parishioner we've met with for the last couple of years. We have a signed neighborhood agreement here on behalf of the Arnolds. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 13: Jesse Pierce represented for Denver Homicide, Low Black Star Action Moment for self defense and positive commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for City Council. While large this past May 2019 election, I got almost 15,000 votes with no money. I'm neither for or against this. I thought this was going to be another rezoning for a more gentrification that's rapidly happening throughout this city. This previous speaker just confirmed that that is not the case and that these people are just looking to relocate their business. So I made a four against it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Brad Yoshimoto who?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening, City Council. My name is Brad Yoshimi two 5300 East Dakota Avenue. And I am the president of Krishna, the R.A., which was formed in 1996. Our boundaries are. Alameda to the north. Lee still to the south. Holly to the east and Delta to the west. My speech will be brief this evening in the. Because of the time limit and because I know you guys are busy this evening, but person has been negotiating, like Grant said, for about a year and a half now. And we recently came to an agreement. We've signed a restrictive covenant agreement with the applicant a couple of weeks ago, and I'm here today on behalf of personnel to officially support the rezoning. We want to thank the applicant for their willingness to work with us throughout the process and address some of our major concerns. We believe that this restrictive covenant agreement gives us some of the protections we had under the current zoning, including height, restrictions, setbacks and uses. In the interest of time. There are other board members here, but I will be the only one speaking tonight. I have Monica Hess, who was also part of the negotiations, as well as Jane Broda. They are both on the board as well. I'd also like to thank Mary Beth Susman for her direction and communication throughout the process and application and want to thank her for her years of service. We are hopeful that this rezoning will bring good, thorough and productive development that we can. Welcome to our neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: The German so-called black star movement. Self-defense. We support this zoning change and we want to salute Councilwoman Sussman for her outstanding leadership and getting this thing done over a two year period. Now, that requires perseverance and commitment to getting this thing done. And with the approval of the neighborhood organizations, we feel confident that there will be a what's. Organization that would monitor this so that as things happen and things changes over the course of projects such as this, the intent and essence of the project that this council will approve tonight will not be altered anyway. Significantly, that will put the neighborhood in a jeopardizing position of principal. So congratulations for the hard work. And this is how the partnership between community organizations and developers work, where we create a win win situation and the possibilities where you have adversarial relationship between developers and neighborhood are minimized and that we can move forward because there is life after development. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: One question for the prisoner representative and one question for CPD for staff. Let's do the shift to the staff. Can you explain the Graves Street address?
Speaker 5: There was a formerly a street there sometime ago that was vacated at some point that the addresses still remain along, that.
Speaker 8: You didn't actually connect north?
Speaker 5: It does not connect currently.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I didn't see that. All right. Thanks. On the so to the representative for the association. Do you know if your restrictive covenant has two signatories? Is it just the owner or is the owner and your your organization?
Speaker 0: It's the owner and the organization both. Yes.
Speaker 8: Terrific. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Mr. President, I am not sure. Probably someone from staff, if you can answer. So under the previous zoning, the limit was five storeys. So we now have a covenant on the property. What is that? Restrict it to.
Speaker 5: The. So the previous zoning. Actually, there were two height limits. One with the PD 627 was an elevation in height. So it wasn't a storeys piece but a specific elevation. And then the B3 with waivers and conditions had a maximum of two stories, 39 feet, and also an elevation with that piece. So the the new zone district would allow 45 feet and three stories. And I believe that the the covenant that the applicant and the neighborhood has agreed to is 5410. Correct. That's the elevation height, which is approximately equal to about the the fence line of the houses at the top of the hill.
Speaker 10: And does that height include the all the mechanical on on top of the structure as well?
Speaker 5: So the agreement limits those to nine feet. Okay. Generally, by zoning, they could get up to 12 feet for certain types of like the elevator overrun in those types of mechanical pieces. Great.
Speaker 10: I have no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, see no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable four, four, six is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. This was a rather complicated piece of property because of the unusual topography that it had, the the extreme elevation from street level to the neighborhood just above it. And I just want to congratulate first the neighborhoods who worked so hard with the with the project, who who had to, along with me, understand that the previous zoning was about elevation and not storeys. And if the elevation changed, how did the stories change? It wasn't an easy sort of project to understand. But I also want to thank the family that wants to do something with this property and do something that I think is very valuable to the city and to the neighborhood and still maintains the beauty of the person and neighborhood. Well, I won't recommend that everybody go there because then you'd have a whole bunch of traffic. But it's a it's a beautiful, beautiful neighborhood. And thank you. Thank you so much for all the work you did. I'm almost two years of back and forth ing between all of the neighborhoods, and I'm pleased that we could reach that, that you all could reach an agreement about, well, what will work there. And I urge my fellow council members to vote yes for this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Sussman. Hi. Black. Hi.
Speaker 8: Brooks Hi.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, I.
Speaker 0: Flynt II.
Speaker 7: The Fillmore Herndon Cashier.
Speaker 5: I can teach Lopez.
Speaker 7: I knew Ortega, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I am secretary. Please, cause the voting in those results.
Speaker 7: 11.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5231, 5301-5307, 5335 Leetsdale Drive, and 420 and 450 South Grape Street in Washington Virginia Vale.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD 627 and B-3 Waivers and Conditions to E-CC-3 (planned development to urban edge, commercial corridor), located at 5231, 5301-5307, 5335 Leetsdale Drive and 420, 450 South Grape Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-21-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0448
|
Speaker 7: 11.
Speaker 1: 811 are as comfortable. Four, four, six has passed. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 448 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, President. Clerk, I move that council bill 0448 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Constable four for eight is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. This is the rezoning 442303 excuse me, L.A. Street. It's rezoning from IAU to district to CRC district. It is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood, and it's located at the in the 41st and Fox station area at the corner of 42nd and LRT Street. The site is about 36, a little under three, 36,000 square feet in size. It's currently used as a storage area. The requesting Teresa on the property to facilitate redevelopment. The current zoning, as I said, is IAU two, i.e. is a light industrial district. The use of two is a billboard use overlay. With this application, they are proposing to remove the billboard use overlay and the surrounding properties in the area generally are the light industrial with the billboard use overlay Xerox eight and C-Max 20. So it's used as industrial. Right now you have industrial uses to the north east, you have some residential and industrial uses also to the south and west. The building forming scale. Here's some photos of the existing site. You'll see that on the left here. And then the photos to the east or this or the right to that are the surrounding properties. In terms of process, the this went to planning board on May 1st and it was unanimously approved public comment. We received three letters of support. Those are in your packets to from nearby property owners. The applicant did reach out and met with Globeville Cares and Fox Street Business Association and received verbal support from those Arnaud's. So review criteria, as you know, the Denver zoning code requires and for a council to approve the rezoning that the five zoning code review criteria are met first with the consistency with adopted plans, there are four adopted plans that apply to this rezoning the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver, the 41st and Fox Station Area Plan, and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan Comprehensive Plan 2040. There are multiple goals that all support this rezoning very mentally resilient, strong, authentic neighborhoods, all encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood offers where services are already in place. Next will move to Blueprint Denver the recently adopted there four different things in blueprint Denver that we take a look at the context, the place, street types and the growth strategy. First, with the neighborhood context, it's currently mapped as the urban center neighborhood context. The requested zone district is consistent with Blueprint Denver as it is within the urban center context. Next Blueprint Denver Future Places. This is shown as high, medium residential mixed uses, including multi-unit. Residential heights are generally up to eight storeys. There's a high lot coverage and shallow setbacks in the Blueprint. Denver Future Street Types. We have 44th Avenue to the north as a mixed use cluster and then Fox Avenue, Fox Street to the west as also serving the site. In terms of the growth strategy blueprint, Denver shows this as a high and medium high residential area and the downtown and urban center context. That means citywide we can anticipate to see about 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth. Next, we move on to the 41st and Fox station area plan that was adopted by council in 2009. It's shown in this plan as proposed open space. However, there is a note saying that parks are conceptually shown on the land use plan and the actual locations are not determined. Future park space in the station area require working with private property owners, parks and recreation and developing funding partnerships. That said, we took guidance from the more recently adopted Globeville plan showing a urban residential. That definition is also in the 41st and Fox stationary plan. Those are aligned and it's intended for those two plans to be aligned. The urban residential is intended for to date stories, new moderate density neighborhoods, providing a range of housing, types of about support, pedestrian shopping and employment base. Next, moving on to the Globeville neighborhood plan. Like I said, that was adopted in 2014. The kinds of land use for this parcel is shown as the urban residential. That's the 2 to 8 storeys in height. And it's intended to be consistent with the 41st and Fox station area plan. It talks about being a diverse, transit supportive, environmentally sustainable urban center in this area. It also talks about creating a broad base of new jobs in diverse economic centers sectors by redevelopment opportunities throughout the neighborhood. The zero eight would all help support these goals. Next, we'll move on to the second through five review criteria uniformity of district regulations. The request is consistent that in terms of furthering public health, safety and welfare, it implements adaptive plans. It helps re facilitate redevelopment in a station area. The justifying circumstances the application. The application notes for change or changing conditions? Well, we see the recently adopted plans investment in the area. Also the G line that came in just recently came on board. Those are all appropriate justifying circumstances for this rezoning. Consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The zero eight zone district applies to residentially dominated areas served primarily by arterial streets where building scale of tree stories is desired. This site is, like we said before, being served by those two collective streets and it is within the 2 to 8 story range. So we feel that that is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purposes intent. That said, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. First up is Megan Jones.
