meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0296
|
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?
Speaker 10: Yes, I do. And I'm not sure if it's somebody from Public Works or Parks and Recreation that can address my question about why we have the Globeville landing pedestrian bridge in here. Because I went through the list of bond projects that were submitted to us before they went to a vote of the people. And the only thing I find in here that is somewhat close is Globeville, Elyria, pedestrian connectivity, improvements. And I know a big part of that was to do the 47th in York, but it was my understanding that everything at Globeville Landing Park, which included the pedestrian bridge over the river, was supposed to be done with the $300 million plant to Park Hill drainage project that included City Park Golf Course was supposed to include the improvements at Park Hill, the 39th Avenue Channel, and the improvements at Globeville Landing Park. So I'm I guess I'm just baffled why that is part of a Bond project. And it wasn't part of the funding that was included in the PDP $300 million project that we were asked to approve that ended up being part of the M0 U between Denver and C that for all those drainage improvements.
Speaker 4: I see.
Speaker 10: Jason. And we did put a call in to Leslie. So I'm sorry that Jason, you didn't get the call trying to track this one, so.
Speaker 0: No, no problem.
Speaker 10: And I see Parks and Rec folks here, they may be able to answer it because I know this was part of their project as well.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I. I can tell you that. I don't know that answer offhand. I can definitely get you the answer to that, though. Jason Glare of the Public Works. I apologize. They don't have that with me. This was, like you said, a complex project between both agencies. But I could definitely get that for you as soon as possible.
Speaker 10: All right. Anybody from Parks and Rec have any updated information? Because I'm I'm somewhat compelled to just hold this one. And I don't really want to do that, because I know we've been working to expedite the Washington Street improvements, which is tied to this same contract. So anybody at Parks and Rec. Okay. I don't really want to do this, but I think I'm going to just hold this one for a week under our rules that we can do that until we get that information to really understand why global lending pedestrian bridge is part of this project and why it wasn't funded already with . Resources that we had already earmarked for Global Lending Park. So under our rules. Mr. President, I'm going to hold this for one week.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary, do we need a formal action or just a request from the Council?
Speaker 5: Just a request for a one week postponement under rule 3.7.
Speaker 4: All right. The has been requested for a one week postponement under 3.7.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Sussman, did you also have something you wanted to call.
Speaker 1: Just for a comment? The 529 Bill.
Speaker 4: 529 529. Madam Secretary, can you put 529 on our screens? And, Councilwoman Sussman, go ahead with your comment.
|
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_06242019_19-0547
|
Speaker 4: 12 hours. Council Bill 406 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please for council 547 on the.
Speaker 7: I move the council bill 0547 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 547 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Jenny Battenberg and I am going to present the River Drive Historic District Landmark Designation Application Number 2019 l0 zero two. So just to get us started off the ability for the city and county of Denver to designate Denver landmarks and districts came through the 1967 Landmark Preservation Ordinance. So over 40 years now, we have been able to enable this program, the purpose of which is to designate, preserve and protect, to foster civic pride, stabilize and improve esthetic and economic vitality, and promote good urban design. So basically to prioritize historic preservation for the city and county. The map that you see on the screen indicates all of the designated individual structures and districts that we currently have within the city and county. The colored areas represent the historic districts of which we have 54. And the individual red dots indicate the individual landmarks of which we have 344. This equals about 6800 properties of a total of 161,000 in the city and county, and that's about 4% of the city or one and 25 structures that are designated landmarks. The designation program is very much created to be a community driven process. Eligible applicants are owner or owners of the property, manager of Community Planning and Development, a member or members of City Council or three people who are residents, property owners, or have a place of business in Denver. In the case of River Drive, Councilman Espinosa submitted the designation application. Property owners reached out to Councilman Espinosa in 2017, expressing interest in the designation. I do want to note that this designation is actually a long time coming. There are two neighborhood plans that have recommended it for historic district designation once in 1976 and again in 2005. We have 19 properties within this proposed district, 16 of which are contributing. Three are non contributing because one has had too many incompatible alterations, so it no longer meets the criteria for designation. And then two are empty lots that you see on the north side of this map here. It includes multiple dresses on West River Drive. This is the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Council District number one. Again, Councilman Rafael Espinosa in Blueprint, Denver. This is a low neighborhood or excuse me, urban neighborhood context and low residential area future place. The current zoning is YouTube in you oh three. In order for a property or properties to be designated as a landmark, they have to meet a set of criteria. They have to meet designation criterion in at least two of the categories of history, architecture and geography. They have to maintain their historic and physical integrity, and they have to be considered by the Landmark Preservation Commission for its relation to a historic context or theme for River Drive Historic District. It actually exceeds meeting that criteria by meeting one in each of the categories and meets history A, Architecture A and geography B for history A It has direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation. This is one of the oldest established residential areas of Denver. It is the 1881 riverfront addition to the town of Highland. So you can see an advertisement for this on the left hand of the screen. This was a girl, brothers, real estate investment company developments, and they had invested in a number of other areas in the areas in the area of Denver as well. This was primarily an area which was home to the working class residents representing immigrant the immigrant population at the time. If you look at the map on the right, you'll see the proposed district outlined in blue. In the top right, you'll see the location of the former Zheng Brewery in in the lower right, you'll see the former location of roundhouse a railroad roundhouse. So a number of these working class residents who lived in River Drive supported local early local industries like the zinc brewery and numerous rail companies like the Colorado and Southern Railway in Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. The owners and renters of cycled out over time. And if you guys were able to read the full application, you got some of the more unique stories of some of the residents who resided in River Drive. The district also meets architecture, which is to embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. It exemplifies architectural styles and building types representing the Victorian Arts and crafts era and illustrates architectural trends over 38 years in Denver's early history. If you take a look at the screen, you'll see an example of these architectural trends from top to bottom, left to right. Queen Anne Dutch Colonial Revival, four square terraced type, which is pretty unique to Colorado and gable fronts. The similarity among all of these buildings, even though they have different architectural styles, is found in similar materials like brick and stone and design elements like arched window openings, brick bell courses and front porches that create a cohesion among the properties. Each structure remains in good condition, with impressive retention of character defining features. The district also meets Geography B, which is to promote an understanding and appreciation of the urban environments by means of distinctive physical characteristics. A rarity for River Drive. This is the curving layout of the parcels in the street. If you take a look at the map on the screen, you can see that in this area and throughout most of the city and county of Denver, we have a very North-South East-West grid pattern in this area, has a very curvilinear layout. This was due to its proximity to the river. There's also another unique feature, which is the above grade front entrances that were designed to accommodate the street slope and topography down to the river. So we don't see this very often where you have what we might call subterranean entrances to buildings. So this is very unique to this district and to the city as a whole. Additionally, this is a very rare intact portion of that 1881 Riverfront Edition. It represents the most complete portion of the Gurley Brothers original development. The neighborhood has lost a great deal of its physical integrity, historic integrity due to the demolition and construction of residential infill that has happened over the last few years. That stands in sharp contrast to the district's historic character. If you take a look at the photos on the screen, the one on the left is looking East and West River Drive at the Clay Street intersection. And you can see the right photo looking south west at the south side of the West River drive block and how both ends of the block are now kind of bookended by much larger development. I do want to note that this was part of the Jefferson Park survey that was done by Discover Denver. This is the citywide building survey that is being done in partnership with the city and historic Denver. And the information that was gathered in that survey helped to inform this designation application. The 16 contributing structures in the immediate setting of the district also have a high degree of physical and historic integrity related to the district's period of significance from 1885 to 1923. Each building retains its original residential dwelling in the location where it was constructed and continues to serve in a residential capacity. There have been minor alterations, but they have been compatible in size and material to the original. It also relates to a historic context or theme again, the period of significance since 1885 to 1923. This represents the early growth of Denver, the working class of the city, some of whom were immigrants that supported nearby industry and commerce. The images on the screen represent the ordinary family who lived at 2550 West River Drive for over seven decades. John Denver, who's pictured in the lower left there, moved into the house in 1915 and purchased it in 1921. He worked for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad in the Colorado and Southern Railway as a brakeman and engineer. Because this is a historic district. The planning board also has the ability to review the designation application. They are specifically directed to consider a proposed designation with respect to its relationship to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation or amendments. The Planning Board found that the proposed district is consistent with the applicable plans, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver, the 25 Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan, the 2013 South Platte Corridor Story or study excuse me. And it will have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Just a reminder, YouTube you oh three for zoning. This is a lot of words up on that screen, but these are all the vision elements and strategies that the district meets. It advances several of the comprehensive plan vision elements, goals and strategies. It's most directly consistent with a strong and authentic neighborhoods vision element, which includes the goal to preserve the authenticity of Denver's neighborhoods and celebrate our history, architecture and culture. It also meets goals and strategies within the equitable, affordable and inclusive, economically diverse and vibrant and environmentally resilient vision elements. Given that this application came forth in partnership with the property owners in historic Denver through its action fund, the proposed district also meets implementation strategy to to build diverse partnerships to help promote and implement the plan. According to Blueprint Denver, the proposed district's neighborhood context is again urban, and the future place type is low residential. The proposed designation will help preserve the unique character of the block within the urban neighborhood context and allow for infill that is compatible with the existing neighborhood character per the design guidelines for Denver Landmarks, Structures and Districts. This meets the blueprint strategy that recommends using historic designation to ensure residential neighborhoods retain their unique character as infill development occurs. It also meets the blueprint vision to improve quality design that preserves and creates authentic places. In terms of the 2005 Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. That plan specifically identifies River Drive, as I mentioned earlier, as a sub area with a vision to enhance it as an important and unique part of the residential core of Jefferson Park. It also specifically recommends potential local designation as a historic district. So this designation proposal implements the plan recommendations. And lastly, for applicable plans, it relates to the Water Street Opportunity area that is called out in the South Platte corridor story that study that calls for revitalization of the parking lots on the north side of Water Street as residential and retail infill. When you head west, Water Street turns into 23rd Avenue, which runs a half block north of the proposed district. Water Street was the site of early residential and commercial development, like the Zane Brewery. The plan notes that surrounding neighborhoods and areas like the River Drive Historic District could be well-served by any revitalization of the water street area through potential greater connectivity and economic impacts. So the proposed designation helps retain the residential character of the block and reinforces the potential benefits of safer and better connectivity to the South Platte River and a revitalized water street. The proposed designation will help preserve the character of the district and the Jefferson Park neighborhood. The designation ordinance and the design guidelines that go along with it are only enforceable by the Landmark Preservation Commission within the district boundary. The intent of the designation is to recognize this unique district. The buildings that define it and their contribution to the historic fabric of the Jefferson Park neighborhood and city as a whole. So in terms of recommendations and public comments, both the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the River Drive historic districts. We received no registered neighborhood organization comment. All comments that have been submitted to CPD by individuals by last Thursday had been in support of the designation of those 11 comments. Eight are from property owners within the proposed district and you guys should have had a map within your packet that indicated the location of the online comments that we received. Of those eight property owners, those individuals they own 11 of the 17 properties within the historic district boundary. After that point from Thursday, when we were selecting comments directly sent to CPD yesterday, an email was submitted to City Council from a property owner, which you guys should have received as well in the district in opposition of the designation. We did also receive three comments in support of the designation, which were shared verbally at the Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. Two of those comments were from property owners within the historic district who also provided online comment. And then there was one from Historic Denver. There was no public comment shared at the planning board meeting. So right now we are at one in opposition and eight property owners in support. So based on ordinance designation criteria and the findings of the Landmark Preservation Commission that the application meets the criteria for designation of a district. Staff recommends approval of the application. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five up if you could come up to the front bench Kim Foster, Ashley Morgans, Ashton Altieri, Joan Bondy and Kristi Mineola. If you could come up to the front, Kim Foster, you are up first.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. Kim Foster I live at 2606 River Drive and a 1906 house. I've lived there 20 years. I've raised two children. We I am involved in the Japan neighborhood organization have been on the board for years. I'm on the land use committee and we this past year established a neighborhood watch. I would base the neighborhood watch purely on the fact that we are a close knit neighborhood. We all have front porches, we know each other and we have a community. Unlike some of the newer buildings that are kind of separated from the street and from each other, we are a group. One of the things I think that's super important is when people walk down the street, they only comment how much they love it. I hope you do, too. Thanks.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Ashley Morgan's.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name's Ashley Morgan. I live at 2620 River Drive. It's that beautiful blue house that you saw in the PowerPoint. I have a husband, Ryan Morgan, two young children, a nine month old and a two year old. And I love the street I live on. I really love it. Our neighbors that lived down the street from us, we've known them for a decade. They're the reason we live on that street. They knew our house was going up for sale, told us about it, and we bought it. We've done substantial renovations to our home. We plan to live there forever. I don't ever see myself moving. I know that things change, but I just love every piece of my heart. I love our streets. We had a wedding on our street a month ago.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Could you make sure to speak to the reverend?
Speaker 1: Thank you. We had a wedding on our street a month ago. It's that beautiful and charming. I love everything about it. I love my neighbors. All of the people that you're going to hear from. I know really well and I respect. I really care about them. When a year ago, neighbors came to me and asked me how I felt about this, my position, and it still remains today as that while my husband and I don't like to have infringements on our ability to do what we want with our property. If our whole neighborhood wants it, we're on board. I believe all of my neighbors here have good intentions and they want to maintain the historic character of the street for good reasons. But there is one person on our street who doesn't want this to happen to his property. He's upset and he's let all of you know that, but he refuses to give public comment about it. I don't know why. I think that's kind of hard for some of us to really understand, because that's his right as a citizen. But there could be a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want to come here and be emotional, which as you can tell from my voice, I'm emotional about this. He's upset because he bought this. It's his house 18 years ago as an investment and he wants to sell it and potentially sell it to a developer. And that's the house that I look at right outside my home. And I love his house. It's beautiful. But I think he should have the right to do it with that property. What he wants. It's his property. He made the investment. And if we decide that people can come together and tell you what you can do with your property and don't consent, I think we really need to think long and hard about what that means and how you would feel if that were your home and someone came and told you what you could or couldn't do with it . I truly believe that all of the people here that want this designation want it for the right reasons. They don't want anyone to feel alienated or hurt or upset. But I do think at the end of the day, everyone here needs to ask themselves whether they think it's okay to do this with the with the procedures that we have right now. I think the process is flawed and that every homeowner who this affects should have to opt in to it or have the ability to opt out.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Ashton Altieri.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Ashton Altieri. I live at 2608 River Drive, and for the past year or so, I have been proud to be the chair of the steering committee that has helped put this application before you this evening. I do want to point out, we do have a couple of residents from the proposed historic district who are here this evening who will not be able to speak. So I just wanted to recognize that we do have a few additional people from our street that do support the designation who unfortunately you will not hear from. Our special st is largely all their remains from the 19th century subdivision riverfront. And remarkably, more than 120 years after most of our homes were built, our street remains largely intact and serves as a vestige to the past and a vast sea of change. Speaking personally, my home was built in 1888. It turns 131 years old this year. But its age alone is not why my wife and I support the designation. It's more about all 17 homes together in our proposed district, exemplifying the best of the past in our area of the city. I want to share with you how we got to this point tonight. As city staff noted in the presentation, the conversation about preservation on River Drive goes back decades. The most recent concerted effort, however, started about two and a half years ago in January 2017. That's when a group of homeowners, myself included, started to learn more about the process for designation and the responsibilities that come with being in an historic district. We organized a committee and from the beginning our goal was to communicate often and offer total transparency about the process. After many informal conversations among neighbors, we hosted a community meeting one year ago in June 2018 that included nearly 100% of the homeowners within the proposed historic district. The meeting was attended by Councilman Espinosa, as well as city staff who made a presentation and answered many, many questions at the meeting. All homeowners were encouraged to contact Councilman Espinosa's office to express support or opposition, and the same message was communicated by email about two months after the meeting. We contacted Councilman Espinosa's office, who informed us that all they had heard at that point was positive feedback, and his office encouraged us to proceed with the application to save money on the application. Many of us on the street volunteered our own time to go and work on the research, which I think illustrates the deep passion many of us have for this designation from. Even before that first meeting, we had one homeowner who has shifted many times between skepticism, opposition and support. Throughout the process, we worked incredibly hard to answer his questions and earn his support, and many times we have encouraged him to express his opinion through the many channels that the city makes available. He chose not to do that, but did write an email that all of you received over the weekend. And while we truly respect his opinion, we strongly disagree with his statements describing a nontransparent process and his inquiries being ignored. I want to sincerely thank all of you for your consideration of this designation, and I'll certainly be available if anyone has any questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Joan Bondy.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name's Joan.
Speaker 1: Bondy.
Speaker 5: I've lived on.
Speaker 1: River Drive for 35 years. My house was built in 1886, and when I moved to River Drive, it was a very depressed.
Speaker 10: Part of town. Well, the city.
Speaker 5: Was kind of in an economic slump at that point anyway.
Speaker 1: But my street was really grim. The next door house was abandoned, gutted and had no glass windows.
Speaker 10: So obviously, our neighborhood has improved quite a bit since then.
Speaker 1: Thank goodness. So now we have a lovely neighborhood.
Speaker 10: Which was.
Speaker 5: Threatened many times in the.
Speaker 1: Past by developers. But I'm.
Speaker 10: Very gratified to see that we have.
Speaker 1: Everybody.
Speaker 10: Here in this place.
Speaker 5: Right now, and I wholeheartedly support the designation. I think it's a wonderful.
Speaker 10: Gem.
Speaker 1: Of a neighborhood for Denver and deserves to be rewarded.
Speaker 10: By a historic.
Speaker 5: Designation.
Speaker 1: And I thank everybody who.
Speaker 5: Participated in the hard work of bringing all of this information together.
Speaker 1: And putting their heart and soul into it. So thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up is Kristi minnillo and then I'll invite Shannon Stage and Jeff Rogers to come if we can make room for them. If you've already spoken up to the front, you'll be next. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. My name is Kristi Minnillo and I live here in Denver as an architectural history consultant. I was hired to.
Speaker 1: Prepare the application for the River Drive Landmark Historic District. I support the bill designating it the city's 55th such district.
Speaker 5: The neighborhood offers a glimpse of what life was like in one of the oldest established residential areas of Denver. Those 17 houses that comprise this small district.
Speaker 1: Were part of the 1881.
Speaker 5: Riverfront addition to the town of Highlands.
Speaker 1: As Jenny mentioned. And they remain.
Speaker 5: As some of the.
Speaker 1: City's oldest building stock.
Speaker 5: Although small in number.
Speaker 1: Several architectural styles and building types are represented here.
Speaker 5: Including the terrace.
Speaker 1: Type, which previously mentioned is unique to Colorado. The Queen in Gable Front. Dutch Colonial Revival and the four square. The topography of the street gently slopes from west to east, a feature that builders incorporated into.
Speaker 5: The design of those houses along the north.
Speaker 1: Side of the street, with their unique subterranean entrances.
Speaker 5: Set on a bluff.
Speaker 1: Overlooking.
Speaker 5: South Platte River and downtown Denver.
Speaker 1: The district was originally home to a number of working class residents.
Speaker 5: Many of whom were employed by some of the city's earliest and most influential industries.
Speaker 1: Including the Zane Brewery and the various railroads.
Speaker 5: And those were within walking distance at one point.
Speaker 1: Or a short streetcar ride away. If you read the application, you will likely agree that its history is quite colorful.
Speaker 5: The steering committee that was formed by five residents in River Drive was instrumental in assisting with my research.
Speaker 1: And several residents allowed me to borrow personal belongings that.
Speaker 5: Were associated.
Speaker 1: Associated with the district's history so I could develop a better connection and express its history effectively.
Speaker 5: Along the way, they proved to be willing, motivated.
Speaker 1: And eager to reach the point where we are today. I'd be happy to answer any.
Speaker 5: Questions that you may have that landmark staff or historic number may not be able to answer. And I thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Next up, Shannon Stage.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. My name is Shannon Stage and I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. My colleague and the executive director, ENI Levinsky, is also here tonight and we can both answer any questions that you may have. Historic. Denver is a membership based preservation nonprofit here in Denver. We are thrilled to be here tonight to show our support of the proposed River Drive Historic District. The area has been known to be historic for quite some time, as you have heard a bit tonight from Jenni, as well as other speakers with one of the earliest neighborhood area plans in 1976 and then again in 2005 indicating River Drive's significance. Then the Discover Denver City Wide Survey reconfirmed the significance and its eligibility for local historic district status. While there has been many conversations over the years to create a historic district among the neighborhood, a couple of years ago, some of the homeowners of River Drive came to historic Denver to discuss the potential of a historic district and what was needed to begin an exploratory phase and then pending neighborhood support a district application. Eventually, the neighborhood applied to historic Denver's Action Fund to proceed. We provided River Drive homeowners with technical assistance. Guidance through the process, helped as a resource at meetings and connected the owners to many ELO consulting who researched and ultimately completed the application. As she just mentioned, the Committee of River Drive homeowners have really been involved, as you have seen, with the passion. They not only just through consistent neighborhood outreach, but really got involved with researching, providing additional information that they had on their homes to the consultant as well as organizing the project. Throughout, this really has been a community driven effort from the bottom up. River Drive was one of the first residential blocks from the 1880s in this area of the city known as the Riverfront Addition and is now the last remaining intact block in the quickly changing Jefferson Park neighborhood. Many of the early owners and renters of River Drive homes were employed, as Christy mentioned, by the earliest and most influential industries within walking distance, including housing, brewery and the railroads. Because of River Drive's historical association with the growth of Denver, as well as the blocks intact architectural character of the homes many built between 1886 to 1896. It is worthy of being classified as a historic district. Historic. Denver is here to support the proposal, and we strongly urge you to consider this to be Denver's next historic district. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Jeff Rogers.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Jeff Rogers. I'm a homeowner a homeowner on River Drive. And I just want to say, it is a wonderful neighborhood. And I think part of the reason why the the friendships and the families that get together every week, one of the great reasons that that happens is because of the historic nature and the way it creates a sense of community in our neighborhood. And I really want to say how thankful I am for Ashton for running a process to inform all the neighborhood residents in a way in which their voices can be heard. And and I think what I'm most extremely proud of is the overwhelming support that exists from all our neighbors. And it probably doesn't happen often, if at all. But I think tonight all of you would probably cheers with a beer for the folks in our neighborhood that say thank you for helping to support something that we cherish so much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Jenny, could you address just a couple of questions I have on the the compatibility with plan 2040. A number of these seem I have trouble seeing how they apply here. And it's not that you don't have enough. To begin with. It's not like we would eliminate all of them if they didn't apply. But I don't see, for instance, the vision element, environmentally resilient goal. One, mitigate climate impact by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Strategy B Reduce energy use by buildings and advance green building design, including green and cool roofs.
Speaker 0: How in the.
Speaker 6: World does that apply to this?
Speaker 1: There has been a great deal of research, especially in the last 5 to 8 years, on the environmental benefits of retaining historic buildings. The vast majority of buildings across the country are existing buildings and there is an embedded energy.
Speaker 6: So you're talking about not demolishing.
Speaker 1: Right. So by maintaining them and protecting them and not demolishing them, we are. Yes.
Speaker 6: But that's not the purpose of designation necessarily.
Speaker 1: No, but it is. Right. But it is a is a benefit of designation, let's say.
Speaker 6: Okay. I was thinking that maybe there were plans to put green roofs or cool white roofs in these buildings and landmark designation would prohibit that.
Speaker 1: No, actually, we would allow for that. Now we had in the.
Speaker 6: Front part.
Speaker 1: The we are design guidelines for solar panels, especially assets in the rear. But they are a lot of allowable and historic properties. Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then there were a couple of others. But given that, I can see how you can thread the needle here. Thank you. That's always a problem.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, council mechanic.
Speaker 12: Thank you so much for the staff as well. Pardon my ignorance, but why did this go through the planning board? Our landmark ordinance doesn't require that. So I'm just. Is there another.
Speaker 1: Trigger that I missed? I'm sorry. It actually does require it. So the landmark preservation ordinance for historic districts only requires review by planning.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you for refreshing. Thanks.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 547 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? Councilwoman Kennedy back in there, is it? No. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: So just this is you know, this is in my neighborhood. It's not just in my district. It's in my neighborhood. And it's interesting to see Joan and Kim, longtime residents. Kim is, you know, bonding with Ashley and Jeff and Ashton, you know, and them all recognizing that sense of community and river drive. If you're ever in Jefferson Park and you make the mistake of driving down that crooked street, you know that the one that's off the grid, you you immediately recognize that it's a special place and that that that community sense of community that you guys have now has persisted actually for a long period of time. It's just a natural thing that occurs on River Drive, and it's always just been this sort of eclectic place with eclectic homes. It is a commented at at the landmark meeting how it was sort of the greatest hits of workforce housing for the last 140 years of Denver. And and so, you know, I just appreciate the fact that you guys were finally the group that didn't just talk about our uniqueness and wanting to to memorialize it, but actually then doing it, you know, it's probably no, it's probably somewhat circumstantial because of what's going on around the rest of Jefferson Park that you finally recognize that if we don't do this, things could happen. And so, you know, it is so I just want to applaud you guys for everybody that spoke and everyone that worked to get to this outcome. Hopefully, my colleagues will will support this as I do, because it was codified in the 2000 and certainly 1979 plan or 76, I can't remember 76. And in the 20 in 2005, which both Dave Burton, who was the prior applicant and I, co-chaired the steering committee for that neighborhood plan. So, you know, I just will acknowledge. Mr. TOBIN Yes. Your concerns have been heard. I did speak to him specifically and directly at that community meeting that we had a year, more than a year ago. And I will just say that unfortunately for the in to speak to that situation, that he opined to me at that time that his hope was that one day a developer would buy his land and he would go five or eight stories like River Clay. And I made it very clear to him at that point in time that that was never articulated in any sort of plan. It was never in any sort of entitlement. And just to be clear, six years ago that land was pre zoning. I will not bore anybody with the details of PRV zoning, but Larry's laughing. And I know that Councilwoman Ortega understands the difficulty of redeveloping in pre zoning that has no sub area plan and that will also mean something to the attorneys in the room. And then it was deliberately rezone in the 2010 legislative upset of zoning. I mean rezoning to sue be consistent with our neighborhood plan are adopted you know city council adopted neighborhood plan. And I can also then tell you that in the 2008 rezoning process, we deliberately created the SUV so that we could recognize small parcels like what you have in River Drive because they didn't have a designation that went that small. And so the the redevelopment potential that is there remains and persists, you know, and that is consistent with everything that has been articulated and codified and written, you know, in the last 20, 20 plus years in this neighborhood, if not longer, particularly, again , the the the landmark designation of this potential of this particular neighborhood has been codified or written in adopted plans with the city for almost 40 years. So it's been a long time coming. I'm born you with technical details, and that's not what you need tonight. You just need a vote. I just want to thank you all again for the work that you did, the research that you put together. And I want to mention this two landmark commission specifically noted that this was the they praised the quality of this application. You know, about the. A little of research. And so just kudos again to to the entire neighborhood for pitching in on that and the research that was done. So thank you all. I will be voting in support of this rezoning a long time coming. Thank you. I mean, a landmark designation.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to express my support for the application as well. I've had a long history with this neighborhood. This used to be part of my old council district. I just want to know by a raise of the hand, which one of you lives in less than Lucille Bloom's old house?
Speaker 13: Oh.
Speaker 10: Okay. All right. So any of you who were familiar with Jefferson Park, Lucille Bloom was a very active community member after her husband, Les, had passed away. And I'll just leave it at that. She was very lively in her communication with with the neighborhood about preserving her community and to see you all step forward. And, you know, among all of the change that's happening and has already happened in this neighborhood, you know, those of you who had a chance to go to the old La Loma, that site sits vacant. Right now we've rezone that property. Nothing has happened on it is primed to have some some high density development in the neighborhood. Councilman Espinosa worked to try to save a couple of properties on 23rd Avenue. I supported those and we weren't successful in making that happen. But really, to see this come forward from the residents and be supported pretty much across the board by the entire community is is really exciting. One of the pieces of history that I think is important to share is our neighborhood association used to be just Jefferson, Highland, sunny side that represented all three neighborhoods. Frank Quintana, who was a firefighter in northwest Denver, was the the chairman or the president of the neighborhood association. And now, as you know, we have probably more than one association in some of these various neighborhoods with a lot of activity that's happening across north Denver. But to see the work you have put in to bring in this forward, I just commend you in preserving part of the history of our city by stepping forward and saying, pick me. I want I want this for my neighborhood. So thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Kinnick.
Speaker 12: Thank you so much, Mr. President. I just wanted to briefly acknowledge the the research that was done and how well they described the way that each of the criteria were met, both in the original application and then in the staff report. So in terms of, you know, a particular geographic feature, this, you know, the flow of the street and the ways that it related to the river, the way that the criteria was met with regard to the different architectural types. So I just wanted to say that I will be supporting this this evening because of the strong application and the way that this fits the criteria and to thank the neighbors for the dialog and the work that they've done to to really work together as a community. And I think for me, I always think of historic designation as the bookend of a responsible plan for growth, which is that if the city will grow, it's important that we have pieces of our history preserved while we then channel growth into, you know, neighboring areas and that the two can complement each other, that they are not incompatible. And so I really appreciate the opportunity to establish another district that definitely meets the criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Black eyes, I. Flynn i.
Speaker 0: Gilmer i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 5: Cashman Clinic. Lopez I knew.
Speaker 0: Ortega, I.
Speaker 1: Assessment i.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: I'm secretary. Please because voting announced results 12 days. Well, I. As Council Bill 547 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the River Drive Historic District as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of River Drive as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, including 20 adjacent lots fronting River Drive, bounded by Clay Street to the west, 23rd Avenue to the north, North Bryant Street to the East and West Front View Crescent Drive to the south in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-4-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0401
|
Speaker 4: I'm secretary. Please because voting announced results 12 days. Well, I. As Council Bill 547 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor.
Speaker 7: And move that council bill 401 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 401 is open. May we have the staff reports?
Speaker 14: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Annalise Hoke and I'm a city planner with CPD here to present the rezoning number 2017. i001062 reason party number eight and U2 c to P.O.D. G 21 and U2 C. The subject property is located in Council District three and the West Colfax neighborhood. As you can see on the aerial site above the portion to the northern area of 16 Story Avenue will be zoned to Denver Zoning Code G and the southern portion will be zoned to U2 C, which is a two unit zone district with a minimum size of 5500 square feet. The proposed APD is based off of CMCs eight and is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the surface parking area and to allow for the continued use of the medical facility. The period contains a series of sub areas with different height allowances to allow for a transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Increased pedestrian activity along 17th Avenue, as well as continued uses of the hospital and associated uses. The existing zoning of the site is pretty eight, with the small exception of one lot adjacent located on Newton Street which is zoned you two. You see the existing PWD is from 1970s and is as you can be indicated by beauty. Eight is one of our oldest ones still sitting around. The diagram to the left illustrates the planned buildings that are associated with the property, as well as the potential heights that are allowed under the putty. Ultimately, it allows for two large towers immediately adjacent on Newton with no setbacks or transition, as well as a series of other towers on the site. The portion south of 16th Avenue allows for a parking structure and that is the only use on the site. So I just want to note that those single unit and two unit homes are non-conforming under the current beauty. When we look at the existing land use of the site, you can see that the block to the east of the main block is considered off or Medich mixed uses and which is primarily comprised of medical uses on the site. And then the large block on the western portion of the site is currently used for surface parking. The finger to the south, the 16th is comprised of single unit and two unit uses. A couple of photos from Google Street View to better acquaint yourself with the site. On the top are looking from at the site from 17th and Newton and looking southeast as well as looking at the site from 16th and Newton looking northeast. And then the photo on the bottom left is a photo of the single and two unit homes on Main Street. The photo on the left illustrates area that's on to the site adjacent of GMU three where row homes have been constructed as well as single family homes along Newton Street. Overall, the purpose of Period G 21 is to provide an alternative set of regulations and a unique and extraordinary circumstances, and to provide for more flexible zoning than what may be achieved through a standard set of zoned districts, or require an unreasonable amount of waivers, conditions and variances. Specifically, I'd like to talk about the some of the key elements of Pudi G 21. The entire Pudi is located in the staff report and packet, so I'm just going to go over the key high level points of it. The the main purpose of Pudi G 21 is to allow for a nuanced approach to the height along the site. So as you can know, it's comprised of multiple sub areas with suburbia, a being located in the center of the site with the highest height allowance of 16 seat 16 stories excuse me, transitioning down to Siberia B which is a height limit of ten stories. ca3 stories and the lower E and F are intended to accommodate for the continued use of the medical care facility. Additionally, in exchange for some of these flexibility, we've also allowed for higher street level active uses along 17th Street and Newton to ensure that neighborhood amenities can promote a walkable experience along 17th Street and to limit the visible parking above the street level where the parking garages are going to be constructed to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. I would also like to note that we have reduced the parking requirements for the eating and drinking establishments as well as medical and dental offices. The intent of these uses are to serve the surrounding adjacent community with community serving uses that people can walk, bike or roll to. A key element of this rezoning application is a concurrent development agreement. Two key elements of this development agreement focus first on the multimodal connection between 16th and 17th as a continuation of Mead, which was called for in the West Colfax Plan. And I'll speak to further. And then the primary focus of the development agreement is the Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreement. And Laura Burtynsky will be joining us later and can speak further to details of that affordable housing agreement. But I want to give an overview. To begin. So the affordable housing agreement talks about the for sale units as well as for rent units. The for sale units will be primarily located in some areas A and B, and it requires for a minimum of either 7% of those units constructed or eight, whichever is greater to be income restricted at either 100 and 100% area median income for a period of 99 years. Additionally, it requires that a portion of those units must be two and three bedroom units to support the need for family friendly housing in multi-unit developments. All of the rental units are going to be income restricted for a minimum time period of 30 years. As you all note, the breakdown of these range from 60 to 50 to 40% ami going into much deeper levels of affordability than we might traditionally see through other affordable housing agreements and is deeper than what may be traditionally required through the citywide linkage fee. I'd also like to note that all affordable units will be subject to the city's affordable housing rules and regulations, which are to serve as a supplement to the DRC. Terms of the process that has led to today. We went to the planning board on April 17th. Planning Board recommended approval with a vote of 6 to 1, a planning board. There was a large group of speakers with mixed opinions expressing their support and concern for the proposed rezoning. Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee saw this on the 30th of April and we are here today. All standard notice scene was in accordance with the Denver zoning code and as required, we also notified all of the listed RNAs throughout the process and as you will note and are included in your packet, we recently received excuse me , two letters of opposition from we can as well as a flood like neighborhood association. As of the date of the staff report, we closed comments to be included in the packet last Thursday afternoon. So at that point the count was 30 letters provide an opposition 18 in support and for generalized comments primarily key key themes of those that were in opposition cited concerns over traffic, parking, loss of use due to the height of the 16 storey tower, as well as the density being too significant for what the area could accommodate. Those providing letters and support expressed a welcoming desire to bring new people into the neighborhood, especially those in need of affordable housing who have maybe been previously displaced. And they also acknowledged and appreciated the contact sensitive massing that was achieved through the planned unit development through the sub areas and the variation of height. I do know that additional public comments have been forwarded to your attention. So there are more public comments and what are illustrated here on this slide in regard to the review criteria, we have all five and I'll also jump into those associated to the beauty portion, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. Comprehensive plan, which was recently adopted, provides six key vision elements. And I'm going to highlight a couple here today. The first of which speaks to Denver is an inclusive, equitable community with a high quality of life for all residents, regardless of their income level, race, gender, ability or age. I think this is a really key vision element as we think about this rezoning application on the slide is a variety of strategies that comp plan puts forth that are supported by this rezoning couple that I would just like to highlight is that this is located and the PWD portion is located two blocks north of Colfax. The finger southern portion is one block of Colfax, which provides high capacity transit. This is a mixed use development, mixed use beauty that allows for community serving uses as well as employment within the the hospital use is being retained. So we are increasing those housing unit uses and the location that's appropriate with these strategies. We're also ensuring that there's a greater mix of housing in its commitment to provide two and three bedroom units to ensure that not only singles but also families have access to this housing that is affordable and that every neighborhood should provide a complete range of housing options. So West Colfax is not only a single unit and two unit and multi-unit, but also multi-unit. And I also want to talk a little bit about environmentally resilient strategy is to promote infill where infrastructure and services are already in place. The site is very unique in the fact that it is two entire city blocks, one of which is just a surface parking lot with such close proximity to Sloan's Lake Park, which is located just to the northeast of the site, as well as a regular street grids, we already have that infrastructure in place. This is an appropriate place for infill to be occurring as well as encouraging mixed use communities which this beauty would allow for for residents to live, work and play in their own neighborhood. We have employment on the site. We have community serving users, we have residential and there's a great park immediately adjacent jumping into blueprint. Denver Land Use Built Form Strategies once again talks about the encouragement of higher density, mixed use development and transit areas, and especially in community centers, which this area is designated from. Blueprint Denver It also talks about increased density and exchange for desired outcomes, such as affordable housing. This concurrent development agreement associated with the rezoning requires more than 50% of the dwelling units to be affordable. So this is certainly an exchange that is found to be appropriate. And then we also have strategies to rezone out a former Chapter 59 and bring the city into closer conformance with the Denver zoning code and also like to reiterate some of the key policies in the housing section of Blueprint. Denver speaking about increasing affordable housing and mixed income housing, particularly in areas of service and amenities. I've already spoken about the transit as well as many of the amenities such as the park and the recent. Redevelopment to the west of St Anthony's and amenities along Colfax Avenue as well. We also once again see more policies and strategies about expanding family friendly housing to which this agreement ensures and speaks to capturing 80% of new how the housing growth in regional community centers and corridors. And as I made note, this is in a community center. Once again, we're also trying to reinforce many of the strategies as found in housing and inclusive. Denver. Speaking to the design, quality and preservation, we have guidance to implement additional zoning tools to create appropriate transitions from higher intensity centers where they are close to residential low places. So as you can see in the sub areas of the city, this provides an adequate transition from the higher intensity, uses found within the center of the site to step down to the lower intensity of residential through a land use tool and then also talks about setting stronger street level active use requirements in community centers and community corridors. The beauty requires higher transparency and activation standards on 17th Street, which is a residential collector consistent with these strategies in terms of the future neighborhood context and the guidance that blueprint gives us. The larger portion of the site that will be rezoning that is proposed to be risen to the Pdg 21 is identified as an urban center neighborhood context, and the southern portion is identified as an urban neighborhood context. The larger site is identified as a community center, which is intended to accommodate a variety of uses and speaks to how heights can generally be up to 12 storeys and taller areas and should transition gradually down to the surrounding residential areas. I'll speak a little bit more to that recommendation on the following slide. And then the portion south of 16th Avenue speaks to the low residential, which is predominantly single unit into unit, which is consistent with U2. You see, 17th Avenue is identified as a residential collector intended to accommodate higher levels of residential trips, and all of their streets are identified as local. A key page in Blueprint Denver is found on page 66, where it talks about how Blueprint Denver is a citywide plan and therefore cannot provide specific, detailed height guidance on all aspects of a place. And therefore, when considering applying building heights through Blueprint Denver, the following considerations should be made. I'd like to highlight two of the bullets, especially where it speaks to transitions, including transitions from higher intensity to lower intensity areas which this beauty does provide, as well as achieving plan goals for community benefits, including affordable housing, which this also does provide. So therefore the flexibility granted with a blueprint, Denver does find the building heights to be appropriate and consistent. Additionally, the growth strategy area is a community center and it is intended to capture 80% of new housing and job growth throughout the city and I should say not the specific site, but growth areas in general. The portion to the south of 16th Avenue is considered all of the areas of the city where modest growth is intended to occur and would be allowed under you too. You see, in terms of consistency with the adopted plans that are specific to this area, we have the Blessed Colfax Plan, which was adopted in 2006, and as you can see, the site below is clearly identified as a residential growth opportunity area where additional reinvestment and intensities are intended to be commentated in these sorts of areas, ranging from anything from single family homes all the way up to rowhouses and condominiums. Speaking to higher intensity parts of this neighborhood should transition to the prevailing neighborhood pattern and take advantage of significant infill opportunities on larger than average development sites. Other than St Anthony's, which has been redeveloped. There are no sites of this size in the West Colfax neighborhood, so it's definitely larger than average development site where that residential growth is intended to occur. Finally, I'd like to address housing and inclusion in Inclusive Denver, which was adopted in 2018, and it speaks to core goals of creating affordable housing in areas vulnerable to displacement and areas of opportunity, preserving affordable housing quality, promoting equitable and accessible housing, and stabilizing residents at risk of involuntary displacement. Two key recommendations that are applicable to this rezoning request are to expand and strengthen land use regulations for affordable and mixed income housing through Blueprint, Denver and Supplemental Implementation. This beauty and concurrent affordable housing agreement certainly strengthens the land use regulations to allow for development consistent with these plans to allow for affordable housing as well as mixed income housing. And recommendation number five speaks to the promotion of new affordable housing, mixed income and mixed use, which this is, and that the city should find partners to explore new financing mechanisms. And this is a great partnership where they are finding new ways to support mixed income developments, where we have market rate units all the way ranging down to 40%. AMI additionally, the plan identifies West Colfax as an area having a wide variety of culture and diversity. But due to a sharp increase in rent and housing prices, many residents have become vulnerable of displacement that is involuntary or where it has already occurred. And therefore this includes further strategies to promote mixed income housing stock to which this rezoning application does. Two other criteria which are speaking to uniformity of district regulations are further detailed in the staff report, as well as furthering the public health, safety and welfare by furthering the strategies of our adopted plans and providing housing and services to residents. The justifying circumstances as the reasoning out of former Chapter 59, as well as the significant reinvestment happening a couple of blocks away to the west at the St Anthony's site, as well as if you look to the east of the site, anything that's zoned GMU three has almost entirely been redeveloped into multi-unit townhomes or of the like. Additionally, consistency with neighborhood contact zoned district purpose and intent. Pdg 21 is based off of CMCs eight, which is intended to accommodate urban pedestrian friendly centers with a mix of uses, including housing and jobs. And you, you see, is in urban context intended to accommodate low intensity residential uses of single unit and to unit on minimum zone lots of 5500 square feet. Additionally, because for the northern portion it is a pretty we have additional criteria which all run through here quickly and further outlined in Article nine, Division six. Speaking to the unique and extraordinary circumstance of the site, the former Chapter 59 party is highly restrictive in terms of what can be allowed on that site. And while it contemplates a significant plan for medical and associated care uses and parking facilities, that period is no longer relevant to the current needs and city policies for this area. It's also important to acknowledge that this PD is not intended solely as a vehicle for development to get around neighborhood plans, but rather it is consistent with the planned urban center and urban neighborhood context. And it's also intended as a mechanism to ensure that the development is compatible with the adopted citywide and neighborhood plans. It's also important to note that with a beauty there must be significant public benefit. Key ones of this is affordable housing commitment with focus on deeper levels of affordability than we otherwise be seen. Additional pedestrian activation along 17th and Newton requirement to not have any visible parking that is on a street facing facade to minimize impacts to neighbors as well as a multimodal connection between 16th and 17th to improve mobility options throughout the neighborhood. It's also important to note that this development proposal is not feasible under any other zone district in the Denver zoning code and would require an unreasonable number of variances and waivers and conditions. And it is intended to establish permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses and adjacent subject adjacent to the subject property , and that the Puti District Plan establishes building forms that are compatible with the existing building forms, or which are compatible through the appropriate transitions which are done through the sub areas. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on the findings of all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. We have 43 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what I will do is call up five at a time to the front row when I call you up. If you could come up here and be ready to speak when your name is called so that we can get through everybody and we don't lose people who have to leave before they're called. So if you'll just come up and then step immediately up to the microphone when your name is called, or call five at a time. And also, if you if someone has already made the points that you would like to make, you do not have to use your full 3 minutes. You can, you know, say who you are, where you're here, and support our opposition and agree with things that have previously been said. But those 3 minutes are yours to use. Our first speaker is going to be Councilman Paul Lopez. And while he is working his way up to the microphone, I'm going to call five. To sit in the bench are Brian Conley, Karen Cyr, George Male, Britt Nemeth and Teresa Saint Peter. If you could come up to the front row. Guzman-Lopez Mike Photoshop Thank you, Mr. President, and council colleagues.
Speaker 0: I wanted to give the opportunity for this rezoning to be heard before council. Therefore I filed the application and I stand in front of you and on the dais at which when I am done, I will leave. And PD former Chapter 59 currently requires that all property owners within the PD sign the application. The portion of the PD essentially is south of 17th Avenue. It is under the ownership of a single owner that was unresponsive to our requests to join in the application for three years. Several attempts were made to discuss a potential rezoning application prior to filing the application from both Zocalo and my council office with no response and no interest from Mr. Amo Almond. Azari And until the rezoning was scheduled for a hearing in the Planning Board. As you know, the only way to rezone a former Chapter 59 PD without the owner's authorization is to either have council member or the manager of CPD file the application. As you as you've seen in the report, this is this PD is outdated for the neighborhood. There have been several changes, the conditions of which on a lease brought to your attention. It would allow for more updated zoning. It's especially important to point out that the developer has been forthright, committed to making the project 50% affordable with 160 units, two rental units at 60%, 50 and 40% of area median incomes. The project is also going to have 64 164 sale units, of which a minimum of ah 7% or eight units, whichever one is greater. And this will be sold at or below EMI, the remaining affordable for a period of 99 years. This creates a real pathway to homeownership, especially for families. And having said that, has a strong commitment also to housing families by creating two and three bedroom units are also several other commitments that have been recorded via a development agreement recorded with the city and a good neighborhood agreement. A good neighbor agreement. Zocalo has met with the community for over three years to discuss improvements, solicit and implement feedback for the project. My office has done the same and as advised by our by our council, I will be recusing myself from the vote as the applicant for this rezoning and will be leaving the chambers to uphold the public hearing process and to make sure that there is due process. So with that, thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. All right. First up, Brian Conley.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Council members Brian Connolly with the law firm of Otten Johnson. I'm here representing Zocalo Development, which is the developer of the project that is proposed for this site. I signed in as as being able to answer questions. Mr. David Zucker from Zocalo is going to hand in some materials for the record, which will include a memo that I authored pertaining to some concerns that were raised by members of the community relating to fair housing issues. In addition to being a land use attorney who works with you all frequently, I have also I'm the lead coauthor of the ABA's leading publication on the ABA being the American Bar Association's lead publication on fair housing and Land Use Issues. And I've authored several articles on that, so I'll be available for questions later. Should. Should time permit. Thanks.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Karen's here.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Karen Cyr and I have lived in West Colfax for almost 19 years. I'm raising my four children there and it's been my home for two decades. I understand neglect. I know this neighborhood has long been forgotten and set aside, and I understand how exciting it is to finally have some economic attention in our community. So I'm here to talk to you today about community, not just the existing community who deserves a voice and representation in this discussion, but bigger than that. I want to talk about community as a goal. What makes us feel connected? What? Besides, housing is important for quality of life. One of the main ways to connect is in non-threatening, open, open spaces. We meet walking out to our cars, are sitting on our porches, calling out to invite one another for a chat. Well, sometimes we invite one another inside our homes. The bulk of the time is in these common open spaces. Anybody who has ever lived in an apartment knows that the place to meet your neighbors is not the hallway. That can feel invasive. And meeting in a parking garage is creepy, not to mention potentially dangerous. So where does this development have non-threatening, relaxed outdoor spaces for people to meet? For community to be built. Renderings today show solid building all the way around the block. No courtyard, no side yard, no outdoor sitting space. The developer is saying that the park is where that should happen. I'd like to agree that the park is a wonderful resource we all love, but it cannot and should not be an excuse to neglect, including common space for the residents of this neighbor of this development to enjoy . Research shows that a critical piece to maintaining the health of small unit high density living is the need for outdoor common space. Blueprint Denver describes the community center as having open spaces to promote social interaction and respond to the distinct uses within the center. This development is not building anywhere for the community to be. Denver Residents Deserve more than a big box people warehouse. Blueprint. Denver has named this area community center and the developer is calling this proposal that. But functionally that is not what they are building. This proposed development doesn't include anything to draw people in. It doesn't even provide open space to its residents. It has been suggested that those who have any questions or concerns about the development as proposed are the ones lacking imagination and progressive thinking. Denver Council People. I would like to assert that this development as proposed is not progressive enough. We need to respond, not react to the affordable housing need. And I and I urge you as representatives of the people of this community and citizens of Denver to respond to the affordable housing crisis in a way that builds community, not just warehouses people. This is an opportunity in West Colfax. Vote no and let's make sure it gets done right.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, George Mitchell.
Speaker 6: My name is George Maile and I reside at 1075 South Garfield Street in Cary Merrill, District six. I am the President of the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation. And for those unfamiliar with it, we are the umbrella organization of over 90 registered neighborhood organizations encompassing 200,000 plus homes. And I am not being paid to be here. A little latitude first. But, Mr. President, if I may, I want to thank the president, council members and those leaving for the service you have rendered to this city. I thank you very much for that. Thank you. Also, one more thing. Channel eight needs to be its own entity and have achieved this.
Speaker 4: This is specific to this item. If you could speak to this item. Thank you.
Speaker 6: First of all, I'm here to point out that as a result of the issue of disparate impact and equitable treatment of affordable housing, residents raised in the rezoning being considered by you this evening, the I.N.S. Zoning and Planning Committee has formed an equitable, affordable housing subcommittee. The charge of this committee is to study how development plans in Denver that include affordable housing units can ensure that all residents of the entire development are treated equitably with regard to access, distribution of units, open space and other amenities, and that residents of new housing developments should not be physically separated by income after approval by the ANC delegation. The results of the analysis and recommendation will be presented to City Council, Community Planning and Development, Denver Economic Development and Opportunity and the Housing Advisory Committee, with the recommendation to develop a city wide policy or ordinance to address this important issue. More importantly, I and C's mission is to advocate for Denver citizens by bringing together, informing and empowering Denver neighborhood organizations to actively engage in addressing city issues. The extent to which the three active, residentially based Sloan's Lake and West Colfax, Arnaud's, have been involved over a long period of time. In addressing this rezoning.
Speaker 0: The fact that they.
Speaker 6: Have taken votes and taken strong positions in opposition to it, and that the residents surrounding the proposed rezoning have suggested they have successfully, legally protested, should not be overlooked, but should be respected by this esteemed council.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up is Frank Neiman.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Britt and I live in the Tuxedo Park neighborhood less than a half a block from the proposed development. As a newer resident on the block, we purchased our home with the idea that at some point a reasonable structure would be built on the parking lot at the end of our street. I'm sorry. In no way, shape or form could we have imagined a plan of such size and scale as the one that is being proposed coming from Congress Park. The allure of this neighborhood was that of more diversity, a smaller community and neighbors who could get to know and interact with this sliver of Denver has been just that. That is not to say that ourselves or our neighbors are opposed to this to development. In fact, it's just the opposite. To share a picture of what this community is like, we were welcomed with open arms after we purchased a new build that is different than the rest of the original homes on the block. This is an example of how the community is not opposed to further development nor affordable housing. We would all welcome a reasonable structure consisting of all affordable housing. I believe that as the city grows, the developers have an ethical obligation to provide appropriate open space beyond the overcrowded city parks for the residents. As someone who works directly with fellow developers in Denver, I have seen this done well in a way that incorporates how structures ultimately affect the community at large. The fact that this particular development is being built adjacent to a city park, which is over 60% water mass, should not be an excuse to subsidize the developer developers ethical obligation to provide open space for for its residents. As a Denver architectural photographer, I am constantly working with developers, architects, builders, structural engineers and more. And as I spoke with them about the details of this project, they became increasingly abhorred. The people I work with in this industry are here to better Denver and the neighborhoods that they develop within. I am simply asking that the same standard be applied to the proposed development at 17th and Newton. I implore members of the City Council to please strongly consider those mostly affected by the development, the neighborhoods surrounding it, and how the vast majority of us oppose this development in its current form and its rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up is Teresa Saint Peter, and I'm going to call the next five to come up to the front row Jonathan SHAPIRO, John Rickey, Dan Larsen, Daniel Gonzales and Anne Stanwick.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Denver City Council. Theresa St Peter. I live at.
Speaker 1: 1235 East 12th Avenue. I've lived in Denver for over 20 years.
Speaker 5: I've worked in communities across the city.
Speaker 1: My history here is a.
Speaker 5: Serious investment in Denver's.
Speaker 1: Future.
Speaker 5: I've witnessed a lot of change in Denver, and with that change, I continue to fall more deeply in love with Denver's character. Do I live in the slums like neighborhood? No. But would I support a project like this in my neighborhood? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Central to the problem of white gentrification, traffic and high housing prices exist today is that.
Speaker 5: Too many zoning decisions are made.
Speaker 1: On the myopic, loud shouts.
Speaker 5: Of Not in my backyard.
Speaker 1: Neighbors. I get it changes really uncomfortable.
Speaker 5: But I believe in looking beyond my own front door to continue to support Denver's diverse, interesting culture.
Speaker 1: And I'm not interested in.
Speaker 5: Shutting the door behind me. Please, let's not zone things myopically. We're only going to suffer like San Francisco or Seattle if we continue to only consider our land use based on what's in our.
Speaker 1: Backyards or on the public street in front of our houses. I don't want my ability to park a.
Speaker 5: Car to take precedence over.
Speaker 1: Your ability to live near me. I like a.
Speaker 5: Diversity of neighbors, so that means I'm thrilled to make room.
Speaker 8: For the.
Speaker 1: Boomers who have.
Speaker 5: Single family housing, that want a down zone but need a.
Speaker 1: Place to live that's.
Speaker 5: Smaller. I want to make room for the artists and the visionaries moving here who have inspired me.
Speaker 1: Our Wolf and the Clyfford still museums to locate here.
Speaker 5: I will most certainly make room for our teachers and the folks that serve me coffee or lunch because I believe they also should be able to afford to live in the neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: They work in.
Speaker 5: I'll make room for top paying good community member employers. I'll make room for people instead of cars.
Speaker 1: Because that also builds environmental alternatives for getting around like safe, reliable bike routes and bike sharing.
Speaker 5: Like car sharing, like sidewalk networks that mean all of us can get around more easily.
Speaker 1: And heck.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'll make room for all those amazing entrepreneurs.
Speaker 1: Who have started fantastic restaurants and food trucks with delicious offerings.
Speaker 5: In Denver. So I don't mind seeing an empty lot converted into the ability to have cool neighbors and what they bring to my city. I hope this happens at 17th and Newton. I hope it happens in my neighborhood and I hope it happens across Denver.
Speaker 1: Because this project is ideal. It is the perfect.
Speaker 5: Example of what Denver needs more of, and I believe your support today will inspire other developers to create more of the same. The 17th The Newton Project has.
Speaker 1: All of the right features to be really nice place for diversity of people with diverse housing and transit needs. Please support this project.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Jonathan SHAPIRO.
Speaker 0: Hello. Members of the City Council. My name is John. I live less than half a block from the proposed development site. When I bought in the neighborhood, I knew it was likely that the parking lot in question would be developed in some fashion. And I never had an issue with this. I am both for continual development of the neighborhood and affordable housing in general. My issue in opposition to this rezoning lies with the process in which these current developers have gone about this and the massive size and scale of the project completely out of alignment with community wishes. Despite the developer's claims of community involvement, I only even heard about this potential development when I received a piece of mail from the city about the rezoning only a few months back. At first I was excited as I thought development in that area may bring further amenities to the neighborhood. But upon understanding more of the proposed details, I was taken aback by the audacity of what they were trying to build and far too small of a space. This is a neighborhood of mostly single family homes, including a few duplex and townhouses. The parking lot is surrounded on three sides by single residential roads. The infrastructure and current build in the neighborhood is nowhere near set up for something like the developers proposed. I welcome any city councilmember to please come walk the neighborhood around the proposed site where the problem will become immediately evident. Since learning about this developers plan, I have constantly heard the refrain from them that they have to update the zoning because it's the only way to make their numbers work. With the amount of affordable housing they want to include, despite the fact I have chatted with numerous other Denver developers who disagree with this, that this is the only way it can be done on many different grounds. It's kind of besides the point. The Denver City zoning code, as far as I understand, disallows using the economic impact for the developer as a reason to allow rezoning. And it feels like that's exactly what they're trying to do here. The developer knew what the zoning was in the neighborhood when they bought the land, and making a grand plan that requires a rezoning is unacceptable in my eyes. The developer would be welcome to build whatever they desire within the current zoning code, but trying to drill for it through new zoning so the developer can profit more at the expense of the community, including its future residents that will live on the developers property should never be allowed by the City Council. It's admirable that they want to provide so much affordable housing and the community would be fine if the entire development was affordable housing. That's not our issue at all. What is an issue is the massive size and scale in given what the neighborhood could currently actually support, which is a development nowhere near what this developer's proposing and using as their primary reason. They require rezoning. Allowing the rezoning proposal in its current form will likely have a myriad of unintended consequences on the surrounding area. That is why so many people here today who actually live in the neighborhood oppose this plan. The developer is trying to make this whole issue about diversity and affordable housing, something everything in our community currently embraces wholeheartedly. It's not an issue from our perspective. We love that, but we care about our future neighbors and we don't want to see them put into a space with no designed open spaces, not large enough to support them and their families. Please vote no on this rezoning application and demand better from developers in our city when engaging with their communities. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, John Ricky.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is John Ricky. I live in Sun Valley about a mile away from the development, for what it's worth. I support the development and I hope you will as well.
Speaker 13: I'm not here tonight to defend this rezoning because I don't feel it.
Speaker 0: Needs defending for it is self-evidently a good idea in a city with ever increasing prices for housing. This rezoning will allow hundreds of new homes.
Speaker 13: To be built, some affordable which are desperately.
Speaker 0: Needed, and some market rate which are also desperately needed. This zoning allows those homes to be.
Speaker 13: Built across the street from a large park, which is exactly where the city should be putting density. Think of how well-loved and well used Cheeseman is.
Speaker 0: On almost no one drives there they walk. That is good city design. It puts these hundreds of people two blocks from Colfax, the major transit corridor in the city, allowing for a car light or car free lifestyle. From Colfax, you can reach from Golden to Aurora and you can access tens of thousands of jobs and services from entry level to professional without ever getting in a car.
Speaker 13: Many people choose not to, and many don't by necessity. This location provides for that.
Speaker 0: Option and that need. But as I said, I'm not here to defend the rezoning.
Speaker 13: What I'm really here to do is attack the attitude which says that Denver is full and that neighborhoods are under attack, that parking is more important than housing, that views win out over affordable housing, that assumed traffic impacts justify an attitude of exclusivity.
Speaker 0: Of I've got mine of pulling up the ladder. I don't believe we can be a great city or even a successful one with such an attitude. No city has long remained great by keeping people out. Many a city has driven itself to ruin by attempting it. Hashtag Boulder. This rezoning is a.
Speaker 13: Way to open Denver to more people.
Speaker 0: People in need and people with means. Hundreds of people looking for a home, but.
Speaker 13: Who weren't allowed to be part of this conversation. People who hope and wish and would fight to be part of.
Speaker 0: And contribute to a great city. Why would we stand in their way? Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Dan Larson.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Dan Lawson and I live at 1557 Main Street, one block from the planned development. I've lived in this neighborhood for 14 years with my wife and three kids. We moved into the city to find diversity for our family that we could not experience in the suburbs. We love all those who live in our community, no matter their income level, and I welcome development and want to see more affordable housing options. But I oppose this rezoning and building plan because it is dangerous, out of scale and incompatible with this neighborhood. This developer has presented a plan that offers affordable housing as a peace offering in exchange for the desire to build a luxury high rise that towers over all the other buildings in the area. Although the developer has stated they've included the neighborhood in and slogan and its organizations in this proposal, it should be clear today that affected residents have been excluded with a take it or leave it plan. Many wish to characterize this as a divisive issue with those in favor and against polarized around the concern for affordable housing. However, we appear to oppose this are not against affordable housing. We're against a massive development out of scale with the neighborhood and a developer who's turned a deaf ear to the needs of those who live in this part of the city, most of whom are low income families and renters being driven out by million dollar residences. There has been little thought or consideration to the way that this development in this scale will remake the neighborhood and may provide some affordable housing. But it will do so at the expense of many, if not all, of the low income residences that we already have in the area. We all need to be concerned about not just whether we have affordable housing, but the way it's achieved. The developer claims they have no responsibility to conserve open space as part of their plan. Instead, they place the burden on Sloan's Lake Park to provide any and all free and open space for the residents. The developers claim that this is one of the largest parks in Denver ignores the fact that the acreage of Sloan's is over 60% water and the remaining land is already well-used, often crowded. And that is before we've experienced the full impact of the completion of the St Anthony's development. A vote against this particular plan is not a vote against affordable housing. We need a plan that, as the West Colfax Plan states, promotes compatible development that reinforces our diverse urban environment. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Daniel Gonzales's.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Daniel Gonzalez.
Speaker 8: I live in the 3400 block of West 17th Avenue, two and a half blocks from the proposed development site. 11 years ago, shortly after I graduated from college.
Speaker 0: I chose to make my home in Denver. I did so because I believed Denver was a city with a bright economic.
Speaker 8: And transit oriented.
Speaker 0: Future. Then a few years ago, once I'd finally saved up a down payment, I bought my home in the Sloan's Lake area, and I chose that.
Speaker 8: Neighborhood precisely because of the redevelopment of the former hospital site Sloan's adjacency to downtown and the variety of transit options.
Speaker 0: That exist in the neighborhood. I actually.
Speaker 8: Work downtown.
Speaker 0: I live on 17th Avenue and I commute every day using RTD for these same reasons. This location is exactly.
Speaker 8: The sort of place where we should be encouraging developments like this.
Speaker 0: Density is not a dirty word, and density is appropriate at a transit.
Speaker 8: Rich in infill sites such as.
Speaker 0: This. Sloan's Lake has a high rate of homeownership. It also has a high.
Speaker 8: Diversity of incomes. It's part of what makes the neighborhood so vibrant. And this project supports those two goals of.
Speaker 0: Homeownership and diversity income. The existing zoning is antiquated and designed.
Speaker 8: For a hospital expansion. I, for one, don't want a tower with a zero setback.
Speaker 0: Coming right up against the street. I love.
Speaker 8: That the proposed pad sets the tower back deep into the site where it's not casting shadows on any.
Speaker 0: Of the neighboring properties. The proposed development is a great way to improve the sustainability of Sloan's Lake and add to the affordable housing stock here.
Speaker 8: Which is why I ask you. Vote in favor of the zoning change.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up is in Stanwick and I'm going to call the next five up to the front row in a duet. Michelle, Michael, Keith Pryor, Rhonda martin and Christopher Callahan. Go ahead.
Speaker 13: Good evening. My name is Ian Stanwick. I live at 1641 and 45. Went on a court. I am here in opposition to this project and there are many reasons for it. I am not opposed to higher density. I am not opposed to affordable housing. What I am opposed to is the simple fact that we haven't finished the Saint Anthony development yet in the impact that that thing has had on our neighborhood has been detrimental to everybody that lives on 17th Street. And you cannot deny that to ask us to have to now stomach a 16 storey building and another 260 units in that area at this time is just unfathomable traffic along 17th Street since the big since they started ripping down St Anthony's and now building everything up over there has been ridiculous and I ask you to vote no on this project, or at least to postpone it until we can come up with something a little more creative than just high rises. There's many cities around this country that are doing lots of things for affordable housing. Why are we doing the same old thing over and over and over again? So I beseech you, please vote. No, thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up in a do it.
Speaker 5: Good evening city council and Denver neighbors. I'm honored to at a teacher at North High School and candidate for Denver's school.
Speaker 1: Board at large.
Speaker 5: I want to discuss the meaning behind housing choice. A school choice. And as a neighbors of slums like listen, I urge you to try to see.
Speaker 14: This project through the lens of someone.
Speaker 1: Who's not yet your neighbor, but might like to be. So housing choices, school choice.
Speaker 14: As many of us know, the politics of school choice in DPS are a little.
Speaker 5: Interesting and difficult to navigate. Yet we all have one goal to send our children to the best school possible. And some families have that real choice. They can send their students to.
Speaker 1: A quality public school, or they have the.
Speaker 5: Choice to send their children to another school outside of their.
Speaker 14: Community. But what if all your.
Speaker 1: Public schools.
Speaker 5: Had been shut down?
Speaker 14: What if the schools that replaced.
Speaker 1: Them were charter schools.
Speaker 5: With a hyperfocus on excessive rules and high stakes testing? This is happening in Denver, but it's important to note this is only happening in our underserved communities. Neighborhoods in Wayne, New Sussman and Cashman District aren't seeing this.