Speaker 11: Good evening. I'm Megan Jones. I'm an unincorporated Adams County resident. And thank you very much for the presentation and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 0: Do. Excuse.
Speaker 3: Chairman Sekou Black saw some movement for self-defense. Upon hearing and looking at the. Thirdly, you know, I got some questions about this thing. Now looking at the area, it could use some residential development. No question about it. And if we're going to obey stories, this becomes housing for who and who can afford it. Not affordable housing, because in this area is also underdeveloped. And you have a large pocket of poor people there who need housing. And are they going to be able to afford to be able to live in their neighborhood? And with the look in terms of actual economic viability, we're looking at a place that had a lot of industrial use in it. And I ain't heard nothing about the cleanup that's been done up there in terms of the soil to invite families to live up in that. And so I need some clarification about those tests and what is actually happening. And if that's a requirement of the pre-development and the plan, then we need to look at some stuff here. Because once you approve this, then it's own. And from looking at the public comment that was involved in this thing, this has been an ongoing kind of issue for that area. And so not to cast aspersions on the intent or what people are working toward to make this happen. I would suggest that we postpone this and put this back in the committee to take another look at this thing, because there's some gaps in this, some serious gaps in this, and there are some serious questions on those questions leads to other questions and other questions. And now we're road ball in this thing. And so I'm neither opposed to it nor am I for it. I just need some further qualifications. If we can get that from you guys, then I'd appreciate some help. You'd like to come up here?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: That's it. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 13: Just the pairs represented for Denver Homicide allow black socks movement for self defense and positive action committed for social change. And I was on top of the ballot this past May 2019 election for city council, where a large, almost 50,000 votes with no money. We are in favor of this rezoning for the exact reason that was stated previously. We have a housing crisis in the city. We need at least 26,000 homes built to even attempt to address this housing need. In this whole election campaign, we were told we can do better. So if we can do better, I would like to see the council do better and actually create attainable housing that people can actually afford in the city and county of Denver. Not affordable, but attainable. That means RMR levels between zero and 30%. So my question was, what is the RMR level for this rezoning? Do you even know? And who is going to occupy this space? Because this neighborhood has been neglected. Globeville, along with the area, and Swansea has been neglected for years by this city. Now all of a sudden it's become an opportunity zone and there's all this development coming to an area that is not even built infrastructure wise for it. So I want to know what is the RMR level for this and who is going to reside at this? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council tells me just another.
Speaker 8: Question for staff. What are the two local and I mean the two collectors and all articles that serve this?
Speaker 5: That would be Fox Street to the West and then 44th to the north. That's about a block and a half to the north of the fourth, and that's a block west would be Fox Street. And I apologize. My recovering from an illness and laryngitis over the weekend.
Speaker 8: So where is CPD or public works with the team. Yeah ideas the parking maximums or the limits that they're talking about on on on this section and it's.
Speaker 10: Called the next step.
Speaker 5: Study.
Speaker 8: Is that. Yes. Part of.
Speaker 5: The yes. So then the 41st and Fox area next step study is fully underway right now and it's anticipated to be completed by 2020. And with the parking overlay that was determined to be either, you know, started to take a look at at during the 41st and Fox next step study but really to let that process go through and then after that process dove back into the parking overlay potential. But we need to see what comes out of that next step. Next step study from the 41st and Fox area plan in that they're looking at the infrastructure there.
Speaker 8: How was the the how was this reconciled in the in the Globeville neighborhood plan, the fact that there was, you know, considerable promotion of toward a more dense urban redevelopment of this area. But the limitations that are with those two collectors that you've identified as being those streets that would carry all the vehicular traffic that would do it this this new density would would support what are there? Did there were there other solutions that were contemplated.
Speaker 5: For the Globeville? CLINTON Well, we do have the the transit stop, which is like 1000 feet away. So there's we have right now to with the the public works rules and regulations that are in place with the traffic study requirements for the site development plan process that in tandem with transportation demand management strategies help with the congestion in the area, but also the proximity to 41st and Fox station area was heavily leaned upon within the Globeville area plan.
Speaker 8: See, that's what's sort of tough here, right, is the criteria requires us to contemplate its proximity to these arterials and and collectors, not to commuter rail. So to talk about commuter rail and is not part of the criteria, is it? Is it.
Speaker 5: The criteria? No, but it is served by those essentially because the close proximity, they can essentially, you know, be considered to be served by.
Speaker 8: Okay, I'm worried because it's a bit of a slippery slope to justify rezonings and we've done it already previously, as you can look at the map and see that justify this level of intensity, intense re mean entitlement when it isn't directly served by local mean by a collectors or arterials and but then we already know that those collectors and arterials are potentially going to be overburdened to the point where we would actually cap the ability to to bring cars into this area. And so it seems odd to me that we would sort of put our head in the sand about those realities of infrastructure. And and and they make that leap continue to make that leap and say, well, this meets the criteria when we have these deficiencies. And and I'm I'm somewhat perplexed that your answer to the parking overlay is that it will now be kicked down the road for the next step study because, you know, at some point I need the confidence that we have. We're considering how the infrastructure marries itself with the land use, because what we're not doing right now is is developing anything out there according to plan. In four years of major rezonings in this area, we have yet to see any outcomes that are consistent with these adopted plans. So should we be continuing rezoning to the to this degree and adding entitlement when when we might need to to pull back some other infrastructure? I mean, other other aspects of the regulations that are currently allowed. I mean, you are contemplating right now reductions in an entitlement with regard to parking or or changes in entitlement. As part of the next subsidies. Are you.
Speaker 0: Or are you.
Speaker 5: The scope of the next steps? Are you? Yeah. Yes, I'm I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that it looks at the infrastructure at a high level. I'm not sure to what extent it really will be covering parking in depth like. So we.
Speaker 8: Postponed a parking overlay, Mr..
Speaker 0: President.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So we postpone, you know, can answers real quick. They are looking at parking demand management and this will be completed at the end of 2020, much further ahead than anyone could get entitlements to build anything at this site here. Much further. So parking demands, the infrastructure investment that we're talking about will all be in place prior to any development that this could that could happen at this site that we are proving right now to like. So within the next eight months. Yes. She said it will be completed in 2020. Okay. I'm sort of, again, having to put a lot of faith that somehow we're going to be addressing the infrastructure problems. If we if I'm going to overlook the fact that the arterials and collectors that service this area are, in fact already overburdened and couldn't withstand the maximum level of development of the existing entitlement, let alone the planned entitlement of this area. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. So my question first is, do you have a number of how many zoning we've done in this area to date?
Speaker 5: Um. I don't. I'm not off the top of my head. No. Okay.
Speaker 10: I, I mean, I can count at least 8 to 10 that have come before this body, which have all been asking for significant density increases. And that includes the 43 acres over at the Denver Post site. Can you tell me if every developer coming in asking for density increases are being asked to financially participate in the next step study and to be part of the solutions that will come out of that.
Speaker 5: What I do have to say is that with the public works, the rules and regulations that they have to do a not only a traffic impact study for before they get out of concept for their site development plan, but also a transportation demand management plan in order to contribute to that. The next step study is fully funded and underway. Here's here's the.
Speaker 8: Problem, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Can I just add.
Speaker 10: I cannot finish.
Speaker 8: I've answered a question for you real quick. So there have we we did ask the developer to pay into the next step study. And so there are folks who are paying into that. And we'd be happy to give you a breakdown of this study as well, because we wanted to make sure, like you said, Councilman, that we have developers making sure that they're invested into this project.