Speaker 14: Are more affluent.
Speaker 5: Neighborhoods, many of which see little multifamily units also.
Speaker 1: Have fewer charter schools.
Speaker 14: We have adults fighting over housing policy.
Speaker 5: In the meantime, our students are suffering.
Speaker 8: And as a teacher, I see this.
Speaker 5: I have several students who live in those communities I described earlier. Their schools have been shut down and now they have to drive 30 minutes out of their community to go to.
Speaker 14: The next public school. Their families can't afford the.
Speaker 5: Average price homeless in North High School. In fact, even Denver teachers can afford or can only afford 5.4% of the housing in Denver. We must stop building walls around certain communities. Walls of expensive homes that only accommodate certain groups of people and certain children.
Speaker 1: In their schools.
Speaker 8: We must allow projects that allow the middle and lower class.
Speaker 5: Projects out of affordable housing and projects like this so that we can rebuild diverse communities that have been shoved out by recent gentrification.
Speaker 14: Helping us usher in a new age of affordability and neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Schools in Denver.
Speaker 5: All students benefit by having a diverse range of classmates, and we can not honestly discuss closing the achievement gap between our students and ending the closure of public schools in favor of charter schools.
Speaker 8: Without.
Speaker 5: Discussing racial integration, racially biased zoning laws, and high housing costs in Denver. Our families and our working class deserve to live in the neighborhoods where they want to send their children to school. I support this project. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Michelle. Michael.
Speaker 1: My name is Michelle Michael. I live at 1532 Main Street, less than a mile from the development. So far, it's been made abundantly clear that through this process, the well-being of the existing neighborhood is of no concern. To say I have been discouraged since we were simply a formality in the planning board meeting is an understatement.
Speaker 5: Denver is a place that can.
Speaker 1: Provide city dwellers an outlet to the mountains, which is why.
Speaker 5: Cars continue to be.
Speaker 1: Relevant here. Having 320 units access their residents on a locals owned road, which has not which was not meant for a building zoned in excess of CMCs three, isn't feasible. The equivalent of this PUD request would be CMC's 16. A building zoned as CMCs 16 require major arterial streets as specified in the Denver Zoning Code. Article seven, Section 72, too. Because this PD, because this is a PD and not normal zoning, there's a loophole. But this PD is not in line with the spirit of the law. This location cannot support the pinnacle style high rise, which it has continuously been compared to. The pinnacle is on a two lane road going in each direction, not single lanes. If lane, instead of placing highrises on streets that can accommodate them, are formerly safe, local streets have become increasingly dangerous. I ride my bike down 17th Street each morning to work and I own a car. The traffic impacts I have seen in the past year from the St Anthony's development are incredible and it's not yet fully realized. The unprotected bike lane on 17th is honestly become very scary. The lack of a traffic study was brushed off in the planning board meeting when the staff member said the excerpt was just a standard blanket statement. However, every developer, engineer and city planner I sent the application to all pointed out the lack of a traffic study as a red flag. All are all Denver projects of this scale filled out with blank blanket statements.
Speaker 5: In order to get this rezoning passed. It seems to make sense that calling attention to the lack of infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Isn't in the developer's best interest. Please don't do what everyone else has done thus far. Move forward. Ask questions later. We are not here opposing this rezoning today because there is a proposal for affordable housing on a parking lot surface. We welcome that. We're here because they're offering affordable housing. A rezoning which would not.
Speaker 5: Otherwise be allowed is being considered. I think I can speak for everyone in the neighborhood. And one.
Speaker 1: Thing we would like to see, this parking lot developed, but not at the expense of our.
Speaker 5: Neighborhood. This is lakefront.
Speaker 1: Property. There's going to be other opportunities. Please wait for the right fit. Set a precedent. The developer should care about the people their development will actually affect. Set a precedent. The developer should actually not just facially, which.
Speaker 5: Is what the only thing that has occurred. Try to work with the community.
Speaker 1: Wishful thinking that people won't drive cars is a fallacy. The traffic.
Speaker 5: Impacts this development will have on our streets will be.
Speaker 1: Detrimental. Infrastructure is so important and I wish that you would all consider that in making your decision today. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Keith Prior.
Speaker 0: Hi. Keith Pryor, 2418 Champ Straight. This plan is amazing. If we could like clown David Zucker, as he's done work throughout the rest of this community and coming together with very complex deals that allow for affordable housing, allow for market rate, allow for mixed use, all in the same development. That's what planning is all about. That's what Blueprint Denver is all about. This is what we want as a city because we want it to be walkable. You look at a lot of the neighborhoods that are the most desirable. They are walkable, they are transit oriented, and as a result, they're very expensive. People want to be there. This is what they desire. But yet, if you deny this, you're denying what people actually need, what people actually want, and you're actually furthering the problem that we're having. You can't build your way out of this situation in Denver. We can't add enough housing as fast as we need to. And just by building and saying yes in my backyard is not the answer. You need targeted, affordable housing, the missing middle, the lower income. And unless you actually go out and physically target this type of. Properties, this type of development. No one's ever going to do it, nor are you going to get it to where it's all in one project. If you look at the Walton corridor, you see all affordable in one building, you see all market and luxury. They're not together. They're not going to be together because financing is impossible on these. You're going to see all residential. You're not going to see a mixed use. Because, again, financing does not come together. David has done an amazing thing in pulling all of these things into one development. It is not easy. And by denying this and not seeing it go through to formation again, you're denying the city the opportunity to see a mixed use, mixed income community come to life on a really good opportunity that has the open space. You can't get everything. It would be nice. We'd be in Utopia. We wouldn't be in the situation we're at. That would be nice. Could it be better? Of course it can always be better. That's not to be debated. But what you're looking at is a model, an opportunity that has not been done in this city. And we need to go forward with this because it's critical. This brings together all of these opportunities. And so when you hear other people talking about these pieces of how it doesn't provide open space within the community, it doesn't build community, it doesn't do this. It doesn't do that. If you build another wider road, guess what? You listen your belt, there's going to be more traffic. I've never heard the argument. If you build more people, there's more traffic on that road. Now you do the resources. So this gets people out of the car. It gives them the walkability that they need. Please support this project. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Rhonda martin.
Speaker 1: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Dr. Rhonda martin. I reside at 1712 Mead Street. My family has been property owners of this property for over 70 years. I have seen the first flight for life at St Anthony's to its demolition. And so I bought I have responded to a lot of the councilman asking for your support to not go through with this project. On June 10th, it took me 9 minutes to go from 17th in Meade to Sheridan, which is less than a mile. It was 4:00 in the afternoon on a monday. There was nobody leaving the construction sites. There was no event at the Park School at Lake Middle School was not in session. And, you know, this is they say there's no increase in our traffic. Well, that's bull. Also, we currently are male now because of the increase in all, the population gets delivered anywhere between six and 11:00 at night. Sometimes we don't even get our mail because of the lack of the male, you know, force, employment force of mail people. If we increase or if we get affordable housing, that does not actually guarantee that we will have diversity. It will hopefully be there, but it doesn't guarantee it. And we've seen this happen in other communities as well. We also need to make sure that we have the hook and ladders that need to support a fire in a building that is 16 storeys or higher, which we don't have many hook and ladders in the city and county of Denver. Also, we need to increase our police forces right now. And I spoke to some of the police officers are only increasing those who have retired, died or been fired or quit. So we need to make sure that that infrastructure has been maintained in order for us to take care of this. I do applaud Dan Larson on his knowledge and his support for this issue. And I'd really like to make sure that we can try to keep the integrity of this wonderful community of slums like Tuxedo Gulch in its place. Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Christopher Callahan.
Speaker 8: Good evening, council members. My name is Chris Callanan and I work at 2100 Stout Street down in downtown Denver. I'm here to testify on behalf of Urban Peak. Our mission is to ignite the potential and youth to exit homelessness and create self to determined and fulfilled lives. We've heard from multiple people giving testimonies, asking to hear about the multiple lives that this type of development would impact. And I hope to give insight into that. The youth that we see at urban peak benefit from our continuum of services. They are anywhere from 15 to 24 years old, experiencing a variety of homelessness, from unsheltered to housing insecure. And when they benefit from our programs, affordable housing is often a key to getting them into self-sufficient lives. It is often the key at the end of our continuum of services, and it is very important. They benefit from our programs and they hope to get into a permanent, stable housing situation. And for many of them, that will mean an income restricted unit like the ones being discussed this evening. We recognize also that questions have been asked about the types and quality of the units in this development, and we think this is a good thing for the community to dialog about because oftentimes we are at the crossroads of choosing between meeting immediate needs and long term needs and thus improving and expanding the stock of affordable housing in the city of Denver is an immediate need that needs to be met in the nuances of affordable housing and zoning, I think can wait for another hearing. These are important. That shelter is the important issue that someone who is experiencing homelessness needs. Stable housing is the springboard for things that many of us in the House community take for granted. Study after study shows that stable housing significantly escalates student performance ability to access health and mental health care and follow prescribed medications, and the ability to hold down a job. And maybe even equally importantly, for somebody who has experienced homelessness, a way to connect with community. We do not need to tell you that there is a vast shortage of affordable housing here in Denver, and the income restricted units proposed in the project will provide a much needed influx in units and there is certainly hope for more projects like this coming online soon. When we benefit from being in community, it's important that all of us share and give back to our community equally. Please support this rezoning tonight and provide more opportunities to house our youth and the entire Denver community.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up is Tracy Hill and on by Dimitri Zandvoort, NE, Callie Anderson, Kevin MATTHEWS, Claire Shamblin and Jessica Domingues up to the front row.
Speaker 5: My name is Tracy Hill. I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning. I live at 1537 Meade Street in a one story bungalow with my.
Speaker 8: Husband, my four year old daughter and our canine.
Speaker 5: Buddy. We've lived here since 2011 and we are within 200 yards of the proposed development. There are people here that believe that we object to the development because we don't want affordable housing in our neighborhood. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us rent our spare basements and bedrooms.
Speaker 1: At below market.
Speaker 5: Value, as my family has done for med students and foreign exchange students. We wouldn't objective the 210 story towers that are already permitted under the current PUD. We're entirely designed for affordable housing, but that wouldn't be profitable, would it? The proposed rezoning is about profit. Let's not be fooled. To be clear, and I speak on behalf of the vast majority of my neighbors, we are opposed to the size and scale of this project. In response to opposition from the community, including all three registered neighborhood organizations, the developer has stated that a 16 storey tower of luxury condos has to be built in order to make the project economically feasible. The developers argument is in direct violation with the purpose.
Speaker 8: And intent of.
Speaker 5: Pudi zoning. The code clearly states that PWD zoning quote is not intended as a vehicle to enhance a proposed development's economic feasibility. Our neighborhood has a right to expect that City Council will comply with PWD zoning requirements. The proposed parking garage has only 1.25 spots.
Speaker 8: Per for sale units and.
Speaker 5: Even less for the rental units. The tenants are expected to share with hospital staff and.
Speaker 8: Visitors, as well as visitors to the retail and community.
Speaker 5: Space. This is unrealistic and irresponsible planning. Without a doubt, the excess cars will park in our already badly congested neighborhood streets. As it is, two cars cannot travel in opposite directions at the same time. On Meade Street, which is intended to be the main access more cars, more traffic and inadequate roads inevitably means risk to limb and life. It wasn't that long ago that my neighbor's dog was hit on our street and died in their front yard. Well, I mourned his loss. I couldn't help but imagine. What if that had been my child? A few years back, my parked car was hit by a drunk driver. We were grateful because had my car not been there, he would have continued into my neighbor's yard where six children were playing. I respectfully request that you vote against this rezoning application.
Speaker 8: Building community. You should not ignore and disregard the existing community. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Dimitri Zamboni.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is Demetrius Everett NE. I live in North Capitol Hill neighborhood. And you know, I think we can talk about the housing affordability crisis that we're facing right now. But I want to talk about something a little different, and that's climate change. So according to Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment, climate change is one of the greatest challenges to our generation. Cities generate more than 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which makes Denver a key part of the climate solution. Denver's 8050 Climate Action Plan defines how we plan to meet our long term climate goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80% below the 2005 levels by the year 2050. The plan calls for deeper decarbonization in buildings, transportation and electricity generation. An important part of the action plan is Denver Sustainable Neighborhoods Program, which gives residents the opportunity to become active partners in making Denver a vibrant and sustainable community. Another part of the plan is the recently passed Denver Comprehensive Plan, which shapes the future of land use, mobility, parks and recreational resources in Denver. All of these efforts acknowledge that climate change is real, that cities are at the forefront of fighting climate change in a dense, urban, walkable neighborhoods close to parks, trails and transit are one of the best ways to combat our carbon footprint. According to a 2011 Department of Energy report, the US is responsible for 19% of the world's energy consumption, was with residential structures making up 22% of that number, beating out commercial structures which come in at 19%. According to the Energy Information Agency, new apartments over five units have the largest efficiency increases of all building types and use about half as much energy than freestanding houses. Additionally, 29% of U.S. consumption comes from transportation by locating affordable as well as market rates like market rate housing next to retail and mass transit near the corner of the city. Rather than sprawling out into the plains, we can reduce the average miles traveled per person, promote a healthier lifestyle, and help help build more vibrant and interconnected an interconnected community. The the project, the 17th in Newton helps move Denver, the front range and the whole world ever so slightly in the right direction by replacing a city block with which was traditionally dense and active. But for the last few decades, a depressing parking lot. We can help address a macro issue at a micro scale when we, as a city say no to common sense projects such as this, especially when they go above and beyond to address our housing crisis. We're also seeing that we're now responsible for correcting the manmade crime of climate crisis. This is something that we must all address every city and every neighbor. We cannot move forward as a whole if we allow the reservations of a few to hold us back from addressing our global collective problems. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Kelly Anderson.
Speaker 0: So I gave you a visual aid because I'm going to talk through some numbers. So without question, this is a very, very large building.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, could.
Speaker 0: You could you.
Speaker 4: Could you state your name.
Speaker 0: For. I'm sorry. My name is Kayla Anderson. I am in the Sounds Like Citizens group. I'm a vice president on the board there and I live pretty close to the site. This is both large in terms of height and also it's requesting setbacks, you know, from the normal residential or it's requesting variances to reduce the normal residential setbacks. So my question is, why does it have to be so large and why is it okay in this instance to grant a custom non-conforming zone district with variances from the normal standards? I feel that this is a question where details are very important. So I tried to make a visual aid for you here to show this. The justification the developer keeps coming back to is that this is just a conversion of the existing pad, and that would allow no more development than what.
Speaker 7: There are no more square.
Speaker 0: Footage than what the current deal would allow. I believe that statement is is categorically false. The existing PWD defines its massing.
Speaker 7: In terms of formal term is defined in the Denver zoning.
Speaker 0: Code, which is maximum above grade square footage. The developer has incorrectly redefined this term for his development as non parking usable square feet, and those terms are not interchangeable. The old Pudi allows 2200 80,000 square feet above grade for the buildings that would go on what is now the surface parking lot, a 210 story senior housing towers
Speaker 7: . In a long term care.
Speaker 0: Facility in the same area. The new development would have approximately 700,000 square feet of. By this definition of of of gross square footage above grade. This is not an apples to apples conversion of the existing pudi to the new pudi. The difference in massing is very obvious when you look at the renderings of the old Pudi buildings and the new Pudi buildings. When placed into the context of the neighborhood, we have some printouts we made for people that can't see the handouts. And then also there are some pictures in the handouts. When the justification for this Pudi is so reliant on what appears to be this misrepresentation that the new Pudi would result in no more square footage than the old one. I think this is something that the council needs to pay critical attention to. This justification has come up in planning board. It's come up at the hearing. It's been it's in the application. And even in the Denver Post last week, the developer said that we are not adding.
Speaker 7: A square foot more.
Speaker 0: Than what is allowed by the current zoning. This is approximately two and a half times more square feet in terms of growth above grade square footage, which is a formal turn in the Denver zoning code than what the old Peabody would allow. I'm not trying to manipulate the numbers here. I'm happy to answer any questions about how I derive this and provide more information later. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Kevin MATTHEWS.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street. I used to.
Speaker 9: Live just north, about a mile.
Speaker 0: Near Highland Square several years ago. And my wife and I are typical Saturday morning.
Speaker 9: Was to take a walk around Sloan's Lake.
Speaker 0: It's it would be a nice thing that many more people would have access to that.
Speaker 9: When I did love it live up.
Speaker 0: In Highland Square at the time, I used to see a lot of signs that said No high rises in the Highlands. And what was weird is you could look right there and there was a high rise. And so it made me think maybe it's maybe it's not the high rises. I want to talk about climate change because I don't want to pretend that I'm here for altruistic reasons. I'm here for completely selfish reasons.
Speaker 9: I have a three year old son and I think a lot about the world that he's.
Speaker 0: Going to grow up into. And I really don't know what that's going to look like. The climate goals.
Speaker 2: That this city has.
Speaker 0: 80% reduction by 2050 is simply inadequate. It's an outdated goal. It was a great goal in 2008. Everybody assumed we would turn the Fossett down, but we haven't. So when you when you're talking about your crime reduction goals, I don't know how you're going to beat them.
Speaker 9: You've an incredible challenge.
Speaker 0: Ahead of you. But this is a climate reduction project. Don't be mistaken about that. I want to quote someone who writes a lot on climate issues and about growing cities just because he can see it a lot better than I can. He's a writer, but then he Alex Steffen, who is a writer, speaker and a planetary futurist. Well, these cities and climate stable places that refused to take steps to welcome people fleeing climate impacts are unjust cities. People who talk about blocking housing, limiting cities, populations resisting growth are just building a.
Speaker 9: Different sort of border wall. While cities in the.
Speaker 0: 21st century are kept close to others, not by ramparts of stone, by housing shortages and high cost of living. Tens of millions of people will soon need to.
Speaker 9: Relocate from hard hit.
Speaker 13: Depressed areas to.
Speaker 0: Places that are safe and more prosperous by centuries. And it will be hundreds of millions of people. We can't pretend to care.
Speaker 9: Much about justice if we do.
Speaker 0: Nothing to help. Opposition to building.
Speaker 8: At scale in places that are.
Speaker 0: Geographically advantaged, wealthy and or ruggedized against climate is climate injustice. I hope you support this project.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Claire Shipman.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Claire Shamblin and I reside on Mead Street, just south of the proposed development. I'm here to encourage the Council to vote against the MAP Amendment. This development, as proposed, will negatively affect both current and future residents by its density and the circumstances of the affordable rental units. I think it's worth noting that most of the group of neighbors before you today who stand opposed have never been here before, with the exception of Larry Ambrose. We have said yes to every other development in West Colfax. The first issue I take with this development is that of optics and the esteem of those who would be living in the affordable rental units. I and my neighbors aren't just for affordable housing. We are for the people who will live there. I believe strongly that this development would not support the dignity of these new residents. While we applaud the attempt to create affordable housing, the manner in which it has been proposed would serve to stigmatize those living there. There will be separate levels of architecture and construction, separate parking and less of it. The apartments will sit at the back of the lot, away from the lake, beneath and behind the luxury high rise. Affordable housing does not have to be done this way. And if we truly want to create diversity by density, then those living in the rental units shouldn't be made to feel less than by their location within the development. Our new neighbors would be negatively impacted by the density of the development, just as the existing residents would. The density proposed by this development is nothing short of astounding. There would be 136 residential units per acre while the surrounding neighborhood is less than 14 units. Belmar, which is a town center, according to Blueprint, Denver, is 28 residential units per acre. This development would be similar in size to the East River development on Roosevelt Island in New York City. But Tuxedo Park doesn't have the infrastructure or transit to accommodate density on par with that of New York. While I understand the as transportation recommended a traffic study, this is the cart before the horse. A traffic study should have been performed well before we went to planning, much less city council. It would be hard to imagine the council approving the zoning and then coming back to tell the developer to reduce the density. This is especially true when the developer has again and again said it has to be this dense or it can't be built. There are no plans to increase emergency services or school capacity and no plans for new open space. Our new neighbors would be crammed in and expected to get by on the services that we currently have. Our first responders and teachers would be expected to deal with potentially double the amount of work, with no increase in workforce or pay. The public benefits of job creation and economic benefit from this development have been cited many times as justification for the density and configuration. There's no evidence these benefits would be reduced. I respectfully request that the Council vote no to this map amendment request.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Jessica Dominguez and then I'll invite Skyler, Caitlin, David Zucker, Flora Mackay, Chad Malik Mullinax and Bobby Roberts up to the front row.
Speaker 1: Hello. Thank you for listening to me today. My name is Jessica Dominguez. I live in West Colfax. I am also a DPS teacher. I've been a DPS teacher for 17 years. I took the year off to study affordable housing options. I took a development class, and it really was because of gentrification and displacement that I saw in my classroom that I'll talk about later.
Speaker 5: I've lived in West Colfax for eight years.
Speaker 1: I'm the co-president of Weaken the R.A.. I have great respect for the board members who serve on we can they they value diversity and inclusion. But the R.A. does not tell the whole story of the neighborhood. It's true that.
Speaker 5: The R.A. voted against the development. My question is, did that vote represent the community in terms of the racial makeup, economic status and renter versus homeowner in the community? I say no because when I go to the R.A., I don't see my face there.
Speaker 1: I don't see the babies that I have taught.
Speaker 5: For 17 years.
Speaker 1: First graders who in Colfax and Cheltenham, I reached out to those two schools and asked them, Have you heard about this? They were so excited. The families were all on board. No one that I spoke to was against it. They were asking if they could live there. And I want to tell you, I taught in North Denver at Columbia Elementary 40th and federal for most of my 17 years. And outside of the walls, it appeared that economic growth was happening because of new restaurants, new homes.
Speaker 5: But inside the classroom, my own classroom, I had.
Speaker 1: Two students that were homeless. One was living out of the car. In another first grade classroom. There was a student who was living with her great grandmother who was displaced, and they had a stay at the school one day while she was sick because they couldn't go back to their.
Speaker 5: Shelter till 6:00.
Speaker 1: I recently saw that family at the Volunteers of America on West Colfax, still looking for a home. The instability.
Speaker 5: Affects their.
Speaker 1: Achievement. And while we do what we can at the school.
Speaker 5: Its resources are severely limited. What this development is going to do is going to provide homes for kids where.
Speaker 1: They can do their homework. We can learn from North Denver, who currently is in the late stages of gentrification.
Speaker 5: West Colfax is still in the early stages.
Speaker 1: We need safe, affordable housing because it is the foundation which determines all other quality of life metrics.
Speaker 5: Kids who experience home stability do better in school.
Speaker 1: I urge you to support the development because it will encourage the creation of more affordable housing, which will which will create housing stability for DPS children having long term positive effects on their education, on their life. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Skyler Katan.
Speaker 15: Hello. My name is Skyler. Kate and I reside in the Sloan's Lake neighborhood. Less than a block.
Speaker 0: From the proposed development. I would be directly impacted.
Speaker 15: I'm opposed to this project, but wasn't initially. I shared some of the enthusiasm for.
Speaker 9: A progressive.
Speaker 15: Community building development the first time I heard about it. Those two and a half years ago today I stand shoulder to shoulder with the vast majority of.
Speaker 9: Community residents that have come to oppose this project. I'd like to.
Speaker 15: Briefly talk and clarify the nature.
Speaker 9: Of the community's opposition and possibly refute some of what we believe to be mischaracterizations.
Speaker 0: It's just too much. That was what I heard from a gentleman who.
Speaker 9: Is.
Speaker 0: Developer friendly.
Speaker 9: A real estate professional who is being asked to sign the legal protest petition.
Speaker 15: And it came after he studied the development.
Speaker 9: He read the rezoning application.
Speaker 0: He asked for all the literature for.
Speaker 15: The developer himself, and he came back to me and said, I do not believe in telling developers what to do, but this is.
Speaker 9: Just too much.
Speaker 0: That refrain.
Speaker 15: Is consistent with the common.
Speaker 9: Sense approach, from what I've heard from.
Speaker 15: Many residents that we've talked to about this development.
Speaker 4: It doesn't meet the smell test.
Speaker 0: It seems too large. We know.
Speaker 15: The neighborhood. We live there.
Speaker 9: We know what's what's right and what's in scale. And it has never seemed to be appropriately scaled or opposition. The opposition to date is significant.
Speaker 15: It's been documented. The weekend vote was 250 people strong with 199 against. The legal protest poured 166 signatures.
Speaker 0: Of surrounding.
Speaker 15: Residents.
Speaker 0: And the opposition.
Speaker 15: Is not, as.
Speaker 9: Has been mentioned many times, about affordable.
Speaker 15: Housing in any way. It's opposition to a plan that has grave concerns related to size and scale, concerns about a design that separates rather than.
Speaker 9: Brings the community together, and.
Speaker 0: Concerns.
Speaker 15: About a process that's void of a collaborative spirit. The West Colfax Plan of 26 identifies our neighborhood as Tuxedo.
Speaker 9: Park East.
Speaker 4: And identifies.
Speaker 15: It in style.
Speaker 0: And character.
Speaker 9: And it affords it some level of protection when it comes to future development. It advises reinforcing the character, defining elements of the neighborhood, promoting discrete density.
Speaker 15: And focusing intense residential development away.
Speaker 0: From urban neighborhood areas.
Speaker 15: Nothing about doubling the size and population.
Speaker 0: Of our neighborhood on 10% of the landmass.
Speaker 9: Can be perceived as discrete.
Speaker 0: Let's be briefly remaining time.
Speaker 9: About the process to date. Issues with the density.
Speaker 15: With the design have.
Speaker 0: Been raised.
Speaker 9: Repeatedly when the responses came and they were felt were few and far between.
Speaker 0: To reframe stand out first.
Speaker 15: Is the statement that this has to be done this way.
Speaker 9: And the other is, if unable to rezone, it will be much worse. These are not the words of a collaborative spirit.
Speaker 15: And they've put the neighborhood in the position that it's in today. In trying to desperately.
Speaker 9: Voice our legitimate.
Speaker 15: Concerns and be heard. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, David Zucker.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council Members David Zucker. My work addresses for 55 Sherman Street in Denver. I'm here tonight to speak as the developer of the project requires a rezoning at 1601 Lowell Boulevard. This project consists of two buildings. One building will be for sale units and one building residential rental units. Both buildings include affordable residential. The for sale building also includes market rate. In addition, the project seeks to deliver retail and office space and open space in the form of an urban plaza. I'm asking you tonight to approve this rezoning because it will allow for the helping to address the intense, persistent and unmet need for affordable housing in the city. The development agreement in front of you tonight legally requires that the affordable units be built. The affordable rental will be available for people with incomes at 40, 50 and 60% of of the average area median income, and will be deed restricted for at least 30 years. The Affordable for sale units will be workforce housing limited to those earning less than 100% of the area, median income and deed restricted for 99 years. Both the rental and the for sale units will include two and three bedroom units to address the needs of housing for families. According to the city's 2018 housing report, 667 units of affordable housing were built in the city in 2018, which required almost $13 million to assist in their development from the city. This project alone would deliver almost 25% of the total number of units delivered in 2018 with no city funds. What we do need from City Council is an approval of this rezoning that will allow for the additional of residential uses and a shift in massing within the current density that results in higher heights than is currently allowed. At the center of the block, the proposed square footage and the square footage of the current feud remain the same. These changes allow for the subsidization of affordable units. This is a good deal for the city. It's a good deal for taxpayers and a great deal for people who need affordable housing and in a decent, safe neighborhood . I will draw a bright line for them, for the members in this chamber tonight. If we can't develop affordable housing on what is currently a vacant parking lot in a neighborhood that has experienced significant displacement across the street from open space close to transit. After more than two years of process and compromise with community, it meets all review criteria for rezoning in the city of Denver and is consistent with the review criteria allowing for a pod. Then I'm at a loss for where affordable housing should be built. The if I could the council secretary to distribute both a legal memo as well as a neighborhood agreement. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Flora Mackay.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Flora Mackay and I live at 1538 Equipment Street and I've been there since March of 2010. And I'm going to talk about the voice of Tuxedo Park residents within the process.
Speaker 13: I do oppose this development.
Speaker 1: First of all, a working group was formed through weekend. I served with this group. It was a thoughtful, thorough working group who then voted and sent suggestions and concerns to the developer in a letter dated for April 25th, 2018. For more, you can call President Lee round and no response. And there was no response for eight and a half months. We can prove co-president Jessica Dominguez contacted the developer by way of email to find out the specific points that had been addressed. The developer indicated that he would respond presently. However, an incomplete response came over a month later, and it did not address some of the concerns and suggestions open space and building heights and so forth. The voice of the working group regarding many of the suggestions and concerns.
Speaker 13: For the community was not addressed.
Speaker 1: And it's been ignored. And there was a vote from residents of weekend regarding those in favor or oppose. 75% of more than 250 people voted in opposition. A letter from weekend was read and submitted to the planning board asking for a no vote or delay in zoning application process. That request was not honored. Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association has submitted a letter of opposition prior to the date of the public comment there. So how is it that the voices of the R.A. is represented? Resident representing resident opposition of this degree have been ignored. Okay. And then also on Sloan's Lake Citizens Group had a recent straw poll of the board of directors. 14 opposed one. Yes. Now the voices of three resident RINOs have brought forth strong opposition and should not be ignored. And then also on before the working group was established, after one of the meetings, I quietly mentioned to the developer that I would not be back. He asked why and I responded. What's the use? In my heart, I discerned you was going to do whatever he was going to do. And at some point I did come back trusting the process. And I am hoping that council is sincere, responsible for the public will consider that we want to be part of this. And I do ask for a no vote. And I thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Chad Mullinax.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Chad Mullinax. I've lived in West Colfax for over seven years and we live near the 17th and Newton project. I'm actually here for confession. As someone who has developed town and housing in the West Colfax area that I have disregarded the idea of gentrification with justice in my own neighborhood. You already know that housing has become unattainable to our long time, low income Sloan's Lake neighbors. The data is overwhelming, and this council is likely more familiar than most with the impact of gentrification. And so we shouldn't pass up opportunities such as this one to do better. But instead, I came here to apologize publicly to all of my neighbors who have lived their whole life in a distressed, blighted and low income neighbor neighborhood with lower performing schools, higher crime activity than anything I ever knew as a child. While there was a time when I lacked awareness of the impact I was having on my neighbors, I can no longer plead ignorance to the injustice that has occurred to my brown and black and low income neighbors and friends. So I'm here to say to them, I am sorry that when your neighborhood began to see signs of improvement, I didn't think about creative ways or participate in helpful housing solutions where you could also benefit from all the reinvestment happening in your own neighborhood. I'm sorry that every housing move I made in West Colfax over the past seven years benefited me and was always to your detriment. I'm sorry that I always attempted to maximize return on investment when giving up just a tiny bit of profit would dramatically transform your life while only having a minor inconvenience on my own. I'm sorry that while I've always said that my words that I'm for affordable housing because who isn't? We've heard it tonight, but have been resistant against those Bible low income projects in my backyard. I'm sorry for fighting affordable income projects under the disguise of transportation congestion, building heights and parking issues. When I'm mostly concerned with my own personal property value and my own economic game and my fear of people who don't look at or have the histories like my own. I'm sorry that I've been unwilling to be mildly inconvenienced when your whole life continues to be an utter financial, housing, educational and family crisis. I'm sorry that you have to move your family again and again and again to make more room for people like me who already haven't made. And I'm sorry that you've had to live in nasty motels, transitional homeless shelters, and even on the streets of West Colfax is too. Rent has doubled and even tripled in such a short period of time in your neighborhood. I'm sorry that I haven't applied the simple gospel that I profess to love my neighbor as myself. I can I commit right here that my next building project to be a low income housing in West Colfax. And in no case should we be letting projects like this one fall through the cracks on the backs of our vulnerable, our neighbors.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Bobby Roberts and I'm going to invite Jonathan Hidalgo, Joyce Alms Ransford Kosoko and Jean Parker, Ambrose and Ryan Kini up to the front row.
Speaker 0: Hi there. My name is Bobbie Roberts and I live 0.1 miles away on Main Street, which is the locally zoned road where the parking garage is planned to be built. One of the beautiful things about this location is its bike friendly access. I'm an advocate for public transportation, commuting to a cycling and using my own two feet. I believe this to be responsible and environmentally green thing to do. I personally cycled to work almost every day. With that said, on cold, rainy days I am driving when I get home from work and I need to prepare dinner. I'm driving, not biking the 1.2 miles to the nearest grocery store to get what ingredients I need. Not to mention days that I want to take advantage of what else Colorado has to offer and head to the mountains. Even if 100% of the residents in the proposed development were bikers, not enough attention has been placed on the need for car storage. Whether or not they use the much. People have cars and they need to be kept someplace. I keep hearing arguments trying to justify the general lack of adequate parking. But by show of hands, I'd like to see how many people in this room do not have at least one family vehicle. I'd like to know more about these unicorn people who live by themselves only ride bikes everywhere and don't own a motor vehicle. I urge you to view the traffic and infrastructure issues that this development will bring in a realistic manner. Reality is crucial to city planning. Please vote against this proposed rezoning in its current form. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Jonathan Idoko.
Speaker 0: Hello, councilmembers. My name is Jonathan Mutoko. I'm a resident of South City Park at the moment with my fiancee. Although I should note we have been looking for a home in these Sloan's Lake and West Colfax neighborhood for the last eight months that we can afford. So we would like to be neighbors to this proposed property. Looking at this proposed property, I find it to be a breath of fresh air in an area that I consider to have been somewhat devastated by slot homes because of its requirement for street activation and below ground parking. It speaks directly to Councilman Espinosa's earlier concerns from our earlier motion about our zoning code not actually require requiring excuses such as commercial uses. In this proposed project and in the proposed change, we see required street activation of it that would allow commercial eating dining uses on the ground floor. I don't have time today to get into all of the benefits that this project has in supporting affordable housing or the good work it would do in supporting housing first initiatives for those moving directly out of homelessness, although that is a part of the proposal. But I do want to speak to a couple of the things that we've heard tonight from those opposed to the project. We've heard a couple of times that this development is out of character with the current neighborhood. And I would like to I know this is a common argument with any proposal. I think the concern or the problem with that statement essentially is that all change zoning requirements are out of character with the current zoning proposal. Right now what we have there is a flat asphalt lot that is fenced in and hardly used. So this would be out of character with that use. But in fact this lot prior to being a parking lot was a dense development and in fact, turning it into a medical center with single family homes around it was out of character at that time. We've also heard a number of folks say that this is bad for traffic and that we don't have the infrastructure for it. I would argue that, in fact, this location is perfect for getting people out of their cars. It's perfect for traffic. I dream of living in a place like this where with Corky Gonzales library down to the southeast route recreational center there, the transit center there, supers of the West Mainline to downtown on bike paths. I would not need to use my card. In fact, target is even close enough that for bigger purchases I could walk there. We've also heard that the proposal does not have any open space. I would note that I currently live in a building with a courtyard and underground parking and no one meets in that courtyard. It's not used. That space is not essential. Before living in Denver, I lived in the Netherlands in a large building with no open space. But because everything was walkable, bikeable, transit oriented, the way I met my neighbors, the way I made those connections was in sharing our walks to the grocery store and our walks, the library and our biking out in places which are sitting directly in front of a park. It's a perfect location to make those meetings with the open space afforded to it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Joyce Arms Ransford.
Speaker 13: Good evening. I'm Joyce Arms Ransford. I'm a 29 year resident of the Sloan Lake neighborhood, and I am a 38 year veteran of developing affordable housing. I have worked for the Denver Housing Authority, for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Neighborhood Redevelopment Reinvestment. And I currently, for the last almost 20 years, have worked for a small faith based nonprofit called Archway Investment Corp. and Archway Housing and Services. I am always an advocate of affordable housing, but I'm not an advocate of this deal. The reason is in affordable housing. In good design, you have community space for people to come and gather. You have green space for children to play. You have adequate parking. Anybody who thinks a family is going to have less than one car has not been to any affordable housing property recently. I'm building an affordable deal in Lakewood, just down the street, and it is on about the same size lot that this is. We built the first phase that had 60 units and it is a lot lined along line. But we build a roof deck and we built a green community garden in the first floor level. We're serving formerly homeless veterans at a third the site, and we're doing an identical project that has 78 units right behind it, both of them on about an acre of land. We have compact parking, but we have enough parking for each person who resides in the site. So essentially, I, I hate to have to come to a meeting like this to say I don't support affordable housing or this kind of density. If it were just affordable housing, if there were 160 units, that would probably be just fine. But it is not. And the people who are in the high rise are not going to be confined to one car either. Most people of wealth have more than one car, especially if they're in a family. So, again, my my concerns are the parking is too light, the density is too great, the height is too great. The traffic, as was outlined by some other people, not meant for dual car travel. The roads are too narrow. The green space doesn't exist and there are no amenities. In our developments, we provide afterschool programing. We do after summer programing we do ESL, but we have community space.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up. Go. Should come.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Joshua Kang. I live at 2031 Grove Street in a neighborhood adjacent to this development. I'm here tonight to speak in support of that development. I have two sets of sets of criteria on which I believe this development makes good sense. One, it's consistent with the adopted city plans like staff have noted. We have spent three years through the right process talking about where affordable housing should go and where to direct growth. And this is a perfect example of a site adjacent to job services and transit where this type of development, affordable housing, should go. Both Colfax and Federal are designated transit corridors, and they support the site. Another argument, a topic that's dear to my heart, is walkability. The pedestrian activation of the main floor, pedestrian friendly uses and transparency as well as improved public realm is going to make the place more affordable and more walkable and also more people make welcome, make places more walkable. Walking is a social activity. I also support this project on a personal level. As a resident in the neighborhood, as an immigrant from Poland, I'm married to Chinese, born in Korea. I feel very strongly about inclusivity. We have a lot of conversations about immigration and diversity, and I feel responsible for advocating for affordable and diverse neighborhood developments in all neighborhoods, but especially mine. When I built my dream home in Sloan's Lake, I bought into the quality of life that it affords. But I don't own it. I feel responsible for sharing the amenities and the quality of life with others. I don't own salons like I don't own the running path around the lake. I don't own the sunrise over the Slants Lake Sloan's middle school. I think as many people as possible should have access to this quality of life. I believe that the more neighbors make better neighborhoods. So I support this development. And I hope you will, too. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next stop, Jean Parker Ambrose.
Speaker 1: Good evening. It's nice to.
Speaker 10: See everybody here. I think we probably have worked and getting half of this council elected.
Speaker 1: So good work. And I know you do.
Speaker 10: Have to make heavy decisions and look at all the issues and the issue here. I'm asking you this evening to oppose. This project only because and my main major, major concern is that the.
Speaker 1: Federal rule states for.
Speaker 10: Every 1000 people, there should be ten acres of open space. This project does not closely meet that and we need to focus more on the history of this area, not in building the is the area out with buildings, for example. This is where the Jews started. They first moved to this area. This is where.
Speaker 1: Golda meir.
Speaker 10: Lived. We need to bring about history. Now we have a religious because of this project saying.
Speaker 1: Well, we're going to turn Lake Middle School into condos.
Speaker 10: So it's a fervor that shouldn't exist. What we should focus on.
Speaker 1: Is green space so.
Speaker 10: That people can walk in this area. There are no winding paths that move through this project. There are no rooftop gardens, green roofs. It's it's a we have to look at conservation. We have to look at the quality of the air. We need to create.
Speaker 1: Space to go.
Speaker 10: From Sloan's Lake to downtown Denver. The inside.
Speaker 1: Track of Sloan's Lake is three miles from Sloan's Lake.
Speaker 10: Park to the Denver Performing Arts Center. Two miles. We should have beautiful pathways, encouraging walking.
Speaker 1: This project does not encourage that.
Speaker 10: The affordable housing is connected to the exclusive units that are being proposed to be built. And that's against the law. I think that's poor, poor doors. And I think somebody else will speak to that. But let's focus on walking, creating paths, little parkways, pocket parks. Let's get back to nature. That's where our focus should be. We don't need to be blocking.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but your time is up. All right. Thank you very much. Next up is Ryan Kenney and invite Larry Ambrose, Paul Vonn, Tianna Patterson, Evan Darby and Jerry Glick up to the front row.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is Ryan Keeney. I live at 1121 North Ogden Street and I do not own a car. So there are so many reasons to support this project. First and foremost among these is that there's just so much affordable housing supplied with this project. And I've heard a lot of opponents tonight talk about a lot of reasons to oppose, like there's not enough parking, it's too big, there'll be too much traffic. But when you look at human needs shelters right up there with food and water, everybody needs shelter. And this project provides a lot of it, a lot of affordable below market shelter that would provide housing for people who can't otherwise afford to live in this city. Additionally, as I read on the website, there is retail that will be rented out at break even rates. This will allow the potential for small businesses to come in as opposed to these big chains and have local and generate local economic opportunities as well as more walkability in the area. It is adjacent to so many multi-modal transit options. It's close to downtown. It's close to the 16 and 16. Well, on Colfax, I mean, this is a great place. If we're talking if we care about climate change, it's really important to provide these options to as many people as possible. There's already precedent for development on this stretch of slopes, like there's the lake house just a few blocks away. So this is not just a single family neighborhood. And then also there's been no displacement as a result of this development. This is not one single person will be displaced and not one single building will be demolished because this beginning built on a block size parking lot. So I don't live in this neighborhood. I live in Capitol Hill, across the street from a vacant Whole Foods. I wish they would build a project just like this on this fake a Whole Foods site. I would welcome it. And it would not degrade the quality of life, but improve it. This is one of the best and most inclusive development projects I've ever seen. Many changes have been made in response to neighborhood input. Even so, this was zoning requires, as I understand it, a supermajority as a result of a petition from homeowners in the area, not renters, and not potential working class people who might live in the site. This process, this process is inherently exclusive and in my view, should be reformed to become more inclusive. Supermajority or not, though, if council can't support something like this proposal, our city will never get ahead of the affordability crisis. I hope you all vote in favor. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Larry Ambrose.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I had written remarks, but I'm just going to talk. I met David Zucker in August 26, 2016. He has to have a meeting to talk about the fellow that he had met doing a joint venture with a guy named Miki Geller who owned the medical center. The medical center has three different operations. It's a acute care center, a nursing home, and a long term and a rehab center. So in this PD that you're looking at, there's still going to be these three different operations. Keep that in mind. You know, we all you've heard this before, a lot of you of the same kind of testimony and a lot of you know and most of you know, David, he's a wonderful, affable, likable guy. David and I have had over the period of three years, I think we had breakfast, we had lunch, we had brunch. We had lots of meetings with people, maybe 100 different people as part of this process. At one point, we even, David, came over to light Hanukkah candles, invited himself over for Halloween. I told him he didn't have to wear a costume. He said he'd put on sheep's clothing. I thought that was pretty funny. So David is a is a person that has a wonderful reputation. And we worked very closely with David to try to come up with what the neighborhood wanted. And all of those meetings, all of those meetings, nothing came out of those meetings. That was anywhere near what the neighborhood expressed to him in terms of height, in terms of scale, in terms of density. And when the plan finally was revealed, it was just over the top. Literally, none of us could believe it. It was just too much. The fact that there's affordable housing came along later. And I guess the question before you tonight is, is anything any rezoning okay or possible because it has affordable housing? And is the quality of that affordable housing such that it's that it's acceptable? Nobody has mentioned also the fact that the 160 units of luxury housing is going to have a gentrifying effect in itself. It's kind of like pouring kerosene on a gentrification fire. Maybe it's not as much as what the three extra units will provide, but there will be something. So you'll think what? I passed out to you today. We have asked David to do a. The like the one that's there today. And what you see before you on the second page is the PD that exists today, that's been redesigned so that it's a more reasonable development.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Paul Wong.
Speaker 0: Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Paul Vang. I live in the Northfield area, Northeast Denver. And I am. I've been a resident of Colorado and Denver for only two years. I'm originally from California, and I would say about this development project that any Californian in any and I'd love it. This is a fantastic project development that encompasses and checks off the boxes for so many things. It's a wonderful mixed use, mixed income, transit oriented development with so many resources, slums, lake. Like many have mentioned, one wonderful neighborhood hospital right next door, 320 units of housing, mixed income housing, half of them affordable housing. That percentage of affordable housing is extremely difficult to come by. And the Denver Blueprint Plan, all the those of who have been intellectuals of all mentioned affordable housing to get that much affordable housing, that research and development is something amazing. So I strongly support this project. I strongly support what's been thrown out workforce housing, this, that, this, that this project provides for those 40% of Amy and above. So just for those who might not know what 40% of Amite looks like for individuals, only $26,000 a year for household affords 37,000 change a year. That's very limited income for someone who wants to have safe, decent, affordable housing. So once again, I urge the council to unanimously approve of this project, and I commend the developer and everyone involved in getting this through. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, T.A. Patterson.
Speaker 1: In Evening Council. I am Tianna Patterson. I'm the state and local policy director of Enterprise Community Partners. Sorry. I'm sorry for my voice. I actually just. I'm hearing it in my ears. But I am here in support of the zoning change because a stable, affordable place to call home is the foundation for a successful family and a successful community. Many of our neighborhoods are changing at a rapid pace, and buildable land is disappearing. At this moment, Denver needs at least 15,000 more affordable units, and that number is growing every day. That is why Enterprise supports this development, because it offers unheard of opportunities for affordable homeownership and rental opportunity for people between 80 and 40% . Am I in a high opportunity neighborhood and all of this will be done without city subsidy? I think there really needs to be emphasized and celebrated that this is exactly the kind of type of development that Denver should be encouraging our development partners to provide mixed income housing targeted at a high need income levels without city subsidy in neighborhoods that have been or are at great risk of rapid displacement and ginger ification. We know that tackling this affordable housing crisis requires nimbleness and innovation in this project, it sounds like is just that, and I hope the city will support this effort and encourage more models like this in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Evan Darby.
Speaker 0: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Evan Darby. I live near the University of Denver and that is because I am a student there. I really appreciate you all staying here so late to hear so many of the Denver members of Denver's community's opinions on this project. But I would like to offer one more. I am only 20 years old, and maybe somebody can yell at me, but I believe I am the youngest person in the room. And for me, I read an interesting statistic recently, which was, according to a real estate firm called UNISON in Denver, it would take me 22 years to save up for a down payment on a home so I can't drink, but my down payment can. And I would be 42 years old before I would be able to live in the city of Denver. In the same way that the residents of Sloan, like who are owners of their homes, have been able to for the foreseeable past. Now, a lot of people have talked about the different issues that have come with this project, the traffic, the height. But for me, it's a different sort of problem. I can't really stand here and say that it's okay to wait for another project to come along, or it's okay to let this this opportunity go by just so that we can have more parking spaces. The city really, really needs more housing, and having less parking spaces needs to be a way that the city can grow, having less space for people to own trucks. It needs to be something that goes away. Because for me and my children to live in Denver in the foreseeable future, we need projects like this. And I urge you, the members of the council to support this project because this is a stepping stone towards creating more density. It's a stepping stone towards creating more housing. And you've heard from many of the residents of Sloan's Lake and many of the residents of Denver, how much they enjoy their houses, how much they enjoy living in in Denver. And if you don't take this opportunity and the opportunities in the future, my generation and my children's generation will not have the same opportunities as them. We will not be able to live in Denver. And that's why you need to vote yes on this project, because it's not only an opportunity for me, it's an opportunity for low income people, and it's an opportunity for the people that I want to raise in Denver and who I want to have a great life in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Jerry Glick. No. Gerry Glick. All right. So Edward Featherstone up next and I'll invite Megan Yankey, Adam Astrof, Michael Hughes, Joseph Dominguez and Megan Sawyer up to the front row.
Speaker 15: Good evening. Thank you, counsel. My name is Ted Featherstone. I live in North Denver. I'm here representing Zocalo Community Development. Our founder, David Zucker, was up here speaking about so close commitment to affordable housing and inclusive development. I, on the other hand, am here to speak to the community process that Zocalo engaged in. Zocalo takes great pride in our reputation for engaging and listening to the community, and this project was no different. For more than two years, Zocalo had more than 20 meetings with area arenas and neighborhood leaders. And after that, we've made significant changes to the project. First in height and density, the goal is not to up zone, but rather to take the existing zoning, the existing density allowed in the site and reshape it in a way to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. In the time that we've worked with the neighbors. We have pushed the density towards the center of the site, stepping down dramatically to only three stories surrounding 17th and Newton streets in order to make the project more compatible with the area, in order to mitigate shadows, in order to lessen the visual impact. As far as traffic, we understand that any development will have an impact on traffic. But something that we think is worth recognizing is that this project will actually have a smaller traffic impact than what would have occurred had the existing medical use zoning been fully built out. But furthermore, after working with the neighbors, we made changes to the project and we've designed additional ingress and egress points to disperse traffic and lessen any bottlenecks on any particular road. Finally, we've engaged a traffic management consultant, Mike Hughes, with West Corridor Transportation Management Association to help us in the neighborhood, put together a transportation demand management program to help our residents and the neighbors choose transit and alternative mobility over single occupancy vehicle trips for parking. We've heard the concerns of the neighborhoods and we've worked hard to ensure that our project can accommodate all parking off street. We are providing more than 450 structured parking spaces, which gives our units an effective ratio of almost 1.5. Once you take into account the data sharing between the residential units and the medical office as far as open space in response to specific request from the neighborhood, we have designed into the project an urban plaza at the corner of 17th and Newton Streets, flanked by 4000 square feet of retail meant to serve as a community gathering place. And we have also in our development agreement added in a multimodal bike and pedestrian path that goes north, south through the center of the site to improve connectivity between our project and the neighborhood. In summary, working with the neighbors has undoubtedly made this a better project, and we thank the neighbors for helping us to design a program that better blends with and serves the community in which it sits. Should this rezoning pass, we look forward to continuing to work with the community on items such as traffic mitigation and our community serving retail space. We hope the Council will support our plan and innovative approach to affordable housing and with the service.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Megan Yankey.
Speaker 5: Hello. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: My name is Megan Yankee. I live at 14th and savior in the West Colfax neighborhood. I work as an employee of the city and county of Denver and serve as the vice president of the weekend organization. I'm not here to represent the values or positions of either of those organizations, and I personally did not work on the affordable housing plan with the city in this project. So my views represent my own. I'm here to speak in favor of the proposed development. I'm 35 weeks pregnant and my.
Speaker 5: Child, when born, will be able to.
Speaker 1: Walk to school and enjoy extraordinary parks. I am fortunate to be able to take the high frequency bus or light rail or bike to work every day. According to Zillow, there are currently no homes for sale for less than $400,000 in my neighborhood, which, as you've heard from others, keeps out a whole group of neighbors who I would enjoy sharing my space with. So when you say that you need to develop only single family.
Speaker 5: Homes or live at lower density in.
Speaker 1: My neighborhood, you are essentially saying that unless you are affluent, you are not good enough to be my neighbor. I witness cognitive dissonance being involved in this process for three years of people saying I value affordable housing, but I want open space. We have to come to terms with the fact that sometimes there are tradeoffs and be careful to not impose our values on other people. My home has no open space. Am I not good enough to live in this neighborhood either? Because I enjoy all of these amenities? And I'm sure that my neighbors as a part of this development, would have the right to enjoy those amenities also of. The proposed development is really only marginally more dense than what is currently allowed and provides much needed affordable rental and for social housing. This is not just in one building, it's in both. The reality is the Opposition wants a low density development at 74 Newton that incorporates open.
Speaker 5: Open space and design.
Speaker 1: In a way that would render all non-market rate housing infeasible. And I say that because I'm an affordable housing finance professional. It would require so much intense subsidy in order to provide these affordable units that I think it would be unfathomable for you to support. The development as proposed will provide.
Speaker 5: Options ranging from housing for.
Speaker 1: Schoolteachers and police officers to currently homeless families. A very wide range. The opposition.
Speaker 5: Desires to hold on to an ideal.
Speaker 1: Single.
Speaker 5: Family neighborhood in which none of its individuals can afford to rent.
Speaker 1: Much less buy a home to build equity. I've been thinking a lot about the.
Speaker 5: Neighborhood in the city in which I want to.
Speaker 1: Raise my daughter, and it is not one that has a backyard for every child to play. It's a place where children can play together in our extraordinary parks. My values are for inclusivity and diversity in my neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in my values in which her neighbors represent the wonderful diversity that we should come to expect in a world class city. Ask you to please support this rezoning application for her future and for the future of all families that as a result, will be able to call my neighborhood home.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Next up, Adam Astrof.
Speaker 0: Hi. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361a lady street in Baker and I'm here to talk in support of this project. And I wanted to talk about two things community and open space. I'm a Colorado native. And, you know, growing up here, I'm from Boulder originally. And, you know, I've heard a lot about community tonight. And we do have our community of our, you know, single block like we had the historic district approved tonight. We have our neighborhoods like Sloan's Lake and then we have our city as Denver. And we've seen a lot of changes here. But Denver isn't an island and it's actually not even surrounded by open space. It's surrounded by other communities. The metro area has continued to grow at an astounding pace. We're not really a city of 600,000, almost 700,000 now. We're a city of two and a half million almost that stretches all over the metro area. And, you know, we need to think about that broader community as well, because I've heard a lot of talk about open space in this development tonight. And I love open space. Growing up here, there was lots and lots of open space between Boulder and Denver. Across the front range, there are wide open plains. You know, there were lots of empty hiking trails everywhere, but now that's getting chewed up by more and more and more subdivisions. And the reality is, is every unit we refuse in Denver is another street on a subdivision where people have to drive and they want to drive fast through our city because they want to get home. After a long day of work, traffic isn't being caused by 100 units being built on your block. It's being caused by 10,000 people who have to live 45 minutes outside of town because there's nothing for under $400,000 in this city unless you get really lucky. You know, I read Jane Jacobs book Death and Life of the American City, and she talked about how this can often be a problem that we get really focused on our smaller community and we lose sight of the larger one. So I'd really encourage you all to support this. The developer has actually gone above and beyond in terms of commitment for affordable housing and community serving amenities like the ground floor, retail and the Urban Plaza. This is honestly something you can very rarely say that a developer went above and beyond. This is close to existing transit. It's close to a great park and it would be a great home for for people in Denver. And I believe that this should be voted yes. And as other people have said, if we can't approve 50% affordable housing on a parking lot, where are we going to put it? Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Michael Hughes.
Speaker 9: Members of city council.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Mike Hughes. I'm a Denver resident. But tonight I'm here as the executive director of the New West Corridor Transportation Management Association. We know that you are often faced with testimony that suggest you have to choose between traffic.
Speaker 9: Congestion and parking.
Speaker 0: And affordable housing. We think that's a false choice. We reject the idea that you can use that you could should refuse to to address the affordable housing crisis because of traffic and congestion or vice versa. We've been working with David and his team to outline some proven steps that they can take to change the demand for parking and for single occupant car use. Here are some of the ideas we've asked them to explore. Defining the development as a single neighborhood for purposes of enrolling every resident in our Teds Neighborhood Eco Pass Program, that would mean that every future resident of this project would have a transit pass. Then dedicating part of the project's parking to car share and then working with residents to consider using the combination of car share and their transit pass to choose not to have a car at all, saving the cost of car payments, insurance, maintenance, gas and parking, which they cannot afford to use those funds for the things that they truly need. In addition, things like real time transit schedules in the lobby of the building. A bike share program with an area of the building dedicated to bike storage and repair. Working with public works to ensure that the residents have the safest, most convenient access to the Knox station on the line and to what is obviously one of the best bus lines in the city, and that's on Colfax. We also recommend that the developer do all of this in combination with the renaults and with the neighborhood residents themselves, with the added benefit that we might be able to decrease single occupant vehicle use in the corridor and throughout the neighborhood by helping the current residents change their travel choices to. We. If we succeed, we might make a little peace between existing and future residents. Address climate change. Improve air quality. Put money in the pockets of future residents who are already feeling the weight of escalating housing costs and who spend way too much on transportation. And we can increase the supply of affordable housing at the same time in a neighborhood that is rapidly pricing out too many. We in the applicant have not concluded that work, and I'm committed to one more strategy for them and that is program support ongoing from the TMA for the long term to help residents and neighbors continue to plan their trips to maximize the use of biking, walking, transit, carpools, van pools, car shares and more. We in the applicant will continue to work together, I hope, and I'm committed to continuing to help them find the right strategies for their future residents and working with the neighborhoods so that they are part of that solution. We don't have to give up on solving congestion and traffic.
Speaker 4: Sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Joseph Dominguez.
Speaker 0: Joseph Dominguez. I live at 1428 and Tennyson Drive in West Colfax, and I lived in West Colfax since 2010 and actually I was priced out in 2013. If it wasn't for my wife, I wouldn't be able to live in West Colfax right now because the gentrification that's happening, as you know, West Colfax, I'm sorry. Denver leads the nation in Hispanic gentrification. And West Colfax, actually from the year 2000 to 2016, has lost 20% of its Hispanic residents, and Sloan's Lake has lost 16% of their Hispanic residents. And one of the things that we really need to ask ourselves is what are we doing to stop this gentrification from happening? There's no more places to build single family homes anymore. I love the people and single family homes. They're not any spaces to do it.
Speaker 4: So we have to think creatively.
Speaker 0: This is the only solution that we can come up with. I can think of no other at this point. One of the things I want to do is think Paul Lopez, because during an election year, he really put his neck on the line to bring this forward and to create an opportunity. And the reason why he did that is for the greater good. He saw the greater good of the community and that it would be a positive thing for the community. So for that, I would I would ask you guys all to look at Paul Lopez and what he did for the greater good and sacrifice that for him . Vote yes for this. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Megan Sawyer.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name's Megan Sawyer. I live on 14th and Irving. I bought my house three years ago. Three years ago. I share it with my husband and my roommates. I moved there because I wanted public transportation to get to work and backpacks. And I take those every single day. I enjoy Sloan's Lake Parco, Sanchez, Verde Recreation Center, the library, all of which are free or low cost for everybody. There's also shops and coffee shops and places to meet, and I don't want to just be people like me that can enjoy that any time you're going to build a building , it was already zoned for ten storeys. Anytime you do that, you're not going to make everybody happy. You know it is going to increase traffic. But we live three miles from downtown. That's going to happen. And I'm going to say from my experience providing housing as a landlord, when I post my ads, people are desperate. The people that are already living there and I can't afford to subsidize them in my own home. But if somebody else can, if they can come in and do this without subsidy from the city and provide affordable housing that's close to parks, close to public transportation, reliable transportation that runs frequently right in the downtown, right into employment centers.
Speaker 14: Good on that and I support it.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. We're going to move on to questions by members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions for Alice and then a couple for David Zucker on Alice. In your presentation, it was clear that this project meets a lot of the criteria and aligns with a lot of our plans, including the two plans that we recently approved the comp plan and blueprint. Denver But can you explain to me and everyone here why traffic impacts aren't one of the criteria for rezoning? It seems to be that when I look at everyone's concern, that seems to be the biggest concern, but it is not one of the criteria for a rezoning. Can you please explain that?
Speaker 14: Yeah, absolutely. So rezoning criteria, why traffic impacts are not studied or acquired as a part of rezoning. It's a planning board or city council or really any point is because a standard zoned district or even imputed in this case is not a site specific development plan. Rather, it provides a framework of uses and intensities that can occur, but it does not approve a specific development program. And so for us to require a traffic study at this point and to make a determination would not really be useful in the sense that they could actually build a two storey building on the site. And that would also be in alignment with the beauty and an allowed use and would have significantly different traffic implications on the site and require different improvements to the infrastructure system. So the reason why it's not required at time of rezoning is because we are not evaluating a site specific plan. Additionally, I think it's important to note, while I didn't discuss it in our rezoning application in the review criteria blueprint, Denver does provide many strategies, especially in the mobility section, talking about a people first approach and also looking at further reductions of parking standards in many areas, especially when in close proximity to services and amenities such as transit. So does that clarify?
Speaker 1: Yes. And at what point would a traffic study be done?
Speaker 14: That's a great question. So once if a rezoning were to be approved on this site, the developers may make a concept application which would then ultimately lead to a site development plan. During the concept plan meeting, they will have representatives from public works and development services, transportation, evaluating that concept and informing them of the specific details that will need to be included in their transportation study at time of formal submittal of site development plan, at which time they will have a formal site proposal moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. And David Zucker, I have two questions for you. So the first is several people handed out these images of massing. Can you can you comment on them? Because I think you said in your remarks something about the overall area or square footage or something. Can you clarify that, please?
Speaker 15: I can speak to the specifics behind this. One of the things that we thought from the beginning was very important was not to increase the amount of usable square footage allowed on the site. The current pod number eight allows for 515,400 square feet of usable density, office space, senior housing, residential units, so on and so forth. We're keeping the same 515,000 square feet of usable square footage. We are providing additional parking. The reason for that is we heard community concern that the park can be provided off street. So we are on the backside of the project, putting in a freestanding parking deck, which may explain some of the differences in massing between what you're seeing. But in terms of actual usable square footage where humans occupy and what actually generates traffic, that remains the same between the existing and our proposed new Pudi.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks for that clarification. My other question is about heights. And so in the existing Pudi, it's eight storeys.
Speaker 15: It's 110 feet. Okay. Yeah. That specific the story.
Speaker 1: It says after the first story.
Speaker 15: I found that confusing too.
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't know what that is, but I just, you know, just did a little bit of math about sort of the average height. So if it if it is eight storeys in the original one, if you kind of average the heights that you're proposing, it actually averages to eight stories, which I thought was interesting because the 16 storey tower is is actually very small for a plate. Is that.
Speaker 15: Yeah, the amount of height that actually exceeds eight storeys is I believe it's 11% of our total area of our site. Everything else is less than that. And in large areas, it's well less than that. Three and five stories.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then, David, you mentioned, I think in your remarks, something about the financing of the project. And I think you said the market rate units are helping you to fund the affordable units. And several people mentioned that the city is not giving you any money for this project. So can you talk about the financing a little bit?
Speaker 9: One of the things that we wanted to achieve was a blueprint for development that allowed for more substantial inclusion and development of affordable housing. And what we realized was that if we combined a for sale condo tower with affordable as well as market rate for sale units, that portion of the profit could be used from the tower rather than making application to the city or using the Office of Development or or for TEF. So rather than going to city or to Doura, we decided to self solve so that a portion of the profit of the condo tower will go to support the affordable project.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Next up, we have Councilman New.