Speaker 10: So so part of the issue with this area of town is. We should not be looking at 44th Avenue as a collector road into this site, because what you're going to do is exacerbate all of the traffic problems for the Globeville neighborhood, because that's exactly where it's going to put them, is right in front of Garden Place elementary school to get, you know, on and off at Washington Street or to use Lincoln Street. And my concern is that we're we're looking at this where we're continuing to change the zoning and increase the density or, as Councilman Espinosa said, the entitlements. But we haven't addressed any of the infrastructures on the front end. We're waiting till the back end after we do all these rezonings. And the expectation is we, the taxpayers, will be looking at how to solve the problem. So, for example, we've got CDOT doing the next step study. I mean, I'm sorry, the health study on 25, but it does not include this particular interchange at 38, Fox, I-25 and Park Avenue. And that interchange is what traffic coming out of downtown is going to have to go through to get into this site. So there's just that one road and I guess. For us to be asked to continue to change the zoning without addressing any of the infrastructure issues. And this is part of the problem with the changes that happened with zoning.
Speaker 1: Gentlemen, I just want to check, make sure your saw in questions and you can you can more than we're going to do this in comments or we're taking questions now. Okay. Get you back in the queue for comment.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I asked my two questions. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for counsel, four for eight is closed. Comments by members of Council Countryman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Hey, thank you, Mr. President. Appreciate it. This rezoning is in my district. And I just want to say a couple of things. This is at 41st and Fox. Many people call this Fox Island. If you've not been there, I would encourage you to go into this neighborhood is very interesting. There is only one way in, one way out of a road. And it's it's problematic. There are some issues. We have never put the kind of mobility focused investment in that we're putting in right now. Now, there's no dollars committed at the city, and I think there should be some concerned over that. But there is a lot of effort from CBD and public works to actually put the vision together. I've been a part of that. I really encourage council people who are, you know, worried about this area to be a part of the conversations. Because right now the regulations and the ask of what we're asking from developers to put into this place is being formed and put together. The other thing that we're looking at here is a transportation demand management system, which I think is really important. And we have a lot of developers pushing back and we need community folks. We need council folks at the table saying this We can no longer over park these developments. We've got to make sure we got a multi billion dollar rail system that's right across the street that we're not even using. And so demand management means and parking demands means you can only park your building to a certain ratio. And so that's what we're looking at. We hope to have that that all done. Well, I won't be doing it, but the city hopes to have it all done by 2020. That kind of like going to January 2020. And I think that's going to be a very important process for everyone to be a part of saying that understanding that this rezoning is in this area. I will also say this. We have resolved a lot. I was just in this area a week ago and it's really interesting. I've never seen so many rezonings and no cranes and no construction. For whatever reason, the market has not come to this location yet. The only construction is the RTD construction that was built and now the train is work is running, which is great, but there has not been some construction. So all of the fear that we're going to overbuilt, I think you don't have a market to build it just yet. So what we need to do is make sure that we have a robust demand management system that the private sector pays for, that the public sector invest in, so we can move forward. Mr. President, because this rezoning particular rezoning meets the criteria, I will be supportive. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. So as I was saying earlier, you know, this particular area is problematic because of the fact that there is one access into the site that's off of Fox Avenue. You then have 44th Avenue that goes to the Globeville neighborhood, which is a two lane road with no pedestrian walkway. Although we do have kids who live on this side of I-25 that that walk along 44th Avenue to Garden Place Elementary School. There is a project to put sidewalks along this bridge, but right now they're not there. The I-25 Pal study is really critical to this area, and it doesn't go this far because major changes to that interchange need to happen to be able to figure out how we move traffic through this particular area. You have a baseball game letting out and if it rains, traffic is going to back up into downtown because anybody trying to go into north Denver can't go through because that underpass floods. We have a serious flooding problem in this area. It's the Utah Junction outfall. And Councilman Brooks, we've been engaged in ongoing conversations with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative with. Chris, who's our team person. My concern when we talk about parking maximums, which is what the overlay is, is discussing. My concern for anybody rezoning in this area is, you know, if it's if it's first in all, those folks are going to want their parking and whoever wants that cap happens. Anybody else wanting to do their development, if it's already been capped, a bank isn't going to finance a project without any parking. And and so these are some realities that we deal with in in the development world. And so I don't know that we're creating unrealistic entitlements or expectations by continuing to put the highest concentration of high density development in this small geographical area that only has this one road in and out. And so I don't think that we're adequately addressing.
Speaker 5: The the.
Speaker 10: Health, safety, welfare of the community that we're encouraging by, you know, by by rezoning all of these properties to be in this area, by not addressing all of the infrastructure as part of the big picture. I know early on there were discussions about a road that would connect over to the Sunnyside neighborhood. I've heard as as early as today that that may not happen. Now, that was going to provide a different access point for people trying to get in and out of this area. And we don't know what the next step study is going to recommend at this point in time. So we're continuing to add to the volume of density that's going to be in this area without knowing how the infrastructure issues are going to be addressed. And that's that's a fatal flaw in how we're doing zoning these days because. We don't we don't know how that stuff is going to be worked out. And I mean, I think we need to go back and look at making some changes to our zoning code that allow city council to see the level of detail that helps us to fully understand what we are proving, that ensures that we're addressing the health, safety and welfare of of a community. So, you know, I know we've done a number of zoning in this area, but I'm not comfortable continuing to increase the densities and the zoning where we. We just don't have the pieces to the puzzle all figured out. So I'm not going to be supporting this one tonight, and I will continue to be involved with the folks working on the next step study and insert our input. We have been involved in those meetings through through my office and hopefully we'll find some some of the right solutions that can ensure that the people who will be living in this area once all this development happens, can move in and out without putting their lives at risk, because we're going to have, you know, more cars in this area. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: It won't be the first time I will have opposed an hour x eight in this general vicinity. I had one on Jason Street, so it's two blocks on my side of the railroad tracks and it's served by the same arterial and in fact, it's you could argue it served. It's better serve because it's somewhat proximate to pacos. But the criteria is is is pretty clear that it has to, you know, ideally, I mean, these things need to be served by arterials and collectors. And what we know about Fox Island is that the roads that do serve it are taxed, which is why there's these other conversations . So it's I, I for 1 a.m. not at all surprised by the complete lack of redevelopment on Fox Island. I have said it at least three times and I'm going to say it a fourth time. At least now that this is a mexican standoff. What is happening over there is people are gaming, are plans to cash in, and when they cash in, they suck dollars out of Denver and community. What they have right now is a industrial zoning which doesn't allow them to build one single residential unit on that property. But now they would get eight stories of redevelopment for potential going, zero setback on all four sides of their property. And for that, it's a $1,000 fee for one acre of property. And so what do you do when you grant that much entitlement for $1,000 plus the time that you've taken as you've created an opportunity for that person to sell that land, to flip that land for way more money than they bought it for. And when they take those rights and sell those rights, they siphon money out of the project. That could go into better design, into affordability, into the infrastructure needs of this community. And we don't have a process right now, but it clearly we're having a conversation about how to do that in the future when we should have done it a long time ago. We've been we spent millions of dollars on that rail. But guess what? The rail is not part of our criteria when considering rezonings, and that is stupid. There should be zone districts specifically for Tio D's that do three things. They have minimum development requirements. You have to go up over a certain height. You have to have ground floor activation where appropriate. You have to have better street standards. Streetscape standards. Actually, there's a fourth. And you have to encourage mode shift. You you you put those parking maximums on there or you make no parking. You you tell them that there is no possibility that you can put parking in your project. But the emphasis has to be. Use that rail. We spent millions already of your taxpayer dollars. We don't have that. So we are not on a collector. We're not on an arterial. We are against three local streets, LRT. Fourth and third. We are on an island that is poorly served by existing roads that do collect those locals. And so until the city. Well, for as long as I'm on council I will be voting no on further rezonings. That and this is you know you can say I'm pre-meditated or presume whatever this stupid word is that the lawyers don't like that, but I'm not worried about it for obvious reasons there. This is a call to the city that we need to get out of the business of granting entitlement when we have too much development entitlement right now in this city that we could capture all the growth that we need in the available square footage that we could develop. And that if we're going to emphasize re you know, if we want to see the outcomes in our plans, we have to codify those outcomes in our regulations so those don't exist here. I have been a mixed bag on prior rezonings on Fox Island. I have voted both for and against for a whole host of reasons. But this one this far away from the rail station, this far away from local. I mean, for collectors and arterials that are taxed to the point where we don't know how we're going to ever capture the growth that we're that we that we've planned for. This area tells me that we need a solution to our transit infrastructure before we go further with any intensified entitlement. So with that, I'll be voting no.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, seeing no other comments on this item, Madam Secretary, recall.
Speaker 5: Black eye.
Speaker 7: Brooks Espinosa.
Speaker 5: No. Flynn I. Gilmore, i.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Cashman. PANITCH.
Speaker 0: Lopez All right.
Speaker 5: Ortega No. Assessment. I.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 7: 9 hours, three days.
Speaker 1: Nine days. Three Neighbors Council bill four for eight has passed. Councilman Lopez, before we jump into the next hearing, I understand that we have a special guest in the chambers. Would you like to recognize our guest?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4230 Elati Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 and I-A to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center, residential mixed-use), located at 4230 Elati Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-14-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0447
|
Speaker 1: Nice 11 nice. Comfortable 494 has passed. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please for accountable 447 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, President Clarke, I move the council bill 447 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded and the public hearing for Constable four, four, seven is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Just cleaning it up. All right.
Speaker 11: I'm Alice, Stevie. And this is a proposed rezoning for 1245 Queen Street. We are in Council District five in the East Colfax neighborhood. The subject property is a little over 7000 square feet, and the proposed rezoning is from the current Eastside X to Eastside one x. So the difference being that the proposed district allows an accessory dwelling unit, including the detached accessory dwelling unit building form, the subject property and surrounding properties in all directions are Eastside X transitioning to Main Street zoning along Colfax to the north, and similarly the site and surrounding properties are single unit residential land use with a few public , quasi public and higher intensity residential uses in the area. So the subject properties on the bottom left and some surrounding residential buildings are shown on the right. So Planning Board recommended approval of this rezoning. On May 1st, KPD received a statement of support from the East Colfax Neighborhood Association. As of the time of the staff report, we also received 18 letters or emails and support two in our position and one comment that was neither in support or opposition. The support letters included 14 forms circulated by the applicant, returned by neighbors to indicate their support. And then we. A protest petition was submitted for this case with valid signatures of the owners of just over 20% of the area within 200 feet of the subject property. So for the rezoning criteria, we have four plans to consider in this area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040 and that it will enable increased development at a location where infrastructure, where infrastructure, including transit service, is already in place. Blueprint Denver mapped this area as the urban edge context. The requested ESU D1 X is consistent with the planned direction of predominantly residential areas that are generally single unit and two unit uses. The requested ESU D1 X is consistent with the future places mapping of this area of low residential, which is single into unit and accessory dwelling dwelling units are appropriate. So under the blueprint growth strategy areas including the subject property are 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 additionally, blueprint includes a policy to diversify housing choice with the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. One strategy that specifically references how this policy applies to rezoning is, quote, a citywide approach to enable it to use as preferred until a holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable adus in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit are appropriate. Unless there is a neighborhood plan supporting a to use rezoning should be small an area in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding residential area. Housing and inclusive. Denver was adopted in 2018 and contains recommendations that are directly relevant to this rezoning. The plan recommends expanding the development of accessory dwelling units as they are as they incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. It also promotes development as a of aid to as a wealth building tool for low and moderate income homeowners. So the proposed MAP amendment to ESG one X is consistent with these recommendations. Finally, the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1994. This plan proposed rezoning. I'm sorry, this proposed rezoning is consistent with that plan, including vision statements around protecting residential character and promoting a mix of income levels in rental single family homes, and in policies like encouraging homeowners to add on additions and modernize single family homes. So staff found this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density near a mix of uses and transit. Staff found that the proposed rezoning is justified through changed and changing conditions. The staff report details development and redevelopment to provide services and retail near the subject property and would be accessible from the additional residential unit that would be allowed by this rezoning. And additionally, the adoption of the blueprint update and housing an inclusive Denver include policies that specifically support this rezoning request. And finally, the context zoned district purpose and intent of Eastside one X are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area and adopted plan guidance. So given the defining that all review criteria have been met, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning.
Speaker 5: Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have 16 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to call the first five speakers if you could make your way to the front bench. And please remember to state your name for the record, your city of residence. And if you're comfortable, your address. And so first up, the first five, we have Steve Elkins, Allison Tawfik, Alan West, Dimitri Cervantes Ski and Amy Mattern. So Steve Elkins.
Speaker 0: Good evening, members of the Denver City Council. My name is Steve Elkins and I live at 1245 Quinn Street. I want to start by thanking my neighbors and neighboring property owners who have been on this journey with me. You didn't ask to come on this journey, but I appreciate you coming along anyway. I want to thank the East Colfax R.A., where we have strong leaders like Tim Roberts and Tom Fishing. I'm here tonight to celebrate that I'm a yimby and I mean that quite literally. I want to build an accessory dwelling unit to you in my backyard. When I saw our new citywide plans in draft form, I was excited about Denver taking the next steps to implement it to use as recommended by housing and inclusive Denver. I love my neighborhood and I'm excited about the opportunity to share it with other people who love it too. This idea for me started with a neighbor who was concerned I was going to tear my home down. I kept thinking, How do we save these great small homes on large lots? I had walked by 1188 Quint Street many times, which has had two small homes on one property since 1912. The property shows the concept of two small homes on one property has been in my neighborhood for over 100 years. Gentle density isn't new to Denver, except now for the first time, we have plans that have explicitly caught up with our desire for general density. I remember speaking to an overflow crowd at the January Jan R.A. meeting. I found neighbors who are hungry for a solution to combat a growing trend new, large, expensive homes in place, the small homes that are more affordable and in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. At the meeting, one neighbor was concerned about my outreach efforts. Her concern led me to send 40 letters to neighbors, property owners and tenants where I describe my project. How to contact me, how to contact staff. And if they chose to submit a support form in favor of my rezoning. Between my letters and staff book staff's inbox, my application received 18 statements of support. I learned of the owner of 1255 Quinn Streets opposition from Ms.. Stevie, who recommended mediation and not from the owner herself. I then reached out to a mediator who told me the owner declined mediation. This petition, the protest petition before you tonight was signed by a total of eight property owners. The petition got me thinking. After all my outreach efforts, no one in opposition has reached back out to discuss his or her opposition with me. A bedrock of Denver's rezoning process is outreach. However, for outreach to work, it requires people with questions or concerns to reach back. I have made myself as available as I can, but I don't really know how to move forward with opponents who can't communicate their opposition to me directly. I stand here tonight to request that you empower my neighborhood to take an active part in directing how growth will shape our lives. We need gentle density of our small homes to survive as we face increasing pressure for our homes to be replaced. I want to be able to say to that neighbor who is concerned that I would scrape my home, that we have solutions now to shape our neighborhoods growth instead of that growth shaping us.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Next up, Alison Tawfik. I'm Alison Tawfik. I live near East High School in Denver. I'm a proponent of increasing density. I think this is a great one of these great, huge lots. My next door neighbors had one of these great huge lots that was filled with alley cats and things like that. And now there are two little houses on it, too. Little duplex side by side because he owned the whole thing. What him what he could have done was scrape the whole thing off pit for a big fugly mansion on it with a pop up and go corner to corner. But this neighbor wants to just put in two little houses to match the little neighborhood that was there in 1912. I think it's a fantastic way to increase a little density, find a little add a little place for someone to one or two people to live, to add some housing to the area that will have it's right by transit. It's right by it's walkable, it's bikeable. All of the cars would be a moot issue because there's already plenty of cars. If you look on Google Street maps, you'll see plenty of room for car parking if that's ever an issue. But I think if you ended up scraping it and putting in a big McMansion with a five car garage, you'd have a much worse issue than if we have these two cute little houses. Thank you. Thank you. Ellen West.
Speaker 15: My name is Eleanor West and I live in Denver and I own 1255 Squint Street, which is immediately north of the property seeking to change. There are many reasons why I oppose the zoning change, but my focus on only two issues one the need to preserve the meaning of zoning codes. And two, the need to preserve affordable housing first, relating to the meaning of zoning codes. I purchased 1255 six years ago as a backup plan for old age should I become unable to maintain my current three storey townhome. I was drawn to the property because of the quiet nature of the street. Sturdy construction of the home, proximity to family members and the tree shaded backyard. The block and much of the surrounding area is zoned single family. It never entered my mind that someone could buy the home next door and get a zoning change to be able to build a second home, possibly larger than the original in the backyard next to mine. That's what could happen. It would permit another home that could be as large as a thousand square feet to be built on the property. I printed an aerial view to help you visualize the space. 1245 is the one with the red marker. The existing home and attached garage together are about 1000 square feet. Keep in mind that when building another dwelling, you need to keep five foot setbacks and maintain the driveway area to access the garage. Because of these current constraints, there would not be much rent yard remaining for two homes to share. Most likely, a peaceful enjoyment of my backyard and nearby homes would be compromised. Question Should one owner be able to obtain a change in zoning that will negatively impact surrounding neighbors and remain with the property forever? Second, preserving affordable, affordable housing, which is critical in Denver. If approved, the change would have a negative impact on affordable housing, albeit just one property. Homes on Queen Street, similar to 1245, have been selling for about 325,000, which is affordable and attractive to young families. If you add the cost of an accessory dwelling unit, which could easily be 150,000, it would remove the property from the affordable category and there's no insurance that the unit would be offered at a rental rate considered affordable because most likely there would be a construction loan to pay off. And most importantly, once zoning changes have been made, it sets a precedent, making it easier for others to follow suit and more homes could become unaffordable. Finally, the staff report recommending approval of a zoning recommendation raises much of the argument on consistent with consistency with adopted plans for the future development of Denver. To proceed with the future vision zoning code should be systematically changed. I doubt that the intent of the documents was to give license to individual property owners to obtain zoning changes one property at a time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Dimitri Zorrilla.