Speaker 15: David, can you come back up? Both of you. Let me just get this hand out right here. Go back to the square footage. Question that councilman by. Yes. You know, and do you have this? Can we come here and get this? And because it says 283,000 square feet under the existing pad versus 601,000 square feet for your project, which is quite different than what you said of the comparable usable square footage, because some of that to 83% of the square footage was left out as a hospital. And there's some stuff can you can you comment on this? Is this incorrect or is this correct? It depends on how you slice it. And I said we are counting the whole area north of 16th, between 16, 17th Newton and Law and the usable square footage allowed under the existing putty for and it shows that it says on the total maximum square footage allowed. Okay. And I think two items were excluded, a parking garage and this hospital. So going back to more of a right. Okay. The existing hospital that's there is well less than what's allowed under the existing putty on the what would be the east side of need. We stopped at the site does not run all the way through. So again, when you add up the expansion of the existing hospital, which is allowed under the existing zoning, plus the development on what is would be the west side of Meade Street that in total adds to 515,400. So what you're saying is all homes, it is not proper to exclude those two things that they did to come up with the 283. You need to take the total at the very bottom. Is that what you're saying? That's right. So this this diagram focuses just on the west side. Our diagram focuses on the whole block. Okay. All right. And on the there's a real difference in the appearance of the, you know, the block diagrams that shows the square footage difference, I guess, because it is still related back to this 283 versus your 600,000, just the massing of you, two two pictures there. Obviously, it looks very, very large and out of scale. So. So I frankly can't comment to the creation of those specific sketch up models. I do know that probably the largest visual difference that you see is us, including adequate amounts of off street parking. Again, we keep the same amount of usable square footage, which is as far as what generates traffic, as far as what populates the neighborhood. I mean, that's the really significant number. And in fact, residential units, residential square footage is a lower traffic demand generator than would be a medical office or hospital use. So I think that's the biggest difference in the visuals that you see a lot of concerns that come up about open space, you know, and do you have any open space in this project that you're proposing at all or is that enclosed interior space? We have two different items. The first is we are including a small community gathering place at the corner of 17th and Newton Street, and that was actually called out in the West Colfax Plan. Is that the corner of 17th and Newton should be a neighborhood focal point? Is that outside space? That is outside space and a large is that that will be the plaza itself will be about 5000 square feet and will be flanked by about 4000 square feet of what we certainly intend to be community serving retail space. So restaurant bakery, something that we would work with the renos before we decide what would go there but intended to be a neighborhood gathering spot. Okay. A couple of things that you mentioned, the traffic management plan and the bike paths itself. I don't see them in the good neighbor agreement at all. Were they just left out or what what were the compromises that you gave there in the Good Neighbor agreement to give us an idea of how you worked with the community to reduce the scale of this project. There is a separate good neighbor agreement and then a development agreement, which is the development agreement is specific with the city, the landowner, and so close with the city. And there was a discussion with Councilmember Lopez and with CPD on what was appropriate to put in the development agreement versus in the good neighbor agreement. So we have a multimodal bike and pedestrian path that runs through the center of the site. So what would be made? Streets, and that's in the development agreement, not in the good neighbor agreement. And that was, again, part of our discussions on what's appropriate to be in one document versus the other. The public plaza and the neighborhood serving retail space in discussions with city attorney and the rest didn't make sense to go in the development agreement. So that goes in the good neighbor and you kind of have to triangulate that to different. This is traffic's been a big issue. It seemed like the traffic management plan would be appropriate for the good, good neighbor agreement. Yes, certainly. Just we were just left out. You're planning on putting it in back in our sample for sure that that document is far from finalized. We have we wrote that to show our commitment to the neighborhood, but that's still a living document. Okay. Last question. On the parking, you mentioned something about 1.5 spaces per unit, which includes medical space, as I understand. Can you explain what what that means? Yeah. One of the we think the really innovative things about this project is we have a great matching between daytime parking users and nighttime parking users. The medical office, especially the staff, is primarily there from 9 to 5 hour residents. Their cars will be there primarily after 5:00 and until 9:00 the next morning. So while we are providing more than a .75 ratio for the rental units and more than 1.25 for the for sale units, when you add in the extra 165 parking spaces that we are dedicating for the medical office use, those will be open to all of our residents at nighttime in addition to the retail users as well. So when you actually do the math and what's available at nighttime, when the greatest parking demand will be from the residents, it comes out to about a 1.5. And how has that working on at least those spaces? Yes, there will be leases, but there will also be a parking sharing agreement to. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah, sorry, I, I asked them to when when those when the people who presented those graphics, they were holding them up in the back of the room so we could see them. But I don't know that you could. And so I asked them to put those up so that we could see them. And because I do have questions and I heard you. So you're saying that the the in your response to councilman knew you were saying that basically the entitlement that exists on the the existing hospital structure is being used in saying that these are balanced.
Speaker 15: Yeah, we were looking at the usable density for the site as a whole. So what could be built on that fall area between 1617, Newton and Lowell? There's not an intention to build out the hospital any more than it is. You know, we've we've worked closely in joint venture with the landowner.
Speaker 7: But are they going to put a deed restriction or moratorium so that they cannot develop to their full entitlement?
Speaker 15: The way that the way that I understand that the PUD massing, which is very restrictive, kind of caps your height. It really wouldn't allow for any more development of that hospital. You just under the way that the massing is shaped in the pad, there's no room to build it.
Speaker 7: Oh, so maybe this question around leak on a lease. So if they build, so is there a square footage restriction on the total pad? Because if I look at that pad, there's a eight storey 110 foot limit. If I'm looking at section F, actually, can you go to your slide that says. Consistency with plans blueprint Denver 2019. That shows the actually that's not the one that's I will want to talk to you about that eventually but can you go to the slide that actually has all the different. Oh.
Speaker 15: Yeah.
Speaker 7: The different. Steps in the in the the subdivisions of the of the beauty that one so. What are the what are f an e?
Speaker 14: So F is a maximum building height of 110 feet in eight storeys and is six storeys and 70 feet. The PWD does not have any square footage limitations as that was more commonly used in former Chapter 59 and as many of you have probably seen, is highly problematic because alone it causes for a very restricted development form to occur. And so the Pudi more closely follows the form based zoning, which speaks to building height and feet and stories and provides building envelopes as opposed to specific building footprints. So I think it's also important to note that these are not necessarily buildings where the form in Chapter 59, Pudi specified specific buildings with their appropriate footprint . So while, you know, the apples to apples comparison might be compelling, it's not criteria that staff is evaluating on this case.
Speaker 7: So the in the in the in the massing study here, the the F level would be somewhere between. So I'm going to use this graphic somewhere between this is which is depicted as six stories and this one, which is typically supposedly ten storeys, is that correct?
Speaker 14: You know, I'm not really sure. These graphics are a little bit hard for me to count stories easily for purposes of responding to that question.
Speaker 7: Okay. Then let's just use the developers. Oh, I mean, this this same map that we're studying here, the the F area is anything in the F eight currently eight stories in 110 feet tall.
Speaker 14: I believe the existing building is either seven or eight stories, but I'm going to look behind me to confirm. Yes.
Speaker 7: So it's just storeys currently. So it's the footprint that is closest to 17th and low. And so there is the half a block from from between little and Meade and the half a block between 17th and 16th that are still not developed to the full eight stories. Is that correct?
Speaker 14: Like where the parking access is? Is that what you're referencing, correct? That is correct. It is parking access.
Speaker 7: So what I'm trying to so if we could now go to that slide. Consistency with plans blueprint Denver 2019. I know you have multiple slides labeled that, but it's the one that has the future places. I'm hoping your graphic is incorrect is it showed so because one of the things that that I wasn't looking at until this graphic that shows the previously we only had f labeled we weren't looking at 100 at the number of stories here. I'm concerned I've always been concerned with how blueprint Denver suddenly had this community center and growth area right here in this little node of of of north Denver. And and what I'm now concerned about is in your comments, you talked about GMU three being this sort of gluttony of townhouses, which I will remind you, up until this year, townhouses were not an allowed thing in GMU three. Legally, they were built under false use of apartment forms. So what it's concerning to me is that your map shows that as being high medium to the east of this parcel. Is that correct?
Speaker 14: I believe that is correct. This was produced by our gas administration team.
Speaker 7: And that is if you go to the next slide or the previous one, whichever is your context, that is General Urban. So is what you're saying. Because what I was worried about was eight story, right? So this massive development getting approved in through this putty and this putty then essentially paving the way for something much more dense or much more massive in scale than what is existing on the remaining portions of the PUD and going for eight stories along Lowell. And what does that context what does all this speak to that land to the east because it it has historically been single family and now it's GMU three development. But that content being that is allowing. So I just want to be clear in.
Speaker 13: The in the.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm going to put this in the form of a question. So what is the what is the building general building height that is allowable in a high, medium residential area in a general urban context?
Speaker 14: I can't speak to that off the top of my head, but I'm happy to look it up here in a moment.
Speaker 7: Okay. You do that because I'm reading it says buildings generally up to eight storeys in height. And so why I'm concerned about this and this is this is that conversation that we should have had a month ago is, you know, are we what are we setting this area for? Right. Because this is an area that what we heard tonight was a lot about displacement and gentrification and that this is a solution. But there are still residual, affordable, modest homes there. Would you allow GM you eat in that area, given that it's supported by plan documents.
Speaker 14: Seeing that that is not an application before us or a staff has done analysis, I can't speak to what we would or would not allow on site adjacent.
Speaker 7: So then back to the previous question about traffic. One of those concerns is health, safety, and one of our criteria is health, safety and welfare. I mean, well, welfare I would constitute traffic and ride away concerns under that umbrella of health, safety and welfare. And when given the range of uses that are allowed here, they have different impacts. Would you agree or not? Or are they all the same?
Speaker 14: Can you clarify by what you mean of impacts.
Speaker 7: Different impacts on the right of way?
Speaker 14: If you're stating that new development has impacts to the right of way, then I think that is a fair statement to make. Yes.
Speaker 7: But is there a difference between the scale of mean because this could be a one story.
Speaker 0: Structure.
Speaker 7: Or it could be a mix of structures to the degree that has been articulated thus far. Would those be the same impact or would they be different impacts?
Speaker 14: Likely the different developments or scenarios will have different development impacts which will be evaluated at time of site development plan.
Speaker 7: So what you're asking for this body to do is seed that responsibility of making the determination of health, safety and welfare to staff after the fact. Or are we to sort of imagine the worst case scenario as we go through?
Speaker 14: I don't think it's asking you to imagine the worst case scenario. Health, safety and welfare looks at the planet as a whole and our city as a whole. And I think it's important to note that blueprint Denver is a land use and transportation plan, and that was done very intentionally, meaning that land use decisions are made in conjunction with transportation infrastructure and improvements. And so I don't think that the city staff and our community would have designated this site as a community center if there wasn't adequate transportation infrastructure either existing or planned for the area.
Speaker 7: The reason why I'm asking all these questions, though, is, I'll be honest, I looked at District one in the Blueprint Denver issue. This is not District one. This is District three. And I did not see an area I was not cognizant that we had an area that had been so rapidly gentrified as that area of West Sloan's Lake and had gone from single family duplex and triplex into in small apartments, into massive amounts of dense townhouses, single family townhouses, but with with under the under the guise of GMU three with now mapped density into the eight story range. And so now that is something that I am now trying to comprehend, is what is now an appropriate community center for that level of urban residential that we have just mapped to this area because there are still available parcels in that area, are there not?
Speaker 14: I can't speak to what is considered an available parcel.
Speaker 7: Are there single are there things that are under built even to give you three standards given the market conditions?
Speaker 14: Let's take a look at the existing land use form. So, yes, if in that area, yes, there are single family home uses as of the point of this dataset.
Speaker 7: So what we have is a history of assemblages in this area where we get massive development to, you know, and now we're getting essentially new contexts that supports something else that is completely different than the current level of development in that area. And so I who's thinking about what is an appropriate community center, because what we're trying to do is solve a, you know, this this project professes to solve an affordable housing project because we lost 750 affordable units in this neighborhood, you know. But by adding density that may not serve the actual proposed blueprint, Denver density that is that is mapped for the area to the east. So I'm just I'm really perplexed on how this our plans that we've laid out, how this is consistent with the current plan. But I guess I'll have to figure that out because I'm sorry, you know, because it seems to work now, but it doesn't seem to work with our 20 year vision. And so either we've over mapped the areas to the east that have already just been partially gentrified to, you know, to to a point that they're not recognizable . And and this is a fine solution or actually it's not an adequate solution given what we're what we've been mapping and proposing. So I don't know how to put that in the form of a question. I'm sorry. I'll go ahead and move on.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions for the development team. Can you speak to the difference in and quality of construction and finish between the market rate units and the affordable units? Well, in the excuse me, in the for sale units, they'll be exactly the same. I've built three IJo containing projects and the units, whether it's affordable for sale or market rate for sale, they're exactly the same. Quartz, countertops, gas. Cooktops. The difference between the the condo tower and the multifamily will still have things like quartz countertops built for durability. There'll be certain differences, though the units will generally be somewhat smaller. I would imagine that it would be an electric cooktop rather than a potentially gas cooktop in the in the mark of a project. The the windows, the fence, tration, the. The exterior is meant to describe a great deal of quality. So the same materials on the exterior of the building we would expect to apply. Okay. Remind me how many parking spaces you said will be on site?
Speaker 15: Approximately 400.
Speaker 9: Okay. So are they assigned to the units or is it an additional fee?
Speaker 15: That's kind of TBD at the moment. I would imagine if we're going to actually put into place this day night sharing and make it effective, it would be an open pool. So as opposed to one spot assigned to one specific person. It would be it's an open pool.
Speaker 9: Okay. So I guess what I'm thinking is mainly for the affordable units. It would be first come, first serve, rather than you pay an extra 60 bucks or 100 bucks a month and you get a parking space.
Speaker 15: I think that's fair. Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. But you're not sure yet, so. Yeah. Okay. Why is on the affordability of the rental units? And why is it only 30 years? Because where we're heading now is a city where off into 40 years and more. And a at a point, the expense and revenue lines touch incomes and therefore rents increase historically at somewhere around 1.8% annually. And expenses are increasing by somewhere around 3% annually, somewhere around the 33rd 34th year, with a typical expense per unit and an A today's rent per unit. Those lines will cross. So at a point, it becomes infeasible to make operating expenses and debt service. So that's why in the wisdom of the the ancients in in 1982, when Bob Dole introduced Section 42 of the low income housing tax credit, it was not a perpetual or longer, I believe, that it was not a perpetual or longer restriction period. So the federal period is 15 years. Jaffa adds. Adds to that. And so this commitment is for 30 years beyond that. Okay. And I guess. Laura. We're moving past those numbers. Could you just address that real quickly?
Speaker 1: Laura brzezinski. I'm the director of Housing Policy and Programs for Denver Economic Development and Opportunity. Ditto. So this project does have an existing income restriction on it that is for 30 years for some affordable rental units. The proposed development agreement will go above and beyond what is required, but that 30 years does match the existing restrictions, and there are no city subsidies being contemplated for this affordable housing agreement. So 30 years is what we reached as a negotiation for this particular project for the rental. But I will note that the Affordable for Sale has a 99 year restriction.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. And just just to add, that's off, Laura. Thank you. Go back to your seat. I just want to be clear on the multi bedroom units by my count for sale. We have eight total, two and three bedroom units and for rent ten. Am I on? Did I miss something?
Speaker 15: Hmm. If my recollection of the development agreement is right, you're correct that we have a minimum of eight for the for sale. Affordable six two bedrooms and two three bedrooms on the affordable side. It's broken down further by I levels. Okay. So we have seven three bedroom units at 40%. Ami. Thank you. We also have we have 13, 60% AMI two bedrooms and we have two 50% AMI two bedrooms. But those are minimums. Right. And we may well exceed those.
Speaker 9: Well, I would applaud that if you did. And one thing I wanted to add in, when when council recently passed a blueprint and the comp plan and the Parks game plan, we had it in the same paragraph and all three plans that kind of codified our commitment to reducing our impact on climate change. And I want to read I'll just read you part of that paragraph. 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. So that tells me we have declared the responsibility of the development community to assist in mitigating or eliminating our impact on climate change. So I'll be asking in the future every development that comes through. So if you could just talk what your project, what your approach is in that area? Well, first of all, it is not just noble goal, but a necessary goal. I believe I'm correct in saying that Zocalo has build more LEED new construction projects than any other developer in the in the state. So we're we're keenly focused when we look at energy use. Thousands of British thermal units per foot per year, which is a great yardstick of electric use and gas use. The urban urban environment apartment buildings, according to EPA standards, range somewhere between 35 and more, typically 50 cb2 per square foot per year. Single family home would be probably half more of that. So 70 to 80 cb2 per foot per year. Fortunately, we've been able to monitor energy use at some of our projects over our River Clay project, for instance, was able to get down to 15 cb2 per square foot per year. So a significant reduction by by over 60% from EPA standards. So some of the projects that we've been able to achieve have inherently reduced energy consumption. But it doesn't matter if it's a really energy efficient project that's off in in the the greenbelt somewhere outside of the metro area and outside where there's transit. So where our buildings location are selected is absolutely critical. So this is exactly the type of location and the type of sustainable development that we would want where there is access to transit, jobs, affordability, retail and schools all close by. Not that nobody's going to get in a car. We know that they will, but we give them. And with Mike chooses help we give people a. A greater and greater opportunity to get out of their car, to live in a building that is inherently more sustainable by using less energy in a location where they don't need to be in their car, which is also a significant, obviously, use of fossil fuels. And you talked a bit about transit demand management plan. But we have not established it yet. This is one of the good neighbor agreements that we will that we would like to be working with with the neighborhood. But it is a commitment in our first and Broadway project, also 100% affordable at in the Baker neighborhood. Nobody required us to have a a transportation management plan. But we volunteered that with to the councilman's office, as well as to the Baker and West Wash Park neighbors, so that we actually can, over time, track it. So we have a two year engagement with, in that case, transportation solutions. And Stewart Anderson, to to help us determine whether in that case, our transportation demand management was effective and not just do it in with the expectation, but do it over time. So we Zocalo has a history of doing that and we want to do it with Mike Hughes as well. And the neighborhood and lasting. Mr. President, if this zoning were to pass and made this maybe four and a lease, I think you're back there somewhere. Is there anything in your agreement that requires neighborhood consultation or approval as as individual site plans move forward? I don't believe that there would be a requirement, but that is Zocalo is practice just as is emblematic at first and Broadway in the Baker neighborhood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. On a lease, according to the application, the area that would be reason to Pdg 21 only not counting the little finger to the south is about 5.2 acres.
Speaker 14: That is correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I want to make sure I understand what the proposal is for. Need my glasses. Sorry. F partial f where Beth Israel is. What is what is proposed for there? I think I heard that there's really nothing proposed there other than continuation of the the senior care facilities.
Speaker 14: Yeah. So in terms of what the PD allows, it allows for all the uses contained within the CM eight zone district as well as hospital and emergency access uses. That's what is allowed per zoning. However, the applicant will probably reinforce. The point that I'm going to make here is that no further changes are anticipated to the hospital and it is anticipated to be a continued use on the site, which is why the Puti caps at at its existing height.
Speaker 6: Okay. But it caps it at 110 feet. It's not 110 feet now.
Speaker 14: It's not exactly that, but it's what we generally use as a height for eight stories in the zoning code. So it's consistent with that.
Speaker 6: Okay. Because it says I think it says eight storeys and 110 feet. Correct. Okay. There's a little portion of the building that's eight storeys in the back. It's not at the street front. It's six storeys, I believe, isn't it? Okay. Mr. Zakaria, Mr. Featherstone, do you control that property or is that separate? We don't. That's so we're creating an entitlement for a parcel that is not under your control.
Speaker 9: That's correct. Okay.
Speaker 6: So I guess I'm probably answered this question. That was all to lead up to this at our next meeting, which will be in two weeks because we don't meet next week, we are going to have a public hearing and a vote on a changing the process for what's now a general development plan. We're going to go to a large development review. And when you come in for site plan review, it would be if it were more than five acres, it would come under that. But it sounds like when you come in, you're going to come in for slightly less than five acres. Is that is that correct?
Speaker 15: Just as a point of clarification. The hospital building is owned by the same landowner who controls everything north of 16th. Okay. So the big square, as opposed to the little sliver, and that is who our partner is on this project. It's owned by a different landowner. Is that little left that goes off to the south.
Speaker 6: Okay, so it doesn't own the property.
Speaker 15: We do not own it. It is our partner who owns the property.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 6: But when you come in for where the site plan, will it be for the whole thing, including where Beth Israel has.
Speaker 15: The 5.2 acres is everything north of 16th. So the big square.
Speaker 6: Now in our next meeting in two weeks, if we approve this new process, the requirement as I read it, read it and in our land use committee would require you to have 10% open space. But what I've heard is that there's the plaza at 17th and Newton. And what would happen under this new maybe this is a question for on a lease. What would happen under the new LDR process? When we examine a development that is more than five acres because we're reducing a threshold from 10 to 5 and I believe it's requirements 10% open space.
Speaker 14: So five acres is one of the thresholds, but there's other elements that are considered in terms of what will be required to go through the LDR process. So it's hard to say that this would definitely go through the LDR process. It would certainly be flagged for consideration and review. But I don't want to speak too much to that process and I'm not an expert.
Speaker 6: We can explore that at the meeting in two weeks time. It's my impression out of the committee was that it that you would be required to provide 10% open space and if there's a nuance to that, that or an exception, I'd be interested to learn that. Okay.
Speaker 14: One thing I just will add is there's different checkpoints in which an LDR might be required. One of those is rezoning, but another one is site development plan. So if they do come in for a site development plan, the LDR process could be triggered at that point at which open space and other infrastructure requirements could be considered . So I don't want to say that it will be, but it could be.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: I just want to make sure that Zocalo was aware of that, that this parallel track was going on. Can you let me ask, I guess, Mr. Zucker or Mr. Patterson, why did so many people come up here tonight and say that they've just heard about that? When my friend Larry Ambrose said that he's been talking to you all for almost three years, how why were there people in the neighborhood is still didn't hear about this until they got the mailed notices. And I don't know if Larry can address that as well, but I'm just curious. It just seems a large a high level of unawareness in the neighborhood for something that's been under discussion at the R.A. level for almost three years.
Speaker 9: We as a developer, we we trust that we hope that we're getting our message out when we. When we look on the city website and determine which RINO's are representative in certain cases, we didn't reach out directly to two individual neighbors. We didn't go door to door.
Speaker 6: As in you're not expected to. I understand those are pretty active. And Larry looks like he's anxious to to address that. But you've got to come up from.
Speaker 9: There were a large number of people that were involved in negotiating this over a long period of time. But the final plan didn't come out until about a year ago.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 9: It was taken to all of our groups at that time. The West Colfax Association of Neighbors formed a working group, issued a letter to Mr. Zucker. He didn't answer that letter for about ten months. And when the application was so, we didn't know that this actually was going on for almost a year. All right. When the application was filed, that's when everybody.
Speaker 6: Knew that that's what the social notification and the mailing.
Speaker 9: List went away for a while.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. And one last question for Mr. Zucker, Mr. Featherstone. Why 16 stories? Why is 16 stories necessary? Could this be. Could the massing be arranged differently so that we didn't? I know that at Colfax and I think Quitman, there's a 17 story building has been there for ever since I've been in Denver, you know, 40 years almost. But that's that's pretty far away. And the lake house, I think, is 12 stories. Is it necessary to have something this high that is right there on the park and in the midst of of, you know, a lower density neighborhood.
Speaker 9: To achieve the level of affordability and the depth of affordability that we would like to be able to deliver. Mm hmm. The 16 stories is the the financial engine that allows for it.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I'm looking at what I think is based on your renderings. And it seems, you know, just to a layman, that you could pull down a couple of stories and spread out the wedding cake, if you will, instead of having a three story or a five story platform and then six stories in the middle. I don't know if that would go over any better in the neighborhood, but you could bring down, it seems to me you could bring down the 16 stories. I'm trying to understand that.
Speaker 9: We I think what we all responded to in discussions over two years and 20 meetings with Reno was that meeting the street had three stories so that it felt as if it were correct other and so which I think was done really effectively at City Park South with those two towers, two stories and 30 stars, 30 stories you don't really see, feel the density or I'm sorry, you really don't feel the height because they're wrapped with these elegant looking three storey townhomes on three sides. And in that case, as well, there's a there's an affordable project the mercy housing did immediately adjacent and to the south. So I think the goal that we had was if we were able to to sculpt the height in the center of this full city block, it becomes much more transparent to the resident, to the pedestrian. Okay.
Speaker 6: Would you be open to reexamining the massing and the height going forward?
Speaker 9: Well, the goal is for project that's 50% affordable and 50% market rate, probably actually a little bit more affordable than market rate. That's that's our goal. That is how we've engineered the project. We've looked at different different concepts. Obviously, the if the for profit is going to be subsidizing the affordable project, then the units of higher up are going to be able to draw more to create greater sales value. So we've not we I don't think that we'd be successful. We have looked at dropping down to 14 stories. We've looked at dropping down to 12 stories. So do you do the yeah. With the through our pro forma and it was not able to support the affordable.
Speaker 6: All right. I was actually on roofing. I have one more question from Liz in the LDR. Changes that we're making in two weeks are they're going to be asked to make in two weeks. Is it also isn't it also the case that if it goes through that ADR process, that there will be public engagement, pretty robust public engagement.
Speaker 14: The LDR process does require public engagement to occur on the forefront.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I think Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. David, I have a couple of questions for you. The first one is about the good neighbor agreement. Was there is there an intention to file a covenant on the property to ensure that if you sell the land or the owner sells, that those obligations or those commitments would be followed through with.
Speaker 15: To answer that question, that was part of the discussion on what was most appropriate to put in the developer. An agreement with the city, which does have covenants supporting it. So the affordable housing and the multi-use multimodal path in in the middle of the site do have covenants or easements. The rest of the Good Neighbor Agreement, it was determined over the course of our application that that wasn't really the right avenue to put that into the development agreement with the city, instead the good neighbor agreement. So there to answer your question specifically, there will not be any specific covenants that go along with it, but many of these are commitments that really only Zocalo as the developer could make, and a lot of them go along with development of the project, like our commitment to union labor and to local hiring. Those would be things that burn off when the project is built.
Speaker 10: So I guess I just want to ask, are you all going to be the ones actually building the project?
Speaker 15: Yes, we are our own general contractors.
Speaker 10: Okay. And will you own the rental in the partnership?
Speaker 15: And a tax credit investor is in the ownership group as well. That's to make the financing work. To answer your question, yes.
Speaker 10: Okay. The single family block to the south for those units currently vacant. Or there are people living in those single family homes.
Speaker 15: I believe there are people living in most of them. I can't say all of them.
Speaker 10: Okay. So what's the timing and what's the plan for addressing the displacement of the families that are in those units?
Speaker 15: Well, actually, nothing about our plan changes the status quo for that leg that comes off down to the south. In fact, what the our proposed party does is it changes those from a non-conforming use to conforming use. Today, all that could be built on that site is a parking garage under the existing pad. So instead by putting in you t you see.
Speaker 10: So there is no intention to do any development on that.
Speaker 15: Correct. Correct. That is that is owned by the separate landowner now, not by our group.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Let me move on with a couple of others. The somebody already talked about the traffic and the need for the traffic study. I would assume part of that will recommend that there's a need for, you know, some other traffic calming measures. I walk that lake every day. I know what the traffic patterns are in the area. So I would imagine those would be some things that come out of the process and the city will through through the development review process, absolutely address some of those additional improvements. I wanted to ask Laura about the affordability. And maybe first, you can answer this on the 99 year that's just on the for sale. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then on the rental, the amount of time frame the affordability is attached to as at just 30 years. So if you can just clarify that, that would be helpful.
Speaker 1: Yes. The rental will be affordable for 30 years or more.
Speaker 10: Okay. And is there a reason that it's just 30 years? I mean, I heard the question asked earlier and heard your response, but we were asked to adopt something that addressed the 60 year affordability obligation. But that's where we have city money into a project. So I guess that presumes that this is all just publicly financed. I don't think that includes any preclusion on low income tax credits. Right. Can you just clarify that?
Speaker 1: Sure. So I believe the team is anticipating to use low income housing tax credits, which is a sustainable rental.
Speaker 10: State financial to net of local government financial.
Speaker 1: It's a federal tool.
Speaker 10: But we're administered by the state. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Correct. We are not utilizing any city subsidies for this. And that's where the 60 year affordability period. Okay.
Speaker 10: All right. I think that answers all my questions. I did have the concern about the displacement of folks that are on that one block. I know Dr. Arena ignores here in the audience and has been, you know, ensuring that as we have big projects happening all across the city, the issue of displacement and gentrification is folded into the conversation. What I'm not sure of is how we're utilizing our tool now that several of our departments across the city have gone through looking at the issue of race and equity and what that means to development and big projects that the city is doing, or if it's just solely applicable to city development projects. I don't know if that's something that anybody here can address either from the administration or the planning department.
Speaker 14: I will generally speak to guidance and Blueprint Denver as it brings forth new equity concepts that weren't previously included in comp plan and blueprint. Denver. And it does talk about when to apply those equity concepts, and it talks about large redevelopment sites, but it's not further defined. So that's something that CPD is actively working to define and to understand when we should explicitly be using those different equity concepts as a part of our analysis. And then it also states that anything that as a city initiated legislative rezoning should consider those as well. So in regards to Blueprint Denver, that's what we're doing to move those elements forward in close collaboration with NEST.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I heard a lot of concern for residents. Who might live in this affordable housing tonight. And so I wanted to ask some follow up questions. First for Laura, if you wouldn't mind. Ordinarily, developments in Denver are bound to pay a linkage fee. In this case, they're going to build instead. Are there some rules that control access to amenities and the size of units and the welfare of the residents? In our current rules.
Speaker 1: Yes. So our linkage fee rules require that affordable units are reasonably distributed among other residential units within a development and should not be concentrated to any one specific area. That's when there's integration between market rate and rental units. Residents of the affordable units have to have full access to the same amenities that the market rate units would otherwise be able to access. The exterior design of the affordable units has to be indistinguishable from other units within the development and the interior design of the affordable units has to be functionally equivalent to that of the market rate units. And I think David has already addressed that. The market rate units will be exactly the same as you go to.
Speaker 12: This claim about corridors where some people get access to some amenities and others to others in the in the building where there is a mix of market and for sale, would that be allowed under our rules?
Speaker 1: That descriptor really has nothing to do with this project. The units would have to be distributed and they would have to have the same access as all the market rate residents.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much. My second question, I guess is for the development team. There was a claim about there being no access to community space for residents in the affordable building. Will there be any communal space lounge or any any space for the community for serving? You know, for folks to interact other than, you know, their units.
Speaker 9: There's a courtyard within the affordable project. There will be purely a guest since the building is is not yet really programed. But in all of our projects we have a relatively substantial amount of community space. So purely a guess. I would imagine that there's probably close to 10,000 square feet of space that is used for community gathering, for bike repair or for work spaces. So despite the fact that it looks as if it's a white box on the on the plan, it would be like all of the rest of our Zocalo projects. And we try to be to create habitable spaces not just in the dwelling spaces, but in the communal spaces as well.
Speaker 12: And another claim I heard tonight is that there will be no services for residents. So I guess I want to ask you, have you built rental at these AGMs before and what is your approach to property management? Will you self-managed? Do you have a manager? Do they have experience with these income level families?
Speaker 9: That's a great question. We would presume to self-manage and to bring in partners where we need it. When I was on the State Housing Board, one of my favorite programs was rapid housing for for formerly homeless school kids and their families. And the the Scholastic Records and the Income's scholastic records of the kids and the and the incomes of the parents were dramatic improvement in those programs. There was always wraparound services by a nonprofit family tree, for instance, was was one that worked in Jeffco. So we would presume to work with a partner.
Speaker 12: So are you committed to including input from those who, you know, serve the populations in the communities that you hope to live in, this building from this neighborhood in your planning for those services?
Speaker 9: We would. That's one of the continuing dialogs. I think that the neighborhood generally accepted some of these concepts. So those, for instance, the seven three bedroom units that are for formerly homeless school kids and families. I think there was general interest in that in the neighborhood and we would explore that further with with both neighbors as well as service providers, as well as the future residents of those units. Great.
Speaker 12: Thank you. I have one last question for on a lease, which is I realize might be slightly putting you on the spot, but one of the questions in the criteria is uniformity of zone district. And we heard questions about whether there is precedent or whether it's appropriate to have tall buildings near parks. And so I was curious whether or not you have any comments on the uniformity of zone districts in terms of proximity. The applicant has described, you know, a set of tall buildings near City Park. I'm thinking about others, but did you do any analysis?
Speaker 14: So the criteria, a uniformity of district application is not actually speaking to neighborhood context and uniform. Form building form standards. It's actually saying are we applying zoned districts uniformly throughout the city and being consistent in that? So it's uniform with the application of the pooled criteria, which is built off of CM X eight, which is an alignment and and uniform. So that criteria is less about whether or not tall buildings or short buildings or why buildings are long buildings are appropriate in this area, but rather how the beauty is administered and applied uniformly.
Speaker 12: Let me ask the question a different way then. Perhaps not. That's not the appropriate criteria. But in terms of maybe thinking about the equity requirements in the plans, right. So are we creating this neighborhood differently than other neighborhoods with regional parks in terms of, you know, the proximity of dense buildings near them, for example, or for example , you know, are we is there some some some precedent for that? I guess I'm trying to get at this question about whether we're treating this neighborhood differently or whether there are other regional parks that have similarities.
Speaker 14: I don't believe that we're treating this neighborhood any differently or, you know, acknowledging the neighborhood plan, as well as the citywide plans and ensuring that the zoning is in alignment with those. So should say, Capitol Hill. I live right across from the the vacant Whole Foods. Should they come in with a rezoning application to do an affordable housing agreement? They would be reviewed for the same exact criteria of Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan, but not West Colfax.
Speaker 12: One last question. Aside from a strict zoning density bonus, is there general plan support in the current plan or in blueprint for the idea that more zoning might be appropriate where affordability is higher? That general concept something that the plans reference.
Speaker 14: That general concept is not only referenced once or twice, but I think is a key backbone to many of the strategies and both comprehensive plan as well as Blueprint. Denver. Okay.
Speaker 12: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman the.
Speaker 15: Real quick question? Anneliese, could you Anneliese, could you put up that slide again that we had there? Had the properties with all the letters on it. Yeah. Mr. Whetstone, let me ask you a question. Featherstone. Yes, I've heard. Just want to make sure. I just want to make sure I understand it real clear. Now, the portions of this slide, the F, e, f in and E that's existing, that's the medical facility. That's a parking garage you're going to be sharing parking spaces with, right? Yes. F was intended to encapsulate the existing and even though it's part of the whole PPD, you're not going to be developing that p that half a block is just the block where the has A, B, C and D, right? E will be the freestanding parking structure that allows us to park all of our parking needs off site. But F is really what's supposed to encapsulate the existing building on the site, which we don't intend to change. So we will be a brand new parking garage. It will be a new parking garage. Correct. That you're going to build? Yes. Not an existing one. Not existing today. And so then the comparison of the square footage then is is really all that list of square footage that we talked about in the handout, I guess with the parking garage included, since that's going to be part of your project with the comparison that we've been focused on is between usable square footage. I just want to talk about what you're going to develop and the General Hospital maximum square footage is the only thing it'll be eliminated. Right. I'm sorry, because you're not going to f of their f of there. That's what you're not going to be developing. That's correct. Okay. So if you take that out, then you're down less square footage and the comparison of what you're going to build on there, especially that half block, the scale and mass, that's what everybody's been reflecting about tonight, is how much bigger that is than than what. And the additional parking that we are putting in to accommodate all of our uses is what adds some more visual density to the site. But the usable density remains. I just want to make sure I understand apples to apples. Yes. It's not the you can use the existing hospital square footage in a comparison of what you're going to be building. Okay. That's yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman to Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Okay. So, David, a couple of different people mentioned that the affordable housing will be built first. I'm trying to figure that out in the in the financing that you just mentioned, how do you use your engine? If it's going to be scaled, it is going to be built well after the fact.
Speaker 9: We will be borrowing, presumably until the payoff comes from the from the condo project.
Speaker 7: And okay, the linkage. So this is more a question for the city attorney. I know we have the build in, Lou, but how is the linkage not you know, how is that not a city subsidy if if they're essentially able to avoid the linkage fee because that would be a revenue that would otherwise come to the city if they were to pay it.
Speaker 0: Adam Hernandez, assistant city attorney. So they are providing more units than what would be required on the residential side. As for a build alternative number and any nonresidential development on the property would.
Speaker 4: Still be subject to the linkage.
Speaker 0: Fee.
Speaker 7: Okay. Is it the intent of this? You know, they're going to provide a considerable amount more than what would be required is the intent, because it's all one owner is the intent that this affordable housing also covers the affordability requirements for any redevelopment of F area f.
Speaker 15: No, that's not the intent.
Speaker 7: So is that clear that if the hospital's ever redeveloped, it will be subject to a linkage fee or affordable housing requirements?
Speaker 15: I think is what Adam just said. If there is commercial development on the site and we will have some retail even on our proposal on the west side of Mead, that that is subject to the linkage. So we've understood from the beginning that if it's a commercial development in Area F, it will be subject to the linkage fee.
Speaker 0: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 7: Can we make sure that that's codified in the developer agreement since the city already is responsible for that?
Speaker 0: It already is in the agreement.
Speaker 7: Okay. The question Councilman Flynn brought up about the LDR, this is something that I brought up when I was reviewing that, which is that large developments vary based on location. You know, what may be a what? Five Acres is a substantially large site in Sloan's Lake compared to, say, Green Valley Ranch, you know, or Penn Station. And so not all neighborhoods, particularly to native. You know, it sounds like is one of those neighborhoods that has never had a neighborhood plan. Not this part, obviously, but the totality of things like has never had as a statistical neighbor, has never had a neighborhood plan yet is consistently graded as not needing plans, in part because of the way it's established and it's existing. So, you know, how will staff how is staff intending to review make that judgment call on whether a five acre LDR requirement is is. And, you know, that's sort of arbitrary given the nature of the sort of development, the scale of development here versus other parts of the city. Is this a one size fits all or were you is there something here that you would recognize that this is, in fact, a large development?
Speaker 14: So the LDR review process is criteria to determine whether or not it should be subject to that process that goes beyond the five acre minimum. So the additional criteria will be used by staff to evaluate that. I can't speak to.
Speaker 7: Well, to date I haven't heard anything about granularity establishment. I mean, the length of the established neighborhood, you know, the size of existing roadways in exist, you know, the existing infrastructure fabric.
Speaker 14: So that those are all points that I'm happy to share with my colleagues who are working on that project.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. And then did you were you able to verify what the height, the number of stories were recommended for the general urban hot medium to high residential or.
Speaker 14: So I actually do believe that that map that was included in the presentation and staff report might be an error. And when I look at the original blueprint PDF that was adopted, when I'm reviewing that, it comes up as residential, low, medium, which is the lowest residential intensity for the general urban context, which talks about a variety of building forms, up to three stories in height. But that's something that I would certainly like to follow up with you on to ensure that our maps are in alignment with our adopted plans.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and that's crucial because that's why I asked that question, because it did seem to be in error. But that really that really, really creates a stressor for me if staff is telling me that it's high, medium or medium high and what that means for that neighborhood. And now I don't know. And thoroughly not clear. And then why? T u c not esa in the tail? Because, you know, one of my concerns and I brought this up at Ludi is this is an area that has experienced unprecedented gentrification and displacement of minority families. And those are modest homes. There's five single family units, one, two duplex and one tri or quad. And so we have now blanketed all seven parcels with two unit development rights. Right now in this area, a two unit development, you know, those houses will have their their their days numbered. If we put to unit rezoning, I mean, zone mean development entitlement on those. And so that contributes to the same gentrification and displacement problems that have been mentioned time and time again. Why not go askew and then allow the nonconforming number of units allow those parcels that have multiple units, build multiple units in the Urban House for the way we have in other areas. Why would we create deliberately the situation where this would now get, you know, be vulnerable to demolition and replacement? Because that seems more inconsistent with our sustainability statement that Paul Cashman just mentioned earlier.
Speaker 14: So the subject property IDs that you're referencing that are located south of 16th Avenue have had a history of R2 zoning. So even prior to the city number eight, they were zoned R two, which generally was converted through the update of the Denver zoning code into two unit zoning. If we then jump over to are going the wrong way. My apologies. Our existing zoning map, as you can see to the left, there's a significant portion of the area that is zoned UTC and that was done in 2010 as part of the citywide rezoning and found to be the best comparable zoned district to the existing entitlement of R2 on the ground. I think it's also important to note that while this is being proposed to be rezoning to you two, you see there is nothing stopping the property from being re zoned in the future to a single unit use or to a higher intensity use. But that is application zoned district requested today and we have evaluated it and found it to be consistent with the applicable review criteria. I think that the strategies that you were talking about of retaining existing homes and deed restricting them and allowing multiple units is not a tool that we have currently as a standard zoned district, and that would require an additional pivot and something that we would be potentially isolating out these specific properties as opposed to taking a more holistic approach and building that into the base of our zoning code.
Speaker 7: You know, the holistic approach was taken in 2010 and if you go to the GM, you three area over there, you see how how comprehensive that idea was in creating a very walkable, livable and easy to.
Speaker 0: You know, drive neighborhoods.
Speaker 7: I mean, I think we've heard it time and time again today. So thank you.
Speaker 4: Are you all done? Council announcement. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 401 is closed. We're going to move on to comments. I will ask council members that the hour is late and we got a lot of people sitting in these seats for a long time. Thank you for sticking with us. So if you could keep your comments concise and attempt to stay under the 5 minutes per person, that would be much appreciated. Are there any comments from members of Council on this issue? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: I would like to just thank Chad. Mellanox, I think, is how we pronounce his name. I don't know if he's still here for his comments in just acknowledging the impact that some of the development that has occurred in this neighborhood and particularly along that 17th Avenue corridor has had in creating the effect of gentrification and displacement to so many of the families that are in the schools that you talked about earlier. And I would just strongly encourage that. As you, you know, assuming the votes are here tonight, that as you move forward and look to identify who will be in those affordable units, that the schools be part of the outreach, because that's where the families are that are being so much affected by what is happening already in the neighborhood. I just want to say, I think the the discussion tonight has been very healthy and is important to ensure that the issues have been addressed in terms of, you know, ensuring that we've got the affordability on the project, the the agreement that you have. I know there isn't somebody that it's been signed with to ensure the enforcement and the applicability of it. But David, I know you've done many projects around the city, and I know when you say you're going to do something, you follow through with that. And I think that's important to not just this neighborhood, but any of the neighborhoods that you have worked within. The fact that this is along a TOD corridor is important for folks that will be encouraged to use other other modes of transportation. But overall, I know the scale is concerning for the community, but in general, I think this is going to be a good project that really does ensure that we have more affordable housing in this city. We cannot build housing fast enough in the city. It takes time to get your low income tax credits. I'm on the board of a nonprofit housing group and I know how long it takes. And oftentimes it's multiple cycles before you actually get your project funded. And so I think the commitment that's being made that is beyond above and beyond what the normal, you know, ask is shows, I think, a genuine commitment on your part to help. Be part of the solution. And if we had more developers committing to be part of the solution and addressing the affordability of our housing crisis, then we'd we wouldn't see so many families having to leave our city. And again, you know, this is happening where folks are having to move so far away. And in some cases, they're still trying to keep their kids in the same school and move back and forth, which exacerbates the traffic on the roads. But in general, I think this is a great project and would just encourage my colleagues to support it.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: This is a bizarre night if you've been here for the whole night. I started on a comment, you know, on a rezoning, and I talked about three projects around Jefferson Park. David actually developed two of those projects and that was then weird or because so this is part of the weirdness is then we did the River Drive Landmark District and two of those projects, one he did and one he didn't do bring that landmark district. And now here we are talking about a David Zucker rezoning. So it's just interesting how my past life as just a community activist and Jefferson Park is sort of touched into reached into the work that I'm doing, all the work that I'm doing tonight. Anyway, we had this price point of housing in this neighborhood, but policies prioritizing density over quality of life have displaced these affordable those affordable units and distressed the roadways that you heard about and the park infrastructure, because we didn't do any improvements on the roads or the sidewalks or the park. Well, we increased the number of housing units and these displaced all of the embodied energy in and affordable, modest homes that were destroyed in the process. Apparently, the solution to those near-sighted regulations is now subsidizing the replacement of lost units with even more and higher value market. Higher value market rate units that still do nothing to improve the quality of life or further and further stress that right away that we just were talking about and the park infrastructure which isn't getting any more subsidy I getting any more improvement just because and then adds the pressure only adds pressure to those remaining modest homes that are still in the neighborhood to turn into the next market rate project because it's used by right without any requirement other than the meager leak and fee linkage fee which only perpetuates the problem. Three years of Denver. Right. And still there is no comprehensive strategy to what how to address what is only justification of more predatory development capitalizing on what was so the that is me talking in general about what I heard tonight you know, which is, you know, the Yimby crowd saying, no, this density is the solution. Well, density created the problem. You know, this was a affordable neighborhood. This was a viable place for generations. People never had a hard time finding housing in Salt Lake. You heard about the empty units. But somehow, you know, gentrifying it and making it so everyone. Neal, no one can can live there unless they have an income that can afford a $400,000 minimum mortgage. Is is an improvement. There has to be a way to do both. To have it both ways. You need to solve your problems in situ. You don't export them to other surrounding municipalities. Our policies are failing. And half. For ten years, we've we didn't get this right before and we're still not getting it right now. That said, this is how I propose that we do that. Right? Customized zoning, zoning that addresses as many of those things as we possibly can. Rather than create use by rights situations that don't dictate outcomes. So you have now a customized zoning that stair steps this development down and transitions it into the neighborhood in ways that Amex eight which would have been allowed and been justifiable and all the all the plans that we have would have had zero lot line and 810 stories at the property line. And that would have been perfectly fine. And we have seen that fail time and time again. So the idea that we would do customized zoning so that we get outcomes and we negotiate development agreements so that we get affordability, we start to hit some of those checkboxes. I agree that there is still huge question marks on right of way improvement and impact of parks, but I'm actually sort of not worried about it. Right, because the park self-regulate. It has been a regional, regional park for as long as we know. Right. It used to have an amusement park on the island. It used to have water ski shows. It used to be I used to have another amusement park on the other side. People will go there until they aren't comfortable or happy going there. They will love it to death.
Speaker 4: Councilman Espinosa, you have been gone for over 5 minutes. I'll just ask you to begin to wrap up, if you can.
Speaker 0: Sorry.
Speaker 7: That said, I have concerns about the mass and scale, particularly on the east side, where we're sort of blindly saying that the age story wall is going to take care of itself. No. We're granting this entitlement for the entire party. As written, CMC's eight. And I have those questions about that to you. So I am firmly in the I don't know where I'm going with this right now.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Thanks.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I will try and talk fast. Thank you, everyone, for being here so late. We appreciate your passion for your neighborhood. And on, please. Thank you for the great staff report. You are always so knowledgeable and answer our questions so authoritatively. I am going to support this because it meets the criteria and it's consistent with adopted plans. Couple of comments. I am a Denver native and I remember in 1991, Denver's population was at a very low point. Since then, our population has grown by 2 million people, our metro area population by 2 million people. So we want to talk about why traffic is bad. That is why traffic is bad. And most of us still drive cars. As many of us mentioned and many of us drive our cars by ourselves. I drove my car here tonight by himself, which means we're all part of that problem with all those new people. We are having a housing crisis and I think we all agree that we need thousands of units here in Denver, especially affordable units. Neighbors, I hear your concerns. And as is typical in a rezoning like this, traffic is the number one concern. But traffic is not part of the criteria, nor is traffic a vision element in the comp plan or blueprint. Denver But affordable housing is a vision element, and the only housing strategy we have to combat traffic and minimize the impacts on infrastructure and climate in a time of rapid population growth is density. And to quote Daniel Gonzales, if he's still here, density is not a dirty word. I thought that was pretty funny. But sprawl is a dirty word because sprawl increases traffic, it burdens our infrastructure and it is much worse for the climate. And so. Adam Nesteroff If you're still here, I could have just read what he said because he is so eloquent in this argument. But all of those people who live up the Boulder Turnpike and they drive their cars into Denver today, they're polluting, they're worsening our air quality. They're using infrastructure. We have to build roads that is bad for our city, that is bad for the whole metro area. Density is the way that Denver can achieve its housing needs, increasing supply in a responsible way so that our fellow residents can be housed. This project isn't using any city funds, which frees up our city funds for other affordable housing developers. So where we will get more housing. Additionally, this project is supported by affordable housing advocates. Many were here tonight. We also received letters and emails from some. So I vote for this project. In addition to it, meeting the criteria is a vote for affordable housing for our city. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, President Clark. Listening to everyone who spoke tonight, thank you for for staying and being here and the development team and CPD folks as well. The one comment that struck me the most was by Evan Darby, the 20 year old student who said, we can't wait, we need more housing, not parking spaces. And, you know, traffic parking changes to a neighborhood are very important considerations. But looking at all five of the review criteria that we have to make our decisions on this project, in my opinion, has met them and exceeded some of them for for this neighborhood, but then also for the folks that are struggling to stay in this neighborhood. And, you know, a lot of people throughout the word gentrification. But I didn't hear the concern of the neighbors necessarily around how we are going to address keeping, especially folks who, you know, are categorized at a certain am I level or communities of color. How we're going to actually keep them within our city and in all of our neighborhoods, not just specific neighborhoods. I didn't hear any pushback on we need this affordable housing because we need to support the people in our neighborhood who are at risk of involuntary displacement. I heard a lot of we don't want this because of traffic and parking limitations and the hype, but this project hit so many checkmarks for me. We're going to mitigate the negative effects of climate change through sustainability, energy conservation, improving air quality. A little more than 50% of the units are going to be affordable with no city subsidy. Thank you for doing that, because that allows those funds to go to other neighborhoods who maybe don't have a developer who is willing or can make a deal. Pencil This area is three miles from downtown with a focus on multi mobility and transit. That's what we need to do as a city. Successful families and individuals have a right to stable housing. That includes individuals at the 40, 50 and 60% AMI level. It's going to have resources. It's going to have amenities. It's a high opportunity community that folks would love to be part of. Right next to a regional park. And so with that, President Clark, I will wrap up and I will be happy to support this rezoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Neal.
Speaker 15: Thank you. And this is a real difficult topic. I tell you, this is the crux of the matter that all our neighborhoods are facing. You know, here's density. Here's a need for affordable housing. What are we going to do to provide additional housing for residents in the future? It's a big, big concern. And we got all the best players sit in the room. I couldn't think of a better, affordable housing or developer than David Zucker sitting here helping us trying to solve this affordable housing issue. I can't think of a better guy and Larry Ambrose and all the resources here trying to defend their neighborhoods as well, making sure that they grow and develop and maintain neighborhood character. I hear neighborhood character often in all the planning processes we do, and I understand that this financial arrangement is so advantageous, is the right way to do it. So the city then to put money in to it. So David's.
Speaker 4: Really doing.
Speaker 15: This totally the carrying the load on this project. So. So it's a real concern to neighborhoods. I've got several of my neighborhoods that are pursuing overlays now just because they're concerned about this over densification. So it's a big, big issue we've got to address. Maybe it's not an issue we need to address tonight, obviously, but it affects this decision tonight. So so I appreciate all of the people who've come and testified, all the research and information you presented. And it's going to be very interesting to see how we come up tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll I'll start by saying, as I look at the the criteria where we're qualified to address, it appears to. Me this may meet that. But what I want to talk about is the reality of projects like this, because I have one exactly like this in my district, and it's easy to minimize the impact of of the traffic that that this will generate. Okay. I understand that density is a value. I agree with that. I certainly agree that affordable housing is a value. And this is, I think, an exceptional project to have 50% in the in the depths of 40 and 50% affordability as it has. But we can't, as a city, ignore our responsibility to deal with today, to deal with how do we keep traffic moving. And for the for the two years that my project has been in process, you know, I have continued to to lobby this tale with Denver Public Works that we can't just shrug our shoulders. We need to be creative. We need to stop talking about some day we're going to craft a more robust transit system in our community. We need it today. We don't need we don't need it, you know, 30 years from now, when when the whole whole system has has rearranged itself. So this is me saying, however, this turns out tonight that our our our public works department, you know, it's a big job. And I'm not pointing at them, but I am saying that's the department that is responsible for taking care of these issues and to start using more tools to calm our traffic and to move it better . And whether it's a shuttle or whether it's the the the agreements that Councilwoman Sussman has been fighting for for years with companies like Lift and Bridge, who was the first company I believe she talked to a few years ago. It's time now. You know, there's so much going on in this city that it's time now. And this is one of those things. So I just wanted to ring that bell one time. Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I've been a strong advocate for affordability, as folks know, and for increasing our housing supply, and particularly projects that are close to transportation corridors, because the cost of transportation can be almost 30% of the expenses that a person of an area median income has. And of course, even more for somebody with an income of less than an area median income. So the idea of putting affordable housing in this sort of location when there is so much transportation available, actually does double duty for the audience with which it hopes to help. And the high cost of housing doesn't necessarily come around because of zoning. It comes around because of supply and demand and wage gaps and all the other things that go into it. Now, it might come about when you have lots of zoning for single family homes because they take up more space and they are more expensive, that that kind of zoning may have the effect of increasing the cost of housing. But in my in the literature, it's not generally dense zoning that is the major culprit to the high cost of housing. And I have been I've been looking a lot at the Ninth and Colorado Project because it, too, is a hospital and a school , although it was 26 acres and not as small as this. But it is interesting how when the when the project got more described and they did do the traffic studies, they found that when the hospital was there as this could be, it could be a hospital, the number of cars, trips a day were 30. Thousand a day, folks. Kind of forget about that when the University of Colorado was there. They have put in 1200 living units on that project and then an extra 112 affordable. I wish there were more and lots of retail all over that place. And the traffic studies show that it's going to produce 15,000 cars a day. It's going to be half the number.
Speaker 5: Of traffic.
Speaker 1: Cars than the hospital itself produced. And that's because it's also on a transportation corridor and has lots of options on Colorado Boulevard. I know that pretends to be a transportation corridor sometimes, but it's certainly on Colfax with that the kinds of amenities that this particular project will enjoy. So I am very pleased with the with what I've heard tonight about what this project is going to provide for affordable housing and for just general neighborhood interest and and amenities for the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I was very interested to hear the remarks of council members Espinosa and Cashman, particularly Councilwoman Espinosa, regarding what we've been looking for, for at least for our term here, our first term. And that was more customized zoning, more prescriptive zoning. I know a lot of us have been well, some of us have been pretty displeased with granting entitlements for things that we had no clue what was going to happen afterward. And and I found myself persuaded by Councilman Espinosa's remarks, actually. But I do have to note that where we have added density, we've done the opposite of what we think our goal is. We've created unaffordability, the slums like area. Just looking here, in fact, looking at Larry's house, do you know what that's worth? You know what you could get for that now? It's crazy. It's totally unaffordable. It's not because it's a single family house. It's because the land you're sitting on has been made more valuable. Too valuable to keep your house on. Because of the density we've added. The density we've added in five points has made that now I think it's 70% white households. So adding density has not really created affordability. It's done the opposite. I represent a district that in which most of my residents, most of my families in my single family homes, which is about 60% of my housing units, are families of color, and they're still in an affordable situation. So I am concerned about the addition of density, but I am persuaded by the fact that this is a customized zone and drawn to such an extent that and with assuming we will adopt the LDR process in two weeks, that it will result in a robust engagement with with the community and try to refine the project. So I will vote in favor of this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Kennedy.
Speaker 12: Thanks, Mr. President. Many of my comments were covered, but I felt like I just wanted to kind of respond because I feel like we're we're having exactly the debate we should have after hearing the testimony we heard. So thank you to those who came and also the same debate we should be having after the adoption of these plans and after a rigorous election cycle where this growth question was such a topic. And so I mentioned earlier in my comments about the historic designation that I think that it's about pairing things right. So for me, it's about both doing historic preservation in areas that meet those criteria and preserving the quality and character of historic buildings while also adding density on parking lots. Right? So I've mentioned River Mile is on a parking lot and I forget what the last rezoning we did that was on a parking lot, the Mile High Stadium, right where there was a plan adoption. But I, you know, adding density on parking lots is the right place to do it. And then you preserve, you know, historic areas for those places. And then that's my humble formula for trying to navigate this stuff. But I want to just say a word about this question of density densities like fire. Fire can warm your.
Speaker 1: House.
Speaker 12: Or it can burn it down. It's all about how you use it in densities, neither good nor evil. It's a tool. And we frankly had no accountability in place for density to ensure equity. Right. So that's the missing piece. So when you look at the generation of growth that happened, you know, maybe in the you know, ten years ago, we had maybe one plan. You know, there was maybe one or three. Dimensions of affordable housing and blueprint, and that was it. And, you know, community groups like Mine Hunger has an in organize like hack over two or three development areas that we had the capacity to, you know, advocate for equity. Meanwhile, 70% of the development going around was happening with zero accountability, particularly on the rental side, because we didn't have any policy in place on the rental side , we only had it on the for sale side. So I, in my opinion, is not the density that has caused a lack of affordability. And, you know, we can talk about economists for a long time, but it's the shortage of supply that causes, you know, a crunch for housing on the middle income side. Right. So when you don't have enough supply, you have a crunch. That's a lack of density or lack of quantity of units that affects middle income folks. And it's a lack of policy that limited our ability to ensure moderate and low income families could live there. Because the only way you the market will never deliver units that cost more to build than you can charge the market will never do that. Density will never do that unless you have a policy to go with it. In this case, you know, the linkage fee, this was not just out of the goodness of our developer's heart. There was a policy in place where they would have spent a lot of money and they're doing more than they would have and they're maybe getting more density than they would have. And all of that is part of having a pairing of density with accountability. Now, where we need to go next is one step further. And I appreciate Councilwoman Gilmore's comments that affordability alone does not prevent displacement. So what is the affirmative marketing of the units? Right? Will we get our resident preference policy done before the end of the year? I sure hope so. Where is it that we go with others? With the tools where you do have a plan for what I call the ripples? Right. So if this location is the where the rock hits the water, then the question that neighbors raised about what are the ripples around it that's relevant and we need more tools for those ripples, too. And that's where, you know, we talk about land trust and we talk about, you know, other types of methods. So so we we've got this first little piece in place. We need to get a much you know, the next step in the large development review is getting the housing policy piece. I hope it looks a lot like what we did at River Mile, which is if you're doing a large development, you have to negotiate a plan with us and it can be a little different depending on which your community needs. But I think it's all about how we pair these three things together preservation of historic areas, growth on parking lots and major thoroughfares and transit stops and all the places the plans say. And then pairing that density with accountability and equity every time. Right. And that means higher negotiations for above and beyond just the linkage fee or the, you know, the standard requirement. So so I feel like this thing we've talked about tonight and the things my colleagues have said, if you add it up together, that is the formula . And it's not pretty and easy, but we will just have to keep pushing for those further ripples. And, you know, just to add to the record, I think the criteria were met tonight and I will be supporting this. I hope you continue conversation about how to get to the ripples and with the resident preference and talking about affirmative marketing and the other ways your units aren't just affordable but help to fight displacement thinks.
Speaker 4: Thank you councilwoman can each councilman Herndon.
Speaker 0: Thinks that it is almost 11:00 and my comments will be done before I hit 11. I promise. I want to echo Councilwoman, can you just comment because with density, if you you add density but it doesn't keep up with the supply. It's not going to is not going to help affordability. And so that has been our challenge for a very long time. And for us to sit here, I don't find it productive now to continue to place blame. I think it's time for us to find solutions. I think this criteria has been met because that's what were your judgment on? I think this proposed development is one of those solutions. And so but I understand the the concern from the community members. And I want you to know that I hear that and I wrote down each person's name and how they wrote, and I hear that. But for us to solve our challenges with growth, each of our communities needs to evolve. And so I think this is a great direction moving forward. And I believe that you have a partner who's willing to work with the neighbors to address those concerns as best as they can. And I we recognize we're not going to make everybody happy, but I believe that this is a solution we need to move forward with. And so this is why why I believe the criteria had been met. But I also think it's a good project moving forward. And Annaliese, I want to say thank you always for your professionalism, because at times you don't get it from these from the dias and that's unfortunate. So to the staff and to the people, thank you for that. And I'll be supporting that. And it's not quite a. LEMON Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman. Herndon All right. I see no other comments. I will I will end. So you just have me left and then you're out of here. First of all, thank you for coming down here. Thank you for sharing your. Or opinion, your viewpoint for being part of the dialog and doing it in such a respectful way, even though it is an area that, you know, so many people in here are very passionate about, it affects you right where you live. So thank you for that. Thank you staff for all of the work on this, getting this to us. A couple just quick comments I wanted to point out and I think Councilman is really grabbed on to it, you know, in in a different way. But what Councilman Flynn was starting to talk about about density doesn't mean affordability. And look at a single family home neighborhood. I think there are there are bigger things. And Councilman, can you just touch a little bit on that at play? Because that's not true. Everywhere on the block that I grew up on that my parents will celebrate 50 years living in that home. This year they bought a house in what was a fairly affordable blue collar neighborhood for $10,500. That has seen no density increases. That still has very low density, single family zoning. And this year I didn't follow what they actually sold for. There were two single family homes on their block that sold for 2.1 and $2.3 million. And so that isn't that that I just want to caution, you know, that what may have happened in some of the single family home neighborhoods in Councilman Flynn's district, that's not in my district. I grew up in Councilman Cashman's district, but it is not necessarily the case unilaterally that in places where we haven't seen density, oh, we still have affordability. I think that we've seen a lot of that and I think there's a lot at play and I think this has been a really good discussion and look at what is at play and what are the tools that can come forward that can lead to a guarantee and a promise of affordability. As we look at grappling with all of these things, I also just want to reiterate what Councilman Cashman had spoke to during the questions part about this language that is in our are our big guiding documents about the environment. And while not specifically something that we have had much time to grapple with and deal with, I think it's so critical to really be familiar with this language. You know, 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 I will say, beyond the zoning piece, one of the things that I heard that concerns me is that we and I am not blaming you guys, I think it's all of us, whether we're developers or we're citizens, haven't done enough changing of our mindset on what it's really going to take to to live those words. And so talking about, hey, we're putting gas stoves in some units and electric and others because it's an amenity that it shouldn't be. It can't be. We are our planet is dying and it's going to die if we make choices on units that will last for at least 30 years. If we're building infrastructure that doesn't allow us as the grid gets cleaner and the grid gets moves towards renewable energy, if it's still all I have in my kitchen is a gas pipe that's still dirty energy. And how do we move away from thinking about what is the amenity set and how do we really that commitment must be our overarching guide. And so my challenge to you is not just in rezoning but in building to take this language with you and remember that this is part of the criteria upon which the zoning, if it is approved tonight, enables development. And looking beyond that to how do we make sure that we are building the infrastructure for electrification because we can get the grid to 70, 80, 90% renewable energy if we're still using gas to heat, if we're still using gas to cook, and if we're still using gas to drive, then our planet is literally still cooked. And so I would just take that as a challenge to anyone who's coming here and doing development, especially enabled by a rezoning under this, that I think that's part of your challenge that we can't measure tonight, but that the burden lays on you to remember that that commitment must be our overarching guide. That being said, I do think that the criteria have been met here today as articulated by a lot of my colleagues, and so I will be voting to support this. And again, thank you all for your passion and your commitment and for being here. And so with that councilmember, just a reminder, since committee planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met, ten affirmative votes, instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of counsel are required to pass this bill this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 401.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I. When I.
Speaker 5: Gillmor.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 5: Can eat. I knew.
Speaker 15: No.
Speaker 10: Ortega I.
Speaker 1: Assessment I.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary, please close voting to announce the results. Somebody hasn't there, you know? We missing somebody? Very.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 5: You have ten eyes, one name.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes. One day counsel go 401 has passed. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for the area bounded by 17th Avenue, Lowell Boulevard, 16th Avenue, Newton Street & 1570, 1572, 1576, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1590, 1592 Meade Street in West Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD 8, U-TU-C to PUD-G, U-TU-C, (planned development to urban, two-unit) for the properties located at the block bounded by Newton Street, 17th Avenue, Lowell Boulevard, and 16th Avenue and 1570, 1572, 1576, 1578, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1590, 1592 Meade Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures of the owners of at least 20% of property owners within 200 feet of the subject area or 20% within 200 feet of the outside of the subject area) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 27.36%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0453
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Have I missed any items? All right. It looks like we've got them. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Councilwoman Cranitch, please go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Council Resolution 453 is a contract with center plate who provides contract services at our convention center and also at other city facilities. And I'm bringing this up for comment. Just because it is a $90 million contract and it is the largest contract to go through this council since we passed a minimum wage increase for contractors and employees doing business with the city. We made some history a few months ago when we raised those wages. In the first effective date is July of this year where the raise will go to $13 an hour. So just for comparison, the statewide minimum wage is at 1110. As of July. If you do business with the city, those workers will be earning $13 an hour. And this is the first big contract of this scale to include this minimum wage language. So I just want to thank center plate for stepping up and making sure that they're complying. And we're going to help probably between 308 hundred workers with a raise as of July 1st and then every July after that. And thank you to my colleagues and to the mayor's office for this big milestone. So with that, it's on consent. So we're all hopefully going to be voting for it. But just wanted to do a little shout out. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each councilman knew? Did you want to comment on this matter?
Speaker 4: Oh, come out of question, too. I think this is a very large contract that's coming through. You know, this is the $90 million for the city. And but they are the total value of this contract is $250 million for center plate. So it's a it's a big, big project in over ten years. And it's going to be a wonderful service for for those participating facilities. I do have a question for Ginger White real quick.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Just wanted you to go over some of the understanding, some of the discussion we had about this contract and the goals and the issues that will be addressed. Sure.
Speaker 2: Sure. Happy to do it. So it council committee, we talked a little bit about how can we ensure that the minority and women owned business participation grows over time and actually gets substantiated in the contract? So with our partners in center plate, we have committed to seeking to amend the contract at such time when we have women and minority owned businesses that are certified who can then participate fully into a new ordinance, that is something that's on deck, we think, towards the beginning of next year. And so that's something that we've committed to. I do have a letter from the executive vice president of Center Plate that speaks to commitment to that goal. So we really feel very confident that as this contract exists today, that we'll have it opportunity to amend and ensure that that minority and women owned business participation is codified in the contract.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. You and your staff for helping cooperate with this could be very important to that contract. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Service America Corporation, d/b/a Centerplate for providing food and beverage services for the Convention Center and the Denver Performing Arts Center venues.
Approves a concessionaire contract with Service America Corp., doing business as Centerplate, for $90,000,000 and for ten years to be the city’s primary food and beverage provider for the Convention Center and the Denver Performing Arts Center venues (THTRS-201950097). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-8-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0537
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman New. Go ahead with your comment on this one.
Speaker 4: There's someone here from Parks. Right?
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. Michael Bouchard, Denver Parks and Rec.
Speaker 4: Mike. Everybody in Congress Park is so excited about that pool and you see so many comments and feedback and I'm so glad this is coming through tonight and looking forward to the development of that new pool. Congressman, so I appreciate all you're doing to keep it open this year and help design it. Just want to ask you question is how you're going to include the community in the involvement of the design process. Please?
Speaker 6: Sure. So we are intending to begin our public process this summer while the pool is still open. And we're targeting a date in late July or early August on the weekend to get down there when families are out enjoying the pool and get some real active feedback from them before it closes for the summer.
Speaker 4: That's great. Well, it's going to be a real asset once it's developed, so we're really looking forward to it. So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Perkins + Will, Inc. for engineering design professional services for the Congress Park Pool renovations.
Approves a contract with Perkins + Will, Inc. for $648,389 and three years for engineering design professional services for the Congress Park Pool renovations, including a public participation plan, program verification and development, schematic design, design development, construction documents, and construction administration, as part of the Elevate Denver Bond Program located at 850 Josephine Street, in Council District 10 (201950352). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-8-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-4-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0407
|
Speaker 0: Council has reconvened. We have three public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you'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 Nu, will you please put Council Bill 407 on the floor.
Speaker 4: And move the Council Bill 19 407 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Could we get a second? Thank you. The required public hearing for Council Bill 407 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Ella. Stevie and this is the proposed rezoning for 7698 Jewel Avenue in 1901 South Ulster Street. So we are in Council District six in the Indian Creek neighborhood. So Denver Water owns approximately 35 acres at this location, which contains multiple wells, including one that is still operable. Denver Water plans to convey seven acres to Arapahoe County and 19 acres to Denver Parks and Recreation as part of the Cherry Creek Corridor Improvements Project. This project, which is led by the Urban Drainage Flood Control District in collaboration with the city and county of Denver. Denver Water and others aims to restore the ecological function, the stream health and the open space amenity along a one mile reach of the Cherry Creek corridor between South Quebec Street and East Iliff Avenue. So of the 19 acres to be obtained by Denver Parks and Recreation, 4.6 acres are currently S.D. Denver Water and Denver Parks and Recreation are applying to rezone the SUD portion, which is on the west side of what's shown here to OAC to facilitate the Cherry Creek Corridor Improvements Project. Then Denver Water intends to retain the remaining 8.6 acres, which contains an active well for ongoing utility purposes. The applicant is requesting trees on this portion, which is on the east side of what's shown here to OSB with a waiver to align with the current utility operations and to enable future operational needs. So the proposed waiver would expand the use limitation for utilities, which currently allow a filtration plant or a reservoir to include water galleries , wells and pumping stations for water supply or recharge. It would also allow water utility operations, including offices, storage and maintenance of materials and equipment, as long as those operations are associated with water utility operations. The waiver retains the current OSP requirement for special exception review for utility uses, and it also introduces spacing requirements from the residential zone districts that can only be reduced if the Board of Adjustment is satisfied that negative impacts will be mitigated. So the current zoning is largely O.C., but you can see that portion in there that is assumed. There's lower intensity residential uses to the north, O.C. along the creek corridor and to the south, and then industrial zoning to the east and the west and the land to the west is in Arapahoe County. The site currently shows up as all vacant, though it does currently have other historic wells in the area to the east, including one operable well and then the single unit residential uses are immediately to the north and there their industrial uses to the east and west. The bottom right image shows the subject property from across the creek. And then the other two photos are examples of industrial and residential buildings in the area. So Planning Board recommended approval of this MAP amendment. The applicant team held two public meetings, reached out to the two renaults and two homeowner associations, attended a contract town home association meeting and mailed letters to 450 nearby residences and businesses. The application included two attached letters in support of this rezoning, citing its role in facilitating the Cherry Creek Corridor Improvement Project. So then for the rezoning criteria, we have three plans that are applicable for this site. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan 2040. The proposed oases on district will enable the recommended restoration, recreational and multimodal transportation uses of the Cherry Creek and the adjacent land. And then the proposed OSBI Zone District with this waiver enables ongoing water utility uses as well as additional water utility operations in the future. On a site that has a long history of water utility uses in Blueprint, this area is mapped as suburban neighborhood context, which includes a variety of residential intensities and parks of various sizes, designated natural areas and open spaces. The property is mapped as residential, low future place in the suburban context. These types of areas are predominantly residential, but they are supported by a variety of compatible and vetted uses needed for a complete neighborhood such as schools, parks and commercial slash retail uses. And then the Complete Neighborhoods concept description in blueprint clarifies that quote context appropriate integration of utility infrastructure is also part of a complete neighborhood and quote and then Jewel AV and also Street are in designated locals in Cherry Creek. South Drive is an industrial collector, so low resident residential areas are cumulatively anticipated to see approximately 10% of the city's new employment growth and 20% of the new housing growth by 2040. And then the historic water utility use on the site with several wells under the ownership of Denver water for over a century and the absence of East Standard Zone District for these uses in this particular area, meet Blueprint's criteria for custom zoning. So therefore staff found that this request is consistent with blueprint recommendations. So the Cherry Creek Greenway masterplan was adopted by council in 2000. And it applies to the western portion of the subject site closest to the creek. Staff found the request to be consistent with plan direction, including the objective objective to preserve, protect existing natural resources and creatively develop adjacent land to integrate and increase open space. So the proposed OSCE will result in uniform application of zone, district, building, form, use and design regulations, and the proposed OSP with a waiver will result in the uniform application of zone district building, form, use and design regulations within this unique zone district. This rezoning for furthers public health, safety and welfare because it implements adopted plans for facilitates. The Cherry Creek Corridor Improvement Project enables Denver water to respond to changing water demand as the city grows, and the waiver includes language to mitigate any potential negative impacts. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning has changed or changing conditions, including erosion of the Cherry Creek corridor, population growth impacting water utility needs, and an increased use of that Cherry Creek Trail. Finally, the open space context consists of all forms of of public and private parks and open space, including those embedded in a neighborhood. Open Space Conservation Conservation District or O.C., is intended to allow for conservation of open space and natural areas, not intended for development and then open space Recreation District OSP is intended to protect and promote open space, generally intended for active or passive recreation use. And then the waiver language maintains building form requirements and includes specific language around siting and impact mitigation to ensure that the water utility uses will remain compatible with the adjacent open space and residential uses. So based on finding all criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval and Denver Water is here to speak with the applicant. Good evening. My name is Madeline Spinner. I'm representing Denver Water as the applicant. I'm an engineer in property and distribution management and Sensory. Eades from Denver. Parks is also here to answer any questions. Thanks. And my name is Janine Shaw and I'm with Denver Water as well and from our public affairs group. And I'm here to answer any questions as well. Thanks. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call all three of your names. If you could come up in this first bench here, that would help us speed up our proceedings. We have Madelynn spinner Janine Shaw and Jesse Parrish. Oh, are you the first that just. Oh, sorry, I didn't catch that. Okay. Well, we've got you both on record then. And so Jesse Parrish. Jesse Parrish.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Members of council, people in the audience. My name is Jesse Perez. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Lao Blackstock, some movement for self-defense and positive action, commitment for social change. And I reside in Denver District nine, and I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May 2019 election got almost 15,000 votes with no money. It's good to see that you are preserving these parks and our water for the next 20 to 40 years. The only question I had was how long this was going to take and was this going to service all of Denver, just those that get their water from Deer Cherry Creek or is it specific areas? And yeah, that was it. Those are my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Could one of the Denver water folks tell us there's wells on the property, but they're not we're not currently using any of that water for service, is that.
Speaker 2: Correct? We're not using any of the water for service, but we do have a 15 cubic feet per second water right on that property.
Speaker 6: Okay. And under what circumstances would we put that into use?
Speaker 2: Under no circumstances.
Speaker 6: Is there a plan. I'm sorry. Is there a plan?
Speaker 2: No plan right now? No.
Speaker 6: Okay. All right. So it's just in reserve?
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That's all I have. Time.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yeah. I don't know whether perhaps planning or parks. As I recall, the in addition to doing much needed work on the waterway of the banks, etc., I believe this creates a trail on the north side of the creek where one does not exist now. Am I remember in that correct sense? Right.
Speaker 2: Sincerely. Denver Parks corrects. We will bring the current trail, the regional trail, up to the new standard, but then also create a secondary trail to the north side for access of the community. Great.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Just wanted to verify that. Oh, and since the question was asked by a previous speaker, what is the construction timeline, anything of that nature for this project?
Speaker 2: So right now, we're still waiting on a few of the federal permits. Tentatively, we're hoping to start this summer. So end of June, early July. It was delayed because of those permits and it is going to be about a two year construction timeline.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. The public hearing for Council Bill 407 has closed comments by members of council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, this. This a great, much needed project. This area of. Of the creek has been deteriorating badly in recent years. It'll restore the waterway. It'll provide additional recreational opportunities. I love that new trail on the north, the enhanced trail on the south. So certainly will support this project and urge my colleagues to do so.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. In seeing that this rezoning also meets all of the review criteria, I will also be voting in favor of this tonight, seeing no other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 6: Cashman high.
Speaker 2: Black Flint.
Speaker 6: High.
Speaker 2: Can each.
Speaker 6: Lopez High.
Speaker 5: New for data.
Speaker 2: Assessment. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Nine Eyes. Council Bill 407 has passed. Councilman knew. Will you please put Council Bill 488 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 7698 Jewell Avenue and 1901 South Ulster Street in Indian Creek.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from S-SU-D and OS-C to OS-C and OS-B (suburban to open space) with Waivers, for properties located at 7698 Jewell Avenue and 1901 South Ulster Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-7-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0488
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Eyes. Nine Eyes. Council Bill 407 has passed. Councilman knew. Will you please put Council Bill 488 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Okay I move that councilor bill 488 be placed on final consideration do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and we need a second seconded. Thank you. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 488 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 1: If you go down.
Speaker 11: Hello. Good evening. My name is Jason Whitlock. I'm a principal city planner, Urban Design and Community Planning and Development. I am joined today with my colleague Sara Corson. We are here to present an outline of the planning process in the master plan itself for the Stadium District Master Plan and its contents tonight. We are very excited to be here with you today. We're excited to have a really thoughtful steering committee, an engaged community that helped us work on the contents and the recommendations of the stadium district master plan. The plan area for the Stadium District Master Plan lives across the river from downtown, adjacent to two light rail stations, right at the confluence of Lakewood Gulch and the South Platte River. The Metropolitan Football Stadium District property currently surrounds the Broncos football stadium and the Stadium District Master Plans recommendations primarily address the southern portions of the stadium district's property. And also, as you look at your map, includes the land at Federal Boulevard and the West Colfax Avenue interchange, the cloverleaf in the plan area. As it as it is indicated on your map, the area of the master plan is also located previously within the boundary of the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan, and this master plan continues to build on the visions, the recommendations, the strategies within that station area plan. So we had a start point, we had a sort of a place to jump off of, and this plan will continue to make those additional clarity and specificity recommendations in the master plan and where things apply to both the strategies and the recommendations. If there is anything that conflicts the guidance of this master plan, we'll take the precedent. This has been the city led process in collaboration with the stadium management company, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District Theme Investment Corporation, an active steering committee and engaged community who have been meeting and providing input into the planning process over the last year with a goal for adoption by City Council tonight, there have been 1300 participants in this planning process with about 600 points of feedback in-person and an.
Speaker 6: Additional.
Speaker 11: 10,000, 11,000 points of of points of sort of feedback online. We've received and evaluated these thousands of thousands of point of impact of input to help us craft the recommendations and align those with sort of the community goals that we've heard and help us kind of prioritize what we're having in front of us in this digital age . We varied all of some of our approaches to how we're getting information for those that are not able to willing or able to make some of our in-person meetings, it was important for us to actually go into the community and get the information out, participate there. We're at the Sun Valley Garden Festival. We're at Denver days in Sun Valley. We collaborated with Denver Parks and Rec and Sun Valley Kitchen, Sun Valley Community Coalition to actually provide transportation to public meetings that people weren't able to make the distance to get there was really important for us to have a good group of community there . We provided translation that was really important and in child care, in order to make these events well, well attended. And we actually even had a sort of a Halloween event, which was fun. We gave out some candy hats and costumes, too, which was just part of the joy we had in this process. We received seven letters of support for the plan, including Jefferson Park, United Neighbors, Sun Valley Community Coalition, West Colfax Business Improvement District, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, Sun Valley Eco District and two adjacent landowners, including Sue Powers with Steam on the Platte and David Keefe with the original Brooklyn's. So some good letters of support there on the process. The planning process started with the what we called the Visualize phase, where we sort of investigated existing conditions, existing plans and studies and started gathering input on both what you see as sort of some of the ideas and what the challenges would be with the site and the hopes for these surface parking lots on the south side of the stadium. We move then into a strategized phase, recognizing that we kept hearing this idea that we need a seamless every day experience and then sort of took them and. Reviewing them as we also wanted, and we're getting input about what a great game day experience would be. We identified those themes, kind of compared them, looked at the game day and every day we found sort of mobility, amenity and housing opportunities. We looked at sort of recommendations for art and public spaces and including these sort of really important spaces along the Gulch and the South Platte River. As we were looking, looking at these comparisons and to see kind of what things when we were doing our kind of our outreach, what things were aligning, some of the other sort of things in that previous slide that were that were surprising to us was on those everyday preferences and the amenities, the sort of the, the lower ranking of parking in some of that and the importance of public transit on those gameday experiences, knowing that up now sort of up to 30% of the people arriving on that game day can come by transit, including light rail and Broncos. Right. Some of the things like that, recommendations for the south, portions of the plan area adjacent to the South Platte River and Lakewood Gulch focus on the ways to seamlessly connect surrounding neighborhoods to make a good mixed use district. So some more of these things in our final stage, which Colby which we call that relies moments in sort of to summarize the desire for the community and the Metropolitan Football Stadium district was to transform these existing surface parking lots used primarily on gameday special events into a neighborhood hub that feels like a, like a local main street linked to a regional destination and really use seven days a week throughout the year. And this included opportunities for jobs, opportunities for businesses and opportunities for affordable housing. Input we received on the look and the feel of this neighborhood indicated a very high level of excitement with the type of images that we included and continued to inform the recommendations that we made throughout the process. We have six vision elements from the comprehensive plan which guided our recommendations and the elements of a complete neighborhood and blueprint. Denver are used as that framework for the recommendations to create this mixed use neighborhood in the plan. In evaluating desire for a seamless neighborhood, we verified that are surveys through captured the surrounding neighborhoods voice and that recommendations balance sort of some of those those local and those neighborhood desires and a regional perspective. As part of that experience, we have really three important social equity concepts that are in and blueprint that are used to guide , change and give the surrounding neighborhoods an opportunity to thrive. The plan uses equity concepts and blueprint to prioritize recommendations that benefit all. In addition to improving the access. Improving access these neighborhoods, the access of these neighbors opportunities. Community input also focused on recommendations to expand housing diversity and the job diversity within the plan area. You can see we have mapped the plan area as a mixed use neighborhood and have shown the yellow hatch zone on the plan, indicating active corridors with additional recommendations regarding sort about enhanced people per first pedestrian experience. You'll notice the inclusion again of the West Colfax and Federal Boulevard interchange in the plan area and within our land use and built form recommendations to create this this seamless again this neighborhood with one one look and one feel, one with an opportunity of being integrated together with other opportunities we have on that side. Community input prioritized the south of the side of the stadium to have that mix of uses to support a livable neighborhood and encourages and opportunities for those nearby to have really close, walkable opportunities for jobs. While noting that the sort of the northern half, the part that we haven't talked about in the stadium, there's a recommendation, a key one that it remains sort of similar to today, flexible for game day uses on the north side. The community, including the surrounding neighborhoods, provided valuable input on the need for a neighborhood with those jobs and housing. We included recommendations to target that incentive affordable housing onsite to target the marketing of that to the residents that are living around the playing area as being sort of important steps to to keep this a local environment. Right here you can see a festival street, sort of a key north south connection to the doors of Bronco Stadium on an every day. This is a place to drive slowly, but on game day, as shown here, it can be changed and transformed into a pedestrian first environment as envisioned, at least in this plan. And what you see here actually is the kinds of building forms that we intend to see on game day or what you actually see every day. The plan, if you read it and look through it, recommends a base height of five stories, which aligns with nearby planning efforts and existing guidance in the area. You can see on your plan, the little arrow points to sort of a step back here about five stories. So we're kind of graphically showing what a five storey base height could look like in the area. And the recommendations allow up to 20 stories to promote those opportunities for walkable jobs from nearby neighborhoods and the desired housing that we've heard throughout the planning process. So the height above five stories to what we showing here is about a 20 story building will be applying both affordable housing incentives and recommend and requirements. And along with what we calling mass production, mass reduction would be those buildings sort of step backs and sort of minimal tower sizes to provide that sort of those opportunities that we were talking about talked about in the importance we also heard throughout the process was for for something that created a variety of building shapes and there was a variety of building heights as being important that the building step backs and the shaping and the massing and sort of the ground access to to light and to sky views being important and would work in conjunction with other sort of design standards and guidelines. And and here we're showing kind of an area in the distance with a height above 20 storeys to about 30 storeys to a maximum height of 30 storeys. And those from the 20 to 3 storey allows even greater step backs, greater affordability. And sort of in the area that's just south of the stadium, primarily, we've mapped the map to be allowed to actually get up to that height. The waterways are a valuable component to creating a thriving neighborhood as a gateway into the project, as a front door to an active river edge and the introduction. And then in the design guidelines section, there is a river vision and design recommendations for the buildings on and facing the river and the gulch, including pedestrian access. The idea that if you're going to be entering or if you're going to be on balconies and other things like that, you can be on the river, facing the river. It's it's something to be at instead of something to ignore and be on your side. And there are sort of additional parts of this are talked to about some additional transition elements that we want to be seen kind of at those edges, particularly the river, but also Old West Colfax and some other places in the plan. You can see this maps here with these additional discussions and with the nearby neighborhood and community input, it was important for us to make sure we had a good map, clear map of where the 20 story recommendations would be with those additional requirements for for transitions and the hatched and the kind of area south of the stadium that will have that 30 story height available there is mapped on this and is really important for particularly Jefferson Parks, the mother and some other places to actually understand what they were able to see to and see through in the space. Lastly, on the land use some built form. Additional street sections are shown here that shows sort of the suite of strategies. We know that one thing is going to make a great neighborhood, but things need to work together. These additional strategies, design standards and guidelines create that people first that pedestrian first guidance. And so we have a section in the plan related design standards and guidelines. I will now transition to, of course, as we move on to mobility recommendations.
Speaker 0: Hello. I'm Sarah, of course, the city planner with community planning and development. So the next section in the plan is mobility. The current plan area lacks a cohesive, multimodal street network, and so the plan recommends to create this multimodal street network and to provide new vehicular pedestrian and bicyclists connections. I'd also like to point out that this diagram, as well as other diagrams within the plan, just show one scenario that can implement the plans, goals and strategies. The plan also recommends a very important A-grade intersection with West Colfax Avenue and a future North-South connection within the plan area. This is a very important intersection to further connect the plan area, but also to further the functionality of the stadium's operations. In addition to that, I want to point out that all the plan, recommendations and strategies apply to the Federal Boulevard and West Colfax Cloverleaf Interchange Area. This includes the mobility, land use and quality of life infrastructure recommendations. In addition to creating a connected multimodal street network, this plan recommends prioritizing pedestrians, creating a complete network of high ease of use, bicycle facilities, and increasing access to multi-use trails and pathways, especially prioritizing connections to the South Platte River. This plan includes a bike network diagram, and it includes recommendations that recommend a variety of bicycle facilities, including bicycle facilities that are grade separated or protected bike lanes. Throughout the planning process, we heard there should be a variety of street types, so this plan recommends several different street types. We explored these street types and included images within the plan that sort of portray how these three types might be built out or what they might accommodate. Mixed use streets could accommodate wider pedestrian and amenity zones, and they should also incorporate high ease of use bicycle facilities. Main Street should accommodate high quality pedestrian and amenity zones and festival streets which are shared. Streets should accommodate high levels of pedestrian activity and especially events. In addition to that, this plan includes a matrix that sort of outlines or identifies what these street types should accommodate and the additional components and design elements and amenities that could be incorporated within them. The plan also recommends implementing an area wide transportation demand management plan and to utilize the strategies to improve every day and game day area wide circulation. There's also a spread within the plan that further explains transfer transportation demand management strategies and outlines what these strategies are, including programmatic design, transit, parking and commute trip reduction strategies. This plan and this section also identifies some recommendations to retrofit or replace the Cloverleaf at Federal Boulevard and West Colfax Avenue, and that we should continue to collaborate to explore a transformation of the Cloverleaf Interchange that builds upon past planning efforts and studies. The most recent effort has been done by the West Colfax Business Improvement District, and they have identified an alternative that could be potentially implemented in the future. And this alternative is portrayed in the three images below. The last section within this chapter is Quality of Life Infrastructure. The plan recommends incorporating a variety of parks and public spaces across the planned area, and that these public spaces should be publicly accessible, including the parks and facilities associated with this plan area, and that they should also incorporate a variety of activities for people of all ages, abilities and incomes to enjoy year round. In addition to that, we recognize all of the projects and efforts going on right now and that we should continue to look to coordinate our efforts between other plans, projects and future development. In addition to that, we want to recommend that there should be a variety of amenities included within these public spaces, especially active and passive users , and that we should utilize best practices for stormwater management and to expand upon the tree canopy across the plant area. This plan also includes a matrix that further identifies what parks and public spaces should accommodate potential sizes, their distribution and location, and also potential amenities and elements that could be incorporated within these spaces. Last but not least, this plan recommend recommends prioritizing the South Platte River and to enhance the public space adjacent to it. It includes strategies to foster an interactive relationship with the river, to transform the public space adjacent the river, and to utilize the river as a very important connecting link between existing and future development. The last section of the plan is moving forward, which includes implementation strategies. These strategies include regulatory policy, public investment and partnership strategies. In addition to that, this plan includes a summary of community benefit priorities, including items that may be addressed in a community benefits agreement between the developer and the community. There are three criteria that have been established in the comprehensive plan 2040 that this plan must meet or be consistent with to be adopted. The first criteria is an inclusive community process. As Jason outlines before me, there has been quite an inclusive community process with a variety of community outreach and community engagement. So we have found that the Stadium District Master Plan was developed through an inclusive community process. The second criteria is plan consistency. This plan utilizes the comprehensive plan 2046 vision elements and builds upon them. In addition to that, it also utilizes the blueprint. Denver Three elements of a complete neighborhood and the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan is there and provides guidance while this plan builds upon it and provides further detailed guidance for this plan area. Given that we have found that the Stadium District Master Plan is consistent with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 and other city plans, the last criteria is long term view. The Stadium District Master Plan establishes goals, recommendations and strategies that will guide change in the plan area for the next 20 plus years. It also recognizes that plan implementation takes place over the course of many years and may take shape in multiple phases, including short term and long term phases. Given that the Stadium District Master Plan encompasses a long term view, so finally, based on the findings that the applicable review criteria has been met. Staff recommends adoption of the Stadium District Master Plan as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan 2040. Thank you. Thank you. We have 17 individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to. Call the first five speakers. If you could please make your way to the bench here in the front, that will help speed up our proceedings. We have Jose Batiste, Philip Kasper, Derrick Friedman, Jean Granville and Jesse Parish. Our first five.
Speaker 10: Good evening, counsel. My name is Hosea Butera, the co-owner of Rice's brewing company, a Latinxs LGBTQ veteran, immigrant and woman owned business located at 26 West Colfax Avenue in the Sun Valley neighborhood. I'm here today to speak in support of the creation of the Stadium District Master Plan. I believe the plan has been well thought out and participated by the community. Thanks to the leadership of Jason Whitlock and his staff. My support isn't without any caveats. As a former Chamber of Commerce President, Commissioner for the City of Boulder and Community and Cultural Broker, it was my responsibility as a member of the Steering Committee to make sure that progress is with our public benefit. A key point on this plan calls for the conservation of Sun Valley's diversity. Diversity and inclusion needs to be maintained by making sure that affordable housing, affordable commercial rentals and businesses owned by underserved groups becomes a priority and don't get lost in the process. Local employment and access to training opportunities should also be a priority. Sun Valley is made up of mostly women and kids, so those considerations need emphasis as well. Furthermore, the inclusion of the businesses wedged between the Platte River and I-25 but immediately next to the district is a must. Steam on the Platte Mile High Station still works near Wolf Lift Rice is Brewing Company and many other businesses need to be taken into consideration since they represent businesses that are have been there or will already be there even before the district happens. I thank you for your time in considering the topics brought before you and the signing of a neighborhood benefits agreement drafted by the community to go along with this plan to make sure that our most vulnerable and needed do not get forgotten. This is an opportunity for our city to serve as a model and say, yes, we can be progressive while putting people first. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, Phillip Kasper.
Speaker 6: I'm Phillip Kasper. I'm a 33 year.
Speaker 10: Resident of Sun.
Speaker 6: Valley.
Speaker 10: And my address is 2727 West Holden Place.
Speaker 6: I think that the stadium district plan will pass. I don't believe that it's ready yet because from History Stadium District has not acted in good faith to complete the parts that impact the surrounding community. They may do community work across the city, but they don't do what it takes in their own community to mitigate the impacts. So one of the things that needs to be excluded.
Speaker 10: Is that there will never be any aviation uses at that site on top of any of those buildings. We don't need a friends of.
Speaker 6: Mach heliport up on top of one of those buildings. It's happened before.
Speaker 10: We don't need it again. When we had then first.
Speaker 6: This stadium built under the plan that.
Speaker 10: Built it into in.
Speaker 6: 98 the we ended up with a traffic problem that was studied by fears.
Speaker 10: And peers and their conclusion was you would be hard pressed in North America to find a residential use street that has the volume, speed and character of the traffic that we have on Decatur. They recommended closing the street.
Speaker 6: To eliminate the traffic. Now we're going to increase the traffic.
Speaker 7: When in this plan.
Speaker 10: Is the traffic through a community that has the highest percentage of children known in the nation. Nobody has ever matched it or found one. It runs from 54% to 66% over the last 20 years, and they're.
Speaker 6: Mostly.
Speaker 10: Under 14. I mean, they're mostly kids. We cannot absorb the traffic. The original plan had mitigate. It was supposed to plan to make the changes on their footprint to attached to the full facts. What in the 98 plan has informed this plan? I think it's not ready to be passed. I think these questions need to be addressed and amendments need to be made before.
Speaker 6: This plan moves forward. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Derek Friedman.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name's Tarik Friedman. I am a Denver entrepreneur. I own two retail concepts sports fan and soccer, and I employ dozens of people in the city and one of my stores is immediately adjacent to this project. I was a steering team member and was really amazed by the content and rigor of the process. There are so many opportunities for the public to get involved and I was just really impressed by all of the thoughts that were shared. Immediately after buying a sports fan, I traveled around the country to look for other places to expand, and I was looking particularly close to other stadiums, and I was surprised to find the contrast between places like Detroit and Cleveland and Minneapolis. Um, I choose to live near Denver. In Denver. And I was surprised at the sharp contrast between the environments around those stadiums and the one that we have. And so what I love about this plan and why I'm so enthusiastic about it is because it transforms the stadium from an island that's separated from its surrounding communities to something that's integrated fully and brings all those neighborhoods together. It transforms empty lots into a vibrant, mixed use community with designation for affordable housing. I hope that this plan has your support and I'm really excited for the transformation to start.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Jeanne Granville.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Jean Granville, 2715 West told in place. I am speaking here tonight as president of the Sun Valley Community Coalition. I was also a member of the steering committee representing the coalition and I am also a member of the West Side Stadium Community Coalition that has an interest in really ensuring that community benefits are addressed within the plan as and on an ongoing basis. So I really want to thank you for everyone's support and inclusion of all of us in the process. We're really excited about the vision for a mixed use everyday neighborhood that will really transform the northern part of our Sun Valley neighborhood giving, providing housing, jobs and amenities along with an exciting gameday, cultural and entertainment experiences. I want to thank you for expanding the plan to include some of the work and efforts that are already underway, both east of the river, as you've just heard, as well as in regards to the Cloverleaf and what that future may be. We did have some concerns, I think, as you've heard about traffic management plan and particularly impact of construction and ongoing and density that will be developed, its impact on the southern part in particular where there are so many children and residents. I want to thank Councilman Lopez and his office for really taking the initiative to go ahead and start that conversation with public works to see if we can't do some things to mitigate some of the immediate concerns of already unsafe conditions as well as going forward. So thank you for that. I also want to thank and really recognize the Stadium District and the Broncos for really their openness in inviting the community to envision a neighborhood in the northern part of our neighborhood far beyond what we could have ever imagined in the Decatur Federal Station area plan. We look forward to being a part of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and to continue as a member of the West Side Stadium District Community Coalition to work with everyone on community benefits. It is really our interest in really trying to do whatever we can to really contribute to ensuring that we create a seamless, inclusive and dynamic neighborhood . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Parrish. While he's coming up, we'll go ahead and call up Chris Roller Sun to join us in the front bench right here. Leslie. Tariq Olasky. Njoroge Abu Samir. I'm sorry if I mispronounce that. Hamida Bashar. Always Bashar. And we'll go ahead and go with you, Mr. Parrish.
Speaker 10: Jesse Paris resigned in District nine 2842 Josephine Street, Denver, Colorado. And I'm representing for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May election. I got over 15,000 votes with no money. We are against this. I keep hearing all this talk about inclusivity, but from the photos that I've just seen displayed in front of me, I have seen nothing inclusive about any of it. I see nothing but white people. I honestly know people of color and historically people of color. A neighborhood, an area that has the most children of color in one area. And we are refugees. And there's all kinds of people of color in this neighborhood to say nothing of that represented in these pictures. So I had several questions. I want to know what was the AMA level for this affordable housing I keep hearing about? What were the wages for these commercial developments? Because you say that you're going to put the people in a community to work. How much are you going to pay them an hour? Is it going to be a livable wage? And just so you know, a livable wage is 25 plus an hour to afford a one or two bedroom in downtown or decent Denver proper. I agree with Phillip with the traffic study. I have partnered with West Denver United during this whole campaign season. I worked with them and I've seen exactly how neglected this Sun Valley is. And my good friend David Roybal, who ran for office, too, is a native. And he's told me on numerous occasions that he was not in approval of this, and I am not in approval of it as well. I was not in approval of the comprehensive plan either because I didn't believe it was given enough ample giving people ample enough time to read and review it and to actually come up with their own conclusions with it. So I want to know what is the AMA level for this sustainable housing? What are the wages for the employment? And is there going to be a traffic study done for this area? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Chris Roller son.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Chris Roller said. And I'm representing the Sun Valley Youth Center and all the kids of Sun Valley. So we are in our 20th year. It's our birthday this year and so we are in support of this with the concern around safety and kids. So a lot of the times the trails and the streets are designed for people who know how to ride bicycles, but not necessarily the youth. And Sun Valley had 335 units previous. There will be upwards of 4000 and more with the new development. And I'm assuming there would also be more children coming into some of those newer high rise properties. So assuming those kids want to come and access services at the youth center, how do we have safe transport from the new areas and the new spaces to us? The plat trail is not safe for kids. It's great for commuting and it's great for folks who are grown. But a lot of our kids don't have parents going back and forth with them. So I just want to continue the conversation together and say, how can we work together to make sure that we have safe transportation back and forth from the stadium? The stadium district has been amazing getting the kids in there. We rode our bikes to one of the stadium district meetings. We took 65 kids by bike up to one of the meetings just to go and experience it. We ate up all the pizza, had a blast, but I just want to make sure that that can continue to be a partnership and not just because there's a plan at hand that we just want to continue to move forward and develop things together with them. So we have good, safe places for the kids to be from our community and not just the new kids coming in. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Up next, Leslie, talk about skin.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you. My name is Leslie to our galaxy. I stand before you today as the executive director of the Federal Boulevard.
Speaker 0: Business Improvement District. I was one of the members of the stakeholder committee.
Speaker 2: And my comments.
Speaker 0: Tonight are speaking on behalf of my board of the Federal Boulevard bid. First, we want to thank Jason and Sarah and CPD for including the removal of the Cloverleaf in this plan and including the Cloverleaf at all. As you all know and could see from the visuals, this is an integral part of the entire neighborhood. And so thinking of all this, instead of as separate plans, the Todd Plan, the Stadium District Master Plan, the Cloverleaf Plan in the West Area plan. This will help us tie them all together. So I wanted to say thank you for that. We look forward to a variety of housing options on this site, including affordable housing. We look forward to the addition of much needed green space in this neighborhood. And we're very hopeful that that green space will be designated so that it will always be open to the public. We look forward to commercial space that encourages small, local business owners to set up shop. We look forward to signing the Community Benefits Agreement and we eagerly anticipate helping ensure that this soon to be built neighborhood will seamlessly integrate.
Speaker 2: With the current.
Speaker 0: Communities that surround it, including Sun Valley, Sloan's Lake and Jefferson Park. We hope that you support this plan, and we want to thank Councilman Paul Lopez and Robin Canete for helping us with the Community Benefits Agreement, CPD and the Broncos for what is a very exciting plan. Thank you. We hope you support it. Next up, we have Nazar Abu. Soraya, I'll let you go ahead and pronounce it correctly.
Speaker 2: First of all, I.
Speaker 0: Want to thank everybody who have hand on.
Speaker 5: This development.
Speaker 0: Developing.
Speaker 5: For Sun.
Speaker 2: Valley. And I live here on Sun Valley for five years old. I like to cook.
Speaker 0: So my dream is to have my own restaurant or my own shop. And I hear there will be opening.
Speaker 2: Like small projects and small.
Speaker 0: Like small restaurant. Restaurant.
Speaker 2: And I think because we are living here for a long.
Speaker 0: Time, we must have the first opportunity for.
Speaker 5: Be a part on that.
Speaker 2: That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Hamida Bashar. And if you wouldn't mind, at least give us your city of residence. And if you feel comfortable, your address, please.
Speaker 5: Hello, everybody. I know my brother Hamidullah.
Speaker 6: Yes, my name is Hamida.
Speaker 5: And I can walk across the room.
Speaker 6: But I cannot. I cannot read it and write it.
Speaker 2: And I can. America Manuel Barroso in.
Speaker 5: Latin cooperation, bravado, no nonsense.
Speaker 6: Since I came to this country, I like to learn, but I clean my mouth. He couldn't pick up.
Speaker 5: A La Liga Maradona going in the tankers in Ghana.
Speaker 6: But I appreciate a lot to welcome in to this country, to the United States.
Speaker 5: A lot. And my father didn't return a wallet buying.
Speaker 6: So we need help wherever we need. We might need from our help.
Speaker 5: To remain a mother in a mother forever. In an analogy or in.
Speaker 6: This song as my dream is to open my own restaurant.
Speaker 5: In LA, madam, in a family car, in a land, in our will, and on one with Mercosur.
Speaker 6: So we need more help from our family to to everywhere.
Speaker 5: And my revenue in all of community. ALMOBARK On his own and on the dollar and all that.
Speaker 6: We would like to have our own community which will build our own community. However, the government knows about it with our communities.
Speaker 5: And I still had dinner, my tank on.
Speaker 2: Car in a gallon and had the old gun to watch you.
Speaker 6: I appreciate a lot from Glen. Glen who invited me from here today.
Speaker 5: Some value went to which I guess we all had on our way.
Speaker 6: And then he he's the one who helping us out to somebody for on on this moment for now.
Speaker 5: Allow can that that you can picture Google and my homework all ordered all the special work of Korea.
Speaker 6: We cook we are the people who cook the special.
Speaker 5: A lot and had them for that and I no I will not turn on more than all. Well I don't know what.
Speaker 6: We will like to have the help from how we can open up our business, our restaurant, and we can help our family and our kids.
Speaker 5: So I think it was in Ali and Hoyt.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. That's the only one I have.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And next up, we had always. You're up next. It's always bizarre.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon to everybody. And appreciate it a lot. I'm from Sun Valley. I've been in Sun Valley for eight years. But we would like to have the opportunity to share them with us when it comes at the Sun Valley. Oh, we like to have an opportunity as a business to open as a restaurant. But we would like, hope and how we can get that help. That's why we are here today. And we appreciate it a lot for Glenn to help us to invite us here today.
Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you. Could you please pronounce your name for the record?
Speaker 6: For the record, my name is always Hussein.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Next up, our next five are Devin Buckles, Jeff Shoemaker, Rudy Gonzalez, Mac Freeman. And then our last hour, we'll go ahead and then Jim Mantle. Mentally, those are our next five. So Devin Buckles. Good evening, members of Denver City Council. I'm Devin Buckles. 1855 South Pearl Street. I'm the director of the Water Connection, which is the Policy and Water Resources arm of the Greenway Foundation. I'm here this evening to speak on behalf of our foundation in support.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 0: Plant adoption. The foundation has collaborated with the Denver Planning Office and the Steering Committee throughout the planning process to incorporate a number of provisions to guide the relationship between the development and our waterways. This plan identifies the South Platte River and Lakewood Gulch as front doors to this exciting new neighborhood hub. These edges will be treated as priorities through plan guidance and subsequent implementing regulations and guidelines. We support the plan's recommendations for innovative stormwater management integration of green infrastructure throughout the site. Thoughtful design and function of Mile High Stadium circle on the river edge so that it adequately serves the gameday traffic while serving as a pedestrian prioritized street for the remainder of the year for safe and easy river access. The plan also contains a call for design standards and guidelines to ensure the intensity, orientation, scale, height, massing and design of buildings along the edges of these two important waterways create a positive experience for users on all sides.
Speaker 2: Of the waterway.
Speaker 0: And finally, we support the plan's emphasis on this tremendous opportunity to.
Speaker 2: Activate and.
Speaker 0: Engage this section of the River and Lakewood Gulch. So thank you for this opportunity to.
Speaker 5: Speak before you this evening.
Speaker 0: Next up, Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Madam President. A member of Council Jeff Shoemaker, 1855 South Pearl Street, Denver, 802 ten. It's an honor to stand before you. I'd like to immediately acknowledge Jason and Sarah for your. Seriously solid work on this and your willingness to sit down with Devin and me and take a strong plan. And hopefully with Devin's help and despite my engagement, the plan is stronger. So thank you very, very much. This is yet the latest opportunity to make the South Platte River the best place to work, live and play in the city and county of Denver. A vision of my father many, many years ago. And just a little bit of trivia. 54 years ago yesterday was the flooding of the South Platte River. And 45 years ago, yesterday was the founding of the Greenway Foundation. And look where we've come. Look where we've come. This plan respects our river. I am going to be so bold as to say that the reason that the stadium district has put this plan before you is because they get that they understand that being near the South Platte, they understand that being near Lakewood Gulch is a good thing. And who could have imagined that when? Let us remember that the reason the original Mile High Stadium was built along the river is because it was purchased as a former landfill dump site for a buck way back when when, yes, I was alive. So this is another opportunity to take our city's greatest natural resource and evolve it and improve it and enhance it and make it and engage equal opportunity for every single person within the city. And I'll finish with this. Councilman new. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your service. My foundation will miss you. And so while I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Rudy Gonzalez.
Speaker 6: Good evening, city council members.
Speaker 8: And thank you. My name is Rudy Gonzalez. I'm the executive director services at La Raza also was a member for.
Speaker 6: The past year, 18 months with the steering committee. And I'm here to speak in support of the Stadium District Master Plan tonight. And the fact that it was probably one of the most inclusive processes that I've been part of in my life. It brought many stakeholders together.
Speaker 8: Community people, civic shows. We're at 3130 on West 14th Avenue. So we're right there in the heart.
Speaker 6: Of Sun.
Speaker 8: Valley in West Denver.
Speaker 6: Serving scores, if not thousands of families.
Speaker 8: Throughout West Denver, including over 147 families from Sun Valley in a multitude.
Speaker 6: Of services. So to be part of this process, you know, we've had and service was has hosted us senators.
Speaker 8: Governors, mayors, you know, legislators and even many of you esteemed council persons at our places.
Speaker 6: But we've at our place but we've never hosted a developer who came in and met with all of our staff, the entire agency, for 2 hours to speak about what? Opportunities. What kinds of things did they want to see.
Speaker 8: In this neighborhood, in.
Speaker 6: This part of Denver, with their pulse.
Speaker 8: On so many of the.
Speaker 6: Issues that happen around social services and the social safety net? And it was a very robust discussion. We have a lot of great subject experts as as staff.
Speaker 8: Over there that know their business and know their work. And with that, I also want to.
Speaker 6: Acknowledge Mack.
Speaker 8: Freeman. RDC Well, and the leadership of Paul Lopez in bringing.
Speaker 6: A lot of.
Speaker 8: Diverse community.
Speaker 6: Stakeholders together.
Speaker 8: In this process. I've also sat for the last year and a half on.
Speaker 6: The West Colfax, the Cloverleaf.
Speaker 8: Redesign, and so how it integrates, it's pretty seamless. And we're talking about housing, not just affordable housing, but housing that allows.
Speaker 11: Dishwashers.
Speaker 6: To CEOs to live where they work.
Speaker 8: And I think that's important. But again.
Speaker 6: I think also important was the community.
Speaker 8: Benefits agreement that I think.
Speaker 6: Will hold all of us accountable to.
Speaker 8: Ensuring that there is justice and equity in this work going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mack Freeman.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. Mack Freeman, the chief commercial officer for the Denver Broncos. And I think first off, I'd like to thank every one of you and those that are not here tonight for taking the time to sit down with us and understand what a unique project this is. Because I don't know that you've had something like this in front of you. I can know this. I know this has been hard for some to get their arms around and that we don't have a developer at the table yet. And I. I appreciate all of you trusting that that's going to be a good, good path, because I think we've made a lot of progress and we're excited about where it's going. But again, this is a unique project. This development is on behalf of the taxpayers with all of the ground lease revenue going to the Metropolitan Football Stadium District to fund the capital needs of the taxpayer owned stadium. The long term outcome of this effort and creative funding strategy is to save the taxpayers the forward burden and cost of maintaining the stadium while at the same time creating a dynamic urban neighborhood with the jobs, investments and community benefits that come with that. I'm here to support the Stadium District Master Plan before you participated on the steering committee and have been thrilled with the community engagement and inclusion of all stakeholders in the public process. The plan envisions a dynamic, urban neighborhood that is authentic to the city and one that is designed to celebrate the largest gatherings of this community. This plan supports the efforts and goals of the Sun Valley Eco District and can go a long way to ensuring its success. The plan focuses on connections to all the adjacent neighborhoods. The plan prioritizes the six vision elements of the recently adopted comprehensive plan 2040, those being equitable, affordable, inclusive, strong and authentic. Neighborhoods connected, safe and accessible places economically diverse and vibrant, environmentally resilient and healthy and active. We've had extensive discussions on community benefits and recognize the importance of addressing affordable housing, job opportunities, workforce development parks and open space connections and mobility, public art, the river. And continuing to engage with with many of the folks you've seen up here tonight, this has been a phenomenal process. And and I think everyone's come to it with good faith. After 20 years, the stadium is getting more expensive to maintain it, as all facilities do. This plan can be the engine that allows us to extend the useful life of the stadium for many years ahead. Like others, I'd like to thank Jason Sarah of Karen Steve for who attracted the best public participation I've ever seen. And I'd like to thank Councilman Lopez in particular. He has he has held the process accountable on community benefits. We have committed to sit down when we start.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 0: That's your time, sir.
Speaker 6: Stadium investment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Jim mentally.
Speaker 6: That's correct. Thank you. My name is Jim and Tele 5660 Logan Street, Denver. Representing Colorado State Conference of Electrical Workers. Oh, excuse me. I am a 45 year representative of the electrical construction industry in the state, serving at many different levels. We have seen the potential for job creation and opportunities for a project like this. We have seen them come to fruition numerous times in this city. We have seen the we have benefited from the from the development that has led to opportunities of numerous types here. Also tonight, representing the MEP Alliance, the alliance is a consortium of four highly skilled construction trades the pipefitters, plumbers, electricians and sheet metal workers. The four industries represented by the MEP Alliance all have registered apprenticeship programs that provide more than just jobs. They provide incredible career opportunities, education and everything that goes along with providing pathways to the middle class. The wage, the starting wages for apprenticeships are incredible. They do come with benefits, not only health, but pension annuity type benefits. And the spectrum is wide. We work in. Close conjunction through our MEP Alliance with Services de la Raza as a community outreach agent. They have worked with us in numerous outreach, community outreach and apprenticeship programs. And it's important that we realize and you realize that a project of this nature with these own hiring requirements and with services De La Raza being domiciled right in the area, we can provide job opportunities. We are eager to do it. And in a day and age, when the problem is recognized nationally of the shortages in these skilled trades, we ask that you support a project of this nature in its client. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have our last two speakers, Matt Sugar and Dan Schorr. Please.
Speaker 8: Thank you, counsel. My name is Matt Sugar. I'm the director of stadium affairs for the Metropolitan Football Stadium, District 17 on Ryan Street. I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you this evening. First, I'd like to once again thank the city's planning staff, Jason and Sarah and Karen and the many others who have been invaluable along this effort throughout the year. Over a year, the city staff has exceeded expectations in bringing together a truly diverse group of stakeholders and have succeeded in creating a document years in the making that reflects the values of Sun Valley, adjoining neighborhoods and businesses. Broncos Stadium at Mile High Visitors and the city and county of Denver Broncos Stadium at Mile High is almost 2020 years old. You might not notice that it's age because the Denver Broncos in the district have invested heavily over those years into the publicly owned asset. Maintaining and upgrading is necessary. The Metropolitan Football Stadium District site consists of over 80 acres. The building is approximately 1.8 million square foot. As you can imagine, taking care of 1.8 million square foot requires some upkeep. The District and the Broncos have shared an interest in maintaining and enhancing the publicly owned asset now and well into the future, that this plan can play a key role in helping develop the revenue source, allowing investment into the stadium while avoiding seeking revenue from taxpayers for capital repairs to the stadium. The District, the Broncos, the Denver Housing Authority, Sun Valley Economic Development, local businesses, the city and county and numerous other individuals and organizations have participated in bringing forth a plan that can preserve and build on the longstanding traditions of the area and improve the experience for locals and visitors alike. While we have a long ways to go to make this vision a reality, this plan is the first major step in that direction. On behalf of the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. I urge your support of the Stadium District Master Plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, Dan Schorr.
Speaker 6: Okay, last, Dan Schorr, West Colfax Business Improvement District 3275, West 14th Avenue. And we are I'm here speaking on behalf of the bid, also in support of the plan.
Speaker 8: And I just want to say that in terms of a.
Speaker 6: Process and participation, I really think that that's actually reflected tonight by the sort of sentiments that are expressed, the ideas are put forward. And it's really been, I think, a plan that has evolved a little bit and I, you know, somewhat so, you know, in my own world of the Cloverleaf in a way that I think has improved the plan, especially from the point of view of mobility and creating a sort of a vibrant area of West Denver that can work and together that's vibrant commercially and provides opportunities for the people who are currently residing in the neighborhood, who will come both as visitors, future residents. And I feel like the so that I feel like that that the relationships that have resulted in that you know, sort of developed evolved outcome is are sort of in place and you know, sort of a fruitful opportunity to further, you know, for for further development as the process evolve, develops and the project develops. And so I think it's really a just a good testament to a good planning process and a, you know, it is it tells a story of good collaboration. So that's it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So a couple of questions I have. First of all, can someone help me understand what the maximum build our square footage might look like? So based on what is allowed, the height densities, what what could be the the maximum amount of square footage that could be built on on this property where . That we're doing this master plan for.
Speaker 11: The the area of the stadium district, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District owned portion is about 50 acres. We also know that there's about 19 acres at the clover leaf and then there's some other assorted parcels in there. So the plan is giving guidance to to the area to be a mixed use environment. We've also are making recommendations about affordable housing and mass production as part of it and as the plan is setting up what our next steps are along the way. A lot of that building shaping is going to be a key part of knowing kind of what that allowable amount is. So I don't know if we have a total. I don't know if there is a number that we have are targeting related to it. But it is a it is a, you know, an urban neighborhood. And we do have both sort of formal recommendations. We do have kind of the highest areas in the middle and they step down to the side.
Speaker 5: So we should see more of those details when the rezoning application.
Speaker 11: That would be, yeah. I mean, there's going to be a suite of things that will happen. Rezoning will let you know more about that. We'll have a design centers and guidelines which will continue to shape some of those things, but a lot of that mass production component will be part of that rezoning discussion. But then there's also just people either building out their full entitlement or, as we often see, not building out that full entitlement to. So probably the end result will be.
Speaker 6: Obviously, as you know, a range of form.
Speaker 5: One of the speakers raised question about aviation uses. Is that excluded? Will that be addressed in the zoning? What kind of discussions were there about that type of use being proposed as part of the The Master Plan?
Speaker 11: We didn't discuss aviation uses as part of the master planning process. Phil mentioned that before in another discussion that would be actually used would be a part of a I think a zoning discussion as part of that. But aviation, neither benefit nor detriment, really came up as part of the master planning process.
Speaker 5: So as.
Speaker 11: For what exactly the context of their.
Speaker 5: Discussions with the neighborhood on the zoning, the proposed zoning, some of those topics should be part of that discussion. Yeah. Okay. And then help me understand about the impacts to Decatur Street. I'm very familiar with this neighborhood and the the real concerns being expressed about the potential new volume of traffic that might be on Decatur because of the proximity to the school, to Denver Human Services, to lots of small kids in the neighborhood. So. How much was that part of the plan discussion or how much of it will be part of the zoning discussion when that comes forward?
Speaker 11: To highlight a couple of things and certainly can stand up if there is additional to. But one of the the value of of that as a good location for what we want to see is the sort of the direct access to the two light rail stops to the recommendation for an at grade connection to the to West Colfax. That was an important part of the process. Important part of the discussion is the understanding that there is a a traffic management and parking plan in place now in the future. Sort of relook at that to understand what the impacts are on game day and every day to the surrounding neighborhoods becomes important. So there are a variety of things happening. We also know that as part of our our project management team and teams moving forward through the process, public works will be there and be part of the table games here today. But other things, including 13th Avenue realignment, things on federal are all part of the the network and will contribute to that. And I think understanding how they work together is going to be important for the safety of a really important street in one that we know that there are a lot of kids on. And the one that we want to be a walkable, bikeable connection, primarily up to the district is going to be important.
Speaker 5: I want to ask Matt Sugar, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Neither you or Mac can answer this question. I wanted to inquire about how much discussion there was about looking at leveraging other resources so that when we start talking about infrastructure issues that need to be addressed or infrastructure impacts, whether it's to our water system and whether the current infrastructure can handle the volume of all the new development that might be proposed on the site to maybe cost sharing some of the improvements on 13 Avenue, perhaps Federal Boulevard, any of those kinds of things. How much was any of that part of the discussion? Obviously, there see you've got Dr. COG urban drainage in flood control district where there could be some leveraging of other resources to address some of the. Overlapping impact issues.
Speaker 8: Yes, I think that I, I don't know that I can address address those specifically. And those certainly are things that we would look at moving forward. I think that Jason and the team had looked at some of those issues as we looked at what the site might look like and reconfiguring the infrastructure and those types of things . I don't know if I'm the best person to answer that specifically, but I think it's something we need to explore.
Speaker 5: Mercury behind you. So he may have.
Speaker 6: To say the answer and match, right? Is the specifics? Not yet. Currently, our design team has begun meeting with the city to really get in to the infrastructure master plan. I think we have discussed the topics we're raising and realizing that we need to figure out how to coordinate those. Obviously, the biggest change was the relatively late inclusion of the Cloverleaf because that actually introduced a number of new infrastructure issues that possibly affect where we were on the original 52 acres. So we're not there yet, but that process is underway with the city and I think again, we added some work to it. So we're probably we moved further from the goal line than we were a few weeks ago. But it's I think we all realize the value of if we can create solutions for the Cloverleaf as a part of this, it's a big win for the city.
Speaker 5: Madam President, I have one last question, and this is for CPD. So with so many changes that have happened at the department and the fact that we don't currently have a planning director who is point on looking at sort of the big picture of a lot of the development that's happening along this I-25 corridor and looking at how these projects are going to interface with one another, where we're going to be looking at the opportunities for some cost sharing with the infrastructure improvements or, you know, the effect of that and obviously the effect that all of this development will have on the neighborhoods adjacent or in terms of gentrification and displacement. So is there like a point person or how how is that being looked at and addressed by CPD from that bigger picture perspective so that we're not looking at every single project piecemeal?
Speaker 0: I said, of course so. Throughout this planning process, we've definitely been in discussion with kind of other members of our department, and we always continue that conversation and recognize plans that have already been done, plans that are in process right now in upcoming neighborhood plans. So I'd like to recognize that this plan really puts forth the community's desires and everything that they would like to see in conjunction with the stadium needs and their operation. So that's kind of how we looked at this plan. In addition to that, moving forward, it's really in the next steps where we have more of an idea of what will actually be implemented and how that really, truly impacts the adjacent areas, adjacent, surrounding neighborhoods, and also what the other plans and projects are doing. So we don't really have an answer for that right now because that really is down the road and that this is more of kind of a high level policy document of what we'd like to hope and see there in terms of equity and potential displacement. We recognize that there really is no residents living there right now. It's a very singular use parking lots and the community is very excited to see that transform into something that they can use. And we looked at that from the perspective of this planning process is how can we provide something in this planning area that really gives back to the community and include their voice through this? And so that's kind of our goal is we recognize that future development will impact them. But what are the tradeoffs of what we can also get through this process with future development?
Speaker 5: So we know there's going to be changes in Sun Valley. There's a whole master plan for Sun Valley. I'm talking about the effects that this will have on Villa Park, on Barnum and Westwood, on many of the other neighborhoods along the western edge of I-25 with all of the new development that's coming. So, you know, we've got the stuff that will happen on the other side of the river and the religious site. You know, further south, you've got the whole design center and the bright green marketplace. So when you start looking at all of this, we're talking about over 500 acres of new development all on the west side of town. And, you know, we've got see that doing their their palace study. So just wanting to make sure we've got somebody bird dogging the cumulative effects of all of this that's going to be happening, maybe not all at the same time, but looking at where we can leverage and interface and address all of those impact issues. I see. Dr. Arena, you are in the in the audience and I know that she's been brought on to help look at the gentrification and displacement issues. And I'm wanting to make sure that we have the right tools in place to address those and to be thinking about them and looking at them on the front end, rather than waiting until the impact is happening and it's too late to do anything about them. So thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Four times, sir, can I ask you on the mobility section? And after looking through the plan, I see I want to make note, first of all, that the Colfax Viaduct will soon be about 40 years old, and that's the new viaduct. And so looking ahead to the time when that might be at the end of its useful life and we're looking at a replacement, I'm wondering if the steering committee or the community or the stadium district or anyone involved in this effort considered the possibility of bringing Colfax down to grade at some point. Maybe the geometry doesn't quite work with having to cross the river, but when I look at your mobility section, I see the recommendation for a at grade intersection at West Colfax with a North-South road. Is that in the line of the lady where LRT would be or where is that? But I note that that's on a big embankment where the viaduct then takes off across the property and really it's not even part of the the parking lot, if you will. It's or the ground level just takes traffic from from federal over to the foot of, I think, seventh Street and Osage on the other side of downtown , on the other side of the river. Was there any discussion as to what to do with the Colfax Viaduct when when it's at the end of its life? No.
Speaker 0: So what I was going to try to answer the first part of your question. So the accurate intersection was something that we looked at and the feasibility of that happening. And so that is an intersection that can happen and be at grade. Granted, there is quite a significant amount of grade change between West Colfax Avenue diving down and then coming back up to Federal Boulevard. But that was one of the more important intersections that we could get, knowing that there is still the viaduct. So the viaduct right now that I think could be a sort of a next step study. There was, you know, thoughts of what comes up. Must, you know, what goes up must come down at some point knowing the infrastructure will age. But this wasn't really a part of our planning process, kind of deciding what to do with the viaduct and then also the feasibility of the viaduct. If it does come out great, how does it cross the planet and, you know, connect to I-25 and other mobility networks? So this I'll just say that's kind of out of my purview of expertize and kind of we sort of kept to more of the kind of community's desires and what they wanted to see in this process. And that I think some of the feasibility will come later of figuring out how do we really implement everything and get what we want. Keeping in mind of kind of long term or the longevity of the Mobility Network as well.
Speaker 6: So that at Great Intersection would involve lowering the grade of Colfax or raising the grade of of the North-South Connector.
Speaker 0: Or resistor right now. It would connect it would be without moving West Colfax Avenue, and it would be kind of altering certain grades to meet up to Colfax.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then I saw elsewhere in the plan that you recommend looking at uses for the real estate that exists under the viaduct for some in some form or fashion. And to those uses take into account the possibility that somewhere in the near term, whatever it is conducted under the viaduct might have to be disrupted in order to construct a replacement viaduct or bring it back down to grade.
Speaker 0: Yes. So the plan currently keeps it open ended. What uses could be there, but it would be more temporary and looking at public space. But we also recognize that there is concern in terms of public health and air quality. And so we're working with other departments to figure out what uses could actually happen there. Knowing that we heard from the community that they'd like to see a variety of things from art to kind of little pop up recreational area.
Speaker 6: Mass market.
Speaker 0: Farmers markets, things like that. But we want to make sure that that definitely is something that can happen. And I think just with how that would build out it, it would probably have to be more of a temporary kind of structure if there's anything built.
Speaker 6: All right. Just one last thing. On page 86 of the plan, I noticed there was a typographical error refer to the viaduct as Old West Colfax Viaduct. And that's actually Old West Colfax is the at grade street. So that's on page 86.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: And that's all, ma'am.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: There's somebody in the Flynn household who sweats every day making a typo. Oh, I have a few questions. So one of them first one is for for Mac Freeman, if you can. So Mac or in Mac, there's been a lot of conversation about community benefits. And I want to make sure. So what we have and what the folks have in front of them here on the dais is not a community benefits agreement. It's a letter in which the Broncos, a signatory, along with some other folks in the coalition, will be signed at the end of the at the end of the hearing about the community benefits, some of that. One is because there is no development entity in terms of who to enter into community benefits with yet. But and so I want to make that sure it's clear on the record to some of the community benefits that are in the letter. Responsible contracting policy practices. Utilization of registered apprentices. Minimum Wage. Living Wage. Prevailing wage. Minority women on business schools. Affordable Housing Initiatives, local hire program site. Specific housing plan, small business support parks and open space and then ongoing implementation and communication. Can you going to talk about where, you know, the group has been, where you where you're at and.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, that's that's obviously I mean, we haven't we haven't been able to really contemplate how much we're building, how high we're building. I mean, they get the zoning questions. It goes back to the question of, you know, what the mass square footage is. I think until we know what zoning will allow and what kind of uses we're going to build once we know that, I think we'll be able to get very specific. But I think, you know what, we've tried to come to the process, as has the stadium district is just come to the table in a good faith effort . We don't have developers at the table. And I think, you know, all of the community benefits that that you've proposed, I know they're in there in the master plan. We we we subscribe to them all. I think, you know, I'm not a developer. I'm a football guy. The best hour of education on affordable housing I got were the 230 minute sessions with Councilman Can each. So I'm learning along in this in this whole process too. And I think, you know, we're we're trying to understand what that balance is. Right. And I guess, you know, we're we stand behind our commitment to keep the keep communicating with the neighborhood and make that a formal engagement and then sit down and really talk about all of them. I think it's it seems to me, you know, there is a really a window to avoid any of this. It's coming up with what mix works for year development. And again, until we really know what we're building and how much of it, it's tough to get to specific with that. And I know that's been somewhat frustrating for for you. Hall In some cases, but we're going to get there and we're committed to doing what's right for this project. And again, that's part of why we're trying to address some of this prior to being sort of commercially conflicted.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mac. Mr. Sugar Stadium, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. So the talk about the community benefits agreement, how far along are you after this plan? If this plan were to be adopted by council tonight, how far are you on selecting a developer? And is that a would it could it be a condition of the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, as you know, said in his letter to. To advocate for those same commitments. A couple of things. We as I think we've been described here, we have several steps to go. This is a step. We have zoning steps. We have reverse clause steps. We have several different steps to go. Now, as you know, the district is represented by the seven county region. So they they have all been patient playing, paying close attention to what we're doing here. Now, of course, it resides in the city and county of Denver, the building and the district property. We have worked with the neighborhoods. We have worked with the Broncos in the past, and we will continue to do that. We are committed to do that. Now, when you started getting into the specifics, I think that what Mac just described, that's something that we need to work out. Exactly. Again, we don't have a developer. We would like to move forward rapidly. We think the time is right to do this. And with all your help, we can continue to move this process forward. So, again, I don't want to prejudge conditions that we don't know what they are at this point. So there's been some mention about the condition of the stadium itself. Is a stadium I mean, a lot of people a lot of us I remember when in you know, was a great timing when we built the stadium, voted to build the stadium because we just had one Super Bowl. It seems like that's just yesterday. What I mean, shouldn't the stadium be in tip top shape? And if not, what kind of repairs are needed and why do we. I'm sure. Sure. How much what would the price tag be? I mean, some of us have toured the stadium, but there's a lot of folks that still look in the stadium is, oh, that thing's brand new. We looking backwards. It looks like we built the stadium for about $400 million. The price tags are going north of of 2 billion. Now it's in our interest, the district's interest, the Broncos interest and all the folks involved that we preserve and protect that stadium to last us another 20 to 30 years. That's what this effort is all about, is we're trying to generate an income stream that allows us to keep that stadium viable. So when people ask me that question, there's a lot of things you can say about that. And Mac can probably talk to this specifically. You know, an escalator, an elevator might have a life span of 10 to 15, maybe 20 years at the tops. It's close to $1,000,000 price tag to replace one of those. Multiply that by 20 a seat, the seat replacement, another 15 year product. We've already been through a process where we replace the boards, the video boards several years back. Now, I guess 2013, we spent about $32 million upgrading those types of things, not to mention some of the technology that goes along with this way. Back in 2001, when I was there and we opened the stadium, things like wi fi and those things weren't necessarily thought of as an important piece. Now they're like a utility. They are expected. Those are the investments that the Broncos have made into the facility, as well as the district. And I'm sure Mac had come up with a hundred other things that we've done. Not to mention the ongoing things like expansion joints in the building, again, 1.8 million square foot. That upkeep, I mean, it's literally separate buildings that are all built together because of expansion and contraction of the steel. Those are ongoing efforts. 14 or so parking lots try to repave a parking lot. I'm sure you've all dealt with looking at the city's issues with repaving, parking lots, that those kinds of things are expensive. So I'm rambling on here, but there's a lot of need. We've looked at conditions of the facility and what we need over the next 20, 22 to 30 years. And we're looking at a significant amount of money. What's the opportunity after this passes to get a Pro Bowl quarterback is not different fun. Different fun. Okay, I oh, okay.
Speaker 10: Okay, okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: But I'll get Councilman Lopez or. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I don't know if we're going to get an answer to that one tonight. All right. Next up, we have Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. And before I ask, I just want to first share my condolences for the loss of Pat Bowlen. I'm sure our entire community, including especially the Broncos community. And it just feels like we should mention that in as we're discussing this, I wanted to first ask, I think Sara probably or Jason a question. So Councilman Lopez has been asking some questions about the community benefits piece. This plan document describes a couple different groups in it. And so I just want to get clarity on the record. So there's talk about an. Neighborhood Advisory Group. And then there's talk about community benefits. And so I share some concerns with you about developers self-selecting community benefits group in terms of who they're negotiating with. Generally, those are more organic. So can you just talk about whether you believe the plan provides flexibility for those to be two separate groups? One group that kind of gets updates on the project and can include everybody in their uncle and. And just give me your your answer that we we we talked about.
Speaker 0: So the plan does remain flexible in terms of what that organizational structure would look like for a community benefit agreement. And in the plan, we recognize that typically they are between the community and the developer and that there could be potential for the city to remain as an advisory role and to be a part of it. So I think there definitely is flexibility and that there's definitely flexibility to negotiate what that looks like in the future.