Speaker 0: Fortney. Hi, City Council. My name is Dimitri Xavier. Right now I live at 1950 North Logan Street in Denver, and I just come here to say that I love to use and I'm pretty sure Denver loves to use as well. In fact, in Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 14: You know, that whole.
Speaker 0: Process was very much in favor and allowing a to use to be implemented across the city that's including attached and detached to use and across all neighborhoods in all residential zoned districts. Additionally, until neighborhood plans can be put in place, I believe the East Area plan is still in process. Blueprint called for individual rezonings to be allowed in all residential areas, especially where they're close to transit. Aside from that housing and inclusive Denver, which is Denver Council's adopted housing plan, it specifically recommends it to use to combat gentrification and displacement in neighborhoods such as East Colfax, which is a neighborhood that is pretty vulnerable to displacement. City Council has also approved these these rezonings in the past as well. I think additionally, the East Colfax Ana's is in favor. Finally, Denver has a history of allowing it to use, especially after World War Two. You know, we have a tradition of this and we have many neighborhoods in the past that have allowed this. But, you know, I do want to applaud the neighbors for coming out and engaging, you know, their civil duty. It's it's a wonderful thing. But I think their their fears are misplaced. I think, you know, if they say that they're going to ruin single. Family home neighborhoods. I think they're actually going to use they're going to save them. I think, you know, when Blueprint Denver calls for a single family member, it's absorbed 20% of Denver's population growth by 2040.
Speaker 14: This is one of the.
Speaker 0: Tools and this is one of the ways we can do it. You know, one of the great things about it to use is they put eyes on the alley. They they activate the alley in a way the garages just can't, you know, and lots like these, you know, we've seen lots of these be scraped all across the city and replaced with McMansions. I think this is an opportunity to save this property, to save this house, allow for more density, allow for more opportunity for people to live next to transit along corridors such as this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Amy Mattern.
Speaker 5: Hello.
Speaker 12: My name is Amy Matter and I.
Speaker 5: Own a property.
Speaker 9: Directly.
Speaker 5: South of the property or the applicant here, and I can appreciate his efforts to add additional affordable housing to Denver, but I stand in opposition to the application. I don't think it'll add affordable housing and I'm a first time homeowner. I'm really, really grateful for this wonderful neighborhood allowed me to get on the property ladder. I am really fearful.
Speaker 12: That if they add an accessory dwelling.
Speaker 5: Unit, it'll make the property unaffordable for other first time homeowners that come behind me, because they'll be two units on or two dwellings on one property, therefore affecting the values of the property. I think it's important to make opportunities in the city for people to become first owners like myself. Also for Miss West, who is having a backup retirement plan, it offers wealth building for people. I think homeownership has also got to be a consideration in this neighborhood or my house was built over 70 years ago. It was built in my neighborhood for GIs coming back from World War Two. They had cute little houses with tons and tons of character. I do agree that scraping these houses would be a tragedy because they're such great little houses. They have great green spaces that add to our quality of life that we will not have if there's accessory dwelling units on there. I don't think it meets the criteria for public health, safety and general welfare of our neighborhood. It is right between two major arteries of traffic Colfax and Quebec. These arteries are running at or above capacity all the time. And although it's nice there's public transportation, it's likely that people are going to need a car to access the grocery store or retail as things stand right now. So you think the traffic will increase a lot, which is not good for the neighborhood or its welfare. Also, a lot of us use the alley to access our garages and having additional units on the alley is a potential safety hazard. I don't know because they're going to be reduced. Greenspace, perhaps small children living in those dwelling units are going to use the alley to play in and that kind of thing. So I think that is a concern as well. I'm a little concerned about the comparables that were used in this application. First of all, 1188 Queen Street was built over 100 years ago. There's two units and they're on a double lot. They're you know, they could probably be legally severed and have ample separate lot. So I don't think that's very comparable. The other comparables were also built prior to the zoning laws. And so I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 5: Okay. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. I'm going to call the next five up to the front bench. Adam Astrof, Chairman Sekou, Kevin MATTHEWS, Jerry Saltzman and Jeffrey Baker and Adam Astrof, you are up.
Speaker 8: Hi. My name's Adam Astrof. I live in the Baker neighborhood in Denver, and I actually. I'm here to speak in favor of this project. I think that ADAS are probably the most important tool we have in our toolkit to provide the needed housing for the various populations that are moving to our city. And I wanted to talk about why I support this project based on the block I live on. We're also first time homeowners and we were only able to afford our property because it's a smaller lot. It's 2000 square feet next to us. There's an apartment building, two units down, there's an EDU, there is rental units, there are affordable rental units, there are expensive rental units. There is housing stock from $300000 to $1000000 all on my block. And I think that's the kind of flexibility that we really need to be looking for. And this is why, you know, you guys all approved it. You citywide with the Blueprint Denver plan. I think that these are very important because they allow us to preserve these existing small homes, you know, that have been built over the last hundred years in our city. They those allow us to maintain, you know, a unique neighborhood character. And there are so many ways you can use an Adu to make a home affordable. If you're a senior.
Speaker 5: And you're.
Speaker 8: Aging, you can move into the edu, you know, rent out your main house to cover your expenses, or you can have an in-home caregiver live there. If you're a young family starting out, you could use the rent payment that somebody would give you for the ADU to subsidize the cost of your child care with a live in nanny or just, you know, to subsidize the cost of your mortgage. You know, I. I wish we weren't here. Frankly, I don't think that a single project like this should come before our city council, let alone require the same vote as impeaching the mayor. But I hope that you all all choose to support this, ADU, so that we can make sure that Denver remains an accessible place for everyone. And I'll just add, as far as the alley concerns, you know, again, we have a lot more density in Baker and there's there's no issues with parking in the alley. And I don't believe there would be some from this project either. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: Yes. My name is Chen Masuku. Martial Arts and self-defense. Man, I don't know how you do this. Okay. The idea what is a use? We're a couple of things. One to. Help the housing stock. For folks who had jobs and had no house. And this land that was on these lots could be used to help build housing for folks who could afford it. The other idea was God came in from the church yesterday. Part of our mission is that we want to give poor people shelter. So we want to build one of these aid you so that we can take poor people off the street and put them in a unit so that they can get housing. And that was for the homeless. This is not a homeless activity here. It is going down. What are we talking about here? This is for folks who want to create wealth. Period. And I ain't got no problem that. As America does it. It's a matter. So folks who want to take what they got and make some money on that and do whatever they need to do, that would. That ain't none of my business. You do what you do. For folks who want to come and take poor people off the street and give them shelter in a blizzard so they don't lose their lives.
Speaker 1: Chairman, could you please. Speaking of my phone.
Speaker 3: You do that. That ain't none of my business. You got a choice to make, and you're going to have to live with decisions you make. I know ideas are not going to solve the problems of homeless people, period. It's not going to happen because you don't have those kind of folks in a large majority that have that kind of goodwill. This is America and it's all about money first so we can stop bullshitting up in here.
Speaker 1: Please watch your.
Speaker 0: Language.
Speaker 3: Let them do what you let other folks do and do this thing and our position on it. If you don't like this happening in your neighborhood, you have a choice. Move. You got the money. Move. And let these folks do what they do.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Kevin Mathews.
Speaker 8: I am Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street in Congress Park. I want to share a quick personal story about ideas and the positive impact they can have. My father and stepmother live in Andover, Massachusetts, a suburb about 25 miles north of Boston. They have a Aidoo or a mother in law unit that they built in their early nineties. It's a one bedroom, one bath over their garage with a small living room and a full kitchen. Now, technically, these units are illegal, but at the time, they received a medical exemption from my grandmother, who had health issues. She lived there for about.
Speaker 5: Ten years.
Speaker 8: And died in early 2000. And since then, it's said vacant for about a decade, which leads to my stepbrother Mark and his wife, Pam. These are two of the millennials that you keep hearing about in the news who are $100,000 in debt each for advanced degrees and can't afford the expensive metro Boston housing market, which is even more expensive than the Denver market. So they pay now. They live they live there. It's not an ideal situation. My brother did not want to move back in with the parents, but it is a private unit. They pay a nominal rent and they live in a town that they could otherwise not afford and take advantage of the local communal line into Boston where they both work. My father told me that over the last few years they occasionally shared meals together when they need their privacy. They might not see Mark or Pam for a week or two. That is until about two years ago when they had their first.
Speaker 5: Daughter.
Speaker 8: And having doting grandparents nearby can act as childcare when needed. You can imagine how beneficial that is considering the cost of child care for my father and stepmother.
Speaker 5: On the one hand, this.
Speaker 8: Is also provided to be very beneficial. The house is very large and they my dad has just had his 82nd birthday. He's had heart issues for about.
Speaker 5: 15 years and.
Speaker 8: Has had a couple of surgeries. He can no longer take care of the home, and having that additional help has been an incredible benefit. What I want to point out is this arrangement has allowed my parents to age in place in their own home and without having to leave the community to which they have deep ties and friendships. Now, considering the benefits for both of these parties, I can't imagine why anybody would say that this arrangement should be illegal, but it apparently is. I talked to my dad this past weekend and he affectionately refers to this as snob zoning, especially for a town like Andover. There are also a couple of towns nearby. I just want to point out the town of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts, that have undergone a lot of development and a lot of gentrification over the past several years. And it's because of people who would like to live in towns like Andover.
Speaker 5: Who can no longer afford it.
Speaker 8: So it's not the development that's causing those towns to be developed. It's the lack of development in towns like Andover that is causing that gentrification. Help me support this project and so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Gerry Saltzman.
Speaker 0: My name is Jerry Saltzman. I live one block north of Steve Elkins at 1369 Quint Street. I have lived in the neighborhood for 21 years and I fully support Steve's proposal to build an 80 U. I don't think that people realize that our neighborhood already has several 80 youths in it. The carriage house and duplex across the street from my house has been there for over 100 years without any negative effects. 80 views are great for our neighborhood because they allow neighbor homeowners to care for elder family members while creating independent housing, provide affordable housing, improve neighborhood security by having more eyes on the street, and may also help keep the homeowner within their home by supplementing their income. When I attended the January East Colfax R.A. meeting, there was standing room only a near unanimous support for Steve's application because everyone was so excited about doing the same thing with their properties. Since City Council has already passed several policies that encourage affordable housing, let's move forward and enact those policies. Our neighborhood, as well as our city, is struggling to provide affordable housing. What more can Steve do to help solve the affordable housing crisis in our community? Then build an ADU. Even though it's very easy to let fear of the unknown or what if's prevent us from doing the right thing. I'm proud to support Steve's effort to help solve the affordable housing crisis because he's going to be adding one housing unit to Denver's rapidly declining housing stock. Since Steve's application devotes over 24 pages to detailing exactly how his 80, you will comply with every single term and condition of every single piece of legislation that affects the growth of our neighborhood. I don't see any reason to not support his proposal. Doesn't everyone here tonight prefer to see an edu in Steve's backyard as opposed to a gigantic two and a half storey home? Isn't an Adu much more in line with maintaining the character of our neighborhood? Thank you for letting me speak here tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up is Jeffrey Baker and I invite Sarah Sander, half Tina Winston, Logan Meier, Tim Roberts and Leslie Talkhouse Gorski to the front row.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Good evening, counsel Jeff Baker.
Speaker 8: 2422 Tampa Street. I'm not going to go long. I'm going to go real quick on this. A lot of people already mentioned this has been in Blueprint Denver. You guys know the benefits of this. So I'll just restated again. Multi-generational families, rental income, housing security, aging in place, nanny quarters keeps McMansions out. Denver needs us. Let's do the first rezoning with new blueprint. Denver tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Sarah Sanders.
Speaker 5: Hi, I'm Sarah Sanders. I live at.
Speaker 12: 1378 Raleigh Street. I live in an Adu and an affordable adu. It's a rental unit.
Speaker 5: That I rent from the owner and I'm here in support.
Speaker 12: Of Steve with his a this rezoning proposal. We have a huge affordability issue right now in Denver and we need to do everything we can to get more people into affordable housing. 80 uses one solution to this with the comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver being adopted. I encourage all of you to move forward with this rezoning. I think that there is some fear out there with some.
Speaker 5: Homeowners in the neighborhood.
Speaker 12: And the one thing that I can say living in an EDU is it does help to activate the alleys. There's I have a parking spot dedicated to me. And so there isn't any parking issues that we have to deal with. The idea that I'm living in so I think that there is some fear out there around. I encourage everybody who does have that fear to get out there and take a look at these ideas and really see that this is gentle density that our city needs to be moving forward. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Tina Winston.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. My name is Chris and I own a home in the Val Verde neighborhood. I'm currently thinking about adding an avenue to my property because my mom is aging in Philadelphia and I would like to move her out here with me. She's currently on a fixed income. She's unable to afford to continue to live in Philadelphia. And so as a family, we're trying to figure out what's the best thing to do for her currently. As we looked at pricing for assisted living or temporary kind of living arrangements for her, we realize that a nursing home with semi-private would be like 70 $400 a month and a private nursing home room would be like 80 $500 a month, which we cannot afford.
Speaker 9: So we're thinking about, hey, maybe we'll like put her out in the back of his.
Speaker 5: House kind of thing. So I met Steve Elkins when in Utah a couple weeks ago, was the first time I ventured out into this avenue of interest.
Speaker 9: And I support his idea.
Speaker 5: Basically, I support it because it would actually benefit me and my family as we move further down the road in this process as my mom ages. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Logan Meyer.
Speaker 16: Exactly today. To answer that one, I was curious how economically productive it is. Turns out East Colfax of 116 neighborhoods is 23rd from the bottom or 93rd overall. Where a neighborhood needs to produce a dollar six per square foot of residential land to pay for its own infrastructure. East Colfax only produces $0.23 per square foot of residential land in property tax. Lastly, maybe Colfax is just meant to be single family. But then I checked and only 56% of housing units are single family in the East Colfax neighborhood. So a neighborhood that can't pay for its own infrastructure in a city with an affordable housing crisis, in an area that has lots of multi-unit development. We are requiring city council approval to build one housing unit in the backyard of a local owner. No wonder young people and old people alike are struggling to find affordable housing in the city.
Speaker 8: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Tim Roberts.
Speaker 8: Thank you. My name's Tim Roberts. I live in Denver and own a business at 7935 East 14th Avenue in the East Colfax neighborhood, where I'm the president of the Registered Neighborhood Association. We had a widely publicized well attended by some 50 people, a diverse neighborhood meeting on this rezoning on January 15th, 2019. The issue was in many ways really fully aired. And we then had a vote that unanimous that was unanimously in favor of the rezoning. We continue as a neighborhood to support Mr. Elkins and the engaged, thorough and considerate way he's brought this project forward in too many ways to cover here. He seems to have provided us with an on the ground model for how to use can work, and I think many people are grateful. One thing I want to say about the East Colfax neighborhood is that we are fighting to maintain as much affordability as we can. We were heartened by the recent announcement of two new affordable housing developments along East Colfax Avenue, but we know we still have far to go. It's been stated that we have as much as 70%, a clear majority of our population of about 12,000 people who fall into the category of vulnerable to displacement, with well over 30% of people listed in the category of in poverty in our neighborhood. Property valuations recently bounced up in our area by over 30%. This on top of a very similar severe increase in the last evaluation cycle. The resulting property tax increases are expected to potentially be the last straw for many of our residents.
Speaker 0: Either through direct tax or increased rents. We are.
Speaker 8: Losing people. We also recognize that addus and the considerable resources that they take to build are not a fix for what can probably be called an affordability crisis in East Colfax. We need as many as 1400 0 to 30% MRI units to, in fact, not just mitigate, but to prevent displacement. I feel like many realize that while the neighborhood was constructed primarily as single family homes, the growing density of Denver has simply overtaken it. So that to fight for the completely intact preservation of this particular built environment becomes increasingly untenable for a whole range of reasons. That said, on a daily basis, you can see people of East Colfax embracing the kind of openness and diversity I'm talking about. We're excited.