Speaker 2: Right. So I. You think I want to ask this question, too? Maybe I'll ask Melissa Tidey to come forward for a second. One of the things that the community has discussed and the plan does a really excellent job of identifying is a desire for on site housing. And the way that that is typically done is through an alternative plan to paying a linkage fee. So this site would be standard expectations be required to do a linkage fee. Maybe there will be a bit density bonus. But the regardless of how the path of on site housing happens, it would usually go through the Office of Economic Development or our new departments gait. And so but we have a community very interested it being in the table and talking about their vision and their goals. So can you share some thoughts on how it is that we can accommodate both our legal requirements as well as now our blessing that's in this plan for the community to be involved in that conversation?
Speaker 0: Sure. Melissa Tardy, housing policy officer with Denver Economic Development, an opportunity so has been has been discussed a little bit earlier. This is just a visionary document. So is this plan guidance? No development has been committed at this time. There are strong recommendations about what would look like potentially a height, incentive overlay or some way of incentivizing affordable housing through or density. So through that process, it would require rezoning. This also would probably fall under the the large development review process that's going through city council process right now. And all of that requires community outreach and engagement to talk about what makes sense for the specific area area, median income levels, bedroom sizes, all of those things that the community's really been asking for.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. I think that's it for now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. The public hearing for Council Bill 488 has closed comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. Well, first thing and I'm glad and I'm glad a councilman you to mention this, because we know whether to do it in announcements or now. But just in that spirit, we wanted to acknowledge the passing of Pat Boland, Broncos owner who had a good vision. I mean, Bears Stadium had been there for a long time, Mile High Stadium, but it wasn't always a sure thing. And from what I understand, Mr. Bolen had had a vision of not just having the stadium, but but a vision of everything around it as well, too. Right. And if you think about what Coors Field has done for the city of Denver and Coors Field was built right smack in the middle of that area. And if folks don't remember what it was like in that area, it's nothing like it is now. Now, think about going back in time. Think about that kind of opportunity down in in Sun Valley. But think about the community benefits that's tied to it. An economic engine that can help generate jobs, opportunity, housing, community benefits that go along with it. Yes, we will be able to maintain our stadium, a stadium that has such history in Denver. It's a diamond in West Denver. But also to think about not just the stadium and maintaining the stadium and make sure we you pay for it, but the surrounding community. And so this planning process has been one that's been seamless. And talking about a seamless neighborhood, we looked at different iterations of stadiums in neighborhoods around the country. Some are good and some were bad. Some of them were just poor planning, some of them almost like its own isolated little Disneyland. And it's a ghost town unto itself when there's no activity, no games. This is not that. There's this is a neighborhood. It's Sun Valley. And it's making sure that we are connecting and not just a planning sense, but transportation, economics, culture. Right. And making sure that it connects Federal Boulevard being part of that connectivity. West Colfax and Old West Colfax. And looking at what can be done there, you've got an up and coming brewery. You have businesses like sports that have been there for such a long time on federal. How do we make sure that it's those folks who have an opportunity as well to as as this as this fleshes out? And so, you know, I got to say, over the last year, it's been a heck of a process. It's been very inclusive. A lot of folks have been part of this process. But now the steering been part of the steering committee had meetings at the stadium, which drew hundreds of people to all chime in, everything from planning to parks to things like community benefits, the layout. And then, you know, this is a one step in in a lot of in a series of steps in terms of what this looks like. Now, I think about this and I think about this opportunity to be able to have this hearing tonight, this plan happening today, just weeks before we change guards on the council. And I can think of. The opportunity I had as a young man. I was I was I lived at 2704 West Second Avenue, just over there on clay. And second, it was a bike ride away from the stadium in the shadow of the stadiums where I grew up. One of the places where I grew up, we moved around a lot. I rode my bike to go sweep the concourses at Mile High Stadium and clean the bathrooms and take tickets. My my friend sold soda. That was our opportunity. But it's much more than that. And if you think about not just the jobs of the stadium, but everything that this economic engine would create around it, it's those local businesses. It's the mom and pop shops. It's those jobs. You think of office space. You think of retail. You think of just these opportunities for food access, right? For parks space, an open space, even in a place like this one. When Paco Sanchez is just down the street and Rudy Park is just down the street and the Platte River, you think of that kind of connectivity. And this plan addresses all that. So whether it's the built forum, the platform or even the economics and social, it's there. Now, Councilman Flynn have always been talking about Denver's Brooklyn Bridge. That is another conversation. That's a conversation you all will be have. But, yes, looking at that viaduct and how that viaduct transforms into a viaduct that moves people from the west side to central to the rest of Denver, not just by cars and vehicles, but by streetcars, by bikes, by walking across Colfax. Right. Without having to watch your back. So it's these are the generators, the cloverleaf. Right. And how it addresses the cloverleaf not turning its back on Federal Boulevard. And that's why you see a lot of that support here. The Broncos didn't always win a super Super Bowl, as a matter of fact, for the most part of my life. We've always lost them painfully. We've had some seasons where we I'm sorry to say this, but we barely made an average 500 season, but we still filled those seats. And the people who filled those seats, guess where they came from? He came from the surrounding neighborhoods. Paid those tickets. Watch those games. Cheered on. Sometimes we were disappointed and sometimes we were, you know, cheering them on all the way to the point where we go and watch us get blasted out of the Super Bowl 55 to 10. But we still came back. And that's that kind of ownership that the stadium had, and that's the kind of ownership this division will have. And I think as we remember those folks who live in that surrounding area, you will remember that they helped carry the team. But also we make sure that we create those opportunities. Right, those economic opportunities to advance forward. You know, I want to acknowledge, like folks like like yourself at that time, like Derek Friedman, Rudy Gonzalez on services. There are some the partnerships that have existed, the champions in the community program with the Broncos. Right. You look at the construction and building trades, the Electrical Workers Union, apprenticeships, it makes me feel good that there's a commitment to those community benefits. Now, this letter that's sitting on my desk is going to be signed after this by all these different folks, the Sun Valley Neighborhood Coalition, the Broncos. But it is a it is a a and a memorialization of those commitments. We're not a community benefits agreement yet, but that'll be this next council. I mean, you are and I want to make why this letter just kind of memorializes that, because we can't do it in a plan, because this is the planning documents a little different. Up until that time. This is what we got to refer to and you memorialize that commitment. So thank you all so much. And especially the Denver Broncos, especially all of you all for for committing to do this. Our planning staff. Thank you. This is a great process to have Steve Atwater and the real Vince Lombardi trophies. I had to go up there and actually look at them because I thought they were fakes. No, they're real. And they brought them there. I don't know what the price tag on those, but the closest I've ever gotten to anything like that. But at the end of the day, I just wanted to say thank you and thank you to her sous or A.I. at my office, who has been our point person to our office, our interface for this whole whole thing, and making sure that at least on our end, the strings are tied together in the community and that communication is there. So with that, you know, I do support this moving forward and look forward to seeing this as a well. As another as. As a resident of the neighborhood in the surrounding area. But not from this diocese. So. Thank you, ma'am, but I do support them.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. It's it's not lost on me that we've just now last week had the first major area plan under our new planning documents in the far northeast. And then this week we have the first small area plan in this stadium district. And you know that the headline writers, you know, through our last municipal election, the only headline that we could really see was growth. And you know what get gets lost in the the 30,000 foot level headline is the kind of alignment that is frequently happening in this chambers when communities are deeply engaged in long term conversations over the course of months and in some cases years about the places where growth both best belongs and the values that should be reflected in that growth. And so the subtitle of both last week and this week is that you can use a planning process to identify that alignment and you can get it with folks of very diverse backgrounds, including residents of public housing and those who represent an area of town, Colfax and Federal Boulevard, that have serious safety issues. And frankly, even though they represent districts representing vulnerable districts, vulnerable areas. And so I think that that's just a really important thing for us to pause and notice for a second that the details matter. And so to highlight, I think, a few of the details in the plan that I think are significant, where that alignment came together is one, you know, the physical alignment, right, about the connections, about the safety of streets, about the cloverleaf and the idea that we can do better than 19 acres of death trap. Right? Which is what that is for anyone who's not in a car going 40 miles an hour. And so I feel that, you know, there was incredible work done by all parties. And I thank all everyone who's here tonight and who testified because I think you all highlighted that alignment. And then secondly, on the principles of equity, you know, I know that one thing that sometimes we think about is that this term development is all about some owner making a lot of profit. And it's interesting because I actually think there's a lot of similarities between this conversation about the Stadium District and Union Station, a project that I was very close with, which is that in both cases, the development profit, if you will, is going to fund a public amenity. So we used all the development around Union Station to help pay for the transit, to help pay for the bus station, to help pay for the train station through a different structure. You're using this development to pay for the stadium. So that is a good thing. The question then becomes, well, if it's not just some land owner who's getting rich, are community benefits needed or appropriate? Aren't you getting the community benefit by virtue of funding the stadium or in that case, funding Union Station? And here's how I answer that. And I hear, I think how the plan answered says, which is to say, yeah, you still have to talk about the equity impacts and about the mitigation and the benefits because it is still an extraordinarily large amount of public investment involved. Right. So those street alignments that are going to make these things possible and you know, all of the public taxpayer money that went into this stadium, it's appropriate that the benefits flow equitably. That's the first reason why you still have to talk about community benefits, even though the stadium is an important beneficiary of the profit or the the margin. The second reason is because the displacement risks don't change based on who owns it. So if you put a lot of new fancy things in an area, no matter who they're benefiting or who the profit is going to, we know the ripple effects lead to the potential for displacement. We know that they make it harder for local businesses to have access sometimes or for residents to afford the housing. So the benefits are agnostic. They don't care who got the profit, they just affect the residents the same way. And we know that because a lot of the things that have resulted in displacement have been really important. Public infrastructure, like fixing the river or fixing streets or adding parks. They're great, they raise values and they result in some displacement. So so community benefits are appropriate, whether it's a corporate landowner, whether it's a public beneficiary, even if it's the city itself, building something. I think the question about how they get decided is, is where things get interesting and maybe the trade offs. Right. Into the conversation. But I want to commend the city for making its commitment for the first time, frankly, as clear as it has, that it's appropriate for the community to be in this conversation, not just us negotiating privately. That's a breakthrough, and it's just really worth highlighting as we go forward. I think that each milestone will bring us a better level of definition in detail. Right now, the plan lays out topics without laying out how they get decided. I do encourage and I appreciate that it seems like the stadium district is close to agreeing that these are the topics that your future developers need to discuss, and then we'll get more to how those topics get resolved in the future. But I really just wanted to kind of highlight all of that because I think that it gets skipped over a lot of times in the conversation about these projects. Once we leave the chamber and once we end up in the community, we're all just like, Oh, you're putting a lot of growth in. The other thing I want to say is to communities concerned about change in existing, existing neighborhoods. The more growth we can put on this site, the more it relieves pressure in other neighborhoods. So I want to be clear. The development here is happening on parking lots. It's happening on parking lots. Every story that is built here reduces some of the pressure elsewhere. And if we do it right, if we do it the way the plan says on site, with the mix of incomes on site, with open space, on site, with local business opportunities, it will reduce pressure for that same growth elsewhere. And I think that is really important also to put in the subtitle, this is the right place. And so it's it's a lot, but I don't think we're going to be worried about the views from the stadium. Right. So that's the right place to put it, right. And versus maybe next to a single storey home, right in in a different established neighborhood. So thank you for your forbearance with the long comments. But these are, I think, turning points for the city, and they need to be underlined so that we're on the same page going forward. I'm excited to support this plan. I appreciate the time everyone spent. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Next up, we have Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So, first of all, I want to say great job in all the collaborative work that you have done, because I can remember when the first football stadium project came before city council that was looking at closing down McNichols Sports Arena and then moving that and opening up the Pepsi Center and working to, over time tear down the old football stadium and build the new one. And they were both at the same site at the same time because we needed one for the games to take place and lots of community input in that process as well. And so fast forward to today, you're in a very active part of North Denver where communities are very engaged in what's happening in their neighborhood. And to be here tonight and to not having people here say, no, we don't want this project, we don't like it. I mean, everybody I think is in unison in wanting to see the changes happen, understanding that the stadium district needs to find some revenue to maintain the ongoing upkeep of the facility and at the same time creating some real benefit and opportunities for the community. And, you know, we'll see more details as you come forward with the rezoning plans and the actual community benefit agreement with the community. But to be here tonight and know that, you know, everybody's pretty much singing the same tune. Yes. They're different issues still need to be worked out. But in general, this is this is a big deal and some great opportunities, I think, yet to come for the broader community. My comments about impacted neighborhoods deals with the cumulative impact of 500 acres of development, not just one project at a time, but over time, the cumulative effect that may have on the adjacent neighborhoods. And so I think as a city, we need to be looking at and working on the bigger picture of how all of that happens in the next area or the gas area. That in DCC, the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, was created to look at how all those projects interface with one another, as so many of them are happening at the same time, and making sure that, you know, communities can get in and out of their neighborhood and things. Like that. But I think in general, you all have have done a great job. I would just strongly encourage that. I'm assuming the issue of the neighborhood parking program was part of the discussion. But I would anticipate the neighborhoods will want to continue to see that strongly in place and enforced not only on game days, but when there are big events like concerts and whatnot. So that as we remove the use of parking lots that currently get fully utilized on game days and people now have to find alternative ways to get to the game, that we're not looking at putting any of that impact into the adjacent communities. So I know those are all detailed things that you all are already looking at and talking about. But, you know, good job and I know there's a lot more work yet to be done. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Pro tem I hesitate to take Councilman Flynn's mantle is our council historian, but there's something I want to bring up. And in reference to Mr. Bolen, that and all the stories that have been in the paper about him recently, I haven't heard mentioned, you know, South Broadway, South of Sixth Avenue, has become very hip in recent years and it's booming. And there's people on the streets at all kinds of hours and nights of the week. And there's Punchbowl Social Club and the Hornets been there for years and years, and there's some new and great restaurants and ice cream shops, and it's just as vibrant as can be. But over the years, as a resident and as a journalist, I've watched literally hundreds of businesses come and go on that strip. Every decade or so, new businesses would come in. They'd form a new merchants association and declare, we're going to revitalize South Broadway. And it didn't happen until recently. But through the decades, what's been that the drawing card, bringing those businesses to try has been the main theater at first and Broadway, and in the mid eighties, the main theater was literally within hours of the wrecking ball. And I believe the story goes was Federico Pena that made former energy secretary and our former mayor, Federico Payan You made a contact with Mr. Boland, who got together with his partner at the time and purchased Union Bank and Trust, which owned the block that the man was on and preserved the man theater. And the man, as we all know, has been revitalized and still stands as as that primary landmark that people know when they come to South Broadway. And so what I would just urge, as you know, we had a couple of people here tonight talk about, you know, not talk about who we hope some big chain comes in . But I'd like to have my own restaurant in this district. I'd like to be part of it where Mr. Baldwin bought Union Bank and Trust. I hope he made some dough on it, but that was not a I want to get rich type of decision. That was a community benefit right there. So recognizing that Mr. B is passed on to his next journey, I hope you'll stay in contact with him as this gets planned and be sure that those community benefits, those local businesses are part of it. So I think it would be a great way to honor his legacy off the football field and really deliver something to that neighborhood that the residents can can take part in. So thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I'll just add in that I, you know, love that folks have been proactive and really looking at the community benefits piece and echoing Councilman Cashman around the small businesses that that we heard from here tonight, and that we want to make sure that we're bringing them into the fold and that with this amazing, great new development, that we don't lose that inclusive feel of the entire area. And so with that being said, I'm happy to support this tonight. And Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: Black.
Speaker 6: Flynn I. Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Can. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Hi. Assessment, Mr. President. I'm sorry, Madam President, I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Nine Eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes Council Bill 488 has passed. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 538 on the floor for us?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Stadium District Master Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Adopts the Stadium District Master Plan, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-21-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06172019_19-0538
|
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes Council Bill 488 has passed. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 538 on the floor for us?
Speaker 4: Yes, Madam President. I move the council bill 538 to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 538 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I know we've got a lot of folks moving out, but if you could keep it down, we'll go ahead and get started here.
Speaker 7: Madam President, pro tem members of council. My name is Happy Haines, and I'm proud to be the executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. I'm not here for the stadium district tonight, although it's a lovely plan. Congratulations. You. We thought it was loaded, but apparently not. All right. Thank you, Laura. Delighted to be here this evening. I know it's been a long one. We will be brief tonight because I think all of you and many members of the public have already had a chance to review the details of this plan for continuing our legacy of tremendous parks in Denver and in preserving what we already have and in really planning for the future with this new source of funding. And I'd be remiss if I didn't start out first with a big thank you to the voters of Denver who saw fit to pass this initiative and obviously with the also for the leadership of our President, uh, um, Councilman Clark and all of the members of council who really played an important role in moving this to a initiative forward to the public. So thank you all and thank you to members of the public. So continuing the legacy. We'll do a brief recap. I think I should just go this way.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 7: A brief recap of the public engagement process that included in a relatively short amount of time, not the 18 months that you just witnessed in the Stadium District plan. But really, I want to point out that this public engagement sat on top of another almost two years of planning. That was a part of our game plan. So in many ways, this is the first step towards implementation of our game plan. And you will see throughout the the two way plan very specific references and ties to our new game plan. Thank you very much for passing that recently. So we had held by five town hall meetings across the city. We had an online survey that was open to the public for the month of March. We included also an online survey of our capital, our six year capital improvement plan proposal, and which is very much a part of this plan. And we provided opportunities in all of our recreation centers. And thanks to Denver Public Library for once again hosting, being a host really to this city, as they so often are, an opportunity for citizens to come to their public libraries and weigh in on various, various topics. We had over 600 survey responses specifically to this plan. And in in in those meetings, the town hall meetings, the general conclusion was a very strong affirmation of the proposal that we put in front of the public about the framework for the plan, which was maintaining our legacy. And I translate that as a message from the public when they voted for this. Take care of what we've already got. We like it and we value it. And number two, as a growing city, we need you to have plans for how we're going to meet the future needs of the residents of this city. And so we received much affirmation throughout the public process for that framework of the plan overall, a strong agreement with the criteria that we recommended for how we would prioritize the projects. And while this roughly 37 and a half million dollars a year is a tremendous boost to our department, we recognize that it is there will always be more projects to that people want to see than the resources that are available. And so we proposed a number of criteria and a highlight and particularly a couple of them. First and foremost, equity and as a strong driving principle for how we would prioritize projects and secondly, sustainability. There were other criteria like do we already have projects underway using other resources and processes like the bond process, neighborhood plans, existing neighborhood plans that are there. So all of these information. All of this information. The facility and condition assessment reports that we have so using at our disposal all of the data to help us make decisions about moving forward. We got lots of individual suggestions in addition to the affirmation about the general approach. Lots of people weighed in with their specific suggestions, their specific parks, their specific recreation centers and so on. All of those were captured and remain a part of the lists that we will continue to use as we as we move forward each year with projects to propose the key themes for maintaining the legacy. And so these key themes were the things that many people repeated that repeated over and over again in both in the survey and in the meetings. I won't go through all of them there in front of you, but they they they really underscored the values that people place in so many of the diverse assets that we have in our parks, in our recreation system, and in our mountain parks. This is just a pie chart of our budget. I think the point of this chart, if nothing else, is to to recognize that the two way funding is an additional resource to an overall budget. We approached the planning for this to to think of this as an additional source of funding and not as a stand alone program on its own. So these dollars, as you can see, the the part of the chart that's outlined in Gray is a significant addition to our budget. And so but we looked at it in totality as a $133 million of of a budget for our department. That will include general fund. That includes two way. That includes the the funds that you see, the capital improvement farm, the lottery funds, the winter park funds. And so as we looked at projects and as we look at how we move the department forward and how we maintain and extend this legacy, we looked at all of those resources together. And we we looked at an investment framework in categories that would help us think about the best ways to spend the dollars, both in maintaining the legacy our parks, deferred maintenance enhancements, facilities maintenance and deferred maintenance, and then around planning to ensure that we're we are extending that legacy, that we have the tools to continue to create the masterplans that help guide our investments and the resources and how we spend those those dollars. Land acquisition was a strong message. People want to make sure that we're growing our park system in a growing city. And so the the funding would would also be in that category. Resiliency is a new way of looking at our city and the important role that our parks particularly play in the environmental health of our community, as well as the individual health of our community. Protecting our water resources, protecting our air, addressing climate issues. And so there will be a number of investments in that area. And finally, how we program and activate the spaces. It's it isn't just the physical improvements, but it's how we envision people using all of these facilities and ensuring that we have the programs and the activities to be able to activate the spaces in the parks and both indoors and outdoors. And what we what we find in, particularly with the two way funding, is an extraordinary opportunity to really focus much more on our outdoor recreation with our mountain parks as an important asset that is underutilized. We want to take advantage of really focusing far more on our outdoor recreation opportunities and finally to continue to provide opportunities for signature projects like the Paco Sanchez, um, playground and Park. And I, and I'll point out, and I know Gordon will talk a little bit more in detail about the signature projects don't mean just brand new and innovative ideas. They often mean projects of such significant scope that in the past, our capital budgets or resources wouldn't have allowed us to do a major improvement like this without spreading it out over many years and phasing it. Now we have an opportunity to do significant projects that make a difference and not phase it over several year periods. So some of these may be signature park projects may be in existing facilities as we look to make improvements over time. I will turn it over to Gordon Robertson to talk about the plan and a little bit more the plan summary in a little more detail. We also have Mike Bouchard with us today and a number of other members of our Parks and Recreation staff that I want to acknowledge for their tremendous help and support. It was a team effort takes a village in. And I'm pleased to have so many members of our village here tonight following our brief presentation here. We will be available. All of us are available to answer questions. If you have questions, they will be for Gordon Robertson. If you need answers, they will be for Mike Bouchard.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Councilmembers Gordon Robertson, Denver Parks and Recreation. And I guess thank you. Happy. I'm going to be just briefly going through the financials of the plan with you where you can see before you on the monitor is our plan on a page. It outlines our five year expenditures by the framework that happy just went over. The first orange line is our fund balance. So we will be committing 10% of the fund in any given year to be in a fund balance in case of emergencies. And we'll grow that over the first three years to be the full 10%. And if it's used, it will be then replenish then in the next year. So that's the fund balance line across the top, the orange line. The next line is our acquisition and park development. New park development. Line item. And as you can see in 2019, that's at 19.5 million. It's a substantial amount in the first year and then it goes down to 12 million and then we estimate a roughly 10 million in the year in the out years beyond. Well, we'll gauge kind of how our acquisition goes and see if those funds are needed additionally or maybe less. So the next line item is our capital maintenance budget. That's our capital deferred maintenance. We have a roughly 12 million plus in cap for deferred maintenance. We're going to add to that number of roughly 7 million in 2019. And then that will grow over time to just over 8.2 million, almost 8.2 million, in addition to the 12 million that we get in our general fund, our entire annual cap. So again, in the out years, we're assuming it'll grow at that rate. But if we if we find that deferred maintenance needs more dollars, we can always add to those dollars in those out years. Our capital expansion budget is broken into the framework that Happy went through, from planning to outdoor recreation to resiliency and signature projects. And you can see that in the first two years, we're very specific about the kinds about the projects that we'll be doing in those areas. But in the out years, we really can't commit to projects in years three, four and five. It's just a bit of an unknown to commit to a project that far out. But you can see we've listed projects that are high on our priority list that will be competing for those funds. And then there are other projects that aren't listed there yet, but that may come up over the next few years that may end up being funded in those out years. But in the first two years, you can see the projects that we're committing to in each of the in the areas. And then lastly, the green line items are operations and maintenance funding. That was the 19% of the two way funding, and that is broken out in salaries and benefits for additional staffing in contracted services for things like pruning of trees and additional portal lights at parks and those kinds of contract services. We also have materials and supplies for our staff. And then lastly, capital equipment. It's easier to see in 2019 with a pie graph kind of how and where the money's been divided. So as you can see in year one, we we put a lot of money into acquisition. There's a lot of good reasons for that. We have a pent up demand of properties that need to be acquired from years past that we when we couldn't afford to purchase properties. So there's a lot of opportunity to create to acquire land in the first couple of years. It also doesn't take a lot of new staff to acquire land, which is something that we'll need as we as we go into more projects. Deferred maintenance is the second largest piece of that pie. And then capital expansion, the new capital projects is the next largest. But if we go to the next year and I'll spend a little more time here in 2020, this is probably a more normalized expenditure strategy where acquisition, deferred maintenance and new projects are kind of equally balanced. And then the remainder of the funding goes to fund balance to salaries and benefits, contracted services, material supplies and capital equipment . But you can see the three largest pieces of the funding are going to be acquisition, deferred maintenance and capital expansion. So those are that is the funding for the first two years. The other three, three years beyond that are really our estimates of where we think we'll be and the kinds of projects that we think we'll fund . But of course, every year will be coming to you to update this, and we will be very specific as to what we'll be doing in the next year. So with that, I will be closing our presentation. I thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thank you. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. And so I'm going to go ahead and call all six up Bart Berger, Jesse Parrish, Kate Fritz, Jeff Shumaker, Beth Moisi and Paul Lopez. And we will start with Mr. Berger.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, counsel. Madam. Madam President, my name is Bart Berger. I am the founder of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. And I really want us all to go home. So I'm going to be very brief. What I want to do is to thank this council for the support that the Denver Mountain parks have finally gotten . When I first started this effort, the Denver Mountain Parks were a curiosity and idiosyncratic addition into the mountain, into the park system. And that's no longer the truth. Part of what we're going to continue to do in the Mountain Parks Foundation is to also work with Happy and the Parks Department to increase activation and to to to expand that to include education. Outdoor education is really crucial in what I call cultural and social sustainability. I want to thank the members of council specifically. I want to thank Councilman Flynn, who made being here today part of the two way vote. So thank you for that. And I want to I want to also thank when New and Mary Beth Sussman and Paul Lopez who are going out, because now you get to be ambassadors for the Denver Mountain Parks for those, and you get to go train your replacements and tell them to get with me and so that I can give them my speech. So that's all I have. Thank you very much. 50, 65 years ago, I thought the Denver Mountain Parks were the did not have a dedicated funding source. But it occurred to me that the Denver parks have never had a dedicated funding source. And now we've got it and you're responsible for that. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Next up, Jesse Parish.
Speaker 6: Keep an H to my name.
Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. This is Jesse.
Speaker 10: LaShawn Paris. Represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star action movement for self-defense and positive action commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May election. I almost got 15,000 votes with no money. This sounds really good that we're preserving our Parks and Rec for future generations. But the fact still remains we have an urban camping ban. It is illegal for on house neighbors to occupy these parks. It's illegal for you to lay down, cover yourself from the elements, wear anything besides your own clothing so we can keep pat ourselves on the back about these park and rec investment and plans. But the fact still remains, we still have an urban camping banner needs to be repealed. So until that urban ban is repealed, we are not letting up and could keep doing all this work on the parks and on the bricks. But what good is it if our on house neighbors are now able to occupy this space? If we're really working to build an inclusive and welcome welcoming city, then we need to include all members of our community and not exclude them because of their status or their situation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Kate Fritz.
Speaker 2: My name is Kate Fritz.
Speaker 0: In January, I succeeded Bart as the chair of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. And it's always nice to go second because he doesn't get to steal.
Speaker 2: My thunder quite so much. As a preliminary matter, I would like to thank each and every one of you for your support of the Denver Mountain Parks and in ensuring.
Speaker 0: Their sustainability for future generations.
Speaker 2: Both the Foundation and I personally support the plans put.
Speaker 0: Forth by Parks and Rec.
Speaker 2: For the use of the funds raised by two.
Speaker 0: Way.
Speaker 2: We believe that the plan addresses not only the needs of the Denver mountain parks importantly, but of all of the parks within the city. We were particularly gratified to.
Speaker 0: See that.
Speaker 2: One of the line items included in the plan is for busses to get kids who would not.
Speaker 0: Otherwise be visiting the.
Speaker 2: Parks up there, to be.
Speaker 0: Able to do outdoor recreation and education.
Speaker 2: And that is one of the.
Speaker 0: Things that as the board chair of the foundation.
Speaker 2: I believe, is critical. And this plan enables that. It gets kids into these parks and allows.
Speaker 0: Them to be activated.
Speaker 2: In a way that they never have been before. And that is thanks to your support.
Speaker 0: The foundation. And I believe that the.
Speaker 2: Plan is both comprehensive and equitable, and it ensures a continued focus on making Denver's parks sustained an integral part of the health.
Speaker 0: And well-being of the.
Speaker 2: Citizens who live here and the people who visit.
Speaker 0: I had the opportunity.
Speaker 2: To participate in the two way stakeholder meetings as well as to visit the most recent Parks and Rec Advisory Board meeting, and am satisfied that the Department engaged in the development of this plan in a very thoughtful and very measured manner, and that it is pragmatic and practical and attainable. And so I would encourage each of you to support it. And thank you again.
Speaker 0: Very much for your support of Denver's mountain parks. And I look forward to seeing you all soon. Next up, we have Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Madam President pro tem and members of Council Shumaker two times in.
Speaker 6: One night should never happen.
Speaker 10: I too. Thank you. 11 months ago we stood here and asked you to let the voters decide. And you did. And for those of you that are watching, listening tonight who voted for Measure two, I thank you as well. This is a long time dream of my family of the Greenway Foundation, the Colorado Parks Foundation. And it's an exciting night. I will not go on too long. I want to thank Happy and I want to thank Gordon and Michael, Fred, Doug and everyone here. Your leadership, their leadership is paramount. And without question, they understand the responsibility they've been given. And I am extremely impressed by their focus and their passion and their determination to do no small things. But at the end of the day, it started here in this chamber less than a year ago. And I'm grateful to each and every one of you. And now let's make stuff happen. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 0: And our last speaker is Beth Misty.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Beth Mirsky. I'm with the Downtown Denver Partnership and I'm speaking on behalf of the partnership. We are here in support of two AA and the five year plan. This plan presents real opportunities to realize goals outlined in the outdoor downtown and the game plans, which the downtown Denver Partnership was very much involved in. We're looking forward to seeing investment in projects such as the Urban Forest, Skyline Park and a downtown signature children's program Playground, among other projects such as the 5280. The there is a robust, I think, public process in all of these plans now to our downtown plan, as well as the game plan. And and then there's this program this spring. So I urge you to support it. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Kimmich.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam President, I want to thank the staff who shared a pretty lengthy response to a set of questions that I had. And I just got it today. So I think I've absorbed it, but I had a couple of follow ups. First question was about how the 2019 budget amounts work here. So we're halfway through the 2019 budget year. You presumably already have this money in the budget, but maybe it wasn't line item out. Is there a supplemental needed or tell me how the current year's budget works. Given that you're just now releasing the plan compared to what was in the budget book. So just help me understand process wise.
Speaker 12: I'll take a I'll take a crack at it. Gordon Robertson. Different Parks and Recreation. Our goal is to in many ways, well, one is land acquisition. So some of the funding will be utilized to acquire land. Other funding is being added scope to existing projects so that existing staff can implement the funds this year. With that, this really I think budget manage I think is your question more around kind of how the line items get set up in budget management for people.
Speaker 7: So earlier an appropriation item was brought to City Council, so you all approved the appropriation of the full 37 and a half million dollars. Our aim is in the 19 budget is to spend those dollars in those categories. And, you know, we've already brought one to you in the acquisition. The proposal is to use these funds for the acquisition of the property in southeast Denver. And we figured it would take about the same amount of time to get this plan approved. It would take us that much time to actually get some of these other expenditures under way. But the first year our existing projects, so many of them we already have under contract, so we can add scope contracted services the same way we do a lot of our work by means of uncle contractors. So we have the ability to add scope to those contracts and and the idea being to try to get instead of saying this was great and now wait until next year's budget before we start anything, we wanted to get things moving. And so citizens could see relatively quickly the focus again on some staffing. It'll still take, you know, a few weeks or a few months to get staff in place. But particularly because we use a lot of on call staff who if we figure we're going to be able to get moving on some of our park refreshing and just, you know, getting out into the parks and doing some improvements right away that that don't take a lot of planning and design and so on up front.
Speaker 2: That's great. And maybe I do just need to hear back from budget afterwards about the fact, for example, if you're hiring a staff person, you're only going to use, you know, one quarter of your FTE. I just want to make sure that we don't lose any of the 2019 funds because you weren't able to spend them on a full FTE.
Speaker 7: No, no. The good thing is, is that the funds are rollover.
Speaker 2: They do not even even those that aren't just for capital. That's correct. Okay. That's huge. All right. Yes, super.
Speaker 7: That's great. And and they were very good in working with us and recognizing that that would be that would be an issue. And so so we won't lose those funds. We're going to do our best to spend them. But we recognize that that may not be possible for a lot of different reasons.
Speaker 2: Super. My next question is about the process going forward. So like let's use dog parks, for example, one I'd love to hear, I didn't see that in any of the slides. What is the intention? But for example, acquisition might result in buying something for a dog park or development might be something about developing a dog park. So I guess what I'm curious about is as we go into the next budget cycle as a council and we have some priorities, for example, that we want to talk about with the department. Mm hmm. What does that look like in terms of being able to say, hey, we think this is really important, it fits within some of these things, but we want you to use some of your acquisition funds or some of your development funds and really speed up the implementation of dog parks. We've been delayed, you know, so and so I'm curious both about that actual topic, but also just thinking about it as an example of how we influence the more detailed , granular level of this in an annual process.
Speaker 7: Sure. Great question. It is, by the way, on the on the bottom of the slide, we did point that out and it. And it's because it came up in many of the meetings and surveys which slide. The one that's on the screen on the very the very bottom line.
Speaker 2: I didn't see it in the dollar amounts list.
Speaker 7: Oh, no, no, no. So but these that is a much greater we do have for 19 and 20 a much more detailed. So. So what you have in front of you is a summary budget. There is a much more granular level. I don't think it specifically there is one at a granular level for dog parks, but I could be wrong. There are projects on the list.
Speaker 2: I mean, someone can just send that to me afterwards.
Speaker 7: And over to your the point I think of your question, which is how each year do we get to these decisions? And it'll be very similar to the process that we use every year for our annual capital improvements budget. And that's one of the reasons why I mentioned earlier. This is simply another resource to add to the overall process. But the you know, we will build a, you know, a budget proposal. We will use the the usual sources, which is suggestions from all of you the bond list, as you know, where there were many projects that didn't get funded. That's a. So we look to those things the the what citizens have already told us that they wanted and maybe haven't been funded in in the past. And that we also recognize there will be some new things as we move forward. There will be new projects that, you know, that get, you know, a project like the the district that you just heard. They may come up with some ideas. We intend to move forward. One of the items that we're very excited about or are continuing with master plans in in neighborhoods and in parks that don't have them. So we'll have a whole bunch of new ideas and projects coming out of that process. So it'll be a very dynamic breathing process as we move forward each year.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem happier? Gordon Maybe. And we've gone over this before, but just because we probably have a wider audience here, could you briefly talk about the strategy for identifying and acquiring new parkland in under-par areas where we have residents who are well outside a ten minute walk and also address a strategy if there is one, which I didn't see. But I know you've thought about it for providing larger parks in areas where there's a greater population within within that 10 minutes. In other words, a five acre park in a neighborhood of 5000 people is probably not appropriate just as a 100 acre park in an area where there a thousand people would be too much. So what are our strategies when we have areas already developed where there's, you know, commercial, residential, whatever? In Southwest Demmer, I see some in Park Hill, I see some in South Central Denver, substantial areas without ten minute access.
Speaker 7: Let me let Gordon Gordon's team is working on the acquisition strategy piece, and I think you can.
Speaker 6: And I congratulate you on identifying the parcel in in Councilwoman Black's district that we recently moved on and and hope to see more of that.
Speaker 12: As you know, we won't solve the problem overnight, but we are actively working with the National Recreation and Parks Association, with ULI and with Chester Public Land on a grant that we received to do a study of Denver and how we can implement a strategic acquisition plan. That effort is currently underway. We're going to go visit Seattle and Austin, who just finished their plans last year and learn from them. And then we're going to complete our plan here locally. But while we're doing that, we're certainly looking at properties that we can purchase like we did in University Hills. So we are actively working on that with real estate. We have a team in Parks and Recreation that works with real estate to identify property and opportunities and that is ongoing. But we are looking we have a map that identifies the deserts in our city where we don't have a ten minute walk to our neighborhoods. So we know the areas where we're looking. And as opportunities come up, we have the ability to to move. But in the meantime, we're doing a strategic plan citywide that we will hope to finish mid-next year.
Speaker 6: Okay. Do you have a time out? Okay, Minister, thank you. And you'll share that with us.
Speaker 7: And I would add to that that in addition to the point you made is in addition to the ten minute walk, which is a proximity right criteria, we also take into consideration the density right in an area. So, you know, the acres per thousand people and and the development pressures so the the southeast site in council women blacks district is a perfect example of you know, there are equity principles. There's a there's the ten minute walk standard. There's a, there's a if we don't do something soon, there won't be any land to apply any principal to. And, and so those are all the things that will be in the mix as we think about trying to guide our acquisition strategy.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And we're not making any new land, are we, then?
Speaker 7: You know, we just came back from Copenhagen when and so they actually did create new land. And so I'm intrigued by that as a potential strategy.
Speaker 6: They're filling in, like filling in wetlands and stuff like that, I suppose, but we don't have any such recourse. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Well, I can remember when Sal Carpio was talking about Emerald City over the Sphere Boulevard. Cloverleaf? That was a long time ago. I'm happy. I just have one question. And it's about whether or not we can use these dollars to be doing actual planning. Or do they. Are they concentrated on capital?
Speaker 7: Yeah. No, the the dollars can be spent on planning, which is really the most important first step in, uh, in a capital strategy. And we think very important. That's where we engage the community on what they want to see and go through the kind of process like we went through with Paco Sanchez Park where, you know, we heard from residents about what they wanted to see, what are the amenities, what are their, you know, interests in terms of activities. So planning and design are all an outreach for that effort, are all important parts of the process and are eligible for funding under this.
Speaker 5: And so I guess I'm I'm struggling with trying to understand how we move projects forward before we just keep piling on, you know, planning, but yet, you know, certain projects kind of lag behind because we're not putting the actual capital dollars into some of them. So how are we like determining what those priorities are and how much does the the new equity framework that, you know, city workers, city employees are now doing the training around is sort of mimicking the Seattle model. Play into those conversations.
Speaker 7: Is very important. And as I mentioned earlier, equity is probably the the strongest principle that guides us in the decision making about how to how to move forward. We are a part of that overall the overall city process and defining um, equity criteria. So neighborhood them, you know, demographics, income, number of children. Um, the, you know, so a lot of, you know, a lot of things go into determining equity principles as, as well as others. And that's and that's an important part. So when we bring, for example, each year when we bring our capital improvement budget to you, we include a set of principles that guided us in our thinking. And so it includes all of that criteria on, on how projects were selected and why some, you know, rose, rose to the top over others.
Speaker 5: Um, one of the things I wanted to mention is I sat in on a process looking at red rocks and you know, this was around sort of the historic preservation of Red Rocks. And one of the commitments that I think we all walked away from was that we would be seeing some design guidelines for Red Rocks. And I know we've been moving forward with the camp. I understand there's some efforts to replace the the stage. And I would assume that, you know, joint parks and rec arts and venues effort. But I guess I'm just wondering kind of where are we in the design guideline process for for Red Rocks as one of our mountain parks that we've been anticipating would would be coming forward to guide how we do a lot of the construction work that obviously, you know, needs to happen. We want to keep it fresh, upgraded. I know there's some discussion now about replacing the the ramp on the West. This was at the east side of the that.
Speaker 7: That's correct. And we do have in in the proposal, um, a specific budget generated for a master planning for all of our, for our mountain parks in general. It would include all of those various facilities, including Red Rocks. And you want to add anything to that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but it seems like we did a lot of that planning through that process. And it's the design guidelines that are really important at that particular venue that will help guide any of the work that's that's even happening now. Um, and so without that, you know, we want to continue to maintain the, the character and the uniqueness of that iconic venue.
Speaker 12: We care about Red Rocks as much as anybody, and that conversation is ongoing with the community. Out the request for design guidelines. As you know, there are design guidelines for the venue itself, and so that guides whatever work happens there. The request currently is to have those design guidelines filter out to the whole park, the landscape, really. And that's a that's a trickier conversation to really create guidelines around the landscape of Red Rocks. But it's something that we are working with the folks that are interested in doing that to find out what they're really goals are so that we can make sure it's the right tool because design guidelines might not be the right tool to really kind of expand on to a landscape from what is a constructed venue. So it's a tricky conversation, but we are happy to engage in it with the community.
Speaker 5: So I think would be helpful to as those conversations continue to get updates on where we're at in that process. Sure. So that's my request to you. Thank you. And thanks for all your work on this. A strong game plan and a lot of incredible input, not just from people who served on the committee, but tons of people throughout the Denver community. And I know that has helped shape and guide what some of these priorities are. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 538 has closed comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. I want to thank you all for the plan for this wonderful, dedicated fund for our parks. I'm very pleased about the game plan and very pleased how quickly you actually formulated from the game plan, how we're going to go about this spending, this dedicated fund. And I'm looking forward to, course, what it means for our parks to suddenly to finally have a dedicated fund for our parks and all the new parks we're going to find, whether we build the land or not, and also the activation of the mountain parks. And I'm still pulling for that regular shuttle for families from our parks here to our mountain parks. I read a story once about children in Brooklyn that didn't know that they lived beside an ocean. And I'm sure that there are children in Denver that do not know about our wonderful mountain parks. And it will be wonderful. And I know you let us know at committee that the money can be spent on a feature like that and that you all are going to look into it. I'm very excited about that. So thanks again for all the work you're doing and I look forward to seeing our parks thrive.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I am happy to see this move forward. I just can't I can't believe my eyes after all this time. I'm just surprised. Well, I know why we didn't do it sooner. Because we were in the middle of a recession. But somebody's always talked about is a dedicated part fund. And to see this moving forward and to see this parks, trails and open space program plan to have a game plan and actually have dollars to go with it is is different. We've had plans. You've had so many plans that are just gathering dust and gracing bookshelves throughout the Web building. Now they're going to come alive. And I'm happy to support this. And I tell you what, all the good stuff happens when you're gone, doesn't it? So the Llama Lincoln Park neighborhood plan is not the neighborhood plan, but the park plan. That master plan is going to happen. Lincoln Park is one of the only llama. Lincoln Park is one of our oldest parks. And it sits there and it's so underutilized. And there's we've seen what we can do when we actually put planning to the process of the playground, turned it around. Historic park. You look at sunken gardens and look at sunken gardens to check out what it used to look like. Right. And if you had a plan that really addressed and brought back that old sunken garden, now, it was pretty extravagant then, but the reflection pool, the pavilion and all that that got filled in because of the polio scare. Right. Imagine if you still had that. This is one of those things that creates that reality, our mountain parks and trails. I'm just I'm happy to see this come on our time. So please move forward as you move forward.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black.
Speaker 6: Flynn Hi. Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Can.
Speaker 6: Lopez I.
Speaker 2: Knew. Ortega I. Assessment I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Nine Eyes.
Speaker 0: Nine Eyes Council Bill 538 has been ordered published on Monday, June 24th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 547, designating the River Drive River Drive Historic District as a district for preservation. On Monday, July 22nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 449, changing the zoning classification for 2701 Lawrence Street
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Parks, Trails and Open Space Program Plan.
Adopts the Denver Parks and Recreation 2A Five-year Plan (2020-2024) to utilize the funds from the 2018 Ballot Measure 2A Parks and Open Space Sales Tax, which is dedicated to the improvement and expansion of Denver’s parks and recreation system. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-4-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06102019_19-0403
|
Speaker 0: Their names and cities of residence, 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're available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There will be 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. 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 Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 403 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 19 0403 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 403 is open. May we have the staff report? We have Scott Robinson for the Community Planning and Development.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 1683, 1685, 1687, 1691, 1693, 1695 and 1699. Cedar Avenue from Pdg five to Pdg 22 property is located in Council District six in the Washington Park neighborhood. It is just south of the Denver Country Club and it is a sort of flag lot accessed off of Cedar Avenue with the majority of the lot set behind another house. The property is about two and a half acres and there are currently six single unit houses on the property. Request, as I said, is to rezone from Pdg five to Pdg 22. The intent in changing the PUD is to mostly to loosen some restrictions on the size of the houses that can be built. I'll go into more detail on that in a minute. As I mentioned, the zoning is Pdg five. The zoning to the north is OSB, where the country club is, and then adjoining the property is assumed zoning. That's suburban single unit zoning. And then to the south, across Cedar is U.S. You see that suburban neighborhood context, single unit zoning. The current PD, PD G5 was adopted in 2013, but there's a bit of a history with this one. This property was initially developed in the 1980s, and when it was split off from the large house in front of it, the zoning did not allow more than one primary structure on a single zone lot without a what's called a planned building group or a PUBG. So that PUBG was put in place to allow up to seven houses on the property. Six of those houses were built when we adopted the citywide rezoning in 2010. The intent was to leave all PGS in place and not rezone those. Leave those in the old code zoning. Somehow we missed this one. The fact that it was in a PUBG and we re zoned it to SCD a couple of years later we realized we'd made a mistake in that and so created PD five. That basically replicates the old PUBG from the 1980s, once again allowing up to seven houses on the single zone lot and is based on the assumed zoning and it includes some limits that were found in that original PUBG to the building pad or footprint of the house. There can be no longer than no larger than 2000 square feet and the total floor area of each house that can be no larger than 6000 square feet. And those are two of the items requested to be changed. The current land use, as I said, is single unit houses and it is surrounded by other single unit uses except for a golf course to the north and east. And then there's some denser housing to the southwest of you to unit and multi-unit in the Walsh Park neighborhood. You can see the subject property in the bottom right photo. In that photo, north is to the left. So Cedar Avenue is on the right. And you can see the flag lot with the six houses that exist there now. The photo next to that to the left is the house that's in front of it along Cedar Avenue and then some of the other surrounding properties. So as I mentioned, Pdg 22 is the proposed new pad carries forward almost all of the regulations from the existing Pdg five with just a few changes. It, as I mentioned, removes those building pad and floor area limits. It also clarifies where the front setback and rear setbacks are measured from. That was a little vague in the original PD, so not changing the setbacks, but just clarifying what's front and what's rear. It also allows amendment by sub area. So if in the future an individual property owner wanted to amend the PD as it applies to their property, they could do that without amending the entire PD. And then it also introduces some standard language that we have developed over the last few years that wasn't included in 2013. But now, six years later, we've developed language that we want, including all parties. So it includes that as well. This went to a planning board on April 17th, 2019, received unanimous approval and there was no public comment at that meeting. Went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 30th. There is one public comment letter in your packet from the Washington Park East Neighborhood Organization stating they do not object to the proposed rezoning. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. In addition to these five, there are also additional criteria that apply to PD rezonings. So I'll go over these five and then I'll go over the PD criteria. First criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are only two plans that apply to this property, the two citywide plans. There's no neighborhood plan for this property. So the first plan is comprehensive plan 2040. As described in a staff report, staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with these three goals from Plan 2040, mostly relating to preserving and enhancing neighborhood character and also more efficient use of land, allowing more types of housing. As I said, the property for the PD would allow up to seven houses on a lot that would otherwise only be allowed to have one. The second plan is Blueprint Denver, 2019. This property is in the suburban neighborhood context. As I mentioned, the underlying base zone district for the PD is assumed, which is in that suburban neighborhood context. So it's consistent with that. And the. Land or the place designation is low residential, which calls for predominantly single unit uses on larger lots, which is again consistent with what the Peabody would allow. Cedar is an UN designated local street intended to provide local access to houses, and it is in the all other areas of the city. In our growth strategy, which of course calls for moderate new housing and jobs, staff finds the first criterion, and that the second criterion is uniform, even district regulations. Staff finds the proposed zone district will result in the uniform application of the PUD to the property, to the structures within the property. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of city staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and helping to maintain the existing character of the Washington Park neighborhood. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions in the area. There's been a fair number of scrapes and rebuilds or additions in the watch park. Neighborhood houses in the area are getting larger. These houses are currently capped at their existing size and not allowed to grow in a way that's consistent with the neighborhood character and the way the neighborhood is changing. And so this period would allow that incremental change, again, consistent with the existing neighborhood character. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the underlying assumed zone district is for single unit residential consistent with this area. And then this also gets into the approval criteria, as I mentioned. So the first criterion is that the district is consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts stated in the code. This is described further in your staff report, but staff finds that it is consistent with the intent and purpose by bringing the PD in to closer conformance with the underlying zone district. The underlying study does not include limits to building footprint or building floor area. So by removing those limits, it actually brings it closer to the underlying this study, which has a maximum or a minimum open space area of 50%, which is also found in the party. So that is consistent and this change would bring it closer to being consistent. But while this does bring it closer, there are still several variances or waivers that would be required to the underlying study for this development to work. And so it's also justified by that and allows for a more efficient use of land, as I mentioned, allowing up to seven structures where otherwise only one would be allowed. And it is a development pattern that's consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood. The second criterion is that the PD is consistent with the technical standards found in the zoning code, which staff has found that it is. The third criterion is that the proposed development is not feasible under another existing zone district without an excessive number of variances or waivers. As I said, our staff has found that's true in this case. The fourth criterion is that the hub establishes uses that are consistent with the existing land uses in the area. As I mentioned, it allows single residential in an area that is predominantly single unit residential. And the last criterion is that it establishes building forms that are compatible with the existing building forms and development. So the few would allow the suburban house building form, which is consistent with the surrounding sub zoned district. So staff finds that all criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you could all come join us up in the front right here. We have Philip Steffan, us, Andrew Peters and Jessie Parrish. And we have Mr. Safana. Your first.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I'm Philip Stefanos. I live in one of the residences that is affected by the pad. I represent the six homeowners in the H-2A, and there's not much for me to add to the presentation that Mr. Robinson gave other than to say we're not seeking to change the character of the area or the development at all. We're just seeking to clean up these couple of dormant provisions that were discovered and if they were enforced, would make all six houses non-conforming. So that's that's really the nature of our request. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Andrew Peters.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of Council. Andrew Peters My address is 950 17th Street, Denver. 80202 I'm here as a representative of the applicant. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Parrish.
Speaker 8: Jesse Paris and I represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star action movement for self-defense and positive action commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May 2019 election, and I got 15,000 votes with no money. I was neither for or against this. I just wanted to know what it was all and in the previous speakers have already answered my question. So I have nothing to say. You going to approve this anywhere? Because it already me saw the criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 403 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the work done by staff to clean up the conflicts in the PD and bring it into today's standards. It's a lovely part of our neighborhood and I would ask my colleagues to join me in approving this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I also from the presentation. It meets all five of the review criteria and I will be voting in favor of this as well. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Flynn All right. Herndon I.
Speaker 2: Can eat. Right. Lopez. New.
Speaker 0: Ortega assessment. Right.
Speaker 2: Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes.
Speaker 0: Eight eyes. Council for three has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 477 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1683, 1685, 1687, 1691, 1693, 1695, and 1699 Cedar Avenue in Washington Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD-G 5 to PUD-G 22 (changing the footprint and floor area limitations), for properties located at 1683, 1685, 1687, 1691, 1693, 1695, and 1699 Cedar Avenue in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06102019_19-0477
|
Speaker 0: Eight eyes. Council for three has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 477 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 2019 0477 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 477 is open. May we have the staff report? Cortland Heiser with community planning and Development.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of Council Cortland Heiser with Community Planning Development. Sharing the presentation duties with me tonight will be Eugene Howard, also with community planning and development. And we're really pleased to bring the far northeast area plan forward for your consideration tonight. So just as a reminder, we have the Neighborhood Planning Initiative as our broader neighborhood planning program within the city. This was launched a couple of years ago with the development of the NPI strategic plan. And far northeast was the first area out the gate. Under the new NPI program. It's in phase one of NPI, along with two other areas currently in process to east, central and east that are highlighted in red here in this graphic. As we finish up these plans this year, and we do intend to complete all three of them before the end of the year. We'll be moving on to phase two of the Neighborhood Planning Initiative. Those areas highlighted in blue, and we were recently at Luti, this past fall to discuss and announce the selection of the phase three areas that will happen after that. So the far northeast plan area includes the neighborhood, statistical areas of Monticello, Gateway, Green Valley Ranch, the DIA statistical neighborhood. That's something that's confusing to a lot of people because we do have a neighborhood that's named after Diane. People think we're talking about the airport, but in the plan document, we refer to the airport as done to help distinguish it from the neighborhood. This is what we refer to as our plan on a page. It's sort of like a visual table of contents of the structure of the document. Over here on the left hand side, highlighted in the orange box are the six vision elements from Comprehensive Plan 2014. We started with with those vision elements as a starting point in our work in far northeast and worked with the community and our steering committee to develop specific vision statements within each of the six states to ensure a high level of consistency between citywide guidance and the more specific guidance that was being developed for the far northeast area. So that's the first section of the plan contains the vision for the far northeast area as a whole. The next section of the plan we refer to as our framework plan. The three main sections in there are land use and built form, mobility and quality of life infrastructure. Those will sound familiar because they're also the elements of a complete neighborhood as identified by blueprint Denver land use in built form, quality life, infrastructure and mobility coming together to form complete neighborhoods. It's one of the main objectives of the Neighborhood Planning Initiative to figure out how to create more complete neighborhoods all throughout the city. That ends up being an organizing element for the main body of the plan. Each of those areas or topics end up being a chapter in the plan. And then there's a lot more detail listed here in each of the sections on this slide. We we go topic by topic within these larger and broader themes, addressing each specific one as it applies to the far northeast neighborhoods. The next section of the plan is the neighborhood chapters themselves. Each neighborhood statistical area within the broader study area gets its own chapter within the plan. And then we follow a similar structure for each providing an introduction to that neighborhood, some demographic information for the neighborhood, identifying trends and issues, identifying opportunity areas within each neighborhood that we then focus on with more specific recommendations as well as transformative projects. We do have six transformative projects identified in this plan for far northeast spread across the three neighborhood statistical areas. And then finally, the plan wraps up with the implementation chapter where we restate each recommendation that's within the plan and identify more detailed information for each, including which vision elements it helps to support responsible parties, timelines for implementation, that sort of thing, as well as a page of metrics to help track plan progress over time. So that's my very quick overview of the document. I'll hand it over now to Eugene, who will present the information specific to the staff report. Great. Thank you, Cortland, and thank you City Council and it's a pleasure to be here with you this evening to talk about the far northeast area plan. So I'm going to review the review criteria that is to be considered when making supplements or updating our comprehensive plan 2040, as well as making updates to Blueprint. Denver As it relates to the Neighborhood Planning Initiative, the three criteria that we ask you to consider, number one, that the planning process was inclusive in developing the plan. That the plan is consistent with the vision and goals and strategies outlined in comprehensive plan 2040. And then finally, the third criterion the plan demonstrates a long term view for the residents. So starting first with the inclusive community process, this plan being the first of 19, we did utilize the full 24 month time frame outlined by the Neighborhood Planning Initiative Strategic Plan. In this process, we were able to engage with citizens, residents of the far northeast, really from the very beginning of this planning effort, including the months leading up to officially launching this project. We had great response and communication and participation by the members of the community, which I'll go over here in just a second. So first we convened a 20 person stakeholder committee. This committee was made up of members from the far northeast area, presidents of the registered neighborhood organizations, nonprofit organizations, long term residents from the community and our city council representatives also participated in this process with us. We held monthly meetings. We conducted 20 of these monthly meetings to make sure that the community was engaged and guiding this process. We held five public meetings throughout the duration of this planning effort, with well over 500 participants from the community coming to provide their input and feedback. We tracked demographics by asking a few simple questions at the beginning of each meeting. So we feel confident that this plan reflects those that live in the community and who are from the community. A diversity of backgrounds, ages, races, ethnicities participated in the development of this part of this plan. We provided interpretation. We had all of our materials translated into Spanish. We had child care. We provided food at our meetings to really make them fun and and make it so that folks could participate in-person if they could. We were fortunate to leverage the support of the American Institute of Architects Colorado chapter, who worked with the community members in helping bring their ideas and their thoughts to life on paper. Those design concepts helped inform the plan and helped us throughout the planning process. And in addition to all of the project related meetings, staff participated in well over 50 community events in separate meetings to make sure that we were present and that we were hearing firsthand from the community what their issues and challenges and what the opportunities were to help inform this planning effort. This is just a small sample of the type of events that we attended. We went to back to school events to engage with parents and children. We engaged in culturally relevant celebrations like The Taste of Ethiopia. We were there during the summer to make sure that we were hearing from youth and getting the youth perspective in our planning effort. We attended Council District Eleven's Day of Beauty, I think, to really engage with the volunteers that came out for that event. We also and this is one that's kind of personally a little exciting for me, and that is working on the walking audits. One of the key members of the Belo community is Pam Joyner. I believe she's here tonight. And she at the very first meeting that she saw me at said, Eugene, you're going on a walk with me. And she just she was great. I learned so much not only from all of our interactions with the public, but from really, truly walking in their footsteps. Seeing what they experience every single day firsthand was just crucial to this effort. And I really appreciate the effort of Girl Trek Montebello 2020 and all of the organizations that we had the privilege of working with . They just were were great. So, you know, for that, thinking about the public process and our online engagement, we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity for people to engage with us virtually if they could not be there in person. We created our materials in a way so that they translated one for one online so that we could continue to collect, like for like information. One of the key things with the slide is it's really demonstrating the involvement, even virtually, of this community. The the open rates of newsletters, the click through rates are double what we normally see and what our communication staff tells us that they typically see through those types of communication tools. We had five online surveys that replicated those in-person meetings. We had over 500 downloads of our draft plan, which again illustrates the level of involvement from this community about the work that they helped us create. We had social media touchpoints over 91 different posts related to this planning effort, and without fail, the council officers and their staff really, truly were crucial in getting the word out and helping communicate that this plan was out, that it was for the community. And they really encouraged the community to come out and to participate. So with all of that involvement from the community staff signs at the far northeast area plan was developed through an inclusive public process. Planned consistency. One of the criteria is to make sure that this plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of comprehensive plan 2040 and the Far Northeast Plan addresses or touches 29 individual goals found in Plan 2040, as well as 63 individual strategies found in that plan. They touch on the topics of affordable housing, intentional growth and development, complete, vibrant, culturally rich and inclusive communities, multi-modal connectivity parks and open space, health, safety, and economic vitality of the people and the residents in the far northeast. Thinking of consistency with Blueprint. Denver The Far North East plan is consistent with 21 individual policies found in Blueprint Denver as well as 51 individual strategies found in the document covering the topics of zoning and land use, form and function of the built environment, transportation and mobility and overall quality of life. Because the Neighborhood Planning Initiative is meant to be a tool to further calibrate and make updates to blueprint Denver. There are a few updates that if you adopt this plan this evening, will go to Update Blueprint. They touch on neighborhood contexts through our interactions with the community, we heard that we could tweak the context in a few places. They helped us calibrate the future places that will help guide growth and development. The overall growth strategy. When new streets are created, what types of streets they should be, what their priorities should be, as well as equitable planning throughout the far northeast area. So with regard to criteria and number to plan consistency, staff finds that the far north east area plan is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver. And then finally, looking at the long term view, given the amount of input and feedback and work and collaboration with the community, staff has found that we believe the Far Northeast Area Plan does establish a long term vision that helps maintain the character and the development patterns established in the residential areas of the far northeast helps support the industrial areas in the far northeast while directing the majority of growth to new centers and corridors in the area and particularly in the undeveloped portions of the plan area. This vision will take many years to achieve, but we do believe that does contain the long term view of the residents. Therefore, staff finds that the far northeast area plan has an appropriate long term view and perspective. Following through with the adoption process, we did go before a planning board on May 15th where we did receive a unanimous vote to proceed this plan to you for consideration. We went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 21st, who felt that this plan was ready to be heard by you. Last week was the first reading and tonight we are before you for the public hearing. So with all of that, the staff asks that you consider adopting the far northeast area plan as a supplement to comprehensive plan 2040 and as an update tool for Blueprint Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you both. We have nine individuals signed up to speak tonight. I'm going to call the first five. If you could come up to the first row. Here we have William Thomas Rose, Thomas, Jessie Parrish, Megan L'anse and Vernon York. And first up, we have.
Speaker 2: Will you to take your calls?
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. We'll go with Rose Thomas then.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Rose Thomas. Green Valley Ranch, 1919 zero, East 43rd Avenue. I just wanted to say kudos to the community involvement engaged in this effort. It was a two year effort and meeting after meeting. There never was a shortage of participation and there was a great cross section from the community. We had a lot of lively discussions and I also want to say kudos to the planning committee because they helped keep everything structured and organized so that we made progress but allowed enough open space and area so that true, authentic feedback and concerns could be heard and incorporated to truly make this plan.
Speaker 0: Be real to the.
Speaker 2: Community in terms of what they really want and need and what can help it thrive for the next 10 to 20 years. So I just want to say thank you to everyone involved. Jesse Parrish.
Speaker 8: Jesse Paris, represented for Denver, home of Salau Black starts a movement for self-defense and positive action, commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for a large I got almost 15,000 votes with no money. I was speaking I'm speaking against this just like I spoke against the comprehensive plan 2040. I don't think we really gave them enough time to people to actually read this. It's actually 228 pages. How many people have actually read all? 228 pages of that? Oh, that's a shock. Okay. Well, most people that are not in this room have not read this and have no clue what this all entails. Honestly, nothing in here about affordable housing, honestly, nothing in here about am I levels for Montebello, Green Valley Ranch or Gateway? I don't see anything about that. So if somebody could put further consider not consideration, further detail on what that all entails. If you are actually looking at that or if this is just where you're pushing us to because northeast all parts of this town are being gentrified and we're being moved along displace. So pretty soon we'll be living past the airport, probably near Byers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Megan Allen's.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Council members Megan Allen's and unfortunately a constituent couldn't be here tonight, so I'm going to read their comments. Tom Carlin of Green Valley Ranch. Nowhere in the far north east neighborhood plan is there a reference to oil and gas development. There should be. Newly signed legislation by Governor Polis puts environmental and health considerations before fostering oil development. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been clear about the calamitous effects of pumping carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere. Yet the oil and gas industry continues its relentless advance to horizontally drill under my Green Valley Ranch neighborhood lands. The latest assault is from Access Exploration LLC. Access wants to horizontally drill and frack under Denver properties of the high point and wild horse condominium neighborhoods, which are few which within a few hundred feet of Green Valley Ranch where I live. See Docket number 190600442 before the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Also in the Green Valley Ranch neighborhood of Denver, where I live, we've got a plan in 2017 that would have possibly allowed drilling or development of mineral rights west of Tower Road by the Ivy Garrett, Dennis and Regis Groff DPS campuses and as close to my home as allowed by regulations. We won. But the threat remains with the state land board retaining mineral rights after sale to commercial interests of the surface rights. The far northeast neighbor neighborhood plan should not be approved with in recognition of the role that Denver needs to play in mitigating climate change. Our neighborhood plan must recognize its role in protecting the environment and health of not only Denver, but all people of Colorado and and the nation. My neighborhood plan must be bold, not timid in addressing climate change. Denver has the opportunity to play a leading role in addressing climate change. The neighborhood plan needs to be greatly strengthened. Each well site and far northeast member should be noted for potential development and neighborhood neighbors quickly notified of oil and gas industry plans. Likewise, Denver officials must be vigilant in monitoring activities of our neighbors in the East, Adams County in Aurora, and that may affect Denver by horizontal drilling and fracking efforts. Respectfully submitted. Tom Carlin, thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Vernon York.
Speaker 5: To the council. Vernon, York. I live with my bill, and I'm for the plan.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, sir. Next up, we'll call the next. I think we have for folks, we have Mr. Lawrence Murray, Pam Joyner, Donna Garnett and Myra Gonzalez. So Mr. Murray. And we can go ahead and have you come up to the front and it'll speed things up a little bit. Mr. Murray Then we have Pam Joyner, Donna Garnett and Myra Gonzales. So, Mr. Murray, you're up.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Lawrence Murray. I'm a resident of Montebello and have been since 1982. My my main issue about this proposal and it's a huge one, I would like to make sure that the residents are made aware of all the changes as the project proceeds. We should be informed. It shouldn't be something that's a little off to the side. The project is very important to us in knowing what's happening when it happens and keeping to the keystone marks that you said. We're going to do it at this time. We'll be finishing at that time. I think that's very, very important for the residents to know. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, we have Pam Joyner. Hello, counsel. My name is Pam Jane. Or one, two, two, one, one is 52nd, placed in my Belo, a 45 year resident of Montello. And I'm very, very concerned about my community's health. I represent Girl Trek, which is a national health movement for women of color. I represent my Bel-Air Walks, which is a community initiative to encourage my entire community to be more active and to get outside and live healthier lives. I also am co-chair of my fellow 2020, the registered neighborhood organization, and I have been very, very, very, very happy with all of the opportunities that the planning and Planning Department has allowed our community to participate and to add our input and help us develop our visions. I believe that the last two years we have all worked very, very hard. And yes, I have encouraged a lot of the members to take walks with me only because, you know, I think they need a break from behind those computers and the developments and the office stuff, but they also need to feel what they're creating. I am very concerned that all the developments are pedestrian friendly, developing bigger areas, busy areas. If they're not pedestrian friendly, it's not going to be a benefit to our community. It's good for business, but it's not good for the health of our community. And I'd just like to reiterate that these developments must have access for pedestrians that are not along automobile lines. We shouldn't have to walk a mile to turn into a shopping center when there are multiple areas where pedestrians could have access. So I will be watching for that. City planners and I am for the plan. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Donna Garnett. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the body of all the council members.
Speaker 2: My name is Donna Garnett. I have lived in far northeast for 26 years. I am the executive director of the Mont Organizing Committee and the editor of the Montebello Urban Spectrum Edition. It has really been my privilege to be a part of this process that has gone lasted for almost two years or maybe even over two years . I was pleased to serve on the steering committee for the planning process, and I have to say that I participated in every single community meeting and read every page of the plan at every draft.
Speaker 0: Level and read.
Speaker 2: It multiple times. What I really want to say, because I do a lot of work in the community, that this process really exemplifies what it means to have community informed and community led initiatives at the at the neighborhood level. I did a story in the Muse a few months ago that showed that there were 12 planning efforts going on at the same time that this process was going on. And the thing that makes this process so unique is that the amazing people in the Planning Department somehow managed to fold all of those things together and heard everybody mock my organization at the same time was hosting.
Speaker 0: A.
Speaker 2: Process that involved over 2000 people. And I'm happy to say that the work from that is included in this plan and this neighborhood plan puts in place policies and and recommendations that will enable Marc and the partners in the community to bring to life the transformative initiative that one of them in the plan.
Speaker 0: Called the fresh love.
Speaker 2: Fresh and local. And it will bring a grocery anchored cultural hub with 120 units of affordable housing that does address AMI at 30% to 80%. Am I? So we really hope that you're going to pass this plan so we can get on with the work because we plan to break ground in January 2020. So I hope you pass it and I hope you pass it unanimously. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Mayra Gonzalez and then we have William Thomas.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Members of city council, staff of the Community Planning and Development Department. My name is Myra Gonzalez. I am a lifelong resident of the Marbella neighborhood and project manager of the Mahalo, Fresh, Low, Walkable Loop and Hub. And I am proud to testify in favor of the far northeast area plan. I would like to share a fun fact before proceeding. The current mom Barlow neighborhood plan is as old as I am and I'm 27 years old and so this is really needed. But I would like to thank CPD for their extensive neighborhood planning process and the far northeast neighborhoods. They began working with us two years ago, and as Eugene mentioned, 550 residents were able to attend the five community planning meetings and provide feedback online. What I am the most proud of was the staff's efforts to make this a truly equitable process. They provided Spanish language interpretation and made sure that all of their materials were translated for us. In Marbella, this is particularly important because 67% of our residents are Latino and monolingual Spanish speakers. And so this ensured that our residents were able to fully engage and be part of the process and give their feedback. I am particularly proud of the inclusion of the Monticello Fresh, Low Cultural Hub, which is the community's response to our food desert designation. And so this plan is truly representative of community voices. And with that, I urge you all, as everybody has mentioned, to please pass this unanimously so that we can get on going.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And last up, we have William Thomas.
Speaker 3: Good evening. William Thomas 19190, East 43rd Avenue, Denver, Colorado. I participated in just a few of the meetings for this planning committee, but I will say I am impressed. I'm very proud as a long time resident of Green Valley Ranch to have been able to, even for a small time, participate in some of these planning meetings. I really enjoy and very again, very proud of the fact that the city and the communities have come together to actually look and work together to make an area that had been underserved for quite a long time and ignored bring to the top of list and bring the importance of it. I don't think I need to repeat probably what everyone else has said. Please pass it unanimously and we can move on with the next phase of it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Uh, thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. Eugene, I had a question. If I can pull this up again on your on the PowerPoint on slide 28, where reference the planning board adoption and the two notes in red. Can you tell me how they were addressed? Sure. So a general statement for clarity and correctness is that I understand. I'm sorry. I'm more interested in the second one. Sure I did. Did you clarify the community interest in the general development plan and large development review? Yes. There were some questions about the the amount of undeveloped land in the far northeast and what tools are at our disposal here at the city and before you all to to help guide development on such large parcels. Currently, we have a general development plan process in place. There's some conversations that you might all either know about or that is coming before you soon to calibrate that tool to be more of a large development review, a process. And there was a request to have some additional clarity around the use of that large development review tool should it become a part of our toolkit. Okay. And so that was was that added or was it augmented or how was it it was a modification to the language to further clarify how that tool might be used and to what degree Cortland is or anything you'd like to add to that? Sure. I just can give you the specific location of the new content. It's on page 57. Great. We added a new sidebar. It's titled Regulatory and Policy Tools for Large Scale Development. Great. I'll pull that up here. Okay. I see it here. Well, thank you very much. That's all.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Pro tem either Cortland or Eugene. So I'm my understanding is this process went a bit longer than it might have been envisioned at the beginning. I'm just wondering what what you had learned about the process. I mean, 20 monthly meetings is fantastic. It seems like a tremendous amount of engagement. So I compliment the city on that. I compliment the neighbors for showing up and participating if there's anything a neighborhood should show up for. It's this particular process that really gives you the chance to sculpt the future of your community. And I would just before I let your answer, say that I miss Consigliere so that my neighborhood of Virginia Village is one of the neighborhoods in the next planning process. And our plan was written 46 years ago in 19 and 1973. So I hate to one better you, but I think think we've got that done. Please. Sure. Okay. We got we got a similar question when we went to a planning board about what we had learned. And I think the short version of my answer is that the the planning process does work. I think that this one is the first out of the gate. This is a new planning model for the city. The most typical plans that we'd produce previously would do one neighborhood at a time. And part of the justification for changing that model was that over a 15, 20 year period, we only covered about 20% of the city with those plans. And this allows us to cover the entire city because we're doing groupings of larger areas there. There are a few other examples nationwide. Philadelphia is one of them. San Antonio is another of other large cities that are doing a similar approach of large areas bigger than a single neighborhood. You know, we've got our own version of it here under NPI and it works. We've produced a plan that's supported by many members in the community, and we're able to not lose anything in terms of level of detail by having those specific neighborhood chapters as well as material that applies to the whole area. And with regard to the timeline for this first plan, because it is meant to help understand and calibrate Blueprint Denver We wanted to make sure that blueprint Denver went through that adoption process and since it came before you approximately six weeks ago, that meant that we could not come any earlier than that. So that did add additional time to our original timeline, and it really helped us hit that 24 month mark. Great. Well, I can congratulate the planning staff, but mainly want to thank the community for getting these guys warmed up. So when they hit near southeast Denver, they're working at full capacity. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Councilwoman are. HAGER Thank you. Pro Tem. I wanted to follow up on the statement that was read by Megan from Tom Carlin regarding the issue of fracking and how that was addressed in the plan. I can remember when I first got elected back to the Council in 2011, there were concerns from the Green Valley Ranch community about fracking that was happening in Adams County, but could be impacting some of the homes in Denver County. And so I think it's a real concern. I mean, I think the changes that happened at the state are good. It makes the situation much better than it was before. But it doesn't mean that we're completely immune. And, you know, right now, the only place we have drilling or fracking is at the airport. But it doesn't mean that it couldn't impact some of these neighborhoods. I know. Sometime last year, I believe it was, there was an application from someone that wanted to drill on land just north of 56th Avenue. There were three sites, I believe, that they had applied for, and the Stapleton community came out of the woodworks and wrote letters. They learned about it on the day before it was supposed to go before the land board, but they were able to mobilize a lot of opposition, and the land board ended up not moving forward with that particular request. So how was that addressed in the in the plan?
Speaker 3: And so say it's a valid criticism to say that the plan doesn't, you know, directly address the fracking issue. You know, that's true. There isn't material or specific recommendations in the plan on that topic. The MPA planning model is that we have a list of always topics, things that are at the core that plans address, that you can reliably expect every NPI plan to hit. That's to provide consistency, you know, from one planning area to the next, a consistent level of guidance. And then there's also focus topics, which are things that you address if you need to. And if raised by the community is a high priority. And so what we heard a lot more about in this area was access to retail food, access walkability. Those are the things that we focused on, as, you know, focused topics in this community. So it's not entirely comprehensive in that, you know, we don't touch on every every single issue that affects the community. And so it is it's valid to say that the plan doesn't do enough on that topic.
Speaker 0: The one thing I do want to add is that that particular incident with that application that came to Stapleton drew attention to the fact that any application that would come to the city was going to delay and the process changed. Now, so if there is an application for anything, any place other than DIA, the notices will go to the mayor's office and then they'll make sure the neighborhoods are notified so that we don't have this last minute situation that occurred in the Stapleton neighborhood. So thank you for addressing that question. Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 477 is closed. Do we have comments by members of council?
Speaker 5: Councilman herndon thinking i'm president? Well, we are. We are finally here. I remember I remember when this started. Let me let me first say, I believe the criteria have been met. And I'm excited about the progress of reform because. But the work is not yet done. I mean, this is actually where people can say the hard work begins. And now that the vision is place, the vision is in place. It's about making sure we execute properly. But you have to take a moment to acknowledge the people that made this possible because it's really hard being first . But let me say, the bar is very high. You can say several things about this plan, but you cannot say that the community wasn't involved. Because I remember the meetings at the evidence campus where that place was packed. We're making sure that everyone has opportunities to come to the table no matter what language you were speaking. We had monolingual on our steering committee, Spanish speakers, who can make sure that their voices were heard as a part of that. So to say that this was not a community driven effort is just just unequivocally false. And to the team that was in place because we disagreed on things, but we weren't disagreeable. Because when you have people that have diverse opinions about moving forward, we created a space where you could give your opinion if it was differing and we just had a conversation about it. And that model, I hope, will carry forward for the remainder of the neighborhood plans. And everyone wants their plan to go first. But you recognize as this growth and change is coming, the communities that are going to be impacted before others is the far northeast is the east area, which is why those are the ones that were the first two that we're doing because that's where the change is coming. So applauding everyone that has been a part of it. Yes. We didn't get into the nuances of environmental resilience. But if you look at plan 2040, that is one of our six pillars that talks about being environmentally resilient. So we are making sure that we're taking care of that for our city. So I think that is fair. But recognize, this is one of many plans that we have now that are we are now moving forward through this council process. So I think we're checking all the bases to make sure that we're touching the things that are very important. So and I want to acknowledge, Councilwoman Gilmore, because a huge part of this is in District 11. I had a small part in District eight. So her leadership and this as well cannot be understated. So thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for this. And I urge my colleagues to support this. And I look forward to making this vision become a reality. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, and see no other council members chiming in. I will go ahead and speak as well. And it's been a great partnership, Councilman Herndon and all of the community meetings that that we turned out, you know, Eugene Courtland, Lily, Val, you really are part of the far northeast family and you'll continue getting invites to everything because it's important we keep you involved. And, you know, this was a crucial time for us as a community because with the changes that we have throughout the city and folks really being concerned about gentrification and involuntary displacement, but that we didn't want to have to make that hard decision, that we weren't going to get the grocery stores that we wanted or the entertainment or retail options that we need and deserve in our neighborhood. And so it was the perfect time for this plan. And, you know, Senate Bill 181 did open up a lot of different conversations for us as a neighborhood. And so, you know, there is not any fracking happening in our residential areas in Denver. I want to be very clear about that. It the only wells that exist are at the airport at Denver International Airport, and they have not been active since May of 2018 because Anadarko shut down their pipeline. And so currently there is no activity. But we know that our surrounding municipalities and counties are very active and we want to be aware if there is any sort of horizontal drilling or any environmental concerns or health and safety. We now within our community, I believe, have organized ourselves in a really, really strong way. And so when there are opportunities through the rulemaking at the state, we are going to be present and be part of those conversations. And so I'm glad that that was read into the record, but that, you know, more work to be done. And we've got grocery stores, we've got different amenities that are now very interested in our neighborhood, you know, May eight, the day after. Our election, we had an announcement that Natural Grocers is locating at the corner of Green Valley Ranch Boulevard and Tower Road. And so things are happening, and we've now created that framework to make sure that we have the most comprehensive and complete neighborhood that we possibly can have. So thank you so much for for your work on this, the CPD staff and to my community, to my neighbors and folks in the far northeast. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for always being there, showing up and being part of the conversation because that's really what makes our neighborhoods so great. And so thank you again, seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Kenny.
Speaker 0: Ortega I assessment i Madam President, I Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Eight Guys eight Eyes Council Bill 477 has passed. All right, wonderful. We have one pre adjournment announcement on Monday, June 17th, 2019.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Far Northeast Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Adopts the Far Northeast Area Plan, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-21-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06032019_19-0474
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, can you sing no other announcements? We're going to move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. But we do have one proclamation. Councilman Cashman, will you please read proclamation for some form?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is proclamation number 19, Dashboard seven, for declaring the first Friday in June, June seven to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day, whereas every day 100 Americans die by gun violence. And on average, there are nearly 13,000 gun homicides every year. And. Whereas, in 2018, 885 men, women and children died by firearm in the state of Colorado, more than three quarters of which were suicides, which amounts to 15.5 firearm deaths per 1000 residents, the highest rate since 1986. And. WHEREAS, Denver's statistics show 3103 gun related offenses in 2018, including three 300 shootings, 63 cases of domestic violence, including a gun, 35 gun related suicides, 49 gun related homicides, and 1551 gun related violent crimes. And. Whereas, Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with guns than people in other high income countries. And. WHEREAS, in the past 20 years, beginning with the horrific day at Columbine High School in Littleton in 1999, 14 students and one teacher have been killed in front range school shootings and almost three dozen injured in incidents at Columbine High School, Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Deer Creek Middle School in Littleton, Arapahoe High School in Centennial, and most recently at STEM School Highlands Ranch. And. Whereas, protecting public safety in the communities they serve is the government's highest priority responsibility. And. Whereas, in January 2013, Hadiya Pendleton, a teenager who marched in President Obama's second inaugural parade and was tragically shot and killed just a few weeks later should be now celebrated her celebrating her 22nd birthday. And. Whereas, to help India and the hundred Americans whose lives are cut short and the countless survivors who are injured by shootings every day, a national coalition of organizations has designated June seven, 2019, the first Friday in June as the fifth National Gun Violence Awareness Day. And. Whereas, the idea was inspired by a group of ideas friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters. When out in the woods, an orange is a color that symbolizes the value of human life. And. Whereas, anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on June seven to help raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of gun violence victims and survivors. And. Whereas, we as Council members renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledged to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our city safe. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver declares June seven, 2019, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day and encourages all citizens to support their local communities. Efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and excuse me, honor and value human lives. And Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to Moms Demand action. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Your motion to adopt?
Speaker 6: Yes, sir. I move the proclamation 19 dash 474 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have thoughts, and I'm going to do my best to honor our five minute time limit. It is wise when there is an open flame around your home that you keep combustibles at a safe distance, be it a gas stove, a lit candle, a cigar or a fireplace. It's prudent to be sure the flame does its job cooking, illuminating, igniting or heating without causing unintended, disastrous collateral damage. How often have we seen the results in an unexpected breeze from an open window, blowing a cloth curtain onto a nearby candle, a cigaret or a cigar accidentally dropped between the pillows of a sofa or a campfire that is not properly extinguished, resulting in catastrophic damage to property and devastating loss of life. We have chosen to not outlaw the use of fire except in extreme conditions. But over the years, federal, state and local governments have put forth continuing public education campaigns, as well as ongoing changes to our building codes that have dramatically reduced the outbreak of unwanted fires in our communities. Yes, it's still erupt, disrupts our city periodically, caused accidentally or on purpose. But as a society we have been very intentional about recognizing the potential for danger that is presents and doing everything within our power to reduce the frequency with which it negatively, negatively impacts our daily lives. In America today, we have open flames everywhere that some do not recognize as such. The firearms that many of our fellow Denver aides and fellow Americans hold dear for protection, for feeding their families and for recreation. Some 330 million of them sit smoldering as well, free of unexpected situations. These guns and rifles should benignly and holsters, drawers, safes, racks in closets awaiting the call to whatever legitimate use their owner intends. But nearby, wherever these firearms are standing, we have accelerants in close proximity that can turn lives upside down in an instant. Accelerants like normal human forgetfulness that neglects to lock cabinets or empty chambers. Accelerants in the person of those with nefarious purpose in mind that intentionally misuse with evil intent. We have the hopelessness borne of an ever growing economic divide between rich and poor that is crushing the American dream, along with untreated mental illness and drug addiction that has an ever increasing percentage of our population ready to explode unpredictably at a moment's notice with the awareness burned into their brains, courtesy of social and mass media that firearms can help them ease the pain. Real or imagined that tortures them. Mr. President, we have not, as a society, done the same job keeping our communities safe from the unintended misuse of firearms as we have done in keeping it safe from the unintended misuse of fire. That has got to change. We have children who have never felt safe, never feel out of the reach of gun violence. They're aware of mass shootings at their schools, mass shootings in movie theaters, mass shootings in shopping malls at McDonald's restaurants, not to mention the everyday individual gun related injuries and deaths that are a part of their daily lives. I sat with my 14 year old granddaughter on election night in May as we awaited the returns, and I watched her break down in tears. As the news recounted the shootings that day at STEM school in Highlands Ranch. I sat in the audience last week at Stephen Knight Center for Early Education at a forum focused on keeping our kids safe at school. And was stunned as a seventh grader read the will she had written while I'm locked down at her school a few weeks ago. Her name is Ali, and she stepped up to the microphone, pulled out her cell phone and said, so this is my well, my best friend Blake gets $200 and my best wishes she gets to become a professional soccer player. I'm sorry, but when it gets to the point where a seventh grader is writing her will because she believes dying in a school shooting is a real possibility, there is something very, very wrong. We have figured out a way to preserve our right to use fire without seeing families incinerated on a regular basis. We haven't figured that out around firearms. That very important and very intentional conversation simply needs to take place. It needs to take place now at a city, state and federal level. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 3: Black Eye.
Speaker 7: Brooks.
Speaker 4: Espinosa, i. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 4: Carnage eat. I knew Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please, because voting in no results.
Speaker 4: Will have a nice.
Speaker 0: 11 I's proclamation. 474 has been adopted. Councilman Cashman We do have 5 minutes for proclamation, acceptances, or some you'd like to call it.
Speaker 6: It's Mr. President, and I'd like to call up Sara Grossman representing Moms Demand Action. Who is wearing orange. Thank you for.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. Thank you so much, Councilman Cashman. I will make this as quick as possible. This past weekend, I celebrated my friend Drew Leinonen, 35th birthday. Unfortunately, he did not. His life was taken almost three years ago at the Pulse nightclub shooting. In the time since, as Americans, we have seen on average, 100 other people per day lose their lives to preventable gun violence. In the time since my home state of Florida has proven time and time again that they are being held under a petri dish by the NRA. While in Colorado, we are still subject to mass shootings and gun violence. I feel fortunate to call home a place that represents me and my values. Denver has always had my back from stepping up to enact laws to protect the most vulnerable constituents and expanding health care reform to passing marriage equality before the rest of the country to fighting for gun it common sense gun reform keeping us all much more safe. Three years ago, shortly after Drew's funeral, I returned from Orlando to Denver. A month went by before I decided it was time to stop sitting in my own grief and rejoin society. I knew I had to get into advocacy of some kind. I had to get back on the horse and remind people why we are still fighting against hate crimes, why we're still fighting against violence against the LGBT community. And since I lost one of my best friends to a senseless act of hate. I wanted to make sure other people didn't have to. I wanted to spare others from the pain that I felt, the pain that I still feel. I had to remind people why common sense gun laws are so important, even if it was just volunteering. I knew I had to do something. My very first action item was to create the website for the DRU Project, a nonprofit organization. Dru's friends and I started to honor him. To date, we have given away over $30,000 in scholarships to LGBTQ youth and have created and distributed curriculum for Gay-Straight Alliances in Florida to continue honoring Drew's legacy. This guide has been downloaded all over the world at this point. Drew started the first gay straight alliance at his high school in Seminole, Florida, when he was 17 and won the Holocaust Museum's Anne Frank Humanitarian Award for it. He was truly ahead of his time. His kindness and desire for inclusion and unity would be the encouragement we all needed to continue with his work. There is not one single person whom I encountered at his funeral who didn't refer to him as a best friend. That's the type of person he was. He had a best friend from high school, one from college, one from last Tuesday. This didn't make him a flake. This made him a person whose warmth was undeniably strong. My second action item was to get involved with on demand action for gun sense. I've spoken at several of their rallies and testified against dangerous gun bills on their Andrew's behalf. I continue my work with them and became a Survivor Fellow with Everytown for Gun Safety. My third action items tenure just ended when I stepped down from running communications for the Matthew Shepard Foundation and fighting daily for those we have to protect from violence. This city and these groups have saved countless lives through this work, not just those who may fall victim to gun or hate violence, but also those of us who weren't quite sure what to do with our grief in the days, weeks, months and even years following the passing of a loved one to the horror that is our American reality. This group in front of me is leading us to ensure we no longer have to accept thoughts or prayers as pension for the loss of our loved ones. Here, we all share the same belief that we can create a future free from gun violence. And I thank you all for continually supporting the survivor community. Thank you for commemorating June 7th as Gun Violence Awareness Day. If you can, I encourage you to attend the West Orange event this year. It's Saturday, June 8th at Park Field Lake Park from 12 until three, and we're holding it in partnership with Councilwoman Gilmore. We would love to have you out to support this proclamation and our efforts. From the bottom of my heart. I thank you for continuing to make us feel more safe this June and every June from now on. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That is our only proclamation this evening. So we're going to move on to our bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring the first Friday in June, June 7, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06032019_19-0477
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please, for the next item on our screens and Councilwoman Gilmore, go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President. Clerk. I just wanted to remind community members that we have.
Speaker 3: A courtesy public hearing next week for the far northeast area plan. And this is a very important plan because it will set our our zoning and growth for the area, we hope, at least for the next 20 years, if not further out. And just wanted to remind neighborhood members that this took 20 months for us to complete the plan and get it to this place. We had a steering committee of 18 community members or excuse me, 20 community members that met 18 times during the 20 month process and five community wide public meetings with hundreds of residents who attended . And I want to also thank the CPD staff. I see Cortland here, but also Eugene and Lily and Val. We spent many, many hours with them over quite a few months. And then Councilman Herndon as well for your partnership and this is for the communities of Montebello, Parkfield, Green Valley Ranch, High Point and all of Denver International Airport. So just wanted to invite community members to come to the courtesy public hearing next week. Thank you, President Clark.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the Far Northeast Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Adopts the Far Northeast Area Plan, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-21-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06032019_19-0352
|
Speaker 0: 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. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 352 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 344 website 352 series of 2019 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second in the public hearing for council bill 352 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Yes. Tourism, Sara with community planning and development. This is a rezoning of 4891 Lincoln Street. It is a proposal to rezone from urban single unit D to urban single unit C one. And the purpose of this is to allow an accessory dwelling unit. So the property is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. It is in an urban context intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods. It would allow urban house accessory dwelling unit building forms at a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet, with an 80 unit maximum height of 24 feet on a lot. That is about 5500 square feet as a minimum lot size. So existing zoning to the north east and south is single unit. To the west is industrial mixed use three. There is one single family home on the property and it is surrounded on three sides by well, actually on all sides by single family homes. And these pictures give you an idea of the context. Most of the homes are single storey. So that is the scale of the neighborhood, the process. The initial information notice went out in December of last year and then an informational notice of a revised application in February of this year. And then Planning Board was duly posted for their hearing of April 3rd, where they unanimously recommended approval and then Land Use Committee in April on April 23rd. And then, of course, the hearing tonight and this hearing has been properly posted. There are no letters, comment letters received on this application. So, you know, the criteria, the plans that apply are Plan 2040, Blueprint, Denver 2019, Housing and Inclusive. Denver and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan of 2014 Plan goals are met by allowing us talking about creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, ensuring neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types, encouraging quality infill development that's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and promoting infill development where infrastructure is already in place. Blueprint Denver This is within the urban context and the that's described as one and two unit residential with some embedded multi-unit and commercial areas within a regular grid pattern. And then the future place type is residential low, which is single and two unit residential up to two and a half stories. And then Lincoln Street is a residential collector in this area, primarily residential. And then collectors collect all the local traffic and move it to our more major arterial streets. 49th Avenue is an on designated local street with high property access. So the growth area strategy for this property is all other areas of the city, which is our lowest anticipated to see about 20% of housing growth and 10% of new employment growth. Housing and inclusive. Denver does talk about expanding our regulations for affordable and mixed income housing and does specifically talk about the development of accessory dwelling units in both their recommendations. Two and one promoting programs that help households maintain existing homes. The city and its partners should target existing homeowner rehabilitation programs to residents in vulnerable neighborhoods, promoting financial literacy, education and for prospective and existing homeowners to promote the development of accessory dwelling units. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan in 2014 did talk about a strong Globeville, where it's good for residents, businesses and industry all equitably having their needs met . There were two new land use concepts developed in the plan industrial mixed use and single family with accessory dwelling unit. Those were added to the Blueprint concept list and this did also update the blueprint area of change map. So in Globeville, the plan talks about balancing the needs of residents, commerce and industry, and does talk about allowing accessory dwelling units. And improving housing with a broad range of housing types, including accessory dwelling units. The concept land use for the property in the Globeville plan is single family with Adu, and the height recommendation is two and a half stories. And then in strategies, the the neighborhood was discussed, moving the neighborhood from urban edge to an urban context. And that is a recommendation that the plan made. That's why we're going this applicant is applying for an urban context zone district rather than an urban edge and then just tailoring the minimum lot sizes to the those you find in the neighborhood, which is that 5500 square feet. So all of these like the you the 5500 square feet and the single unit with the ADU, all of them are entailed in the you assume zone district that the applicant's applying for. So staff believes that this does conform with the adopted plans that by using a standard zoned district we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations by implementing our plans and allowing some redevelopment. We are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstance in this case is that property maintained its chapter well is a changed condition in that. The. Well, we're implementing the neighborhood plan. I'm sorry. I've lost my train of thought. So we were adopt and we're implementing a city adopted plan since the zoning code was adopted in 2010. Lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. And with that, staff believes all of the criteria are met. This is consistent with the urban context characterized characterized by single in two unit small scale multi-unit and commercial areas embedded in the neighborhoods and with the intent of the single unit zone district to protect our neighborhoods, existing neighborhoods with the urban house form and that 5500 minimum lot size that the plan calls for. So with that staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. So when I call you up, please come up to the podium. First up, Brad Tomczak. And.
Speaker 1: But I'm just here to answer questions on the architect, on the project and support the client.
Speaker 0: You want to give your name officially for the record.
Speaker 1: Brad Thomas, 62. Jasmine Street is my personal residence. 3220 2000 is my business.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. But they're kind of like.
Speaker 5: We're on just two pairs represented for Denver Homicide now, black socks, a moment for self-defense and positive action camera for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for our large this past May 2019 election. I was originally against this because I thought it was just going to be more gentrification, more ethnic cleansing, more displacement as usual. But I'm in favor of a use just like other forms of attainable housing. And I was just over in this neighborhood earlier campaigning for Candi for District nine. So on. The further consideration. I am actually in favor of this. I think it would be a good addition to the neighborhood and it would actually get some people housed. I wanted to ask the owner who exactly was going to be staying here, how many people were going to be staying here, and what the and my level of things are going to be written or who was going to actually sell it to potential buyers. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Steffan Evans.
Speaker 10: Oh, you mean. As my name is. Well, my name is back. The Jovicic. And. Represent the Black Star Action Movement for self-defense. This process that we're doing with these zoning changes. Continues to be happenstance. And the time has come for us to have a process where we can really sit down city council and look at how we can get this thing done citywide. Have a plan city wide for how we do this thing as opposed to piecemeal in this thing as we go and business days as usual and things slip under. The radar screen. And in that rezoning process, what we really need to look at in terms of these comprehensive plans is the comprehensive outcome of the plan. What are we seeking to look at and how do we want these neighborhoods to look? Now we are. In a housing crisis. Yes, we are. And we cannot afford to respond to the fear of the crisis because of the expediency. Of what we're seeking to achieve, what we need. Is rezoning reprioritise in terms of how we're going to impact the crisis, especially among poor people who cannot afford to be engaged in the process. The outcome, which we would suggest we see, is to make a dent in the poverty by creating housing that poor people can own so that they have something to pass on to the next generation of homeless folks. And we're actually beginning to look at solving the problems as opposed to. Looking good, as if we're trying to solve the problem. And the truth is we're making it worse because we're never going to get to the fundamental issue that's involved, which is poverty . Poverty. That's what we have run a rapid that's what's leading to the homelessness and the 1 to 3 ABC. And we have the housing that can that's available that can be dealt with. We've got the cut to the real estate deal on the 20,000 luxury apartments that are being held for price gouging to see how far we can go with this type. And so we got to cut a deal, a win win deal. The developers get what they get. We need what we get. And now we have housing to transfer people out from outside. And we do not.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 10: No squatter camps.
Speaker 0: Thank you very.
Speaker 10: Much. Allowable.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council?
Speaker 1: Kathmandu tourism as of course, I was involved with a area rezoning at one time and where properties where the rezoning was being kept and the property owners were given the opportunity to opt into to the new zoning from their own specialized zoning. You know, and I keep thinking, looking at this area, too, and I think this is maybe the second property, individual property we've done with 80 years, which everybody's in favor of. I didn't know whether CBD or are you considering any kind of opportunity in an area that may be advantageous for 80 years to for property owners to opt into their zoning, whether they want to do it a view or not, but it allows them the opportunity to do that. There would be voluntary, not mandatory.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, Blueprint does talk about this on a citywide basis. But as of now, there is no initiative in CBD to do this on a wider basis.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I think it's a great opportunity for you to use. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman new councilman Flynn. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Hi, Theresa. Could you talk a little bit more about the justifying circumstances and citywide changes? Generally citywide? What do we look for? This is an application to allow an accessory dwelling unit on a small lot in Globeville. Right. And what is the citywide change that says, you know what that means, we should have an 80. You hear.
Speaker 7: That? It's not citywide change that this one is based on. It's based on the adoption of the.
Speaker 8: Plan.
Speaker 7: Local plan.
Speaker 8: Okay. I was just going off the presentation. That's yes. And we are recognizing.
Speaker 7: Six citywide plans, but the code does allow for adoption of a newer plan since the to 2020 ten zoning code.
Speaker 8: Okay. And this was 2014 was.
Speaker 7: 2014.
Speaker 8: Plan. Okay. The presentation also said it was met by recognizing citywide changes and I just wondered what those were.
Speaker 7: So I guess I was.
Speaker 8: Primarily.
Speaker 7: Experiencing so many citywide changes.
Speaker 8: Are real.
Speaker 7: It's a global kind of change that's occurring in the city.
Speaker 8: I just don't want to get to the point where the fact that, hey, things are changing in a city can be used to justify anything. No. All right. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Asked a similar question on a similar rezoning. Under the new adopted plans. So this parcel, this one zoned lot, will now have that ability for 80 years. It is in and it is in the growth strategy. It's in the 10% a residential capture. How is CPD looking at the they looking at citywide that 10%? So if we were to say somehow map this entire neighborhood to capture Adus and all properties were to get 80 use. That's way more than 10% for this local area. But is that if if Kevin Flynn's district also has the same yellow coloring and it's part of the 10% does that is that what balances it out or what is the general vicinity that we're working with so that we know going forward?
Speaker 7: I'm I think we've quantified the 10% that I've read in the blueprint, but I'm still reading from print, to tell you the truth. It is fairly new, but I would say that it's sort of it's a replacement for our areas of change, in our areas of stability, where we expect to see the most growth or the least growth. And the the light yellow is where we expect to see the least growth.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Because it's a relative thing.
Speaker 1: Relative term contemplated is the amount of use contemplated in the Globeville. Elyria. No, and.
Speaker 7: No. They just decided that they wanted to use in the residential portions of the neighborhood, which, if we go back to that map, is colored yellow on their map. And they decided they wanted a new concept land use, which was single family with an accessory dwelling unit for their area.
Speaker 1: So 100% saturation would be consistent with their plan. Yes. Okay. But not consistent with the.
Speaker 7: Not necessarily with blueprint.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for comfortable 352 is closed. Other comments by any members of Council Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be supporting this rezoning. I think it matches right up with the plan, the global plan that we put together in 1990. Wow. In 2000. 1855 when I first came on city council in 2015 when we approved this, and this aligns with the context and with our criteria that we meet to make these decisions. But I will say this I have reason properties to make sure that they are enough to use in in guidance for affordable housing. And to answer your question, councilman, new I think blanket rezonings for a to use especially in these neighborhoods will be pretty dangerous if we're not careful to make sure that it's not an outright rezoning so folks can take advantage of, you know, just the development opportunity. But we need to figure out an incentive for affordable housing at some point. And so we've had many conversations with folks in CPD. What we're doing in the Swansea neighborhood was encouraging and incentivizing all of those units that we did with an 80. You will be use for those who have displaced because of because of I-70 and working with the global Elyria, Swansea Coalition and brother's redevelopment for those. And so it would be great if we can come together as a council CPD to come up with an incentive for affordable housing to use. Then I think I would be supportive of a blanket rezoning, I should say an overlay of global area Swansea to allow folks to go in and build out a to use. We're seeing these same things happen in the whole neighborhood and you know the rise in land value it it makes it an opportune time for an investor to come together, build a build a home and just put an edu on there without any kind of incentive to to keep it affordable. So that's just my thought on that. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Neal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree. I'll support this as well and I love to use it, but I agree with you. I'll talk about a voluntary. I would try to do a mandatory area rezoning. It has to be property owners opting in to from the experience I had. So I think it's an opportunity in the future and may be really studied. So thank you, Mr..
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. You seeing no other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Brooks I.
Speaker 3: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. I Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, please close the voting and note the results. 11 Nice Lebanese Council Bill 352 has passed. Guzman-Lopez Would you please put Council Bill 380 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council vote three zero.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4891 Lincoln Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (urban edge, single-unit to urban, single-unit), located at 4891 Lincoln Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-23-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05202019_19-0496
|
Speaker 0: So thank you very much. Thank you, girls. Manu. All right. Seeing no other announcements, we're going to move on. There are no presentations and there are no communications. But we do have two proclamations this evening. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please read Proclamation 496?
Speaker 7: A proclamation and a public works that I bring every year. So happy to make this proclamation. Whereas, in celebrating the American Public Works Association's 2019 theme of Public Works, it starts here. We recognize that Denver Public works through its 1400 plus employees, consistently delivers safe, high quality, equitable, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works connects more people with a strategic vision, focusing on an integrated approach to planning, designing and building infrastructure. Making Denver more sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works employees are integral to our residents everyday lives, delivering services that include street sweeping, snow, plowing, recycling and refuse collection, pothole repairs, street paving and mobility programs supported by top notch vehicle and equipment technicians. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including streets, bike lanes, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings, signage and on street parking as well as contracting, procurement, cash sharing and permitting programs who that need to meet the needs of the public. Whereas, Denver Public Works continues to make significant contributions to our city's built environment managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options that help people get around town with greater ease. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works Focus is safety, which is the backbone to all decisions made within Denver Public Works using Vision Zero, not just as a goal, but as a mindset that every decision made will affect the lives of all those that live and visit Denver. Whereas the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2018 for their achievement. Sebastian Tuxedo in Accounting Services. Christina Lahey in Finance and Administration. Danny Smith in Fleet Management. Scott Whiteman in Infrastructure Projects Management. Becky Simon in program implementation and Resources. Jason Smiley in the Performance Office. Rocha Mosley. Right of way. Enforcement Permitting. Jackie Bard. A right of Way Services. Kyle Vogel. Safe Safety and Industrial Hygiene. Isaiah Garcia Solid Waste Management. Marisol Camarena Street Maintenance Operations. David de Giacomo Transportation Design. Riley Lamy Transportation and Mobility Planning. C.J. Mossman. Transportation Operations. And Paul Cox. Waste Water Management. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Section one. The Council hereby designates the week of May 19 through 25th 2019, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2018 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and the city and Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be forwarded to Denver Public Works and the 15 Denver Public Works employees listed above.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: I move to adopt proclamation number 19. Dashiell 496.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Sussman Thank you very much, Mr. President. There's no way to properly and completely thank the people up at Public Works. My goodness gracious. You are the backbone of our city. You are the people that take care of the places we live and work and play. I have been overwhelmed with your. Generous generosity with your time and your commitment to keeping our city pretty and clean and in shape and everything else. Just one of the most wonderful agencies that we have in the city and so necessary. I thank you for your service. It's been wonderful working with you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman for bringing this forward and for recognizing not only the 15 names of individuals who were called out earlier. And I hope that you're all here. But to the 1400 plus employees who do this work day in and day out to make our city the attractive city that everyone is somehow attracted to. And you all have seen how we keep growing and growing. But you all really make us look good. You make the mayor look good. All the managers in the department and it's important to have good managers. I see several of them in the room here, but I just want to say congratulations to the 15, but also to the 1400 who do the heavy lift day in and day out. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also just have to say thank you all. Denver Public works for your work, for your dedication. Every single day you go in and, you know, working for the city is is interesting because it depends on you know, you what you feel you find where you find your fulfillment of work. Sometimes it takes a long time to see that footed out of labor. Sometimes it's overnight, right? Sometimes it's like, hey, we're going to we're going to go in here. We're going to rebuild this street and it's going to be done right. Or we got X number of blocks done in one day and you get to kind of sit back and look at the street if you're in street maintenance. Right. And be able to see that that beautiful pavement, that fresh pavement on the ground and have that fulfillment. But sometimes it takes a while. Right. And for us as an apartment, it takes a while to see, to kind of step back and see the tapestry you literally build our city. You build cities, right? You plan it. You build it. And every time. Every time I'm out, I think. Being born and raised in this city and then getting having the joining you write in the last 12 years. You really don't see things the same thing the same way after once you join, it's like the matrix, right? You'd see nothing but the matrix and you just can't unsee it, see? You just can't unsee what you see in the city and how things are built and what it takes to pave alleys in West Denver, what it takes to plan our roadways, to actually visualize the bike lanes. Right. And what it takes to actually put that striping down. It it's a team effort and it's a heck of a tapestry. And that's our city. And you, ladies and gentlemen, build it. And I think, you know, every every year we come in and this proclamation is in front of us and we honor you there. But I think we need to do a better job. And I've tried to do my part. And when I see you out in the communities of saying thank you and making sure that our residents in Denver say thank you. Right. My grandfather and my grandmother and they're both right here and my pictures are on my my desk. I never forget their teachings. And one of them was me. How you always respect a person in uniform? It doesn't matter if that person is a police officer or a firefighter. Or if they're picking up trash. You show that person some respect. And my grandma, my grandmother's world, working for the city was like the highest honor. And now I see why after 12 years. And I could see that she's looking down and I say, you're right, Graham, because look at all these men and women that build our city. And so I have to say, I have a lot of memories, a lot of pictures, and I'm going through them nowadays. I'm like, man, that was a good day when we pave that street, right? But, you know, the best memory was being out with you all, some of y'all, and being able to pave the street. And one of the homies that was working on the street. I live on this street. Oh, so you're not messing this one up? Yeah. So. Right. So it's that kind of thing. And it's. And I just have to say I'm sorry to go off, but. But thank you. Thank you for your work. And thank you for for rebuilding our city. Yeah. I appreciate everything that you do, all of you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Actually, Mr. President, I was hoping to go last because we all know by tradition here that on the public works proclamation, you go last and you get all the requests that you ask for the city councilman. But I will go in the middle and just say thank you guys for all your hard work. You know, I got a chance to probably a couple weeks ago talk to some of the newcomers who were public works employees and just really invited them to be a part of a calling and be a part of a meaningful work that that I've seen for the last eight years in the city. And and I mean it it's it's incredible what you guys do. It's incredible what you are called to. And anything that we can do on city council, we try and make it seen and let our our constituents know how much we appreciate you. I remember there were some folks who worked on York and Repave York and in in the Cole Clayton, Whittier City Park West neighborhoods. They have been praying for that street to be repaid for years. And when it got repaved, everybody came out onto the park and gave everyone seven ups and and Cokes and things like that. All the folks who were street paving because all of the hard work that they were doing in the hot sun. And so I hope you all know that our constituents love the work that you do, regardless of how they act at times. They're extremely appreciative. And I just want to give a shout out to you, Liz. You know, I think, you know, leadership matters. And I think the leadership that you've brought into public works over the last year and the organizational changes and manners, and it's made an impact. And I think people notice and people notice you don't have a car. And I think, you know, you lead by example. And I really appreciate that. So thank you all. Thank you, Dr. Sussman, for bringing this forward. And you all are the backbone of the work that we do in the city of Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Being the last to speak. Oh, I see. I see. Some other people chimed in now. Yours. So I would have been the last. I want to mention something that I've witnessed over the years I've been in Denver, and that is the dedication that the Public Works crew puts in in some of the harshest conditions we've seen in some of the worst blizzards. My first blizzard as a Denver eight was the Christmas blizzard of 82, and I remember how difficult that time was. I don't know if anybody is anybody was working there in the blizzard. Blizzard of 82, there was one. And then the Thanksgiving of 83. And some of those harsh conditions, not just the plow drivers and the street workers, but also the solid waste workers who work in some of the harshest conditions, the cold and then the extreme heat. And they're out there every day doing the job that we asked them to do. And I just want I just want them to know that the citizens of Denver appreciate it. They appreciate it very much. And I want to echo Councilman Brooks and and talk about the great leadership that we've had in this department from folks like like John Mrozek, Bill Smith, Bill Roberts, Stephanie Foote, all the way through to the current day, leading this department and constantly changing and reinventing as the times change and the demands of the of the people change. So thank you very much for everything you do. And I what is today? Today's Monday. My trash day is Wednesday. And I know that I will see. I think we're expecting snow, as a matter of fact, aren't we, that we will see our dedicated crews out there each and every day. And thank you very much. Thank, Mr..
Speaker 0: President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Councilman Cashman also failed at my attempt to be last, but, hey, give it your best shot. Thank you, Mr. President. So we, my colleagues and I, we sit up here and we sit in committee rooms and in various combinations, and we make wonderful policy. We create interesting things to move our city forward. And they're complex and they're meaningful. And then we ask you guys to do it. Okay. And the one that I've been involved in over the past couple of years and this council, along with with with the mayor and his administration, agreed that that it was time that we reconstruct or complete our sidewalk system so people can move safely. Around our city. It is the right thing to do. It is much easier for us to devise the ordinance than for you folks to put concrete and stone on the ground. And in the year and a half, I've been meeting monthly with with my Byner and Nancy Koon and a bunch of people from your department. I have become painfully aware of how difficult it is to deal with trees and landscaping and all manner of obstacle. And it has to be dealt with because the goal is correct. But. There's no way to adequately thank you guys, because as has been said, it's not like every door that you knock on says, Oh, so good to see you. We understand the goal of moving people. And now it's like, What are you doing? You're ruining my life. I can't afford this. You're destroying everything. And it gets done professionally and with good spirit as as much as possible. So just want to add my thank you. And I don't know how you pick a group out of the 1400 each year to honor because I can't think of one that I've met that doesn't deserve the honor. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Probably in my office, we get more calls about public works than any other department of the city. And the reason we get those cars is because it's all about quality of life for our citizens. They don't call too, you know, they may call to complain, but they call about the needs of the city. And I'm just so impressed of how responsive public works is to all those needs we know we can call. And they'll be they'll they'll absolutely be on top of something, whether it's street maintenance, you know, pavement our streets or our potholes or curbs or whatever the the right away issues and especially get one of those favorite areas that all our citizens love is called parking these things but also the the pedestrian safety people oh your intersection the manager the traffic lights all of those things that that again talk about the protection of our citizens and the quality of life. So I just want to say thank you very much and all our citizens appreciate it. And also the council. Appreciate the fine work that you do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Damn you, Ortega. I was going to be last, and I was going to start with my list of things that I was going to request. But now somebody else has chimed in that said the the I don't to to Councilman Cashman's point, I don't know how you single out 15 out of so many, but I do genuinely appreciate the work that public works is doing. And I think the 15 just represents, you know, each one representing a hundred people beneath them that do essentially as good or better work. They're just the ones that get noticed the the the eye to get a lot of public works call but public works knows it's usually just two people that are doing all those calls. And once we take that out, it's actually very, very low. I see Nancy smiling. So the point is, the only thing I really want to chime in about is two things. In my short tenure here. I have seen maybe they were things that were in the works, but I have seen more movement on on sort of some of the the micro adjustments, the things that we can do to improve outcomes and to be more adaptable in a in a sort of more in a more local scale than what we were doing before . And I genuinely appreciate that effort because I think the more we can pilot things, the more we can sort of test things, the more we can move towards a different future and better outcomes. And the reason why that's important is and I'm glad there's leadership here, is that is that I as as as old as infrastructure is an important it is to the core of city and city building and civics. The you guys are also sort of on the bleeding edge of technology where we're going to be headed in the future. And so it's important for you and everybody in your employees and others, I think you embody this, the ability to recognize that what we do is deliver a certain service that has to be done. But where we're going is someplace that we don't quite know yet. And we have to be willing to test and to push those boundaries. And I don't I see a willingness to do that in this department, especially with now the structural reforms. And that leads to my little second bit of commentary. I have been clear that I hope that this ballot measure that comes up in November comes with an ask a financial asks to the city, the citizens of Denver, because I don't want you guys doing it on the budget you already have. I want you to have an expanded budget so that you want to do more than what you've with what you've got today. So if and when you get to that point where you've decided there's a budget component to this, consider me an advocate for that ask. So thank you all for the work that you're doing. Appreciate you public works.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Well.
Speaker 8: I actually have a request and this is not for public works, it's actually for the public. So when you see our city workers installing sidewalks, putting in new asphalt, whatever it is they're doing, please adhere to their safety. It's so important to make sure that you're not in such a such a haste to get to where you're going, that you're going to go around the barricades or whatever, to put our workers at risk. And I just want to say that I think that's very important to ensure that we all pay attention. Slow down. You've seen those signs all around the city that say, slow down. But I thank you for your work. Once again, thank you for the partnership. Use your department with city council. I know we have tried to lead based on what we hear from the public, but many of the projects that you all are working on are based on what we hear people screaming and hollering that they want in our city. And we've worked in collaboration to make these things happen. And as they're being installed, we want to make sure that our workers are all safe. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I will just. And since apparently it's a good night to be president, because I do get to go last, Jasmine Brooks keeps trying to sneak in there. I will do that. Thank you to Councilwoman Sussman for bringing this forward. Thank you to our entire public works team. I'll echo what my colleagues said and then say congratulations to the employees of the year. That is not a small accomplishment in a big department. To rise to the top and be seen and be recognized for what you're doing, that is above and beyond. So congratulations. Thank you for your excellent work. And with that, Madam Secretary, Raquel Sussman.
Speaker 2: Black Brooks.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore Cashman.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President, I remember.
Speaker 0: Secretary, please close voting and thus results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes proclamation 496 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. Councilman Sussman, would you like to bring somebody up?
Speaker 7: I certainly would. I'd like to call up the director of Euless quickly. Of whom we have spoken.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Counsel and Council President. Thank you very much, Council Members Susman and Distinguished Council members. I'm very proud and happy to accept this proclamation on behalf of the 1400 employees that we have in our department. In fact, we have not only the recipients of the Employee of the Year award, we have a couple of other folks and I'd like them to stand so you can see their faces. So all the public works folks in the chamber, can you guys stand? In the families, too. We have some family folks here. So I would like to give.
Speaker 1: Them a round of applause.
Speaker 4: And I would say it's very heartwarming to hear all of the comments from each one of you. We're really working very hard to develop a really strong culture in our department. Ever since I've been there, we've kind of done a revisioning. Making sure that we're trying to strive every single day to be an ideal public works department, which is really striving for perfection. Perfection is very difficult. But what we embody as a leadership team all the way down through all our employees, is that every single day understand what your mission is and your mission is servitude. And so you're a special person when you come into the department. You're not here necessarily to make money. What you're here to do is serve the public. We are first responders, so when people have an issue, they call us. We need to understand that. We need to respond effectively. So we take that to heart. And I truly appreciate the focus on safety. We are a department that as our number one priority, we really want to embody a safety culture. So we try to invest in our people by investing in our people and having good staff. We can deliver the services in a project that the people that live and work and play here in Denver expect. But it starts with our set, our staff first in terms of limiting their risk to safety and making sure that they're operating every single day so they can go home to their families because they get up every day and sacrifice. And so we want to be the leader in that space for our department, as a leader in the safety space that the general public can follow. So thank you very much on that. And I would echo the fact that when you do see our staff out, please thank them. We only get probably one or two days where we get this type of accolades. So I appreciate it very much. And we are striving to make sure your constituencies receive the best projects and services. So thank you very much. And I'm happy to accept this proclamation of out of the department. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Classic. All right. We're going to move on to our second proclamation of the evening. Councilman Espinosa, will you please read Proclamation 500?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 19th through May 25th as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works fifteen Employees of the Year for 2018
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05202019_19-0424
|
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 Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 4 to 4 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, I move that council bill 4 to 4 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second in the courtesy public hearing for council bill 44 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Leveque, assistant director of Parks Planning. Kathy Haines would like to be here tonight, but she has a graduation that she needs to attend. Tonight, we're presenting to you the game plan for a healthy city, which is the long term strategic plan to guide the Parks and Recreation Department. The game plan has been part of the Denver art process, which is a suite of plans coordinated from departments across the city, including community planning and development, public works and Parks and Recreation. And the plan also aligns with the new Denver comprehensive plan elements. This is provides a highlight and overview of our system. We have our mountain parks system, which has over 14,000 acres. And then in our urban parks, we have over 6000 acres. These include ten regional parks, 45 community and special use parks, as well as 137 neighborhood and pocket parks. We also have rec centers, indoor and outdoor pools, over 80 miles of trails and athletic complexes and golf courses. The game plan process began nearly three years ago, starting in summer 2016. This included robust engagement, many meetings and public review drafts of the plan. We're very excited to present the final plan here tonight for your consideration. Throughout the process. At each stage of the plan, Parks and Recreation conducted outreach and engagement through meetings, surveys, workshops, events and task force meetings. We received thousands of points of impact of feedback, and at each stage of the plan and with each public draft, we were able to incorporate and dress and address most of the comments, concerns and questions that we received. Our vision is a game plan for a healthy city. A healthy city includes healthy residents, and this means providing access and opportunities for healthy lifestyles, access to the parks so that everyone is within a ten minute walk to a park , providing something for all ages and abilities, and making sure that our our programs and the places that we create connect with people of diverse backgrounds and interests. It also includes a resilient city, which means a city that's ready for climate change adaptation, enhancing biodiversity, particularly along our waterways and our forests, and making sure that we have strong stewardship of our resources. From this vision for a healthy city, the input that we received developed into four guiding principles. Those are every drop, every person, every dollar. And uniquely Denver. And these led into our implementation pillars. This is really our call to action, how we translate a strategic plan into actions that we can carry out to make a difference in the community. Every drop translates into adapting to our changing climate and limited resources. This means water conservation, making sure that our waterways and lakes are healthy, maintaining our tree canopy and reducing our energy usage. Every person is about diversity with enhancing our programing to connect with different ages, cultures and abilities, and improving outreach and community engagement. And it's also about growing our system, including access to the parks and expanding the system. Every dollar is about reinvesting. This includes strategies that address equity. Leveraging partnerships and our funding and operations. And then, uniquely, Denver is about connecting with what makes Denver so special and unique. This includes enhancing our parkways, our tree line, streets and trails. Continuing to innovate across our system. And also providing access to nature, outdoor recreation and arts and culture. From these specific strategies, actions and recommendations follow. An important thing to note about the game plan is that it ends with a three year action plan that's very specific about what our department can do in the next three years. It also provides some metrics, and then that allows us that over time we can evaluate our progress and then plan for the following three years after that and so on. And finally, I'm available and as well as some of my other colleagues from Parks and Recreation, if you have any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'll call the first five up if you could come up to the front bench so that we can get through everyone in a timely manner here. The first five are Florence Navarro, Chairman Sekou Jesse Pierce, Joel Noble and David Richter. If you want to come up to the front bench, that would be appreciate it. And first of all, you're up first.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak in support of the game plan. My name is Florence Navarro, third generation resident of North Denver. Tim attended Columbia and Skinner North School's North High School, graduated from the University of Northern Colorado and have been a member of the Denver Parks Recreation Advisory Board for many years. As a resident of Denver. I went to the recreation centers to hang out with my friends and play foosball. I also remember going to Berkeley Park to watch the fireworks from Lakeside. All our friends were there, a meeting place, great memories, a place to hang out was a good thing. But more importantly, I played organized sports and learned the importance of team and healthy life activities. I still go to Ashland and Iceland on a regular basis. My participation in the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was a way to ensure that our youth of today have the same opportunities to learn those life skills and be able to go in there to their neighborhood centers and parks as I did. That's why I'm excited about the future of Denver Parks, and I'm asking you to support the game plan for a healthy city that is in front of you tonight. As a tenured member of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, I had the opportunity to participate in the development of the first game plan and recently participated as one of the co-chairs of the task force, along with Darrell Watson in the three year process to develop this plan. In this process, we were thoughtful and deliberate in the discussion of the role our city parks and recreation system can have in the health of all Denver residents. Excuse me, I'll get to the second page here. Discussions to develop the vision and guiding principles were also deliberate and robust. Another key factor was equity was naturally integrated throughout the game plan. The Voices of Denver residents helped share game plan help shared in the game plan. The process included extensive outreach in the collection of input and in comments that ultimately led to the game plan as we know it today. The timing of having completed the game plan for a healthy city and the implementation measure of two was incredible and something that could not have been orchestrated any better. The game plan is what supports and is the foundation for two way. My fellow Park and Recreation Advisory Board members voted to support the game plan as I encourage you to do the same this evening. Again, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on behalf in support of the game plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman CQ.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is German Siku. Organizer, founder of the Black Star Action Movement. And. Successful candidate. For Mayor of the city, Kermit Denver. Adolf Hitler made a statement just. That if you want. Allowed to be believable. Make it big. Make it huge. And then organize the people around the lie because they're never going to look at who's going to implement it. So you say one thing over here, but in the deep background, you have people who are going to do something totally opposite. So let's talk about who is going to do this beautiful presentation and this wonderful vision. In this current election. I was arrested three times for defending it.
Speaker 0: Keep your comments on the subject at hand, which is the game's.
Speaker 4: Subject, because we're talking about the background. So I'd appreciate if you would allow me to speak without interrupting me.
Speaker 0: I'll be happy to not interrupt you if you.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, because we're going to form the decorum, which means that there's a decorum that you have to do to allow the people freedom of speech.
Speaker 0: Do you have something to add on this issue? I have.
Speaker 4: To say, if you stop talking. I talk? You listen when you talk.
Speaker 9: I'll listen. That's cool. The core.
Speaker 4: So who's going to do this? When you defend the right of people to participate in this process equally with equity, who don't do this to you because you are silent on the issue of free and fair elections. You said nothing. And then you come here and I come in. You try to shut down the conversation. Where's the fear at? Where's the integrity at? Yeah. Hypocrisy. No democracy. Hypocrisy. So as we do this thing. Poor people have nothing to do with this because we are not organized in our plight and know we're on there because there's no process of building us up and lifting us up. So we say one thing.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 5: Jesse Perez, representative for Denver Homicide Law. Black Starts a movement for self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I was on top of the ballot for our large almost 15,000 votes with no money. We are neither for or against this for the reasons that were already previously stated for people who are not on the table for any of this. You want to beautify the city for who? Who is this benefiting? The transplants that just moved in yesterday or actual natives that helped built this city? You did a proclamation earlier for public works. So, oh, we commend you for building the city. We can't even afford to live in this city. So really, who is this benefiting? And you keep preaching this equality equity madness. And it's not true. It's a lie. And like I said, who said, you keep telling a lie long enough, people start believing it, but it's clearly a lie. There's nothing inclusive about this plan, and this is why I spoke against this plan in the first place, because there's not nothing inclusive about the 2040 plan. And you rushed it through without giving people enough time to actually read through to what it actually is. So, yeah, we're neither for or against this, but I want the voters to know that this is not benefiting poor people at all, especially when you have an urban camper van that's criminalizing people just for surviving on the streets. You can't occupy any of these parks. So really, who is this benefiting? So in closing, we're neither for or against, but we actually do not vote yes on this because. We will show you we'll show everybody who this truly is for, and it's not for poor people. And this whole campaign, we made everything about poor people. We put us at the forefront when y'all turned a blind eye. You're going to continue to turn a blind eye because the city is not for poor people. It's more exclusively rich white folks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chernobyl.
Speaker 3: Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street, speaking on my own behalf. I'm here to speak in support of adoption.
Speaker 5: Of the game plan for a Healthy City as a supplement to the.
Speaker 3: Comprehensive plan. The Plan for Parks and Recreation in front of you was developed along with the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint. Denver and the new Denver Moves.
Speaker 5: Plans as part of the umbrella of Denver.
Speaker 3: Right plans. As with Blueprint Denver, this plan has specific strategies to achieve the goals of the plan with 25 priority strategies identified and as with Blueprint Denver. The Game Plan concert includes a series of metrics which also deeply incorporate the comprehensive plan's focus on equity with all applicable applicable metrics. Having an equity overlay to focus attention on equity during implementation. As with Blueprint Denver, this plan updates a plan from the early 2000s. That plan looked out about 20 years and we're just about to the end of that horizon. This plan looks out the next 20 years. Most plans have one key goal. That if the public's heard about it, they could tell you, oh, I know that plan that has the one key goal and the one key goal from this plan that I expect the public is going to remember.
Speaker 5: Even though there's so much more to the plan.
Speaker 3: Is everyone, no matter where they live in the city, having access to a park with an easy ten minute walk, that's a goal to be proud of. And the way the plan's written, that goal was informed by equity and implementation and informed by the Blueprint Denver Growth Strategy to make wise decisions about investment in the park and make wise use of the money that the voters have recently voted on to increase our parks capacity. I ask for your support in adopting a game plan for a healthy city.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is David Richter and I'll invite Darryl Watson, Leslie, Tory Gorski and Andrew to come up to the front bench.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Demons. David Richter. I reside in the Sphere neighborhood. I'm Councilman Clark's rep on the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. I just want to speak for a couple of minutes about my own personal observations and involvement with the development of game plan. I guess I'd say over the last several years at least, I've kind of observed the process. I've participated in it. I've gotten updates from both the department as well as the co-chairs, Darrell and Florence, who have or will speak. I think they've done a great job from the public sector to support and to steer to the best of their ability on the outside. And I really would like to thank them for their work on this project. Personally, I've participated in online surveys, community presentations, had direct correspondence with a number of members within the department. I've always felt like my issues have been listened to, addressed. I've given them lots of suggestions and I see continually that they at least appear to accept that and to really create a healthy dialog in terms of trying to assimilate comments from the public. In addition to the myriad of other. Plans throughout the other Denver write programs to integrate all this together. I think the process in general has been very open, responsive, objective, inclusive, and I'm very much in favor of the current version of game plan and I hope you will support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Darrell Watson.
Speaker 5: Good evening, members of Council. Council President John Clarke. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm a 23 year resident of District nine. I'm honored to co-chair the game plan for a healthy city with Florence Navarro. Thank you to council President Clark and Councilwoman Debbie Ortega for your leadership within the task force. Thank you to each of the members of the task force that are here tonight and that have participated for almost three years on this process. I'd like to thank the Parks Recreation Employee Ambassadors. This was a unique process that included employees, too, and throughout the process. And then manager Haynes and her leadership team, specifically Dodie Erickson and Mark Taber, who managed the process for almost these three years. We ask for your approval tonight for the 20 year Parks, Recreation and Mountain Parks 2019 game plan for a Healthy City. Based on the three criteria developed by Denver City Council to consider for adoption. They are an inclusive community. Process was used and developed the second. The plan is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040 and a third. The plan demonstrates a long term view. First, equity was the capstone on which our almost three year community process is built on received almost 6000 unique user inputs into this process, hosting three public forums in 11 separate locations throughout the city. This plan through the Denver AI process was co-developed with Blueprint Denver. We coordinated our efforts ensuring that we were placed appropriate focus on how growth as described within Blueprint Denver could impact our four guiding principles. Every drop, every person, every dollar. And uniquely Denver. The co-development allowed our planning process to remain consistent with a vision. Elements within comprehensive plan 2040 while building on both game plan 2003 and Blueprint 2002. Finally, this plan has a 20 year planning horizon with a clear milestones review process called the three year Action Plan. The game plan for a Healthy City has already inspired a community driven ballot initiative to finally develop a dedicated funding source for our park system. As of this moment, DPR is acquiring land to build two new parks with more to come. Thank you to Councilman Price, our president for our city council and many folks in this room for leading that charge. Manager Haines rightfully states that parks are important pieces of our city infrastructure, and we believe that this plan would lead us to a process that will ensure that this occurs. In my closing, this may be my last public hearing that I speak to, that I address two council persons that are currently on council, and Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Lopez, I wanted to thank you so much for your leadership throughout these years. I know that you've dedicated your life and your family's lives. That is great work. So thank you for all that you do and God bless you and God bless the next stage of your journey.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tarkowski.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Leslie Torrey Gorski. I've served as president of the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board since 2013. We've been working hard on this game plan since November 2016. And first, I need to start by thanking you sincerely, Councilman Clark, because when we first started working on this project, we had a wish list of projects that had been identified through the bond process. And frankly, it was very depressing because we knew that our game plan at that time didn't have anywhere near enough money to address our needs. So, again, thank you and Councilman Clark for leading the charge on Tuesday. And thank you to all the Denver voters who agreed to create a dedicated funding source for our parks. Now we have a plan, a great plan, and we have the funding to make our plans a reality. I respectfully request that you pass this game plan without delay. I want to thank Darryl Watts and Florence Navarro and others for spending countless hours working on this plan, including Denver Park staff, specifically Dodie Erickson, Laura morales, Yoli Quezada, Mark Tabor, Kathy Levesque and director Happy Haines for their strong commitment to the future of Denver City and mountain parks. Finally again, I urge you to pass this wonderful plan so we can get to work without delay. Thank you very.
Speaker 9: Much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andrew since.
Speaker 5: But thanks. I don't have a lot to add. I think everybody said a lot of great things. I just wanted to be here to voice my support for this plan. I also wanted to say thank you for adopting the Blueprint Denver plan a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't be here for that. I was a member of that task force, and I'm grateful that you were able to move that forward. So thank you for that. I just wanted to also speak to the fact that I do believe this was all the plan's blueprint and the game plan were focused on equity first. That was my perception. I think the public process could not have been better, and I really want to commend the city staff for that. I think every time I had a chance to interact with them and to see the process that they set up, I could not have been more impressed and I cannot imagine a better process . I think if I could maybe air a little grievance here briefly, it's been frustrating in this election cycle to see some candidates asking for you to delay this until after the election. It seems like that's a I remember I think four years ago I was here talking about a zoo thing or something like that. And Charlie Brown took particular issue at some of the folks who were asking for the same thing. So I think this is just sort of a right of every four year passage or something. I thank you for overcoming those appeals and I thank you for your adoption of these plans. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Could you just state your name officially?
Speaker 5: Because my name is Andy, since I live at 1554 Forest Street in Park Hill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: I have a question for.
Speaker 3: Staff, I think, and I apologize. I was just trying to look research and this is related to a conversation I was having earlier today. What is the game plan talk about with respect to maintenance facilities and in in our open spaces going forward?
Speaker 7: Sure. Just to clarify, the question is at about both maintenance facilities and open spaces.
Speaker 3: Maintenance facilities located within open spaces or within parks, I should say dedicated parks.