Speaker 0: To see equity taking root.
Speaker 8: Around us, and we'll continue to applaud Mr. Elkins and others like him for their work and willingness to invest some.
Speaker 1: Certainty in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Torrijos key.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'll be brief because it's late. My name is.
Speaker 7: Leslie Terry Gaskin. I live at 1754 Olive Street.
Speaker 5: It's within a mile of of the adu that has been applied for. I'm here to speak in strong support of Mr. Elkins application. As Jerry noted, there's many adus already existing in our neighborhood. I think this would fit very well, and I hope to have one as well in the future. So thank you. And before I go, I want to say thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Brooks, for all you've done over the last 4 to 8 years. And I look forward to working with you all in the future. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 13: They're certainly not loose. Jesse Pierce representing for Denver Homicide. Low Black Star. It's a moment for self defense and positive for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for our lives this past May 2019 election. Almost got 15,000 votes with no money. We are in favor of this. As I stated previously, I support attainable means of housing in the city while we're dealing with a housing crisis. So that includes 80 youth along with tiny home villages, encampments and etc.. So yeah, I approve this. I'm in favor of this. So yeah, I already know you're going to approve this. And we saw the criteria and it's a step in the right direction. We can do much better, though. So since we can do better, let's do better. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: A question for the applicant or maybe actually staff, actually. Now either one. What is the size of the zone lot? And then given it was mentioned that the existing structure is a thousand square foot footprint. Given that size relative to the lot, how big of a of a footprint would be the maximum for an ADU on that parcel?
Speaker 11: All right, the.
Speaker 5: Thing.
Speaker 7: About this.
Speaker 11: Uh, the zone lot is it's about 7320 square feet for a lot of that size, the maximum to use detached to you building form would be up to 1000 feet. And I am not sure myself about the existing foot footprint. And so what would if that 4000 would be allowed with the maximum lot coverage? But I believe that it would. I don't know if the applicant.
Speaker 8: Not so, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: My current house is 719 square feet. There is approximately a 300 square foot attached garage. By the code, a thousand square feet is allowed. However, then we get into setbacks. Then we get into the fact that I still would like to have a yard. Then we get into the fact of I have a driveway at the south of my property, which I'm not interested in getting rid of. So all of these factors start whittling down that 1000 square foot footprint pretty quickly.
Speaker 8: And then what is. Is this. Sorry, I could have looked it up, but I didn't. Is this one of those? Is the decks one. One of those in districts where the bulk gets relaxed on the edu. When you have an attached, I mean, a detached accessory structure. The rear and the rear 35%.
Speaker 11: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the book. Relax, but I do have the book plane. Okay, I'm here. So for the SD one X, the bulk plane vertical height is ten feet and the slope is 45 degrees.
Speaker 8: Even for an accessory structure, yes.
Speaker 11: That is for the detached accessory dwelling unit building form.
Speaker 8: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: No further. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Mr. President. Hello. Could you clarify for me the issue of the legal protest? The staff report attachments say that there was it has a map and it has 46,000 square feet out of whatever it is. It's about 21% just over the threshold yet in your report. There's also an email to I believe it's to you. And there is a an email earlier from the person who lives at one of those properties that is listed as contributing to the 20% stating that she is not in opposition. What is so is this a legal protest or not.
Speaker 11: So that the the the properties are showing up in green did have valid signatures for those properties. I was not involved in the signature gathering that is purely done by a member of the public. We just provide the information for it. So I'm not sure what conversations went on. What if there is a change of opinion? We do sometimes get people who have sent the case manager a letter in support and then they later reply and say, Actually, I'm in opposition or the other way. I didn't hear back from anybody. So I didn't like change the tallies because no one reached out to me. So I'm not really sure what that discrepancy was around.
Speaker 6: Okay, Mr. Brown, I just wanted the record to note that one of the properties listed as contributing to the 20%. There are two pieces of correspondence in the record that state they are not opposed. So I'm a little bit confused about that. I'm sorry. The owner, Mr. Elkins.
Speaker 0: Okay? Yes, Councilman.
Speaker 6: Thank you. You have a an attached garage and you access it from the alley. Correct. You have a long driveway off the alley.
Speaker 0: A very long driveway.
Speaker 6: Okay. So your garage doors in the back of the house.
Speaker 0: It is. It's interesting because I've seen this pattern.
Speaker 6: I'm looking at on the map here as.
Speaker 0: I've seen other houses. There's a Tudor house on the north side of Colfax where it's the same. So if you look at my house from Quint Street, it appears to be a white ranch home.
Speaker 6: And the one across the alley from you as well.
Speaker 0: When and actually I know how long that driveway is because I've shoveled it out a few times this past winter.
Speaker 6: Okay. So what you're saying is that with it, with the setbacks and with your desire to maintain that driveway, to access your garage, have you looked into what what the footprint of your ADU would be?
Speaker 0: I have it. You know, there's also been a conversation with the neighbor whom, as Steve said, neither was opposed or supported, where she and I engaged over a few emails where she considered asking me to consider and attached to you. So I have considered converting the attached garage into an idea which would further limits its impacts.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then maybe put a garage back toward the alley for yourself?
Speaker 0: Maybe. But I'm much more about housing people than cars. Mm hmm. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I wanted to follow up on, though, on Councilman Flynn's questions about the legal protest. And this is directly related perhaps to this particular issue. But it is something that, as I leave the council, is something that I wish that we would maybe look into it more carefully. So we take this particular situation. The legal protests requires not 20% of the landowners around a property, but. Owners of 20% of the land. That's correct. And that's a very, very important distinction. It's the owners of 20% of the land, so that the more land you own, the more your vote means. In this particular situation, how many votes, how many signatures would have been needed to get a legal protest.
Speaker 11: Given this normal lot? So, so so this legal protest, just it needed every property that was included, but it included three that were only partially within the zone law. So I apologize. I cannot do math in my head after 10 p.m., but I believe it would probably be more like six if they were all within. That would be kind of the minimum number of people. Yes. That that might have gotten you over that threshold.
Speaker 5: That's exactly right.
Speaker 12: As I was calculating that to get a legal protest in this case would only require six votes. How many votes did they get?
Speaker 11: There were the property, the owners of eight properties, and two of them had two owners listed. So it was a total of ten people who signed the petition, including.
Speaker 12: Who were it was sort of a nebulous about what their vote was. Right.
Speaker 11: I won't weigh in on their final opinion, but there there was some there was there were some people who had voiced opinions seemingly in both directions.
Speaker 12: That's right. Okay. So it's not directly related to some, you know, something that you know about ADOS, but it is something that I would exhort my fellow council people to take a look at in the future about what illegal protest means and what it means to one person, one vote. Think, Oh, wait, I had another question. The Ms.. West, can I ask can I ask you a question.
Speaker 0: Is last one.
Speaker 12: You said that you had bought your home in anticipation of retirement. Do you live there? Is this directly north of hit this home? Right.
Speaker 15: It's directly north. I do not live there now, actually. My granddaughter lives there now. She's custodian of it as she's taken good care.
Speaker 12: Okay. So she rents rented from you? Yes, she does. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 15: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Sort of a question for Councilman Flynn. I didn't go through those attachments enough to see. Do you know if the letters that are from the person that lives there is from the property owner?
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Okay, that's that was it. Because if we're clarifying for the record, I want to make that distinction because it's the property owner that has the say in the legal protest, not necessarily the person that lives there. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 19 20447 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody for staying so long before this, for this particular item and to what I what I thought was a very interesting council meeting. But I don't know if you all felt the same way. I particularly want to thank the neighbors that live in East Colfax, and particularly Tim Roberts, the R.A. president, and how much he has done for the neighborhood as as previous presidents have, too. I was at that meeting that he spoke about when there were about 50 people. The East Colfax Neighborhood Association has a meeting every month. So unlike most of our neighborhoods every month, and they get 30, 40 and 50 people every time. So it's a very engaged neighborhood. And they thanks to Steve, they were all, you know, very familiar with your project. You did a great deal of outreach to the neighbors and it was an overwhelming support for the you. And I think it just meets a lot of the criteria that are found in the new blueprint, Denver and the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood area. So I'm going to be in support of this and urge my fellow council people to do so as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And Dr. Sussman, it's lovely to follow you one last time on this rezoning. And I just Mr. Elkins, I just want to apologize to you on the city's behalf. The fact that we spent three years to talk about the importance of aid use, the fact that I just worked on 80 or 80, used for an affordable housing component for folks displaced for I-70. We do this in all of our neighborhoods. And that's you spent 4 to 6 months to go through a rezoning process. Did you get to do them at the same time to put your permits in, or do you still have to go through permitting?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 8: So he's going to have another probably 3 to 4 months before one person can live in that space. And, you know, we talk a lot about affordable housing. We talk a lot about the importance of making sure people can afford to live in the city of Denver. But we have archaic permitting processes to get us there. And so, you know, I'm sorry, I apologize for that because we're not really serious as a city. We're serious when we start expediting processes for affordable housing. We're serious as a city. When we start saying, hey, we've implemented this plan and now we're going to give incentives to build a use. We're going to waive tap fees, we're going to do these things. And you have to now make sure that you have these 80 issues at 80%, 60%, 40% am I to live there? Their deed restricted because that's what we did in Swansea. And so that's where I'm at. I'll be supporting this because it meets the criteria because we spent three years talking about this. I know that everybody doesn't love it, but I got a chance to move into the whole neighborhood in 2012. Actually, I moved there in 2008, but in 2012 about another house there and I bought it for $290,000. That's amazing.