Speaker 7: Sure. Our game plan does acknowledge that we need to keep up on our maintenance facilities and certainly we are also looking at opportunities to expand maintenance facilities. For instance, in northeast Denver, we have one maintenance shop and we have crews that have to drive tractors and other equipment on street for several miles, which is a safety concern . So we are looking at opportunities to create another maintenance shop where strategically needed so that we can best serve the parks and the residents that benefit from them. And potentially, for instance, at 47th and Walden, which is a master plan that will be coming up soon, that is an opportunity where we're looking at the possibility of a maintenance shop in that within that park space.
Speaker 3: So is there any talk in the plan language about sort of efficiency of space? You know, and granted to a wasn't known at the time the planning effort was was happening that it would be successful. Where I'm going is that, you know, we could do acquisition with the to a funds at some point does it you know is there anything in the plan language that sort of talks about looking at the facilities that are located on parks and open space and or dedicated parks? Let's talk about that and and going well, do we need all this dedicated parkland to to have these functions storing trash, storing materials, storing large vehicles and fuel tanks? Or does it actually make sense to use to a money to acquire sort of industrial lower cost industrial land to maybe offload some of those facilities? I mean, some of those those space needs and reactivate existing parkland for park pulp mill. Granted maintenance is part purpose but but actual amenity space as opposed to park, I mean, as opposed to storage and other things. So does it speak to to that notion or does parks in general, are they having this this conversation strategically? Because some of our leased most expensive parkland would actually be something that we actually already own, just recapturing it and maybe turning building a to a facility that sort of both houses, some function of maintenance and some new amenity. Sorry.
Speaker 7: Sure. So the the game plan doesn't speak specifically about any certain maintenance shops or maintenance yards to convert, but it does certainly talk about where we have undeveloped parkland or underutilized parkland that we already own to to make it usable space. And also currently or as you know, we have an a commitment that all residents should be within a ten minute walk to a park. So, for instance, if if a DPR owned property is a maintenance facility, that would not count as that ten minute walk access. We want to make sure that residents have true access to a real park amenity that serves recreational purposes. Does that answer it or.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, this is something going forward as you're starting to think about this and how we do acquisition and what sort of land is available is that not all recreation facilities are open space. And so if you're looking at something that is that is is more of a hardscrabble space for a maintenance facility like that, is there is there other recreation functions that we could co-locate in that that would create, you know, growing opportunities, health opportunities in those communities sort of where we never would have expected.
Speaker 7: So yeah. And I think as a department, we are definitely looking at opportunities, certainly where we already own land and we don't have to acquire it, that we could provide more there for residents to enjoy and use if possible.
Speaker 3: So thank you. I just literally that was a conversation I was having earlier today with a constituent. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Excuse me. I just wanted to ask. I'm not sure if, Tony, you might be the right person. Maybe. Skye, if you can tell us how many people within Parks and Rec have actually been through the recent equity training that a number of our city employees have gone through, so that when we talk about really applying the equity piece, that we actually have people that understand how to do that. So I'm not sure which of the two of you might be able to. Sort of give us a.
Speaker 0: But if you could come up to the microphone to answer it because everybody watching can't hear you.
Speaker 8: Sorry to put you on the spot. Oh, that's okay.
Speaker 7: I don't have that answer, but we could certainly get.
Speaker 8: That for you. Okay. I think that would be helpful to know so that as we move the plan forward, we have a clear understanding of how many of our especially upper management people who will be sent in the direction and in moving the projects forward. Understand the. Impact to the adjacent neighborhoods, the importance of including them in the conversation. You know, all of that that is covered in the training that is done. Right. Okay.
Speaker 0: Could you could you introduce yourself for the people.
Speaker 7: Watching you to. ERICKSEN Denver Parks and Recreation Special Projects Director.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: And sorry to put you on the spot again.
Speaker 0: Anything else.
Speaker 8: Councilman? That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Cathleen, when we passed a blueprint in the comp plan, we passed an amendment that included a paragraph saying that policies and processes should be designed to reduce Denver's carbon footprint, to eliminate our contribution to the climate crisis. Staff assured me it would be added to this plan as well. Can you confirm that it has been?
Speaker 7: Yes. That is part of the final plan.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council 4 to 4 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank Jack Patterson for my office, who sat in on meetings that I was not able to attend. I want to thank our two co-chairs, Florence Navarro and Darrell Watson, as well as our city staff, our team of staff, people who were at all of our meetings. Tony, Yolanda. I don't know why I'm forgetting your first name, but. We had an incredible amount of people who stuck through the process for the full three year time frame that came and gave their input that were in attendance at many of the public meetings to, you know, just kind of ensure that not only the word was getting out, but that people were actually showing up to the public hearings across the city. And, you know, I think the the recommendations that are in the plan clearly reflect that broad input. And there were a lot of low income people from neighborhoods across the city. It was not, you know, something that just targeted certain neighborhoods to get people out. We were all utilizing social media to share with the public, to encourage them to come to the meetings and give their input about what they wanted to see in this game plan document. And the document actually reflects that input. So I just want to say hats off to everyone who was involved in helping to move this forward and to reflect that genuine input from the public. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: I wanted to thank all of you for your hard work, to see this thing actually be actualized. And when we talk about equity and we talk about Healthy City and looking at the entire city, and when you're talking about that, that's that's that's what gives me some confidence that this is going to actually have be a plan that doesn't just sit on the shelf. Right. It actually has legs. That's usually me, by the way. So with a different song, right? Elvis.
Speaker 9: Oh.
Speaker 4: That's so.
Speaker 5: So I, you know, I'm very happy about it. Hopefully the plan can be amended to include the Westwood Rec Center and its utilization and how we go about, you know, programing and the work that's been done on the West Side and just just connecting it to the park system and parks. Attention to the west side has been amazing in the last in the last 12 years. Right. And I think every single one of you for believing in that vision and for really working to achieve that. Right. You both have been working so hard out there, so I really appreciate that. Leslie, Daryl, everybody, you know, I just hats off to you. The crab is a. Parab is a non-paid board. It's completely volunteer, right? It's completely volunteer. You catch a lot of help and you have something that's so precious to us as as residents of Denver. And that's our parks, our parks systems, our recreational facilities. They are amazing. So hats off to you. Thank you. Thank you all for. Bringing this up. I'm sorry, Mr. President. It's like I will say, it's like I'm Sam by every time. I just. I'm just happy to see this come forward and pass.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, I think you broke broke some hearts when you announced the probe was not paid. I think we have a few people who have put in decades of work hoping a paycheck was coming at some point. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody for being a part of such an important process and and really shaping our future in the city of Denver and shaping our future for progress. You know, all the other major players in in northeast Denver are in the room speaking with John Noble and their Watson and Leslie, Tara Gorski and Andy. And so I've got to vote for this and I'm just joking. But, you know, I think about District nine, I think about what the Parks Department has done in District nine, in every park in District nine has been redone. And because of that, there's revitalization and connectivity. And for you know, one of our folks up here was saying, if people can't connect to the parks, you know, what good is it? You know, it's not diverse. I challenge anyone in this room to come and see our parks in District nine as some of the most diverse, vibrant parks in the city. You can't get backyard barbecues, you can't all quinceaneras. You're going to get all kinds of stuff because it is about the inclusivity. And that's what I love about our park system is everyone matters and everyone makes a difference. And so thank everyone for for for being a part of this. You're really changing the perspective of what we look like as a city. And so I just want to thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. I will just add my thank you's to staff to our task force members. I mean, look at it. Look at this back row here and the number of decades of service and dedication to this cause. What a great process. It was awesome to be a part of the task force and work with all of you and the broad community. I mean, we had some of those meetings where we, you know, there were 40 stakeholders and it was it really was all the people have been working on parks and in parks and on these issues for so long. And to see, you know, the final draft of this coming forward and know not only can we adopt this and not only is this aspirational, but now we're going to start implementing and we have the money to do that. So this is an implementable plan that is going to shape parks right away. And so it's so exciting. So thank you all for all of your time, for your effort, for taking time to be here and speak once again about the importance of this. We are lucky to have all of you. And with that, let's vote. Madam Secretary, rock on.
Speaker 2: Black eye. Brooks Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 2: I Gillmor I. Cashman Lopez. I knew Ortega I assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 1010 eyes counts. Bill 4 to 4 has passed. All right. On Monday since. On Monday, June 17, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 407, changing the zoning classification for 7698 Jewell Avenue and 1901 South Ulster Street in Indian Creek on Monday, June 24th.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Game Plan for a Healthy City 2019, which plan shall supplement the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver.
Adopts Game Plan for a Healthy City, as part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05132019_19-0245
|
Speaker 1: So do you council president. We can do the comment first if you'd like.
Speaker 0: All right. Let's go ahead and do that. Councilman Lopez, Mayor Secretary, if you put that one on our screens, Councilman Lopez, you want to go ahead with your comment on two, four or five?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to highlight this. This is something great. This is a great program. It's the West End for Single Family Plus one program. This is out of the out of a great office, an idea. Renee Martinez Stone had this opportunity. This is something that we've been working on with OED as part of the city. I brought this program, this funding for this program, asked as a request of council. The last time around, we weren't able to get it, but we were able to identify funding in the general fund for this program . What this program does is it identifies well, that's actually part of the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative. We started in 2016 as a partnership between the Housing Authority and and the city of Denver to really look at a solution involving involuntary displacement in West Denver and looking at a to use as a model, especially in this area. Right. In a lot of a lot a lot of area, a lot of land area and zone districts in West Denver is actually open to use now that we we still have need to use our additional dwelling units, converted garages, things like that allows folks to be able to stay in the community, live at home, or even rent out the 81, live out of the house or the other way around, and pay off that mortgage and those house payments. They serve about 65,000 residents and 25,000 households over ten neighborhoods and three council districts, three, seven and nine. There's a little bit of a little more background information, statistics, housing and affordable housing, involuntary displacement and use. And, you know, as two top priorities in this city, we had about 6000 residents that have been contacted, contacted about West Denver, single family plus one. There's been 60 series anchor inquiries about the program. Five are already moving forward in the process. Those moving forward are in VR Park in Westwood. Three out of five applicants moving forward are under 80%. AMI now the first three years of the program was the DITO funding was a third of was a third of the Westwood Renaissance sorry West Denver Renaissance Project budget. We've invested 600,000 over the last four years. And what time that the WDC has leveraged leveraged 2.6 million in additional project funding and outcomes on top of community priorities. Like I said last October, I requested for another 300 K to go to the West for a single family plus program to make sure that it was funding. Funding funded through the pilot phase. It wasn't. We were able to get 150 identified through the general fund. My ask of this council and folks who are here is to remember that this program works. This is a viable program. It's a program that we can really take advantage of in West Denver with all those own districts that allow for Adus. We purposefully did that back in the day because there there are a lot of folks that are living out of converted garages already that are not in code. There are a lot of folks that are still living with their families that can continue to still live with their families. It allows for like a multigenerational cultural exchange. And also it's a solution. It's a real solution. A part of the solution to our affordable housing crisis is. Now, I want to make sure that as we have these discussions in the future, that we look at models like this, this is viable. Yes, they are expensive. And that's why this is important for us to be able to step in to help with this program. I want us to see I want us to see light in the budget every year. We really have to invest our resources and innovative ideas like this, ideas that were born out of out of these neighborhoods and our folks that are on the ground in these neighborhoods. Yes, there are other tools and mechanisms that we're investing into. But this program in particular has proven to be a success. And I think it's going to be really, really helpful in some of these numbers. So you're seeing displacement with the threat of gentrification. So I just want to just highlight this, bring it out how these statistics are in front of us. And I hope that the administration and data will work and will continue to fund this industry extremely important programs. So with that, I just wanted to say thank you, you guys. I'm so not used to saying. Dito I feel weird saying it already. Dito So yeah. Economic development.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, to provide assistance to low-income homeowners for the construction of accessory dwelling units.
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, Colorado for $500,000 and for two years to provide soft second mortgages of up to $25,000 to low-income homeowners participating in the West Denver Single Family Plus program to assist in the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to serve as an income-generation and anti-displacement tool in Council Districts 3, 7, and 9 (OEDEV-201846549-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-20-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05132019_19-0402
|
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Madam Secretary, would you please put 402 up on our screens? And, Councilman Ortega, you want to see if there's somebody here who can answer your question?
Speaker 3: Yes. And I see someone coming forward. So my question is, if this is related to a specific project or does it cover multiple projects?
Speaker 6: Vince Rivera Denver Human Services. Yes, this is a consolidated grant. So it's two projects. It's actually the Lowry Project and the Veterans Project.
Speaker 3: And is the Veterans Project one on Federal Boulevard and.
Speaker 0: One on the federal? It's the veterans is it's.
Speaker 6: Facilitated by Bayard. So they have a few different.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm just trying to clarify if this is related at all to Del Norte, who administers housing for veterans and on federal? No, if it's not, then we're okay and let it go forward. Otherwise, they need to abstain. It's not. Okay, great. Thank you. I have no further questions.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Grant Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the United States of America Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning the “Continuum of Care Bedrock 2019-2020” program and the funding therefor.
Approves a grant agreement with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to accept $629,750 and through 10-31-20 to provide rental assistance to individuals experiencing homelessness through the Continuum of Care Bedrock program, citywide (SOCSV- 2019-48905). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-3-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-1-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05062019_19-0436
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. That concludes our announcements. There are no presentations and there are no communications this evening, but we do have three proclamations one will be going through on consent, but we have two to be read this evening. So, Councilman Brooks, will you read Proclamation 436?
Speaker 5: All right. I was just talking about this. I will be excited to read this proclamation. 436 A Proclamation Honoring and Recognizing 2019 University of Colorado, Denver, Latinx cohort and all educational doctoral graduates of color. This is really exciting. Whereas it is a fact that this is the largest graduating class of educational doctoral degrees conferred in a single ceremony from an institution of higher ed by Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, women, white allies. And. WHEREAS, The Denver City Council recognizes the exceptional work that all the doctoral students undertook to change the educational landscape of Colorado for the greater good. And. WHEREAS, the 25 doctoral graduates all have been strong advocates of all students of color engaging in research in the end of school to prison pipeline, restorative practices, linked linguistic learners, cultural responsive learning, leadership bias, student centered supports, and many, many more issues. And. WHEREAS, the Class of 2019 has endured many challenges in their lives from homelessness, societal and economic barriers, and many doors closed due to the color of their skin. And yet these 25 has still prevailed. And. Whereas, collectively, these graduates have over 500 years of experience working in education in the state of Colorado. And. Whereas, lifelong commitment of graduates to earn their doctorate degrees and continue to serve the youth of Colorado and make them outstanding citizens. And we're, as graduates, are committed to promote and enhance and increase the asset, strength and skill sets of our young people by helping provide the necessary services and resources, including opportunities and options for mentoring . Social. Emotional. Intelligence. Education. Financial. Literacy. Education. Financial. She education and post-secondary secondary education, skilled trade, trade training, entrepreneur education and health options and access to increase their odds of success. Now, therefore, being proclaimed by the Council of the City County of Denver, Section one to the Council of the City, County in Denver and the entire community express their heartfelt congratulations to the 2019 University of Denver doctoral students of color and the Council of the City and County of Denver. Hereby officially proclaims that May 18, 2019 be known as Doctors of Education Day. Section two. The Clerk of the City County of Denver shall test and fix a seal upon the city in county of Denver . This be pro proclamation be transmitted to the graduates of and if I mess up any of your names charged to my head and my heart. Okay, Cynthia. Bottom duty. Judy. B, Elizabeth, Elizabeth B, Eleanor Burns, Melissa Conley and Catherine Gaddis and Kasey Green and Tanya Holguin. And Clara Hernandez. And Dominique Jones. And Gabriela maldonado. And Jenna martin. Bonnie Martinez native the Miller. Angelique Montoya. Angelica Ramirez. Michael Ramirez. Teresa Rosado. Jose Silva. Marin Stewart. Artan Thomas. Diana Thompson. Cynthia Sheehan. Thomas Velasquez and Hank. Chunk. You know what I'm saying? Okay. We congratulate all of you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Your motion to.
Speaker 5: Adopt? Yeah. I moved that proclamation for 36 to be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks ment.
Speaker 5: This is so exciting. You know, when we talk about barriers to opportunities in our country, in our city, you know, I was I was raised on this because my my mother and I always talk about this, but she was the first African-American born in a hospital. She's the first African man born in a hospital in Arkansas, southeast Arkansas. And they put her in a box so she wouldn't contaminate the rest of the white babies. She was born in a very horrible time. Yet she fought through those barriers and became a Ph.D. at UCLA, and she was pregnant with me doing her dissertation on a typewriter. I don't know how she did that, but that showed me the type of barriers that it takes for some of us who are folks of color in this society, and to see the number of folks of color who have become PhDs. And I got a chance to go to one of the doctoral defenses by Jose Silva. It was one of the most incredible things. And I just want to share this with you. Jose was defending his his. You know, his thesis. And it was amazing to be able to see Jose, the community person, and now Jose the scholar. And one of the doctors said passion is great. Passion with scholarship is unstoppable. And I like I got choked up. I was like, man, this is a serious deal. But we are now getting our folks of color who are from these passionate, desperate backgrounds with incredible barriers to have scholarship in their work. And that is tremendous. And so from all of us on city council, we salute you and we thank you. You are the real leaders of this city. You are the real leaders of this region and state. And we tell you, continue to move out, keep going and go forward, because all of these young people, you're setting an example. You are exploding ceilings for them. So this is an amazing day. And we we congratulate you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Brooks, thank you for bringing this forward. And I just want to say, I know a couple of folks on this list, but I want to say congratulations to all of you and go forth and shape the minds of our our young people. Whether you're going to be teaching in our schools or our universities, you all will be influencing the minds and the the thoughts of of many people that will then continue to influence others in our community. So thank you for the the. Entire journey that you have been through and in just for your dedication and commitment to giving back. Because this is another example of public servant. See, if you will, and I. Hats off to all of you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to my comment to commend you all for this. I am a student, a graduate, not the doctoral program.
Speaker 5: But I will also say my wife is one year into getting her Ph.D. And so I know. I know because I hear about it, the.
Speaker 0: Rigor.
Speaker 5: That you all went through. So congratulations on that and job well done.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. I will just add my congratulations and thank you to Councilman Brooks for bringing such a great proclamation forward. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Brooks.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Hi.
Speaker 1: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I earned it.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 6: Cashman All right.
Speaker 4: Can I. Lopez Hi. Ortega Hi, Cessna. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes proclamation. 436 has been adopted. We have 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. Councilman Brooks, is there anybody you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 5: Yep. I just want to do two things. One, can all the FD stand up, please? Give them a hand. You know, for all the work you guys have done, we could be clapping all day. Be honest with you. I'm going to bring up Dr. Jose Silva to receive this.
Speaker 7: Regardless of the situation.
Speaker 5: You can right there. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Good morning, counsel counsel President Clark, thank you so very much for allowing us to be here and inviting us to be here on behalf of myself and our cohort, the latte next cohort. We are just so honored and thankful that the City Council and you all would be willing to honor all of us in the work that we've done. Some of you know me, some of you don't. But I come from the projects here in West Denver, the North Lincoln Projects, and the Sun Valley Projects. And I'm a proud graduate of Denver West High School, class of 1998. And when I went to West High School many times, I was told my friends we all would end up dead or in jail. And for many of my community, that has been the result. But for many of us, we have decided to stand in the gap, show up and be better representations and better representatives of our community . And for us to join this Latin next cohort, when 25 of us were accepted, 25 of us will graduate. And we will be the largest number of Latino graduates with doctorate degrees in the history of the United States in a single ceremony from the city and county of Denver. That is remarkable, not just for us, but for the young people that are going to come behind us. And so I challenge all of you as our leaders today, to continue to stand in the gap for young people, to continue to find ways to open doors for other young people. And currently, right now, the university is raising more money to provide more scholarships to young people to be able to get in the E.D. program. Many of us received a half scholarship. I was fortunate enough to not only receive a half scholarship, but a full ride. So I would ask you to think about how you has council members might be able to stand in the gap for the next generation of doctors by maybe contributing, opening up some of your opportunities and standing in the gap for the next generation of leaders. I will now yield my time to Dr. Trinidad, to Dr. Cynthia that she had.
Speaker 3: Good evening and thank you very much for having us.
Speaker 4: I know this is an evening that we're all going to cherish very much for many of us. We became a chosen family and we talk about that a lot, about being a chosen family.
Speaker 9: This group of.
Speaker 3: Strong individuals have come together as such a.
Speaker 4: Strong group. Chosen is the key word for the fact that many things in our families and our family's journeys, as well.
Speaker 3: As our own journey was not chosen. We did not choose discrimination.
Speaker 4: We did not choose for the doors to be closed on us. We did not choose for people to try to get us to fail to weed us out at the beginning of our program and even through our.
Speaker 9: Journey to get to higher ed.
Speaker 4: But we chose to stay. We chose to rise to the occasion. We chose to take the opportunities that were given to us and to also open those.
Speaker 3: Doors for more opportunities for up and coming students of color. Because of the courage that each of us have shown every day and together.
Speaker 4: Whether it was through texting, phone calls.
Speaker 3: Keeping each other on track.
Speaker 9: We made it. And this family, this chosen family will forever.
Speaker 7: Be together.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 3: Forever bound by the moment.
Speaker 4: Tonight and the moment that we will share on May 18th, a chosen family of individuals who did not waste time, did not.
Speaker 9: Waste opportunity, and we surely did.
Speaker 4: Not waste the journey of our.
Speaker 3: Ancestors. So congratulations to our cohort, and thank you again for having us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for bringing that forward.
Speaker 5: We have another one, Mr. President. I just want to tell the cohort we have another proclamation than we have. We're going to give you a bunch of proclamations. So if you guys could hold on for just 5 minutes, that'd be great.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring and recognizing the 2019 University of Colorado Denver Latinx Cohort and all Education Doctoral graduates of Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05062019_19-0247
|
Speaker 1: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can you please vote council 247 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 247 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 247 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Q So Jeffrey, it was CPD, so I have a rezoning request for a property located at Third and Knox in the Barnum neighborhood. So the property is located in Council District three. Again in the barn and neighborhood. So the request area is at the northeast corner of Third and Knox Court and the request area is about 0.6 acres. The rezoning is to go from ESU, D1 Ex to EMU 2.5 with a waiver. And I'll of course explain what that means. The purpose of the request is to accommodate multi-unit residential development on the site. So the subject said again, easy d1x. So that's urban edge context, single unit. And the D1 one x denotes that an accessory dwelling unit is allowed and the surrounding properties are also ESU, D1 x. So again, ESU, D1 exits a single unit, residential zone district, which does allow for accessory dwelling units. And importantly, the maximum building height is calibrated by the front and rear of the lot. So the front, 65% of the lot can be up to 2.5 storeys and actually up to 35 feet depending on the lot with the slots big enough to qualify for the 35 feet and the rear, 35% is one story and 17 feet in height. And so the requested zone district is IMU 2.5 A Sense for Urban Edge Multi-unit 2.5 stories. And I'll get to the waiver request here in a second. But I mean, 2.5 is a zone district that allows single and two unit and multi-unit residential with multi-unit residential typically being embedded with other residential areas. And it does allow for a variety of residential building forms up to 2.5 storeys. The building height is actually similar to the existing zoned district. And the anomaly here that we'll get to in the waiver is the apartment building form and actually only allows up to two stories in height in the front 65%. And so looking at the minimum loss size, it's a bit smaller than the current zone district, but importantly also to note the half storey definition. So 2.5 storey is the maximum height in the front, 65%. And so a half storey is defined as essentially a third story. That's 75% of the floor area of the story below it. So there's a massing reduction. Additionally, within the zone district, there's standards depending on the building form for upper storeys setbacks and setbacks to further reduce that massing. And so I know this is a lot going on in this table, but it is important to kind of note this is the the basis for the waiver. So this table shows the allowed building forms and IMI 2.5 on the left hand side. And then looking at the heights, the building heights across these building forms and the front, 65%. So really uniform across most building forms with a 30 to 35 feet in the front, 65% and the 2.5 stories. And so this is the issue right here or the reason for the waiver request as the apartment building form has the same height allowance, 30 to 35 feet, but it only allows two stories and the rear 35% is similar to the other building forms. So this is just visually showing what the waiver request is on the screen. So it is a request for IMI 2.5 with the waiver. And the specific waiver is to the apartment building form to allow 2.5 storeys instead of being capped at two stories in the front, 65%. And so looking at existing land uses. So the subject site is currently it's actually vacant, it's shown a surface parking and the existing land use and has been vacant for some time. You see up and down the Knox Court corridor, while it does have that single unit, residential zoning, there's actually a mix of land uses. The read on this map is office and then the blue as a church. And we'll talk a little bit more about the Knox Court corridor here in the next slide. So the Knox quiet corridor is, I would say, a significant North-South connector in terms of connecting Barnham to the rest of Denver look in between federal and Sheridan . So it is a corridor that has some recent investment in terms of a new bicycle lane. And and then I also noted that there are several existing nonresidential uses along this corridor. Despite the residential zoning, most structures on this corridor are 1.5 storeys. There are some exceptions to that, even though the zoning allows buildings to go taller than that, going up to potentially 35 feet and two and a half stories in the front, 65%. And there's also a couple nonresidential commercial nodes within two blocks of the subject site on the Knox Court corridor at first and fifth. So you see it's a it's a mixed and mixed corridor in terms of land use and character, despite its its zoning. And so looking at the current site and on to some images here. So as I said, it is currently surface parking and actually has been vacant for several years and it's fenced off and has seen a fair amount of disrepair in recent years. Historically, it's always been a nonresidential use as far as we can tell in our records. Previously, before being a surface parking lot, it was a telephone service company garage with a small structure there. And so looking at images of the subject sites, those looking northeast at the site, you see it's fenced off and it was surface parking. You see the bicycle lane. I will note there's also a bus stop right in front of the site that connects this site along with the bicycle lanes pretty well to the overall mobility network . But you have to the north, the west light rail line, Knox Court Station, which is less than a mile away. Straight, north, north, straight. Shot from the site. And so this is looking kind of south, south, west say it is on the left hand side of the screen and this is looking from Third Avenue West. So you can see where the alley meets the subject's site. And so this is looking straight west of the subject's side. And you can see the the mix of land uses there and beliefs as an office mixed them with some of the single unit residential. And then this is looking south more broadly of the Knox Court corridor. Looking north. So you see again, the mix of land uses in this case, on the other side of Knox Court, we have the church, which is two and a half ish stories. And then these are strong properties that are directly east of the subject sites or across the alley, both fronting on Julien Street. You see the the one, one and a half storey character of that area as it jumps across the alley. So the process to date has been a normal rezoning process leading to the hearing tonight in terms of public outreach and public comment. There was extensive dialog between the applicant and the neighborhood organization, and I'll certainly let them talk about that if they'd like. But we did not ever receive a position letter from the Concerned Citizens for Burnham on the rezoning, but we did receive a total of three letters on the rezoning, two in support, and then one letter expressing concerns about the potential scale, inappropriate scale of buildings with the rezoning and some reference to the Barnum neighborhood plan, which we'll talk about, and policies there supporting continuance of the low density residential character and a stated preference in that letter for RH 2.5 instead of the requested zone district. So these are the criteria staff used to evaluate rezonings. I'll go through each one of these. And so we have the newly adopted citywide plans, comp plan and Blueprint. Denver And then we have the Barnham neighborhood plan. And we'll go through here briefly. So in terms of the conference plan, 2040 staff cites a number of policies in the staff report in support of the rezoning, mostly related to promoting infill development on a site where services and infrastructure already exist. And then also a number of policies in the comp plan supporting encouraging a diversity in a variety of housing types and each neighborhood. And this rezoning would do that. So staff finds the request consistent with those policies in terms of blueprint. Denver The newly adopted blueprint. Denver There's three topics that we look at, and I'll go through those briefly here. So in terms of future neighborhood context blueprint, Denver calls the site as urban edge. And so they are going to the urban edge zoning neighborhood context. It also does have language and blueprint in Denver within this context related to allowing some low scale multi-unit embedded with neighborhoods. In terms of the future places. The subject site is in the low, medium residential category, which is different than what it was under the previous blueprint. This particular category does have language that supports additional density at appropriate locations and multi-unit residential embedded in some neighborhood, some residential neighborhoods. And it does also look at vacant corner sites as potential opportunities for increased density. And I should note also that the Knox Court quarter is a residential collector. Third Avenue is a designated local. So in terms of the growth strategy, kind of the third tier blueprint, it is in the all other areas of the city. There is language in the, um, uh, within that category of supporting some rezonings and some investment at appropriate locations. So the barn and Barn West Neighborhood Plan is an adopted plan. The site is subject to for the rezoning. Her staff recognizes the plan is 30 plus years old and community conditions have changed a lot since then. However, it is important to look at that document and there are a number of policies that do support continuance and preservation of the existing low density residential character. There's also other policies in there that support reinvestment at strategic locations as well. And so looking at sort of the balance of adopted plans across the citywide and local plan, staff does find the request consistent with adopted plans because it would promote infill development in a place where services and infrastructure already exist, create a greater diversity of housing choices in this neighborhood, and be consistent with the context, the urban edge context called from Blueprint in Denver, and then also support a context sensitive scale of investment through the height and the transitions within the zone district. So criteria to the number is off your stuff to find the rezoning will result in uniform application of standards within this unique zone district related to the public health, safety and welfare staff does find the requests are consistent with that criteria, primarily through implementing adopted plan policies, as I said, related to encouraging a diversity of housing types and encouraging an investment that is context sensitive. And then looking at justifying circumstances. The fact that Blueprint Denver was adopted is in itself a justifying circumstance. And the the policies, the new policies that were assigned to this property. But we also staff also cited other factors, including some recent investment in bicycle infrastructure, better connecting the site to the nearby light rail station. And in terms of the consistency with the urban edge neighborhood context description, staff does find the request consistent with that criteria related to the description about block sizes and the overall grid pattern and access off of alleys, things like that. And the fact that the request is going to promote multi-unit residential embedded within a primarily residential area. So at that staff does recommend approval of the rezoning and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak on this item this evening. So first up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 6: Jesse Paris represent for Denver, home of Salau, Black Starks and Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm on.
Speaker 12: Top of the ballot for at large. Make sure you vote by tomorrow. I was originally against this rezoning request because I thought it was just going to be more gentrification as usual. This neighborhood, this part of town, as all other parts of town, has been rapidly gentrified to no avail. Seeing that there's.
Speaker 6: Going to be allowed to use.
Speaker 12: I'm a supporter to use. So I'm in support of this rezoning. I had a few questions, though. I wanted to know exactly what the RMR level was.
Speaker 6: Going to be for this. This was going to be a rental. Or if this is going to be market.
Speaker 12: Is it going to be ownership? If you could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Yes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 7: Oh.
Speaker 1: My name is Chairman Sekou. I will be the.
Speaker 0: Next mayor of the city. And. This particular item. I support. Finally. You'll get this right. You got it right.
Speaker 1: And I expect a unanimous.
Speaker 0: Vote.
Speaker 1: On this thing. Well, because it satisfies all the criteria that exist. That's number one. And two, what's different about this one is that it finally begins to do the.
Speaker 0: Innovative process of creative thinking of how we can begin to.
Speaker 11: Address this housing issue.
Speaker 0: Now, I know we ain't supposed to be talking.
Speaker 11: Good about folks up here, and this is just generic.
Speaker 0: It doesn't apply to any one particular use class. But you know what? Congratulations. And you know what I'm talking about. And we go a long way back.
Speaker 1: Almost 15 years. This thing.
Speaker 0: For me. And those would probably be the last time that I show like this on this side of the podium. So. Happy birthday for. Congratulations on a successful.
Speaker 1: Year living my. I didn't know this is his birthday. Yeah.
Speaker 0: He's going to.
Speaker 1: Basketball. And I just want to say that and good luck.
Speaker 0: In the future. You're my hero. You did good. Thank you, ma'am. And keep on doing good. That's all I got.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Phil Workman.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Phil Workman. 130 Rampart Way. Denver, Colorado 80230. Found out when I was signing in on the iPad that I didn't have my readers. Which reminds me, I had a birthday not that long ago and and reminds me that I'm getting older as well. It also brings up that we started working on this project three years ago. Our first meeting with neighbors was in April of 2016 at the site, and I let the applicant describe what they do or what their vision for this. But I want to thank the neighbors that have worked with us over the last three years, as well as the city of Denver, to help get what our vision is, what what what the mission is of what the applicant would like to do, as well as what fits in within the plan and things that we heard from the neighbors as we went through this process. Basically, when we first met with the neighbors, the applicant came to us and and said, what, you know, what can we do? Let's meet with some neighbors here. And this has been vacant land for a long time. It's been commercial land. It was a parking lot used by a church. What's the vision? What, what what are the neighbors want? And we went through a process. We've met with the neighbors and small groups. We've met with neighbors one on one. We've met with the neighborhood organization. We've done a SurveyMonkey that was sponsored by the neighborhood, both in English and in Spanish with over 100 responses, which was gave us a lot of feedback of what we were looking to do and this or what what the neighbors were looking for at the site. And every one of our when we would announce our neighborhood meetings, we would go door to door with fliers, English on one side, Spanish on the other side. We didn't initially do that, and there was some came from the neighborhood and say, what about letting folks from the neighborhood also know what's going on in Spanish as well ? So that's when we put out the survey in both English and Spanish and also door to door. Initially, we we heard a lot and and just presentation, which I won't go through again, like the rationale or where we are with the particulars of the zoning. But we heard a lot from, you know, a lot has changed along this corridor. A lot of exciting things have happened in Branham birthday or a lot of exciting things have gone. A part of this is a corridor is the bike bicycle corridor, Parks Rec Center. I mean, this this neighborhood is is fantastic. And going to have some neighbors here speak to that in a second. So we wanted to take advantage of of that. And we wanted to provide a product that the neighbors can be proud of that would fit within the framework of what the neighborhood would be most interested in. Interestingly, there was a I'm.
Speaker 1: Sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Next time around for any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Greg Osborn.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Greg Osborn. I am a partner in unlocking equity, the owner of the property. My address is 4021 Nassau Circle, West Inglewood, Colorado, 80113. Some of the initial questions that were thrown out were, what's the what's the mix here? What does this thing ultimately look like? And while we've done lots of iterations on what might work here, it all depends on what the ultimate density can be. I do want to commit to you all that we are attainable housing people and our vision for this site is and always will be attainable. Housing as informed by the neighborhood conversations we've had and the need in the market. I want to share one quick anecdote from an elderly gentleman who attended one of our earlier neighborhood meetings, and he said, Please build something here that my daughter who's entering the workforce in Denver can afford to live in while she starts her career in Denver. So that's something we won't forget in our quest. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Charles Moore.
Speaker 4: Hi there. My name is Shayla moore.
Speaker 7: I live at four, six, eight Stewart Street in Burnham.
Speaker 3: West and I've lived there for ten years now.
Speaker 7: I've been a residential realtor for over seven years and I've been on the Barnum Arnaud's board KBE for over four years. I spoke on behalf of Matt and his team at the.
Speaker 4: Zoning meeting.
Speaker 7: In March.
Speaker 3: And over the last few years, Matt and his team have reached out to Barnum's community many times, surveying what Barnum neighbors would like to see built, as well as attending and engaging with residents at multiple neighborhood meetings. One thing I hear from the.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood in our meetings.
Speaker 4: Over and over again is that we need attainable.
Speaker 7: Housing that is.
Speaker 3: Compatible with Barnum.
Speaker 7: Not with our northern neighbors.
Speaker 3: I believe that Barnum needs density.
Speaker 7: In order to create this attainable housing. As you know, right now, the site is an overgrown parking lot. I'd like to see this development set a precedent for future developments in Burnham, one of attainable housing.
Speaker 4: Architectural facades in line with the neighborhood, and one that encourages more community and.
Speaker 7: Activity.
Speaker 3: Within Barnum. And I believe Matt and his team.
Speaker 7: Can do this for us. That's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Matthew Guarino.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Matt Guarino. I live at seven 221 South Pontiac Way, Centennial, Colorado. And I'm a partner with Greg Osbornes who spoke just a minute ago and we received a call four plus years ago based on our mission from someone that owned, owned the church and this parking lot. This property was not on the market, but they heard our mission was and this is on the back of one of our cards. It's twofold. One is to provide housing for those that need it. And the second part is to create opportunity for those that want it. You know, we understand that nothing happens without a roof over your head. So that's why we put that as a focus for our work. But also, we're trying to create empowerment and that trying to encourage people that they can own their own home. So the sisters, not nuns, but the sisters that own the church. Where this was a part. They also owned this parking lot, called us because of our mission. And they said, we'd like you to buy this because we think that you can do something important not only for Barnum, but hopefully for the city. And one of the things during this three plus years. Talk about birthdays. Birthdays, three plus years that we've been on this journey is that I've been blown away by the folks at Barnum. Blown away. You know, there's so much divisiveness, divisiveness in the world today and people making the other side wrong to make their side right. We've had 30 town hall meetings, 30 to create this outcome. Opportunities for housing for those who need it and opportunities for those that want it. And we're really proud to be coming towards the end of this. And in this period that we've been working on this process. My oldest child, I have a 24, 22, 20 and 18 year old graduated college, worked for the U.S. government, doing a Fulbright scholarship in South America, came back and she can't afford to live in Denver. It gets really real when that starts happening. So we are more empowered and emboldened than ever to make this happen. And we appreciate very much the folks at Parnham and hopefully we have your support tonight. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Sarah Brown.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Sarah Brown and I am a resident at.
Speaker 3: 114 Knox Court.
Speaker 7: Which is less than two blocks from the potential site here. And the reason that I am here tonight is my husband and I finally were able to afford this house in this beautiful, wonderful neighborhood. And we've taken a lot of pride in this home. It was built in 1915, and Helen Bartle originally did own this home at one time. We put a lot of effort into preserving this house and I've had to do a.
Speaker 3: Lot of research to learn about what's happening here.
Speaker 7: I am an education coach with early childhood.
Speaker 3: Teachers, so I knew nothing about this.
Speaker 7: So I have been reading and following along for over a year now. And the biggest thing that I, I like about this is that.
Speaker 3: This process is unique and that the neighbors and the.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood organization have the opportunity to work through the site development plan process, ensuring architectural dignity in Barnham. And I think that's really important for those of us that live there, especially being that close. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, John Coleman.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is John Coleman. I'm a resident of Barnham. I live at 345 Irving Street, so actually just right around the corner from this proposed site here. I'm actually the president of the the Barnham R.A. Organization.
Speaker 12: I'm not actually speaking on behalf of our organization.
Speaker 5: Anything I say is just coming from me personally. But I've taken that role since January of this year. In addition to that, I'm also in residential real estate, and I've been in real estate for about four. This is my fourth year here, so I kind of know the.
Speaker 12: Some of the markets as well around.
Speaker 5: Our house as well. I guess one of the things I kind of want to bring up in the I guess my biggest.
Speaker 12: Point is that through through the last several years that we've been talking about.
Speaker 5: This with Phil and the Parker Company, is that I mean, a this is a developer that is actually looking at what the community wants and working with us and saying, hey, you know, what does the community want to see? Do you want it? What esthetically do you want to see? We can't work on that yet because we have to get through this process first. So I really appreciate that they're actually working with the community and not just saying, Hey, we're going to build this and we're going to, you know, not take anything and take into consideration . On top of that, I feel like there was three main areas that we could actually have this lot developed into because we know it's going to be developed.
Speaker 12: It's just how long it's going to take to to be developed.
Speaker 5: And so those three options were residential single family homes, which is zoned now for with the ADA use on there.
Speaker 12: One of them was a mixed use which would have retail on.
Speaker 5: The bottom and residential on top, which I believe was denied and taken out of the context here. And then the other option, which is what we're looking at here, is the affordable housing and the attainable housing that would be smaller units. I am all for that. As I know for a fact that single family homes with resident or ADA use in the back would be well over half a million dollars. I know that I'm closing on a property that is a 82 home with the single family home blocks from this, and it's over half a million dollars and it's built in 1950. So I know for a fact that this is not going to be affordable if you put single family homes with 80 use, if we can build something that's actually obtainable because that's the other thing, there's affordability and there's a attainability and they're kind of two separate issues. But I know for a fact that that's a lot of when my my first time homebuyers are dealing with. So if we can build something that would actually be affordable and obtainable for people.
Speaker 10: I think that's the best use of this out of this lot. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 10: Yes, I think I.
Speaker 5: Actually Jeff and the owners as well. So. Is there is there any limitation prohibition on what can be built here, meaning that? I mean, there's a lot of talk about this affordability component, but, you know, in the study X, a townhouse is not an allowed form, but in the IMU it is. But in order to let it, which is a very different outcome than what is being seemingly discussed about the apartment form.
Speaker 12: So so you're you're wanting to know if I understand it.
Speaker 5: The resumption of developer agreement that compels this affordable project to go forward.
Speaker 12: Not as part of the rezoning.
Speaker 5: Is. So to the owners, is there some sort of agreement in place that compels an affordable project to go forward?
Speaker 0: There's not an agreement that I'm aware of. You know, we've like you've heard we've been in this thing for three and a half years and we have no idea what the numbers are for, depending on what the what the density outcome is. We've got several different concept plans, all in the attainable housing space, but nothing definitively ironed out yet. We've got job costing to do. We've got architectural to do. We've got all kinds of work to undertake. Once this, you know, hopefully we get we get your support, but there's no definitive agreement in place. I assume that that would be part of the development plan and permitting process once we submit.
Speaker 5: Actually, I'm asking a question that is recognizably extra extra outside of the two true criteria, but it is been a lot of the dialog, both from you, your representation and the community. And so therefore it's part of the public hearing and I'd like to elaborate. So attainable housing. What is your definition of attainable housing?
Speaker 0: So attainable housing to me is very simply something that an entry level worker could afford, whether it's market rate, whether it's rental in the apartment form, or whether it's if these things are rowhouses or townhouses, if that's the highest and best something that first time homebuyer could afford. That's what we do. That's our space. That's our definition. Okay, great. And I just wanted to elaborate. You asked a question about, am I right that that's typically something that's associated with low income tax credits, right? Public subsidies or public funding? We are completely private. Right. So we don't have those kinds of requirements. But, you know, we self-imposed those on our you know, on our work. What we're trying to do is create attainable housing. That's everything, you know. But for us, the speed and the the sometimes limitations that come with that are what we're trying to avoid. So our goal is to create, like said first time homebuyer.
Speaker 5: So I didn't actually say, am I? But I'm familiar with it. And so I appreciate you bringing it up. So in your attainable housing goals, what is your target? Am I for a representative household size of how big?
Speaker 0: We wouldn't. That's again, that's the criteria for it. But what we would say is that just like Greg indicated, for people that are, you know, first time homebuyers, that's what we're looking for. Right. So to say that that artificial income level is not how we look at it.
Speaker 5: Okay. So, Jeff, the real question I had to begin with is. You know, in first off, I want to appreciate the fact that CPD came forward with a 2.5 with waivers with the 60%, 6535 split, which is different than how we've been presented a similar waiver in the past. That said, this will allow an apartment for the apartment form still allows side by side dwelling units. Fortunately, there's a 50% maximum on the gross gross for the GFA of the structure. So we can't get a true slot home product. But you sort of could the. Is there anything. You know. Well, actually, it goes back to him now. And sorry, I'm realizing that this goes back to my original question about is there any commitment to use the apartment form for stacked units? But it's just one of the schemes, is that correct?
Speaker 12: It's it's they have that option and there's more flexibility with the apartment form than like the row house form, for example. But there's no mandate to do it stacked. It just allows more flexibility with the configuration of units.
Speaker 5: Okay. Then last question to you guys. Do you guys do condos? Because, I mean, is this would you this be a for sale product in a staff configuration or only a rental product in the stack?
Speaker 0: Once we get our density number, we can go back to the drawing board and run iterations on all of the product types allowed in the form that we're discussing, condos would absolutely be one of those performers that we would run, as well as for rent and row house.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, guys. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I was looking at the map. Mm hmm. How long is that parking lot? I mean, just. And I live not too far away. I live over on Sixth and Knox. All I remember, I mean, the little neighborhood of one of the neighborhoods I grew up in. All I remember is that just being a parking lot, I don't remember anything else on that. I'm trying to think and that's a good maybe 35 years of of of memory that I can tap into what was on the site before and when was on that and when was that?
Speaker 12: Yeah, we had trouble pinning down a specific date, but we were looking at historic aerials and at least since the mid-nineties we found it was it's been a surface parking lot. And before that and I don't know exactly when it got demolished, but before that, the only structure we found evidence of was a a small telephone company service garage structure. And so I don't know the exact square footage, but you could see from the footprint it's pretty small, relatively overall.
Speaker 8: So I wonder if we went into the records if or any library archives if that at one point was connected to the Westwood Telephone Company. That's where Westwood gets its name, by the way, a lot of people think, well, Westwood, you know, as we California, this is not Westwood L.A., but it's completely different. But it it derives his name from the Westwood Telephone Company. A lot of the folks that were workers of the 20th century and turn of the century, but, uh, for those thirties were employees. I wonder if there anything. I mean, I can't do anything about it now because it's demolished. And I wonder if there's anything. That's why I'm curious as to what was there before and if that was the connection. Can you talk to me a little bit about if we're driving? If you're walking excuse me for riding bikes because there is a bike lane there. If you're commuting down Knox, you have a lot of single family homes. Some of them are in. You have some multi-unit. You have to go to a few to unit multi-unit uses. There you have commercial. You have front yards. How far is the setback from the property line.
Speaker 12: To the door? So it will be under the new zoning and the current zoning is subject to a context sensitive senator from Knox. So the baseline is 20 feet, which is, I think, pretty consistent with what's out there now. There would be an analysis done to make sure it essentially lines up with what's there, anything that gets built and good.
Speaker 8: Now, looking at the the corner. So that would be the. Looking at the intersection, the northeast corner, which is as you go up in that property, what does that corner look like? Is there a community space? Is there bike rack? Is somebody's front yard? I mean, I want to get a kind of a just a visual in terms of what that what that footprint would look like and if there's any kind of entryway into the units at that point or are they all just facing the court? Is there any kind of diagonal corner there?
Speaker 12: Yeah, that unfortunately can't answer. That's more of a design question. I don't know if the applicant's a be more of a question of the applicants in terms of the I mean, there's certainly bike parking that's required and things like that, but it doesn't get into architectural standards in terms of the zoning.
Speaker 8: And I understand that as part of zoning, I'm just trying to kind of visualize when you guys see context and context sensitive, you know? Barnum Our neighborhoods context is very the context is that it really has no one unique context that's a little different. You kind of have a hodgepodge, everything. You have a bungalow, next thing you know, you have a prefab, next thing you know, you have a stucco. Who knows what? Right. And then then sometimes you have adobe look in all the units as well, too. So I'm just trying to figure that out. All right. And I saw that there was some opposition with that opposition. I mean, there was some letters that came in the readdress those issues.
Speaker 12: Yeah. The there's one letter that didn't explicitly state opposition to the rezoning or just express concerns.
Speaker 8: And that's what I wanted to be clear.
Speaker 12: The concerns yeah, the concerns were and I could pull it up and it's certainly in your packet but one the scale of buildings potentially here relative to the surrounding area. And so going through each one I guess for example. So in that case, the scale in terms of how tall a building could be is, you know, something that is actually similar to what's allowed today. So the height is actually consistent today with what is going to be allowed under this new zoning, which is a different you could do multi-unit instead of single unit. The second concern is related to, I think, addressing the Burnham Neighborhood Plan. And so I think there were citation of some policies in there about preserving the low density residential character. And so that is certainly an adopted plan and we have to look at it. But I think on balance, in terms of the age and the change of conditions and the other citywide policies, staff's opinion was, you know, looking on balance of all the policies that the request are still consistent with adopted plan policies. The third issue raised in the letter was a preference for another zoned district and that being Area 2.5. And so that was a zone district that was part of the suite of options we looked at with the applicant team and ultimately it wasn't going to work for them.
Speaker 8: Okay. One more question, Mr. President, if I may. And I just I had it in they give me another year on my life here. So I'm starting to really feel that now. I'm 41, just July 18th, for the record. I am wondering about the neighborhood plan. How old were you in 1986?
Speaker 12: I'll take the fifth on that one. I was.
Speaker 8: Archive of my life, so I was.
Speaker 12: Probably watching Top Gun the day that it was adopted. Yeah.
Speaker 8: No, man Top Gun came out a little earlier than that. So is this being addressed? So is there any kind of update? My my worry is, is some of these older plans. Villa Park is 1991. Before we before we touched Westwood, that was 1978 and 79. Barnum is from 1986. It's a very different neighborhood is I think there's something coming up. Where is this being scheduled for review? And I'm I'm asking this in the context of this rezoning, because this is not the first time that we're probably going to see a rezoning in this neighborhood in the future, especially with this old, old neighborhood plan.
Speaker 12: Gosh, I apologize. I'm not sure when it's scheduled. And I know that given the date of the plan, I don't want to misspeak. But I believe it's it's up in the priority list.
Speaker 8: Okay. That's why I wanted to thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez and Jeff actually got to the core of what my question was. It was about the single letter expressing concern, and I have read that email from Mr. Krueger about it. And I do note I guess the only thing I'd be interested in clarifying is does CPD have a threshold for the age of plans when when it because the direction in the Barnum Barnum West neighborhood plan would argue against this rezoning. But that was 1986. And Councilman when I was alive and I was probably sitting at that table covering the council, passing that plan for the newspaper. But I don't have a specific memory of it. But how when do we cut them off and no longer rely on them, particularly when it has direction that argues against the rezoning
Speaker 12: ? Yeah. I wish I had a specific metric for you. I don't. I think it's it's a case by case determination made. But I think in this case, you know, when you consider the breadth of plans and the average age of a plan, it's really in the in the very lower tier in terms of age. And so more.
Speaker 1: Important, I guess I'm sorry to cut you off, but more important than would be, how much change has there been in that neighborhood since the plan in Barnum? There's been a significant change since 1986, maybe.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that's certainly true. We've seen a lot of of new investments. The park, for example, nearby the West light rail line coming through there. I think that, you know, 30 plus years has been a lot of change. So it's a big factor in looking at the age of the plan relative current.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And well, certainly if if if a 3032 year old plan supported a rezoning 32 years later, we'd certainly be relying more on it. And we wouldn't be dismissing it, would we? Probably not.
Speaker 12: I think we'd still look at the plan with skepticism, regardless of the change conditions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Jeff. Can you tell me what kind of parking requirements would be included as part of this development? And and have you have you all jointly calculated just roughly how many total units can be on this site?
Speaker 12: Yeah, the first into the first question is one space per unit would be the parking requirement and there's bicycle parking requirement to figure out exactly what that is. But the second question, we haven't because we just don't know at this point. Unfortunately, it could in terms of the number of units. And so it really depends on the type of units and the configuration of units. And so, for example, we could be looking at really small micro units or we could be looking at 1500 square feet, you know, two and three bedroom units. So not knowing what the unit configuration is makes it really difficult to get at a unit count. But there certainly would be vehicle parking one per unit, regardless of the size of the unit.
Speaker 9: Okay. So let me ask either Matthew or Greg, if you wouldn't mind addressing the same question, just trying to get an idea of how many units you're proposing to have on the site. And I know it's not something you have to tell us, but I would assume you haven't spent all this time going through the process with the neighborhood without some idea of, you know, generally what you could build on the site.
Speaker 0: So so that's true. We've we've been running scenarios for three and a half years, you know, pondering what might happen here. A reminder that currently four units could exist used by right on the site, which clearly is not the highest and best use. Regarding parking, I would I would say that the remember the back 35% is restricted to single storey. So that's an ideal use for the parking required on the site. But, you know, we've run scenarios from, you know, from the from the four units when we first bought this thing up to, you know, 30 or 40 units in the micro sense, 15. I mean, so much of this is is hard to even address because it's not only the unit count, it's the cost to build it. And as Matt said, we're private people. We're not asking for public money to help get this thing done. It's all our money. So we want to we had all these costs and risk analyzes to do to run the numbers and make them work. So that's only just really begun with with the with the density in question. But I think in keeping with our mission of attainable housing, more units is our is our extreme bias. I mean, more people need housing in the city and more is better in our sense. So that's what we'll try to do as long as the affordability numbers are there from a market perspective.
Speaker 9: So if you do micro units, does the parking requirements change significantly? And Jeff, you may be better to answer this question. So if.
Speaker 12: Yeah. And I apologize. I don't.
Speaker 1: And Jeff, before you answer that question, we're having a little bit of trouble, the interpreter hearing you. So if you could speak a little bit louder in the microphone, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Gosh, I don't I should know this. I believe there is some flexibility. I could look into it for micro units and some parking reductions. I know there's flexibility for proximity to transit. This is not going to be subject to that. But I'd have to look into that if the lower square footage brings you lower parking requirements. And I could do that.
Speaker 9: Okay. That that would be helpful to know. And so while you're doing that, the the last question that I had was related to whether there has been any exploration on where a curb cut would go, assuming there has to be parking on site, would that be off a court or would that be on the avenue?
Speaker 12: Yeah. So we asked that question of the folks that we review the site plan and what they told us was no access would would be allowed off of Knox Court. It would come off the alley more than likely.
Speaker 9: Okay. I'm sorry. I do have one last question. And it is about the the difference between the IMU 2.5 and the assumed DCS. One is the half story. The the main difference between the two in terms of of I know the the height is the same, but yet the IMU is being requested because it allows the 2.5 for the apartment concept.
Speaker 12: Yeah, the height is the same actually in terms of of how it's measured in feet and number of stories actually between the current zone district and the proposed district. It's just the ability to use the apartment form that allows a little more flexibility with the unit configuration within that sort of building envelope.
Speaker 9: Okay. All right. If you I don't know if anybody else has questions, but if you could just check on the.
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 9: Amount of parking for the micro units, that would be really helpful to know, I think.
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. That concludes the questions. The public hearing for Connersville two for seven is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Lopez?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to thank folks for for doing such a good job of making sure that there is a lengthy community process, a robust community process. Y'all have been working this for quite a while and making sure that you're taking into account the current context in the neighborhood is good. I think there's been different iterations with different zone districts. I really appreciate you me coming to that meeting mean to that middle. There is no letter of opposition there. Council chambers are not packed with a bunch of folks who are who are opposed to it. And that's a good sign. And sometimes you will get a lot of folks in here upset about something like this and on its on its on its merits. And based off of the criteria that we have, it does meet it. And the important thing is it's a parking lot. It is a parking lot. And it's always been a parking lot since I can remember I was eight years old in 1986 and running around that neighborhood. And the fact that that parking lot will not be home to weeds, but be home to potentially families and folks that actually can afford to live there. And that's that's what matters. And, you know, taking that context and, you know, context and design is nothing. It's not something that we can consider legally based on that criteria. But you're going that extra mile and kind of helping. Describe to us what that looks like based off of the input that you've had in the communities is a good thing, given that I think, you know, you have an opportunity to actually create something that could be a landmark in this area. Burnhams For a little landmarks. Some of them are very disappointing forever. I thought, you know, Barnum had the zoo and all the zoo animals and all that stuff. And I come to find out that even the Barnum home, P.T. Barnum ever even laid foot in it. But it's good to have something that's not disappointing in terms of history like that. I think this is an opportunity for for you all to demonstrate to everybody else in the city that something like this can be done, giving a good community process, making sure you're taking those those strategies and those that that input into account. I think that matters, right? As residents, we drive by it every day. We live by it every day. We want to be part of the solution. But at the end of the day, it's still our neighborhood and it's a good, happy meeting. So and thank you for coming. And that traffic must have been crazy coming. Yeah. There are no more shortcuts to the neighborhood. And anyway, that's another conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Phil, Phil Workman, Speedy Jeff Hurt, Kyle Dalton. You guys did it. You painted me into a very, very difficult corner. And that one is you've painted this rezoning in just the right ways, big in. What I mean by that is this is a significant increase in entitlement and over any sort of adopted plan and it's loosely affiliated to the blueprint Denver but in it hits those recommendations but it is you know one of the things I've already articulated since we've adopted that and even before we adopted the new plan was the need to customize zoning so that we don't just take the recommendations verbatim and start mapping them into existing zone districts and hope for the best that you build in to those zone districts. The, the other things that those plans articulated. Now, I'd love to see the equity components that have been discussed here hardcoded somehow, but at least the form the transitional pieces are there with that 6535 split, the one story limitation on the rear. This is dramatically different than the holly situation that we had, which allowed that two and a half stories all the way to the rear setback line in a similar context. And so you've done it formally, but the thing that gives me pause but it's not enough pause is that we're now allowing both the apartment form and the townhouse form to enter into this into this parcel, into this loan line. And that's an easy exit in this market, right? Is if these guys realize that they can't make the numbers work on these affordable units, but they can capture equity that helps them complete their mission elsewhere. It's an easy turn and flip to another developer who can build townhouse product. Now, historically, that would have been a slot home. And that what bothers me about that is then we are jumping, we're going from Jefferson Park in the Sloan's Lake into West Colfax and then jumping Lakewood Gulch and Sixth Avenue into this neighborhood with a slot home. The good news is we did the slide home text amendment. So the combination of the form restrictions that are brought by the waivers and the slot home text amendment would sort of at least compel a different outcome from the public realm side. But it doesn't. There's nothing in here that precludes this from being market rate product scaled at a size that hits the maximum top dollar. And but unfortunately, that's not justification for denying an application. But I've seen all of this mostly for staff. Which is that you've painted a very narrow box that satisfies essentially all the all the things that I would push back on. But it doesn't hit a lot of those vision elements just by hitting the base entitlement and the upper storey step back requirements. There are other things in that plan that should be driving. There's no access to high frequency transit. This is just a couple blocks, three blocks from the fire station. You know, it's a dangerous place for kids necessarily to be at if there's high speed vehicles going up and down knocks. And so but it is access to park. So there's a lot of other things in those vision elements that I think we still need to be grappling with as we go, as we do land use map amendments and text amendments going forward. But this one will check all the boxes. And so you'll see me sort of begrudgingly supporting it, because until this project comes to fruition with those with that affordability lens, I worry that it may not. And that is that has ramifications for this community going forward. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 9: Excuse me. So I just wanted to see if we can get the final question, the final answer to the question about the parking on the micro units. Thank you.
Speaker 12: It's a quick answer. No, they're not. They wouldn't be allowed to have the parking reduction for a micro unit on this zoning.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 10: Brooks. I.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I learned in.
Speaker 10: High.
Speaker 4: Cashmere. I can eat. Lopez. All right. Ortega. SUSSMAN Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours 12 hours counts Bill 247 has passed council minutes. Will you please put council bill 127 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3429 W 3rd Avenue in Barnum, with a reasonable condition.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D1x to E-MU-2.5 (urban edge, single-unit to urban edge, multi-unit) with a waiver, located at 3429 West 3rd Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-29-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05062019_19-0127
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours 12 hours counts Bill 247 has passed council minutes. Will you please put council bill 127 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 Dash 127 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The continued public hearing for Council Bill 1 to 7 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 the Council has requested. We will proceed with questions from members of council at this time. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yep. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to call a representative from the Jazz Coalition and also a representative from the 40th and the cite. Bruce, I want to come up here, probably the representative to kind of talk about where where we are and what has transpired. So Bruce and Nola. Ladies first.
Speaker 3: What has transpired?
Speaker 5: Yes. Just. You have a letter. You've you've submitted that to the council. So just on the record.
Speaker 3: So everyone should have got the letter on our position today. The community, the Coalition three are knows and adjacent community members that participated in our collective process did decide to oppose this reason in favor of maintaining the I a zoning. If we did a less than 30 day process with the developer or the owners representatives to come to a type of agreement, I think we got somewhere in that agreement. The problem is that it wasn't addressing displacement issues in particular, which is our main concern with this project. I would I'm the only person here that's not a Swansea resident, so I'd really like it. If you want to hear more of why neighbors made that choice, that we bring some people up that are responsive neighbors. To answer that question.
Speaker 5: Another, what was the vote on that?
Speaker 3: So we had a three hour meeting to talk about this. We talked to a lot of people at their doors. We knocked on doors three different times within this period and talked to neighbors. The people that actually came to the meeting, we had 12 people vote to not support seven to or to sign sorry to sign the agreement, seven to sign the agreement. And we had several people that needed to leave early or abstain from the vote entirely. This during the conversation and leading up to the process, there was always an agreement of everyone that was participating that we would make this decision at this meeting and all of us that maybe did vote yes were in agreement with moving forward with the no.
Speaker 5: Okay. But that's people who both voted no and yes here. So we can get a perspective from from them, even though they're supporting a group. There are folks who voted yes and no, both here from the Swansea neighborhood. So we can get their perspective as well represented in the room.
Speaker 3: Well, sure, but we're not. The collective process is what our outcome is. So all of us here are here to defend the outcome that we came up with, for sure.
Speaker 5: It's just helpful for us since we weren't a part of that iterative process to hear all of that. Bruce, do you want to get a chance to share from your perspective? Would be good to hear where you came into with this agreement. What suggestions that the coalition made that you agreed to and kind of, you know, where there was disagreement.
Speaker 12: Sure. Thank you, Councilman. Happy to, Bruce O'Donnell. And I'm joined by Bill Moore, who is a partner in the project and can help answer some questions as well. So I've not seen this the document that NOLA is referencing that went out today. So I'm flying a little bit blind on whatever it says. But we agreed about a month ago tonight to enter into mediation and it was run by Steve Charbonneau and we had three meetings and made progress we think in each meeting and in particular in the last meeting and there were many, many aspects of the community that we were in agreement with and committed to in writing on in a signed community benefits agreement that we would fulfill a whole laundry list of community benefits and is information I have sent council in the last week or so underscores. We remain committed to these and will implement them once the property is resolved. The in our view, the one thing that resulted in not reaching agreement had to do with displacement, as you've just heard. And the ask was for a per market rate dwelling unit impact fee be committed to that. I think the idea was that it would be paid out building permit and that this impact fee would go to a coalition related entity of some type. It was never determined in the that impact fee would be used for mitigating displacement, as you heard. 25 people, I think, voted. There were four abstentions. Pardon me, three, I think abstentions, which were the RINO's in we've been had been trying to engage with the renos since July of last year and they still refused to show up a few days ago by abstaining on Thursday. And where I'm going with this is, is that if an impact fee to mitigate displacement is good policy, it should be thoroughly vetted. It should be adopted citywide by ordinance and in not experimented with on an ad hoc case by case basis by governmental entities. And so we we couldn't agree to it for that reason. And it's our belief and understanding that that's why the neighborhood groups chose to not support the community benefits agreement.
Speaker 5: All right, Mr. President, can I just read for the record what has been agreed upon and then just ask some questions? Actually, I'll let some of my colleagues have some questions. But I just for the record there, this is in the agreement. This is what I think, you know, the gas coalition and the developer tried to come to as a benefit results of neighborhood negotiations, a new commitment to provide 22,000 square foot community coops storefront that would be available for neighborhood businesses. Rent free commitment for donation of land to urban gardeners for a community garden. Commitment to provide total eight live work units for artists agreement to establish program to hire qualified local construction professionals and development commitment to work in good faith. Exclusive with brothers redevelopment and Colorado Land Trust for 90 days after the rezoning approval to execute on an affordable housing agreement seeking opportunities for deeper. Affordability commitment to establish establishing Community Advisory Council, to receive information to provide input from the Metropolitan District that is intended to be formed so the community can be involved. Aware of the designs and public amenities. Traffic Mitigations during construction. Commitment for sharing the completed traffic studies with all neighborhood organizations in a commitment to donate 20 $500 to establish Community Legal Defense Fund. No is just my question. What was the. When the community voted no. You know, there wasn't a a counter kind of proposal of this. This is what's missing from the overall. What do you feel like or can you say what you feel like is missing in this?
Speaker 3: I think the feeling was to two sides. One is in the agreement that the the the promises that were made that address displacement, like the 90 day negotiation with brothers and Cecile to you know myself as self interest in building a committee land trust. I'm very excited about that. The community really felt like that was a it wasn't a commitment. So we don't know what happens if we don't know what they're putting on the table. What happens if that negotiation doesn't work out? And then the 90 days passes and nothing happens. So we there weren't any milestones for what happens. And we had actually talked about in several of the negotiation meetings, putting in milestones and criteria for if if the if this is a process oriented statement, then there should be milestones and criteria. And that never happened. We really didn't get a chance to actually write the the agreement itself or to kind of give a significant feedback, mostly because of the timeline being happening so quickly. But I think the combination of not having concrete outcomes around displacement and then also just lack of trust and disappointment in the city to back up any of these efforts as well.