Speaker 0: Now.
Speaker 8: If I moved into that house, you can't buy a house there for $200,000 now. If I said to everyone, I hope everyone gets to move into this house, this neighborhood, because it's quaint. It's amazing. My kids are growing up there for $280,000, but I say no one can reason, no one can. All these infill projects, no one can have in any of those. There are affordable housing folks, projects that are 0% AMI and they're going to be homeless folks living there. They can't live next to me. No, you can have the tiny home village over here next to me. I have created a wall. I have created a gated community. That's not who we are, y'all. That's why I'm supporting this project. And that's why, even after eight years, I'm more emboldened to create this city that we all dream of. So I'll be supporting this. I'm sorry, Mr. Elkins. We're going well. They're going to get better at improving processes. And I'm sorry. City of Denver. We're going to get better at telling people what we really believe. That we really do want to create an inclusive Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry and I'm not sorry. A little over three years ago, I sat down with our legal counsel and asked him to draft a an ordinance that would allow would legalize Adu citywide the way people had been asking. So that, in theory, would help you. But the the way I was justifying that was I was actually asking that the property owners within 20 feet essentially had veto. Right. Meaning that you would go in, you would you would have legal right to do to you. You would bring your permit drawings in and you would have to post. Sort of like we do with a zipline or something like that. And that's when your neighbors could opine and you would lose. If they vetoed you, then you'd lose the right for three years to sort of come back. But the idea being that then you could actually know that and have that conversation with those property owners that are most directly impacted about siting. And if you're going to be a humble developer and we're conscious of that, you could probably be through that process or not, depending on how amicable your neighbors are. So hopefully it would have worked out for you and this would have never have happened and we could move on. And I am articulating that now. So maybe the city can still consider that. I do have the language that I gave the city attorney back then. If anyone wants to see it that said, the I do want to give a little bit of an admonition to the yimby folks. The Blueprint Denver process did not legalize this or say this happens everywhere, period. It says that it should be considered as part of a citywide process. These one office buildings are here for a reason because we have not gone and embarked on that citywide process. And so this is not carte blanche or legal license to do this everywhere, even though I have yet to see us deny an ADU, you know, a zoning request, that is essentially for the specific purpose of of to use. It does bother me that we're using that language in the new adopted plans that is intended to support that citywide process to then support these these one off rezonings. That's because it does create this air of. Is there any what are the conditions where it's inappropriate. And until we hear from those communities that truly have a need or desire to not have to use for whatever reason, it makes all communities vulnerable. That said, I prior to my tenure on council, I was a member of the Board of Adjustment and I was probably consistently the one member of the board that always allowed illegal adus. I mean, I supported them to exist and I said it before and I won't go into my family history, but that the stories that were articulated here were very much part of my community when I grew up. Having these units is is important to a healthy city. That said, it's not I'm not going to use my personal bias to make the render the opinion, but it is because I'm going to say also there was a lot of talk about Ali Al activation as a member of council. I can tell you that an ADU has been a big problem in one of my neighborhoods. Why? Because there's a lot of ali activation, but it's from the drug dealing that goes on out of that. ADU And so it happens to be the son of the mother who lives in the primary structure, who then has a criminal record, lives in the back and and does his dealings. And he's been twice busted, but he's released and he goes back to his old ways. The property is poorly maintained and it is a criminal. It attracts other criminal elements. So while we have all these nice anecdotal stories of how wonderful all these things are, they can be nodes for a different kind of attention because there aren't a lot of eyes on that, Ali. So. I just. I just want to know that, you know, when when that isn't always hunky dory, we aren't always going to get the outcomes. But this is an area east Colfax is an area that has struggled to activate and we are investing in major redevelopment and efforts along East Colfax. And the key, just like it's been key in northwest Denver, is having density of population in order to support a more robust urban fabric. If we want to see reactivation of East Colfax and you're in your commercial corridors, you have to have more people with more disposable income. And there are two ways to doing that, you know, granularly like this or with massive redevelopment like you've seen in other places. And so we have to pick our poison and you could say, no, we don't. But this, you know, our plans do call for this area to capture up to 10% of new growth. And this is one way, but I hope that as part of a citywide process, we don't create carte blanche. The conditions where once again, areas like this remain depressed because we create we create these redevelopment opportunities in areas where people want to spend their money, because that's what happens. You see investment in hot areas and reinvestment in hot areas and Cherry Creek doubling and tripling itself in northwest Denver, eating itself alive because they're desirable. And if we grant this same development entitlement across the board, city wide, that same things will happen in those same areas and these areas will then stay stagnant again. So we have to be strategic going forward. This rezoning process for the time being is the appropriate process until we've had that citywide discussion that starts to consider these bigger issues. With that, I'll be supporting this research.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Saying no one else in the queue for comments councilmembers. This a reminder that since community planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met and ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of counsel are required tonight to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 447.
Speaker 7: Susman.
Speaker 5: I black eye.
Speaker 8: Brooks Hi.
Speaker 7: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi Flynn.
Speaker 7: Hi Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Hi, Herndon.
Speaker 7: Hi Cashman, EJ Lopez.
Speaker 10: Hi, Ortega. Hi.
Speaker 7: Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results.
Speaker 7: 12 hours.
Speaker 1: 12 hours, CONSTABLE four for six has passed. On Monday, August 5th, Council will hold. On Monday, August 5th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 584, amending Chapter 59 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to revise the amendment procedure for land retaining planned unit development zoning under former Chapter 59, saying no other business before
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1245 Quince Street in East Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1245 Quince Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-14-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 21.6%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0318
|
Speaker 4: 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. All right, Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Gilmore, you've called out 318. What would you like for us to do with this one?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to call this out for a separate vote to abstain, because my brother in law's company is the vendor.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Resolution 318 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 7: I move that resolution 318 be adopted.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 4: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 10: I'm not speaking specific to this particular one, but to all of our on call contracts. I had requested some information from public works, which I received and I am now going through. As you know, I have continued to ask a lot of questions about. Looking at how we determine. You know who gets these contracts? Which ones get renewed and have funding added to? We don't see on the front end how many of them will have an BWB goals attached to them. And I think this is our process of us being able to approve all of these contracts, and I think we need to look at shoring that up more so so that when we want to look back and see what the impact is that we have had from uncle contracts, making sure that as folks in our in BWB community have have shared concerns in the past, that sometimes they think this might be a way of circumventing the BWB process and without always being able to get the data on how many have we used, how often have we used them, how many did we never use at all? And it's expensive to go through responding to an RFP and then finally getting one and then maybe never even being utilized. And so until we see the data, we don't know what all of that is and what that shows. And so I'm going through that and maybe recommending some changes to our process so that we have a better way of looking at them to ensure we know exactly what is happening with the spend. You know, with all of these coming through tonight, they can spend up to $5 million on the projects. And, you know, we don't know what those projects are at this point in time that are going to be funded through these on call contracts. So having that information to look at, I think is going to be helpful to us in the future.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Katherine Ortega. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 1: Gilmore and Sting. Black. All right.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. Flynn. All right. Cashman. I can. I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega, I assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: I'm secretary, please. Because voting announced the results.
Speaker 5: Tonight as one abstention.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes, one abstention. Resolution 318 has been adopted. Can you put the next item on our screens, please? Councilman Ortega, you have a question on 296?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Gilmore Construction Corporation for on-call construction services as needed.
Approves a contract with Gilmore Construction Corporation for $15,000,000 and for three years for on-call construction services as needed, including deferred maintenance and renovation work, in municipal buildings, citywide (201947349). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-15-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-16-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.