Speaker 5: What do you mean, the city to back up?
Speaker 3: Part of our ask at the last hearing was that an anti displacement action plan happen for protecting surrounding neighbors. That never happened. We asked for an extended traffic and construction impact study that would complement what the developer was giving to their traffic study that just kind of looks at their area. But looking at overall the construction impacts, we never even got an A response on that. So we just felt let down overall by. The ability to for any of our concerns to be addressed during this process from the city.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield my questions to the. Do you.
Speaker 1: Think. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. And also, thank you for all your work. I have just some clarification questions for you. So the organization you represent is Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, which is a huge geographic area. Correct.
Speaker 3: Globally or in Swansea. Yeah. It's the zip code 802 and six. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So it's a huge geographic area and I really appreciate all the great work you've done. And I'm just curious about the people who are involved at the meeting, the people who are here tonight and the people who were here last time, because it's some of the people we've seen here for a lot of other things we've been voting on. And this particular area is just a small section of the overall neighborhood. And when I look at it on the map, it's really a long, skinny neighborhood that has a railroad on one side and then 40th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. So I'm just really curious how many of the people who attended that meeting and how many people here tonight actually live in that in that neighborhood that is in that section.
Speaker 3: Between Clayton.
Speaker 7: Next and 40th.
Speaker 3: Sorry, say that again, between the.
Speaker 4: Railroad tracks to the north, 40th on the south.
Speaker 7: And then the property is on the west and on Colorado.
Speaker 4: Boulevard.
Speaker 3: So they do Rosetta's Raimunda.
Speaker 7: To you raise your hand if you if you live in that section the.
Speaker 3: And Maria.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And then at that meeting of those 20 something people.
Speaker 3: It was about half neighbors. And it was actually the neighbors most adjacent to the property that were the most adamant about voting not to sign it.
Speaker 7: Okay. So of those 25, half of them live in this section. So once again, thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I know since you're up there when you had those meetings with the developers team. Who who who on your team would you consider to be experts in sort of developer agreements and contracts?
Speaker 3: Where this is a learning process for us.
Speaker 8: So yeah.
Speaker 5: That that's that's not surprising. Right. In, in, in, in a community that, you know, with a lot of very low income households, you don't necessarily see a lot of attorneys and professionals. So but you're basically acknowledging that you are a little bit shorthanded when it came to that negotiate done the negotiating of the actual terms. Would you is that a fair assessment?
Speaker 3: Yes. Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Yeah. I've got a couple of questions for Bruce. So you just acknowledged that you didn't get the the the neighborhoods letter, which admittedly did come in late, but you did release a packet to counsel. Was the full packet of agreements in the cover letter sent I mean, provided to the leadership of those three organizations.
Speaker 12: No. I'd send it to the city.
Speaker 5: Is there a reason why you didn't include the people that you were negotiating with?
Speaker 12: It was over. Yeah.
Speaker 5: So I, I read the packet and so I will acknowledge that the packet that came from Bruce O'Donnell over the weekend is one that I did read in its entirety. It's a generally it's a very good agreement. And I understand there's some concern when a statement like non-binding is included, but it only pertains to certain elements, not the actual elements of the agreement, which are very, very much hardcoded and binding in the way they're written. With one caveat, and this is a question for the city attorney had city attorney or counsel counsel, have you had a chance to review the community benefits agreement that was provided by Mr. O'Donnell?
Speaker 7: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. I'm going to let Nate Lucero answer your questions first. And if I can fill in after that, I'm happy to do so.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon, counsel. Neighbors are assistant city attorney. I briefly skimmed the community benefits agreement, but the city is not a party to those. And typically I understand the people by the city.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Can you. Can you speak a little bit louder so our interpreter can hear?
Speaker 5: Yeah, sure. So I have briefly reviewed the agreement, but not in too much detail, because the city is not a party to that agreement and we don't have any enforceable enforceability for such an agreement. So there's two aspects to this. One is the language that was at question in the in the famous trial story rezoning at St Anthony's came down to Will versus Shell or Must versus Shell. And this so is there in legal terms a difference between the words will and shell in there? Meaning typically when we review contract language or regulatory language, Shell is usually a little more prescriptive. So there is there is a difference. Know Will gives you a little bit more wiggle room. Okay. I won't ask you to review this, but the use will exclusively not shell, which would obviously give me pause if I were negotiating this . I don't know that a community that didn't have experts in reviewing these sort of documents would have would have even been able to pass that. The other aspect, the reason why I'm even asking you these questions is if you heard my line of questioning last week, I took very considerable exception to whether this met the existing adopted plans, including the new plan and blueprint. Denver And this was postponed precisely to have this sort of communication around a document such as this, which would be important to address my health, safety and welfare concerns going forward. The fact that it's not executed is a bit of a problem for me with with respect with respect to addressing those concerns. Is that not a valid reason for me to ask questions on these and something like this? Are you asking whether or not the newly adopted comprehensive plan blueprint Denver are applicable, this rezoning or what? What is your question, if I may? If I have concerns about health, safety and welfare, which is one of the five criteria for rezoning? And I think that a negotiated outcome between a community that is impacted by a rezoning is important and pertinent to my decision. Is that an acceptable thing for me to do and consider? Well, I think for the purposes of the rezoning criteria, health, safety and welfare focuses on whether or not this particular rezoning at this location would would meet the health, safety and welfare criteria for purposes of what what could be placed there. If you were to approve the rezoning.
Speaker 12: So it's it's solely.
Speaker 5: Based on the proposed rezoning and how that fits or doesn't fit into the rezoning criteria. So that's. If we hadn't had a plan that had five vision elements that talked about equity and displacement, I would probably agree that health, safety and welfare criteria is sort of always met. But we did put forward and adopt a very bold statement that includes a lot of more amorphous criteria, that is more about the lives of people in the community that are impacted both there and going forward. So I don't quite I'm still trying to figure out how we how we weigh these these these things from this dais . So your comments are appreciated. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. You gave a figure the last time up that I forget. How many homes are there in the Swansea neighborhood now?
Speaker 3: About 1800.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Nola got a question for you, too. So last time we talked and I asked you, would your group like it to remain as an industrial area? Because our choices to make it to have it remain industrial or to allow the zoning to mix, to use. We don't have a in between choice. And do you think your group would prefer it be in a completely industrial. And I also want to say I remember that the owners said that they've turned down offers and are ready to build an industrial site.
Speaker 3: That that was the decision that on Thursday night we went through and did decide that at this time the IAEA uses would be the best for the neighborhood, for stability of the neighborhood.
Speaker 7: And why did you think so?
Speaker 3: Can I get somebody else? I'll. You must get sick of this stuff. Just. Why? Why? They would prefer industrial use completely. They put profit in industry, and they.
Speaker 7: So we decided the industrial was better at this moment because usually when you have an industry next to a school and a houses that are residential, it's very unlikely that it will raise the value of the homes next to as much as a residential mixed use would do. That was one of the criteria as an industrial. We've been industrial before. This area has been industrial before with we've never had or in a long time of having had that much investment coming into.
Speaker 4: A community has been.
Speaker 7: Targeted. This much so. In making the decision, what's more equitable? Do we want an industry that could potentially provide jobs for the community or for other people rather than 700 units? That it's a really big percentage of the current households in that area. It was a really tough decision and we would have loved to have resident residences there that could provide homes to people who are on the verge of homelessness. But right now, in that moment, we do not feel like the developer gave us the dignity that we wanted to be at the table and be able to actually have a voice in what would happen to the building. This is the only opportunity we have where we can actually make an impact, whether it's the space industrial or it goes into mixed use. And so you did not want the value of any homes to go up. Is that what I heard you say? Right. The the market shadowing and even the tack, the heart, the the price, the cost of taxes, even when you're already paying your home down, could impair that community much more, including the incoming neighbors. So whoever moves into that property will likely shape the neighborhood, and it will set a precedent for the other developers that are already buying that area around Bruce Randall High School and also NCAA Development I. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Could you introduce yourself for the record?
Speaker 7: So my name is Alma and I work I live in Swansea, but I don't live immediately to the property, but I work a Bruce Randolph after school program. So I walk by 40th and Clayton every if you know what percent.
Speaker 4: Of it's just right across the street.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry, first and last name.
Speaker 7: Alma Randall. Thank you very much. So you don't live in the neighborhood? I live in Swansea, NYC, but I live across the highway. So I walk to 40th and Clinton Cross Highway and I live closer to anything else.
Speaker 1: Kevin Sussman.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is for NOLA, if you wouldn't mind. Coming up, NOLA.
Speaker 7: When I started this meeting, I said, I don't mind you still with me? I like to say, you know, love combining.
Speaker 6: All of the people that live there. Good afternoon or good evening. It's not convenient for us.
Speaker 7: But there's also the numbers on the Russell vehicle.
Speaker 6: I have a fixed income.
Speaker 7: Yeah. You on the you'll be what your bill your said what place will comptroller hold up. What cannot get between them for long. We the professional. Well that's some personal data.
Speaker 6: What from what I see the people that live there, they don't have a lot of income there.
Speaker 7: They're workers and that's when we're losing.
Speaker 4: But those are those will.
Speaker 7: Then they look a separate la casa del principal Mercado Costco. Mr. MUSSELMAN Mutual thoughts.
Speaker 6: So when the market price goes up on the homes there, the cost that we pay for taxes, it's going to cost all of us a lot of money.
Speaker 7: You know, the people that are Mr. Division doesn't own the Rams.
Speaker 6: And we won't be able to pay for our homes. So where we we'll be able to go live.
Speaker 7: Is going to be inside city. Marketplace is not needed. I used up on Glenn's Army Radio. Okay.
Speaker 6: Because when they put all those things there in those homes, in the parks and all that, and all these people are going to come in, where are they going to have us live in some some, you know, in a tent or something like that.
Speaker 7: Meanwhile, we are arresting people. That is a lot of pressure. Yeah. I mean, give me get.
Speaker 6: The evaluations of the homes that they're giving us right now are very high. I had an evaluation come in yesterday and it was very hot.
Speaker 7: Family home from Rialto, your young man without a companion on the mortgage. But the immigrant vessel is is a goalkeeper enlisted and helpful to know what promises must.
Speaker 6: And I got a letter from the mortgage company, and they said it was very high. So they called them and I asked them what was going on and they said that would be the payment in 3 to 4 months.
Speaker 7: Yes. We were like, what promises? But I mean, it's impossible. Everything, I mean, at all of us, you know, they you know, I think that the.
Speaker 6: Less and it's going to be impossible for me to pay that in 3 to 4 months and all the neighbors that are there will be affected by it.
Speaker 7: I'm Joe, but I think going to lose your rhythm.
Speaker 6: There's already a lot of traffic now and a lot of noise.
Speaker 7: Working nights will be an incident like your.
Speaker 6: There's no way to get on I-70 on New York.
Speaker 7: But I thought it was best illustrated is that the losers are losers that are no place in that illustrated Bamiyan.
Speaker 6: Now you have all.
Speaker 7: These bizarre.
Speaker 6: All these detours that are going through the neighborhood. You have all these all these huge trucks and trailers that are coming in with heavy loads.
Speaker 7: It those up into your lap. Now what was your name on this spell? It also said, we want you to give up.
Speaker 6: So when they put the construction there or when they do the construction there in that area, there's going to be a whole lot of time and that's going to be.
Speaker 7: Going on a long time now with the traffic.
Speaker 6: It's already very contaminated. There's already a lot of traffic there.
Speaker 1: Could you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Speaker 6: It wasn't tested before, but I.
Speaker 7: Know somebody today.
Speaker 6: Wrote it to.
Speaker 1: Me. Thank you very much. Councilman Ortega, do you have some questions?
Speaker 9: Yes, I do. Go ahead. No, I'm going to call you up first. Can you tell me during the mediation process, what was the role of the Office of Nest? Were they at the meetings? What was being done? Because that office was created to address displacement and gentrification issues. And so were they there? What what role did they play in the process? And I'm sorry that I don't see anybody from that office here tonight.
Speaker 3: The so Dr. Aguilar, the director of the Nest team, was at the first larger negotiating meeting that we had. And then one of her staff, Elvis, was at the second meeting. They came to observe, didn't say much.
Speaker 9: So they didn't bring any tools to the table that addressed the issue. Okay. Let me move on. Just asking first, Bill, if you don't mind coming to the microphone. It's my understanding this is your project, right?
Speaker 10: It is.
Speaker 9: Are you currently the owner of the property or do you have an option contract contingent on the rezoning passing?
Speaker 12: I'm the architect. I have an interest in it.
Speaker 10: Tom and Brooke Gardner are the primary owners, but I'm their partner. Okay.
Speaker 9: So. So they own the land?
Speaker 12: Yes, they do.
Speaker 9: Okay. So I wanted to ask about the agreement. Has that been filed as a covenant with the land into the portions of it that would be applicable?
Speaker 10: From what I from what.
Speaker 12: I understand, there are two agreements with the city of Denver that that have been I don't know if they've been recorded, but they've been executed by both parties. The the agreement with the neighborhood, the neighbor benefits agreement, has not been signed or executed. It's been signed by us, but not by any representatives of the neighborhood. So it hasn't been recorded, in other words.
Speaker 9: Okay. And the one that's been recorded is on the affordability with the housing office, correct?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 12: And the open space agreement, I believe, has been executed by both parties. And I don't know if that's been recorded yet or not. And that is a commitment to provide two acres at minimum of publicly accessible open space.
Speaker 9: On the.
Speaker 10: Property. On the property.
Speaker 9: So that's the open space commitment within the 14 acres. Yes. And was it discussed whether or not part of that 14 a part of that two acres could also serve as storm drainage or it has to be independent of storm drainage?
Speaker 12: You know, I don't know if storm drainage was specific to that document. We we could not include any type of easements within that. So I know that was something that we used to sort of nail that agreement down. The storm drainage, I really can't remember if that was called out specifically.
Speaker 9: Okay. I want to ask Kyle Dalton to come forward for a minute. Thank you. So, Kyle, this site, even though it's over ten acres and that was one of the criteria, there were several criteria that would normally require a general development plan. One was not done on this site, but the city will be looking at traffic placement within its proximity to the railroad tracks to address some of the buffering issues, some of that to address part of the health, safety and welfare of the community. So given that there was no general development plan, where in the process does the community get to weigh in on any of those issues? Or is this it this meaning the agreement, this meaning input to council tonight? So can you just help address that?
Speaker 5: Sure. Yeah. Unless there are any other processes that require a public hearing as they go through the site development process, there will be further requirement for or opportunity for neighborhood input.
Speaker 9: Okay. So then let me ask either Bruce or Bill if you would come back and just. Help me understand what you see as the process, assuming this passes. What do you see as the process in terms of addressing traffic issues? And then we'll ask you about the railroad. And given that there is a school across the street with a lot of kids that move back and forth, how how do you see that part of the process moving forward?
Speaker 12: Well, the traffic, we actually have a traffic study, but it's being updated because the plans of have changed. That's available. We'll just make available that available to the public. CPD has a copy of the current one.
Speaker 9: Was was that reviewed with the neighborhood as part of the community process?
Speaker 12: Is it we obligate ourselves to provide that, but we haven't reviewed it with them. It actually said there was no impact to our with our current plan.
Speaker 9: So talk to me about railroad proximity and any kind of. So first of all, was that brought to your attention when you all initially filed this application that you should be checking the box that you're within a close proximity to railroad?
Speaker 12: I believe so. I mean, it was on the surveys. I mean, it's it's kind of hard to ignore when you're there. And at that time, we still had the the horns. So it was it was very hard to ignore. Then it as you know, the light rail curves around the site. So it's very prevalent on really on two sides. And so it's a very obvious and impactful component.
Speaker 5: Our site really turns inward and.
Speaker 12: Then to the other street. So Clayton in 40th. So along the light rail line, there's no there's no access. There's no pedestrian access in beyond that there's a heavy rail. So there's really not not as are currently nor is there going to be really any kind of implied connection across those lines. I mean, we'll have a secure boundary along that that light rail all the way to the street or to the sidewalk.
Speaker 9: So the. Cargo rail is immediately north of the RTD rail.
Speaker 12: It is at at the.
Speaker 5: Along the Clayton Edge. So it runs straight whereas the light rail.
Speaker 12: Curves around and kind of wraps the site.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 9: And in the the real issue is the fact that our rail corridors carry hazardous materials and just wanting to make sure that this is something that you all have thought about and have looked at how you address any protection that would need to be provided by the sheer fact that through this process, we're going to be encouraging people to live on that site. And if something were to happen, we'd want to make sure that we are doing our part as a city to address those health safety potential impacts.
Speaker 12: Right. It is. I mean, in in even if we were to do a commercial development, we would be aware of that creating barriers and also the safety during construction. If soil's disturbed, we will have to be monitoring that even though we're not really faced with any negative environmental impacts. But it's something to monitor the whole time during construction when the site's a little more open and then afterwards.
Speaker 9: Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to start by asking. I see that Melissa Todd is here and I don't know, were you the one involved in negotiating the housing agreement? Are you speaking to that tonight? If so, I have a question for you.
Speaker 3: Well, this study has and policy officer with Denver Economic Development Opportunity, Laura brzezinski, and I kind of filled in whenever we could.
Speaker 7: Got it. So one of the sticking points that's been identified is the depth of the affordability for this project. And I'm wondering if you can speak to whether or not you all discussed the overall low income nature of this neighborhood and the potential of that justifying a lower median income in the housing agreement. And how you looked at that or how you talked about that in this negotiation.
Speaker 3: So we're always striving to fulfill the goals outlined in our five year housing plan, which does call for deeper affordability. A lot of times we see negotiations starting at 80% of the area median income. So getting the city 60% of the area median income is really important. Again, we like to see even deeper than that when possible, but that does require a city subsidy, often tax credits as well. And so in our negotiations and conversations, that was not necessarily the path that would have been pursued in terms of what those actual salaries are. Because we talk about am I very generally for a single household, that would be 37,800. And I should say these are the 2018 numbers because the 2019 numbers just came out. So single household, 37,800. Household of four 53,940.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Next question is for I guess I'll offer if Bruce wants to say anything about the question of getting to lower median incomes and whether why, why there wasn't more willingness to commit to that. And, you know, we've we've negotiated some agreements that say, you know, pending tax credits or pending these things. So there's carve outs that can create protection for the inability to predict what can be gotten. But can you speak to anything about where you were at on the deeper affordability?
Speaker 12: Sure. Thank you. So back also to some of the discussions that have that I've been listening through for the last few minutes. The agreement, the contractual obligation we have with the city to provide the 70 affordable units is in part our displacement mitigation effort. That's part of why we do this. And in in we've stepped up big because it's five times the number of units we estimate that than would be required under the linkage fee ordinance, which would be about 12 or 15 units. We started out at 80% and in working with Dito are at 60 contractually and there's a number of reasons why that's kind of the limitation in one is is that the project has to pencil financially to be executed and with only three story zoning, it's a very low density model. For example, River Mile is has about the same affordability commitment in terms of number of units, but they can go, I think 40 or 50 or 60 storeys to two and we're limited to three. So Bill, I don't know if you have more to add to that, but that's hard to do. Yeah. Oh, and then on the deeper where we've had discussions with Jeff Martinez brother's redevelopment and is the packet you received says states we are going to give that a high priority and work for 90 days to see if there might be a way to get deeper affordability. But the economics of the project, absent involvement of somebody like that, 60% is where we can get. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. There was mention I had asked at our last portion of this public hearing about any city subsidy, and I was told flatly there were no plans for any subsidy can be a debatable term. I hear now there has been some discussion about a metropolitan district, which I would call a special, special permission. Not everybody gets to tax folks at a higher rate. So is is do you want to supplement your answer from last time about intentions related to a metropolitan district which was not disclosed during the last hearing?
Speaker 12: So a metropolitan district is being contemplated. We have not applied to the city yet. The first step in that is letter of intent, and that's not occurred. One of the reasons why is that in my experience, you have to have zoning in place for which you want to have metro district support to finance, own, construct and maintain improvements. There are a number of reasons why a metro district may be appropriate here. One is, is that we don't believe that any of the proposed public infrastructure that will be considered the horizontal infrastructure will meet the Public Works Department's criteria to accept. And so that some entity needs to exist in perpetuity to maintain those horizontal improvements in, for example, the two acres of parks that are committed to and the open space contract with the city in streets and stormwater detention and all of those types of things. And so there's a desire to explore being able to maintain those through Metro District.
Speaker 7: And potentially you could use a metropolitan district to cover the some of the costs of, for example, the open space, for example, would be eligible infrastructure under a typical metropolitan district.
Speaker 12: Would be eligible to maintain. Yes. Is that. I'm not sure.
Speaker 7: I just thinking about when you describe the economics of the project, if there are certain pieces you've committed to that might be covered by a metropolitan district, then they don't have to be covered by the cost of the development. So I'm just thinking about the overall economics. I guess you don't have to add more if you don't.
Speaker 12: Okay. Okay. Okay. The only thing I would add to it would be you said is that with this site, we're really trying to balance a re-use of the existing buildings. So part of it would be two stories. Part of it would be three stories. It's it's really not very dense. And so that's going to have a negative pressure on the negative on the economics.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of questions for the community. And what I'd like to do is ask the questions and then you can decide who answers them if that works. So the well, I have three questions, so that might be too many. But the first question is I want to see if you all had a conversation, because the truth is we don't often do very lower EMI housing at two stories. And so did you all have a conversation about how realistic your goals were compared to what they are proposing building and the trade off that if you wanted to get to those very low aims, you might need to have five storeys, which would mean even more development. So I want to understand if you all had that discussion about what is possible at this level versus what would happen if you really wanted that, then you might need to be advocating for higher height. And I don't know if there's plan support for that. So it's important that I understand if you've had that discussion. I'm trying to talk slow for the interpreter forward when? I mean, I'm Rosemary Abimbola.
Speaker 6: My name is Maria de Luna E.
Speaker 7: Gentlemen, the conversation is esoteric, lively and accessible. Maria, this is. But I want families. But I can always be sexy.
Speaker 6: Listen, I truly, when it comes to attainable housing, we had some we ask some questions about affordable housing.
Speaker 7: For Casey Ave level, the level and that's a civil Pedro bilateral service.
Speaker 6: So we've we've talked about accessible housing, but for artists.
Speaker 7: Not para la comunidad.
Speaker 6: Not for the community.
Speaker 7: And don't say this is the reality. It's a phony las cosas gay Canales isn't know what that and what are can know.
Speaker 6: So that's one of the.
Speaker 7: Things that can be a sonification.
Speaker 6: Made us vote no to the rezoning.
Speaker 7: But Carol meant they in and look I used to stand over the sandal. No, I grew up at Apoyar la Comunidad Canal because that was maybe.
Speaker 6: Because with what they're proposing, there isn't really anything to support the community when what we're going through.
Speaker 7: Now, Tampoco Como said, I say, What are you radical as we be? And as I said, Silvana said, Para la comunidad and they have allowed en masse they wanted one.
Speaker 6: Because they've talked more about Wonder Bond and they've talked about the accessible housing for the community.
Speaker 7: This is a look at your opinion. Those I see myself.
Speaker 6: That's my opinion. No, if anyone else wants to say something.
Speaker 7: So, Maria, I'll ask a follow up question. They are offering, I believe it was five or ten live work units for artists, but the remainder are not restricted to artists. Did you understand that they weren't all for artists themselves?
Speaker 6: But if this does.
Speaker 7: Not add.
Speaker 6: On. They never clarified that.
Speaker 7: Okay, so there might have been some misunderstanding. So I'm going to ask Bruce to come up and clarify this piece for me. Okay. And then I'll move on to my next question.
Speaker 6: You look obviously approximate, but Mr. President.
Speaker 5: This is in addition to this question, if I can add onto it, Bruce, can you also for those 70 units, are you are you guys committing to work with the community to do special focus advertisements to teachers, to individuals who've been displaced in the community?
Speaker 12: So let me start out responding to Councilwoman Kennish. The the 70 units that 60% are under Army with which we have the contract with the city to provide are a requirement with no no design or limitations on who they serve or or who their audience that are just going to be capital affordable housing at 60% AMI or less.
Speaker 7: They are not restricted to artists.
Speaker 12: That's correct. They're they're kind of normal everyday. What what you think of in affordable housing. In addition to that the there's a desire and that's become a commitment to also provide up to eight live work units that would be for artists. Okay. Outside of that hole, all of that.
Speaker 7: Did you want to answer, Councilman Brooks, this question about the advertising?
Speaker 12: Yes. So the is I mentioned when when I first came up this evening. And in this all kind of came in in jelled through the city appointed mediator that ran all this. We're still committed to offer units and be proactive about marketing units in the community. In the community is is one of the ongoing commitments, even though there is not a community benefits agreement.
Speaker 7: Okay. My next question for the community and is about the fact that the area plan. So we have to make our decision based on the criteria. So it's not a vote about whether the community likes or does not like the project. It is a vote about what the criteria is. And there is an area plan that has support from community that says we want to change zoning away from industrial. And tonight, one of the things that has been shared is that you rather keep it as industrial. And I want to ask whether or not you understand the fact that we already have a plan adopted that the city is supposed to comply with that says we want to change it from industrial. When the nose goes. Tangles and saroyan's.
Speaker 6: All right. We like development.
Speaker 7: Campbell's.
Speaker 6: We like change.
Speaker 7: His song. Bienvenidos a la Comunidad.
Speaker 6: They're welcome in the community.
Speaker 7: Burial meant they're in their store. No, Soto. No, they must not. Apparel accompany that.
Speaker 6: But here we don't see anything truly for the community, Fulkerson said.
Speaker 7: Then, Tony, that is.
Speaker 6: There are 70 units.
Speaker 7: Also sent percent.
Speaker 6: At 60%.
Speaker 7: It's a center proportion todavia. As I told Barela community.
Speaker 6: That 60% is still high for the community.
Speaker 7: And that's not on this as it's amazing point that 90%.
Speaker 6: We need 50 30%.
Speaker 7: But Gabriel meant there is alto locus as the by landlord in frame Takumi the pasando knows this topic Pando and my Seattle.
Speaker 6: Rent is very expensive. Food is everything expensive. Everything that is going on is affecting us a lot in process.
Speaker 7: No, no, no mirror, almost no candles. Whether you like our to get in Mozilla industrial for me other than nosotros is alongside the Las Casas Gomes Val McCallum We.
Speaker 6: Don't see anything that's helping us right now. We want industrial because what we fear right now is that the prices of the houses will go up.
Speaker 7: Barrios A lot. Residents are very severe. Takako.
Speaker 6: Mustafa A lot of the resident residents that received a letter like Rosa was saying.
Speaker 7: Ella Casani yeah. Costar S.O.S. star Valerie Salazar.
Speaker 6: S.O.S. to her house was valued at 180.
Speaker 7: How little Valerie sat on andale siento so changed that.
Speaker 6: Now it's valued at 280.
Speaker 7: Entonces vamos esperar cuanto a.z. that says para la proximo. Okay.
Speaker 6: Now we're waiting to see what the taxes will be next time.
Speaker 7: Grace. Yes, Pedro, I. I need to ask if someone has to wants to comment on the plan. I have to make my decision based on the plan and the plan. So I want to ask about the plan.
Speaker 12: My name is Robin Reichert. I'm a Swanson neighbor, part of the Gas Coalition. To your point, we to the last two questions. We talked extensively about this. We understand the developers and the really hard position. At no point did we want to blame the developer, but at the end of the day, both for your question about deeper affordability, there wasn't language in there that really secured that. And as far as the looking at the industrial use, it wasn't our intention to support the industrial use as the Coalition. We're not taking that specific position. However, the vote of the neighbors, overwhelmingly, the folks that were living closest to the the site didn't see that there was anything tangible in the agreement to to mitigate that affordability. And I think the real hook here is the city, as it's been acknowledged through the gentrification study, the housing, the inclusive housing for all all of these studies have shown that the the the direct development, the direct link between this development and displacement of low income neighbors. So we're saying if we know it and we've known it for years, what are we doing about it? And it's just so disheartening to go through this month and that there's just nothing on the table that actually protects the people that the city says they're going to protect. And so it's really hard for us to get behind a decision that had no teeth or an agreement that had no no hook. So just to your point, it was extremely debated. There was 70 people from the neighborhood that took part of this process. We knocked on doors extensively, had extensive community reporting, and invited all neighbors within 500 feet to to give input on that process.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I'll concede for others to answer their questions then. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Espinosa, you're back. Oh, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I was there.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm.
Speaker 5: Sorry. Yeah, thanks. Hey, just a couple quick questions in. I'll just put this out here. You know, listening to to the community and listening to both sides, one of the things that I thought was a real coup and win was getting brothers redevelopment to get this property in and redeveloped the affordable. So, Bruce, let me just ask let me ask you this. How real is this conversation? I mean, because it seems to be, you know, especially with those 70 units, it seems to be some mistrust of what is actually going to be done on deeper affordability and even kind of the conversations with brothers redevelopment. So. Have you all been in contact with brothers redevelopment worries? I mean, they're not here, so obviously they can't speak. But where are we on that conversation?
Speaker 12: So, yes, we've been in touch with them. We were introduced to them through NOLA and the coalition. And while there's no, you know, formal inked deal, we're committed to work with them to execute on the 70 unit site to see if deeper affordability can be achieved.
Speaker 5: Do you have a developer you're also working with on an affordable housing deal for the 70 units? Are they exclusively they're excluded?
Speaker 12: So where are what's in the the community benefits agreement? And we're still committed to, even though what's unsigned is that we will be exclusive with them for 90 days.
Speaker 5: Okay. That that's just what I wanted to highlight to make sure that that was exclusively their their deal. There is someone is moreso. Can. Can I ask you a question? You were here for the last. You were here last month, correct? Yes. Okay. And where? Where do you live, sir?
Speaker 6: I live on 4110 Fillmore Street.
Speaker 5: Okay. So a block away?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 5: And, you know, we've been hearing from different residents. What's your perspective take on this?
Speaker 12: Well.
Speaker 5: And were you a part of the 70 people we just heard? The 70 people are part of this process.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm I can say I'm part of that, this group. At the beginning, I was part when I found I find out that there was a collision. So I had to enter a meeting. But then when they see my position that I now embrace their position. Like I received fliers anymore in my home they know came to me to talk. And that's fine. But what I think about the project, we need the change. Because right now it's a lot of crime. It's now police intervention on our neighborhood. Last week was five break ins on two blocks, plus soul destroying. So we need the city of Denver. Get more involved on what is happening. And we need developers like this. So want to invest millions of dollars to have our neighborhood a better place to live.
Speaker 5: Are you committed to being a part of the process here?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. The Council on Brooks Ghost.
Speaker 5: Which is.
Speaker 1: China's own government, just got in for.
Speaker 5: The first time.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. We will get to you eventually, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Clark. I wanted to Nate, I had a question for you from the city attorney's office. Some of the, you know, answers that folks have been giving are very compelling, knowing that some sort of new development coming to the neighborhood that this rezoning may bring. I just want to make sure that folks are clear on what the criteria are that we legally have to make our decisions based upon. And, you know, we have those those criteria. I have it up really quick. But, you know, there's five criteria. One of those criteria are not inclusive of us making a decision based upon potential changing property.
Speaker 5: Values to.
Speaker 3: The surrounding businesses or single family residences.
Speaker 5: Correct? That's correct. The criteria does not.
Speaker 3: Include that.
Speaker 5: Type of consideration.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. I just wanted that to be on the record because it's very, very compelling. But legally, we can't utilize that information in our decision tonight.
Speaker 10: That's correct. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you. If you can come up to the front developer. You yourself as well. The community benefits, you know, in talking about some of the things that you've agreed to because that agreement is not signed. That's something you said you're still willing to honor. Is it also have you signed who's signed? Who are this? Who has signed on to it, at least from your guys's end? So it's developer or the developer property owner as well.
Speaker 12: The property owner and developer are one and the same. It's Tom Gordon and he's signed it and pardon me and his wife have both signed it and in so it it remains. There is no counterparty to to the agreement. And so our take on this is that we feel as if we've. Well, first of all, there there are the five criteria on which a rezoning should be. Jump in in we meet all those five, we have a staff report and planning board approval and on and on. In addition to that, we've gone above and beyond by entering into the affordable housing agreement with the city and the open space agreement. And we've taken the high road the whole way on this thing. And so we invite you to in the city and neighbors to join us there. And we're morally committed to do these things.
Speaker 8: So. What I'm trying to get at is is there any kind of development agreement where this is recorded as well, too? I mean, it's one thing to sign the document, but is it recorded in any kind of horizontal or any kind of any kind of development agreement that's associated with it? Well, no.
Speaker 12: No, there is not. So the the intent of the last month through the city sponsored and requested mediation was to try to get to that point. And as you've heard from both sides tonight, and I'll reiterate, I think we got very, very close.
Speaker 8: But if you don't if you can do that voluntarily, can't you, by making a condition of the development agreement, even if there are no signatures on it?
Speaker 12: That's exactly what we are doing. We're voluntarily sticking to sticking to those commitments.
Speaker 8: On the development agreement.
Speaker 12: And any content on the community benefits agreement that got drafted.
Speaker 8: I understand the community benefits agreement, but in the in any kind of development agreement associated with the property, any kind of building, any any kind of deed, any kind of recorded document, is it is it is it live within those kind of those. No, sorry does not.
Speaker 12: The only the affordable housing agreement and the open space agreement with the city.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Nate. You know, my. So, Nate, obviously, one of the criteria is plan support, right? Correct. So we have a variety of plans now that decry gentrification and hold equity up as a value.
Speaker 5: So the plans applicable to this rezoning are comprehensive plan 2000, Blueprint, Denver 2002 and the small area plan, which I can't remember the name of it at the moment.
Speaker 1: How about housing and inclusive Denver?
Speaker 5: Is that is a city adopted plan. And so it could be considered by council.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Well. All right, William, so a couple questions for you. So, again, I think the three the three agreements that have been put forward by you and your team and executed on two of the three are really compelling package. And so I believe it is your intent to live up to these commitments. Would you be willing to change the wills to shell on the neighborhood agreement if it.
Speaker 12: You know, I'd have to consult with the partnership on that. I'm not qualified to know the distinction. Even though I was here earlier and I heard that. So but it's it's our intent, the entire partnership to meet the agreement that's been signed. So I don't.
Speaker 5: Know if you are willing to make those changes. Would you also then be willing to give the community another ten days, regardless of the outcome tonight? I mean, if if the rezoning should be approved tonight, the community another ten days to execute that agreement so that we have a third party on that agreement.
Speaker 10: Second. That's kind of unsportsmanlike. That's just me personally thinking.
Speaker 12: I mean, that's kind of that wasn't the spirit of what we did. But, you know, we're doing it. We're committing to doing it. So if they sign it tonight or tomorrow.
Speaker 10: Or next week or the week after that, it's it's really not I mean, we're committing to it.
Speaker 5: And the reason being is that your commitment on a on a one party agreement is not worth the paper that it's written on. Right. I mean, and I do think that there's real merit to the agreements that you've laid down and and put your name to. And I do think that maybe the community was tiny at a tiny bit of a disadvantage in understanding the real impact that is being proposed here, because you're talking about a community that is really reeling and you see them essentially the argument, the argument that, you know, bringing new homes with higher values will change the the value of land in that area. And that is a legitimate argument. It is what I supported the Zia project in my neighborhood going forward, but I have warned my my neighbors that that will set a new market. It will establish a new market once that goes in and it will make certain properties viable that weren't viable before for redevelopment. That is a real impact. And as that starts to happen, that is the Jefferson Park story. So these I don't I think if you short of these protections, I think we open ourselves up to even more the potential for more dramatic impacts. So, ah, you know, I get what you mean by it's what was the term you used. I use the term.
Speaker 12: Unsportsmanlike but I was kind of in jest. Yeah, sort of a little bit.
Speaker 5: So I think you guys are committed. I think that's why you put the extra time in. You were okay with the extra time trying to reach that agreement. I think you put forward three, three substantial agreements. And if if, if, if all they need to do to secure that agreement is just one signature from one of those parties, not even all three. That would give me more peace of mind for that community that you're going to follow through on what you said. Are you sure you won't give them another ten days if this rezoning goes through? But. Okay, Oscar, thank you.
Speaker 10: I'm sure we did have a media just center on that topic.
Speaker 12: I have concerns that leaving it as a commercial in it's not only industrial zone zoned is just not doesn't allow residential. I am concerned it's still going to have the negative impact that they're concerned about. So we share those.
Speaker 5: Concerns as well. But now it's a different calculus world to the city rate, which is nonresidential land, has a taxable property tax rate at five times a residential property tax. And when we lose nonresidential land for high value residential, we dilute the residential market and we put greater pressures on the remaining nonresidential landholders for sure things.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, did your questions get answered or different question?
Speaker 9: And this is for Kiawah, if you don't mind coming forward one more time. So this is on the GDP. So who at CPD makes the judgment call whether a large site is required to have a general development plan or not? Because looking at the criteria and hearing Mr. O'Donnell talk about the two acres of parks, the streets, the stormwater, the criteria is pretty.
Speaker 3: Clear that.
Speaker 9: You look at necessary infrastructure that includes roads, parks, open space, utilities, support, development. So those are being looked at for potentially a metro district. But we the city did not necessarily factor those in for the GDP to be created as part of this project. And I'm struggling with that because the criteria seems to meet that for this particular project. Yet somebody made a judgment call that this particular 14 acre site did not require a GDP. So is there a point person that makes that decision? Is it the. What's the word? I'm looking for the neighborhood planner of the district that makes that decision. Is that something that there's flexibility on or is it just a judgment call of whoever is looking at the application?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So for the benefit of everyone else, my name is Kyle Dalton. I'm with the Department of Communicating Involvement. So the decision is, as particularly the Denver zoning code is that of the manager of CBD, which can be delegated to any member of her staff. So we make those decisions collectively as a team in consultation with her, and we reviewed it against all of the factors, all of the criteria. And as my colleague Sarah Salter explained four weeks ago, we found that that it did not meet the required criteria to require a general development plan.
Speaker 9: Even though the actual criteria spells out some of the very things that this project is going to need.
Speaker 5: So the only factor that we found that this one would necessarily require and that couldn't be solved through other regulatory mechanisms, which is what the code language says, was that it's greater than ten acres. But as we went through the rest and as she went through the rest of them last time, it's it's now within 100 feet of the river or the Cherry Creek corridors. There won't be collector arterial streets. There won't be regional stormwater than demands of the site will be local, local streets, local stormwater, local open space wasn't required or called for. Recommended is the word. I think that's in the plan.
Speaker 9: But the creek fire does say that the criteria doesn't necessarily say it's got to be that it's restricted to regional versus local.
Speaker 5: It does. Yeah. I can read the language if you'd like.
Speaker 9: Okay. I'm looking at it right now. And that particular part that about regional. There's not. Jump out at me.
Speaker 13: So.
Speaker 5: Sure. So I'm reading from section 1.4.12.2.8.3, which are which is one of the criteria to consider in determining for the department to determine whether a GDP will be required. And that's the part that's about infrastructure. That's your question. Right. So it's a establishing, extending, expanding or otherwise changing the arterial or collector street grid. So again, there's already two arterials next to the site. We didn't think it was going to anymore, but.
Speaker 9: There will be internal streets needed. Correct.
Speaker 5: That it could either public or private. Yeah. Okay. Or and then. Or establishing extending, expanding or otherwise changing an existing regional stormwater system or establishing, extending, expanding or otherwise changing publicly accessible park and open space.
Speaker 9: Okay. All right. So just one last question. This is for either Bruce or Bill. So the park that the two acres that are being proposed for this site. That's that's been in agreement with the city. Correct. It's not necessarily part of the agreement with the neighborhood. It may be part of the agreement with the neighborhood.
Speaker 12: It's listed, but it's it's it's city agreement.
Speaker 9: Okay. Is there an expectation that at some point after the typically it's the one year time frame after it's been constructed that it would be turned over to the city as as city land? Or will it continue to remain open space as part of the development?
Speaker 10: You know.
Speaker 12: I can't answer that. I don't know if if they'll want it or if it'll be part of the metro district or some other component. It's a pretty stringent agreement where it's required to be maintained as publicly accessible open space. So it has this.
Speaker 10: A person is answer to this one. So.
Speaker 9: Okay, Mona Bruce.
Speaker 12: The the agreement requires that the the two acres of open space be in a easement provided to the city so that the city of Denver would be the grantee in an easement to assure that this remains open space in perpetuity.
Speaker 9: So then it becomes a city park at that point. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: That is not determined. It could be under private ownership, but it that it would be in an open space easement. That's the that been the beneficiary of the grantees, the city of Denver.
Speaker 9: Okay. But the assumption is that if there's a metro district, the part of the mills get collected to address maintenance of that park is part of the overall infrastructure.
Speaker 12: If if there was a district. Yes. That yes, that's a possibility.
Speaker 9: It's a possibility, but it's a possibility. It gets turned over to the city and the city assumes the maintenance responsibility. Is that accurate?
Speaker 12: No. The city just has an easement to make sure that it remains open space.
Speaker 9: Okay. Because I know a number of our other metro districts, the parkway ends up being turned over to the city, even though it's built, and part of the cost of the maintenance is built into the original mills. But yet the city ends up taking the responsibility of ongoing maintenance of those parklands. So that's why you're familiar.
Speaker 12: With that in other areas. But that would not be the case here.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thanks for that clarification.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Gordon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Clark. Bruce, I have another question for you on the attachment that you had sent to us. I'm looking at page 16.
Speaker 10: Where is the grab it?
Speaker 3: Okay. Please. It's the section that says Agreement to provide open space. And I have a quick question because my math isn't adding up correctly. I don't think so. On page 16, under the recitals, SI, it says the owner intends to provide approximately 20% of the buildable area of the property for use as open space. But then the next section where it says agreement. It says Open Space Owner agrees to provide a minimum of two acres of the property as publicly accessible open space. If this is a 14 acre site, 20% would be 2.8 acres. And so how do you, under the agreement, under open space, have a minimum of two acres instead of the 20%? That would be 2.8 acres.
Speaker 12: So today, the gross acreage of the site is about 14 acres. And so that includes buildings are part of that, for example, today and as development begins to occur there, it'll start to transition to what's called net acreage. So net of street rights of way, for example. And so the the two acres or 20% is calculated on the the estimate of what the future net open space will be is as opposed to today's gross acreage of 14 acres.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Kyle. I have a question for you on the same topic. What Bruce just described around those calculations is that the standard.
Speaker 11: Way that open space.
Speaker 3: Requirements are calculated for developments of this size.
Speaker 5: Sure. So when development is required to provide open space, either under a GDP or under the proposed rules for a large development review that the Planning Board has forwarded for the City Council's consideration here in the next few weeks. It does because there's a little bit of history here. So the open space requirement comes from former Chapter 59, which applied to the zone lots. So the way it's been applied since then, including in the new Denver zoning code, is net of streets, public or private, but net of streets because it was originally just applied to the private property. So we would subtract ordinarily the the land for streets, whether they're publicly dedicated or private, but all publicly accessible streets. But at this point, there isn't a like the specifics of a plan, which I think is why they've included it as a recital. It is approximately 20% because there isn't a calculation to perform yet. But that was the intention behind the recital.
Speaker 3: Okay. And who are you all working with as far as the parks planner for this area.
Speaker 5: Said Mark. Mark Taylor was.
Speaker 10: The person who participated.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Councilman Brooks. Yep. Just one last thing. And, you know, Nola or Bruce can do this, but we didn't hear the mediator's comments. And so I know he wrote a letter, and I'm not even sure that the entire council got those. And I just wanted to make sure we read it into record. So we have all of the everybody's comments in before. Anybody have it?
Speaker 12: So, Councilman, I have the mediator's letter here. Is is that what you're. What what would you like done with it?
Speaker 5: Yeah. So none of the city of city council have the letter?
Speaker 9: Nope. No.
Speaker 5: So that's an issue.
Speaker 12: I have 14 copies.
Speaker 5: Okay. Can you please get it to the secretary? So can the lease have the letter?
Speaker 3: It's actually in here.
Speaker 5: There is. Go ahead. Go ahead. Speak to it.
Speaker 3: The it says that it was the Arnaud's that abstained. And that's not true. The at the actual meeting, the Elyria Swansea Neighborhood Association was there. And actually Sandra from the Unite North Metro Denver, R.A. is here tonight. So I just want to make sure that that is isn't. That point was an accurate.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thanks for doing that. Can you.
Speaker 12: Pass along? My apologies. I had 14 copies of a different document that I have. One of the mediators report to city council that I'm happy to give you.
Speaker 1: Okay. I a. I just want to confirm with our attorney that having that copy gets it on the record or do we need to read it into the record?
Speaker 7: Yeah, you can just distribute it and if you'd like to read it into the record that we get it, I don't know.
Speaker 4: How long it is, but.
Speaker 1: Do you want to you do want us to read it.
Speaker 7: Yet? How long is the document? I haven't seen.
Speaker 5: It. I don't.
Speaker 1: Know. It just walked out of the room.
Speaker 12: It's one page.
Speaker 7: Yeah. It would make sense to read it into the record.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: I think, Mr. President, just for the edification, everybody in there with notwithstanding what I know, they just talked about taking out that piece about the neighborhoods that it it's good for everybody to hear what he wrote.
Speaker 1: So did the one copy we have of it, though, just walk out of the room with getting copied.
Speaker 5: If you can play some music in the interim.
Speaker 1: Can we grab the first copy off the printer so we can read it? Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: I may have.
Speaker 1: And does it matter who reads it in? Can I just read it in to the record or.
Speaker 7: Yes, that would begin. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, here is the letter. Uh, Councilman Brooks and Courtney Levinson. Thank you for referring the rezoning request for 2535 East 40th Avenue to mediation. As you can imagine, I believe mediation and helping people find a way to talk with each other has the potential to resolve a lot of issues and concerns in a collaborative manner. I met with the applicant, Tom Gordon's representative Bill Moore, and Bruce O'Donnell, along with about 20 neighbors on two occasions, April 16th and April 23rd at each meeting. We had a full involvement and discussion by everyone around issues and concerns of the neighbors and the ideas and commitments Mr. Thomas was prepared to make if the rezoning was approved. As expected, there were some gaps between what the neighbors yes. Were asking for and what Mr. Thomas felt he could do specifically about an increased number of affordable units, neighborhood based affirmative marketing plan, representation and inclusion in an advisory capacity. Financial support for displacement pressures in the form of legal defense fund and property tax relief. Preference and affordable accommodations for commercial space for local businesses. Preference for local businesses in the development and construction community. Open Space Traffic Issues and health concerns. I asked for a small working group to enable us to discuss and make decisions in a timely manner. We were scheduled to meet again on Thursday, April 25th. This was a meeting with Mr. Gordon's representatives and five gees neighbor representatives. At the very last minute, Mr. Gordon canceled the meeting. I was able to talk with Mr. Gordon later that day and work towards rescheduling the meeting. Our working group met on Monday, April 29th. That was a very productive meeting with open, honest and collaborative discussion. I believe we were able to resolve all of the points that GM slash R.A. slash neighbors were asking. With that, with what Mr. Thomas was willing or able to agree upon, with the exception of a displacement impact fee, the challenge came in getting it on paper. Many emails and drafts. Later, Mr. Thomas's team finalized and submitted an agreement that addressed the issues and concerns that were identified in our April 29th meeting. With the exception of one point the displacement impact fee, I'm attaching a copy of that agreement for your reference. Thursday evening, May 2nd, the neighborhood spent significant time discussing the agreement, concerns about increasing displacement impacts and ultimately voted 12 to 7 to oppose the rezoning and not sign the agreement. The three are no representatives abstained. I was not present but was informed. The real concern from the neighborhood was about the impact of potential displacement upon vulnerable persons. Unfortunately, we do not have a signed agreement. However, there was a significant hard work and commitment by the neighborhood and Mr. Thomas's team. We were very close to and accomplished a lot. I would propose to you that we have an agreement that both sides agreed upon, with the exception of the one point displacement impact remediation. Thank you, Steve Charbonneau. All right. No other questions. The continued public hearing for council, the 1 to 7 is closed. Removed two comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank everybody for being here and all their hard work on this pretty frustrating process. And and I think all parties from, you know, as my lawyer is listening to me over here, it's really frustrating being a council person, being the judge and not being able to actually go in and see where the deficiencies are. I saw where the deficiencies in the argument were on the community side. I saw where the deficiencies in the arguments were on the developer side. And it was frustrating because it felt like the two kept missing each other. At one point the developer left the table. A lot of mistrust, obviously, for the community. And the community made a vote and didn't send in with the vote what we want except for the we want it to stay the same zoning but what specific issue. And so that was that was just it was just problematic and tough all the way around. I think when you look at the Swansea, a neighborhood and by the way, I live three blocks away from this. So I understand residential and industrial zoning. I live across the street from the Coca-Cola plant. I understand those zoning and I understand those issues and the impact they have on a community. And so I get it. And I also get the fear of displacement that's going on all around our community and the fear displacement that's going on in my kids classrooms that's happening all around the community. And so everything that Swansea and Elyria and the Gas Coalition is saying is all justified. It's all right. The question is, what is the right tool to begin to deal with these issues? Is the tool putting in new policies in this one single development? Is that the right tool or is a tool saying, you know what? Maybe in displacement, in gentrified neighborhoods, there should be a higher bar for impact fees and things like that. That's a larger policy conversation that we have been working. And it takes a long time. Right. And so I get the frustration from the community. Here's here's where I land. We do have this criteria that we have to look at. And I'm telling you right now, what has not been shared or talked about with anyone. Is this location is an enterprise is in an opportunity zone. An opportunity zone. Takes a ton of individuals who can invest in property. And so what you see today is an AT&T site that's going away. If if you don't get a rezoning until I am x three and things like that, you get an incredible redevelopment plan, much more density and much more expensive development and commercial development. And let's be very clear, it does not have to be industrial. It can be commercial development. That would put a lot of pressure on the community. AT&T did nothing. Opened up no doors for Swansea. Nothing. And I think we need to realize that and acknowledge that. So. In reviewing the criteria. I am x three is exactly what the plan says. I am x three and reviewing the criteria is much better for a community than what you have now and what you could get if this developer goes to the market and sells it to the highest bidder on the market. I know there's not a lot of knowledge in in issues on opportunity zones, but people are starting to invest globally to find opportunity zones all throughout America. Because of this new legislation that just passed. It is a it is a serious issue. We have a developer who has agreed to provide and I haven't seen this before. 2000 square feet of. Of retail or community space. We need to take advantage of it and use it for our entrepreneurial space. The 70 units we need to take advantage of it and recruit, recruit housing for teachers at Bruce Randolph. We need to take advantage of it and use the GST Coalition to do the redevelopment and things like that. And so I'll be supporting this redevelopment and I'll be supporting this rezoning and I hope the community stays engaged with this or else we will see another development that closes the community out. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: And so my colleague, my colleague was right in that the plan has a lot of nebulous language that talks about industrial areas being residential and all that stuff. But the recommendation number one that I pointed to last time and I'll point to again is item B5 recommendation number one of this plan improve transition between industrial residential uses to improve compatibility between residential and more intensive industrial areas. Development in these areas should be consistent with the industrial mixed use land designation and it's a C, E, three, E, eight and E 22, which are the character area strategies of the plan? And it doesn't emphasize those three recommendations. Do not emphasize that you convert industrial mixed use into some sort of massive residential development. It does. There are again, I will acknowledge that there are other parts of the plan, but they are not specifically in the recommendations. So I think there's adequate language in here that you could say that this zoning does not conform to the adopted plan, you know, and so that gets me into where I was going and was hoping out of this outcome, which is how then do we resolve how do we make sure that those nebulous parts of the plan and in the conflicting language of the recommendations are married in the way you do that is through compromise and through negotiation. And I'm sort of frustrated, as you can tell, sort of on both sides, because I think we have actually pretty impressive set of agreements. And and but then what you heard me talk in my own questioning, where I'm frustrated is the fact that we as a city, we as city council representatives didn't engage you guys in the process so that we weren't in this situation where you actually have a lot of good things, really impressive things, things that go above and beyond. I will acknowledge that the things you put out there are above and beyond where you were. We take a lot of these these entitlement cases and and sit here and not me, not be in full agreement. But I understand why and and almost said it best. Where are you? Still here. Yeah, that was that was perfect articulation of the real problem here, which is we don't have this kernel of gentrification going on in this area, even though we have created a stormwater plan that will make this area bone dry and perfect for redevelopment going forward. We have set the table for massive redevelopment of this area, but we haven't done as established a market yet. And if we're party to that market creation, you know, God help the rest of the neighborhood when investment reinvestment comes in, because this administration has already said, well, you know, we can't control the market. Well, this is where we do it. You know, because I'm going back and looking at census reporter right now, dawg. Looking at the statistics, I mean, the demographics of your neighborhood and I have said it before from this dais that when I moved in Jefferson Park 22 years ago, 1997 was 83% Latino and 53% Spanish speaking. I mean, over 50% Spanish speaking. If I look at the demographics right now. Of that census tract, 81% Hispanic. I have no idea what it is special speaking, but I can tell you that the per capita income is $17,508. If I look at my own census tract, which is all of Jefferson Park, it is now 45% Hispanic. It is 50% white. And the per capita income in that neighborhood is 49, nine, eight, eight. So there is a difference in median income. Our area median income analysis is the citywide median income. That is a very high income in this area. And so now I blame the city. Right, because this is a huge, huge haul on the affordable housing front, no doubt. But it is not addressing displacement in this community. There is no opportunity for all but a few people in this neighborhood to actually move into these 60% Army units. And so when they're named, when their properties start to become pressured and their neighborhoods become the next Jefferson Park, is there an option for them to stay in the community that they've lived in for decades? Are we providing then should we be providing that? I would say yes. I think this council has been consistent in saying, yeah, we need to address gentrification. And there is a way using market forces and using all of this agreement. And what we had was a very, very compliant developer. And what we didn't do is have that conversation robustly with the community so that we came in here going, You know what? It isn't. I mean, what we had here was a great opportunity, right? Because nobody all acknowledged nobody's getting displaced by this project specifically. It's only indirectly. There isn't a single residential unit on that property, I don't think. So this is an opportunity. So do we need 70 units at 60%? Am I over here when other developments are generating tons and tons at 60 and 80 and 120? Or do we actually need something lower to create that opportunity and less of it because there aren't a ton of houses? Let's be honest, the dense the dwelling unit density in this area isn't super compact. And so there was that opportunity. But nobody's doing the calculus. No one's really playing that game and going, Okay, how do we move these pieces so that we actually create opportunity? At the same time, you know that the market forces are going to do it themselves. And so that is why it was so important to me, because now we're I feel emboldened. I feel empowered by comp plan and the new plan blueprint. Denver Because it speaks to these things, the importance of these things and to us to be considering them going forward. And so to do rezonings just the way we always have. I'm sorry. It's a it should be a new day. I think I've heard it from the citizens of Denver and the administration. And my colleagues. Most definitely. But are we? So I'm. I. I. This is an imperfect process. We have a good a a good package. I don't know how I'm going to vote because I am struggling with the plan recommendations and the fact that we have not closed this gap. We came very, very close. But I do agree that it is a good agreement. If this rezoning goes through, I would highly encourage this community. Take this developer at his word. Put one of those names of those community organizations on it. That way you can say, yes, we're party to your agreement. You said you would do these things. We're not just going to trust you. We have a document that you sign and I signed. And at least do those things, you know, because it is better than what Jefferson Park got. Right, which was 100% use by right. Trying to think other than the rezonings that I did in Jefferson Park. There wasn't a single rezoning in Jefferson Park. All of that happened without anybody's say other than the plan reviewers. That is the situation you're putting yourself in. If you don't execute these agreements. Okay. So again, we heard it here, the willingness it is a bit of the term I can't remember again. I get it. But I think there's opportunity. And if we if we put you in too tight of a box, come to Gedo, come to the city and say, look, we we made the obligation to to to tight for you guys, but it's too important to this community. And and and we want to get there because I think I think this administration, any incoming administration, this council will find reason to help. If it starts to address these issues. So, again, I don't know where I'm going to vote, but I did want to get those comments out. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So we go from an earlier rezoning where we had 30 meetings over three years to this process that was considerably less robust. Now, that's not something that is a criteria that we can vote on. But I think it's relevant because I think if we had a more robust, extended community process, I think we'd have an agreement. In this case, I think we've got a situation where, if I'm remembering from last last times testimony out of about 700 residential units, about 70 will be affordable. And I wonder if the impact of those 630 market rate units doesn't have more of a negative impact on the community than the 70 affordable units? Help it out again. And I point to our housing plan, as well as the newer plans that unfortunately don't come into play on this, where gentrification is held out as something that we clearly need to take action on. I'm concerned because we have a development agreement that's barely a development agreement. As as development of this site unfolds, there's will be no public meetings as site plans come into play. So I wonder if this is truly a plan that's protective of health and safety. And while there are certainly elements in the proposed community benefits agreement that are very worthy of the neighborhood's consideration, the fact that there are those few elements missing from the recipe that makes it unpalatable, unpalatable for the neighbors also gives me concern. So, yeah, I just wanted to put that out there. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's important to recap what I think I've heard through this process, because each discussion we have from this dais isn't just a decision about what's in front of us. It's also about what is the work plan going forward. Right. And so I want this community to know how much I appreciate their time and that I'm thinking about both of those things. And I also want to thank the applicant for agreeing, perhaps under duress, but agreeing nonetheless to the one month delay to get us here. So we have some process and infrastructure failures that some of which are most of which I think we can address. So first was that we didn't get notice to renters and to neighbors through the process. That is something I have alerted CPD that I and I will not vote for the large development review ordinance that's coming forward unless we fix that. I've already fixed it in the tiny home ordinance that I'm going to be bringing forward over the summer. Should I have the pleasure of continuing to sit on his dais anyway? And so that is something we can fix to provide notice to properties or structures within 400 feet to. We have a housing negotiation process that sets our Office of Housing at the table with developers with no mechanism to get input from the community on the affordability levels they're negotiating. That is something we can also fix. I'm looking at kind of the ways to do that. One of the ways I think that may help is that I have worked with the folks in CPD to make sure there's a neighborhood informational meeting in the large development review process. So that creates at least an opportunity. And I'm hopeful that we can time that such that no housing agreement can be entered into before that meeting. So we'll see how all that works. But that is something that can be fixed and I think should be fixed. Three We don't really have an anchor organization with expertize and community benefits. The organization I worked for before I got elected doesn't do that work anymore. And you all have been short on the kind of expertize you might have needed to understand maybe where some of the things could have been written differently, or how you could have gotten some some explanations on what you were getting. And so that also, I think, is something we can fix. I've been urging that we as a city invest in capacity. Building and whether it's us or whether it's the foundation community, I'm committed to bringing some of my old friends from the National Network to Town to do some trainings. I think both with us as government as well as with the community, maybe even with the development sector, to talk about how we do this better because there hasn't really been this infrastructure in the last few years. So those are the then we have some substance issues. The community is trying to overcome deficits and citywide policy in one particular site and the applicant identified that. Right. I think we all have different roles in a democracy and your role in bringing that forward is appropriate, right? Even if it's sometimes an awkward fit, it makes us understand where the big rules need to change so we can't control rising rents. I testified for a bill that might have given us the ability to debate that law. It didn't pass. So you're trying to find workarounds, right? From a shortage of state law. We can't assess property differently based on where you live and say, oh, this neighborhood, we want to give them a lower property tax rate than another neighborhood. The state doesn't let us do that. So you're trying to find these ways. I and then the third thing you talked about was this resident preference policy. And that one, we are working on it. We're just behind you. Right? We are working to get the data and the criteria so we can say to developers, here's how you can make sure that the community nearby gets a chance to get these units. It seems like there are some private market opportunities you can do without our city policy, and I hope you look at those. So I believe that these are things that we can continue to work on. So regardless how this vote goes tonight, the community's been heard and many of these things, we can make fixes at least to move us forward. There is a difference in my mind between Nada e insufficient thing. I don't think we have nada here tonight. We don't have nothing. The local business space is something most communities are asking for to have local business space. You've gotten a seed funding for a legal defense fund. 70 units to negotiate over is not nothing sufficient to always know. Maybe it's not enough, but that's different than nothing. And it's important for the community to recognize that there are some pieces in here to build on. So as I look forward, we have this situation where the other structural process thing that we're not going to fix is that the committee, the council can't be engaged in negotiations around zoning. One thing you will notice is most community benefits agreements are related to city subsidies, taxing authority or public land. They're not linked to zoning. So we have to follow these legal criteria and we can't step into your negotiation when zoning are involved. So you'll see very few community benefits agreements nationally with zoning. But I heard today that there's going to be a request for a metropolitan district. What I believe is I have to make a decision based on the criteria. And the criteria tell me that we have a plan that calls for changing from industrial. I don't believe that the health and safety of the community is better protected by more intense industrial use than a re-use of these existing buildings at pretty low density , two and a half storeys. So I don't have the criteria I need, but I believe that if the community were to sign this agreement and continue to negotiate over the potential of deeper affordability and the advertising of the units, I can absolutely be more engaged as a council member if there's a metropolitan district before me. If you want special taxing authority, you're going to need to demonstrate a little bit of make up time on the, you know, some of the time you lost in the beginning. Right. So you'll have more time to do these discussions as you put together a metropolitan district. So I have more authority as a council member to consider more factors in that discussion, in my opinion. So with that said, I believe that today is one step and it's a vote on the criteria for the zoning. This doesn't mean that it's dollar total isn't isn't one, but that's different than I heard a term at the legislature every step. If you feel like this zoning decision is a loss, if it goes against, if it goes if we pass it tonight, it's a loss forward, not a loss backward because we've identified things we can fix . So with that, I will be voting for the rezoning tonight, but I will be watching closely now that I can engage more in a different way. And I hope to see that there is good faith on the depth of affordability and on the advertising of the units in future non zoning conversations. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I just want to say I appreciate all the work on both sides. That has taken place in trying to find some middle ground here. I appreciate the the work that was done to spell out a community benefit agreement of items that I think do take a step in the right direction . I'm very concerned that it is not signed by anybody from the neighborhood, but that more so that it has if this developer chooses to sell this land and it would be much more valuable now once it gets resolved, that agreement between this developer and the neighborhood would go away. And I would hope that the development team before us is sincere in their commitment to develop the site, not to turn around and flip it, because we've seen that happen way too many times before with sites that have come before this body where the land has been flipped after it's been resolved. I am concerned that the neighborhood's role in this process didn't you know, it's not like many of other neighborhoods across the city where they're represented by legal counsel. They have, you know, folks that oftentimes have been hired by consulting firms to come in and represent them. So it's it's like you've got two sides on a level playing field. And and I think this was kind of a lopsided and it's not to say that you weren't sincere in the things that were put on the table to try to address some of the concerns raised by the community. But this is a deficiency in our process when we are talking about how we address gentrification and displacement in this city, in neighborhoods that are being impacted over and over again. And this is an area of the city that is dealing with massive redevelopment activity, whether it's public projects or private projects, and in some cases, public private projects. And just the fact that, you know, people in these neighborhoods are struggling just to move around, to get in and out of their community because of the activity that is happening in the neighborhood, which is exacerbating the the the taxes that they're now seeing occur. These are some neighborhoods, I believe Montebello is is comparable to these neighborhoods where they have seen greater increases in their valuations than what other neighborhoods across the city have seen. I just wish that we had a way. And these are some things that I'm committed to working on as well, where, you know, some of us have talked about the fact that our zoning code sections of it need to be changed. And this isn't going to deal with tonight's situation. But the fact that our zoning process doesn't allow us to look at the full picture makes it challenging in terms of how we're making a complete decision based on just components of a project that we get to see and then pieces get worked out later on down the road by our staff at the Planning Department. And sometimes I think you all are at the same mercy of the process you have to go through with our with our planning department. It's subject to, you know, interpretation and sometimes the timing as well. And I think if we had greater predictability, where we all have a chance to know exactly what's being brought before us and what is brought before us is what's going to be built. It gives that same predictability to neighborhoods and to to our development community. I'm struggling with where I'm going to land on this tonight. I mean, I think there's been good faith in terms of both sides coming together, trying to identify some workable items in this project. But. This is a massive change in what is there today to go from an industrial area to 700 units, not unlike when we redeveloped the Central Valley and changed the zoning and totally changed the whole character of that area. But it was master plan to be that way. And the unfortunate thing here is there was no general development plan for, you know, anybody to really have input into all of that. So I'm just struggling with where I'm going to land. But those are my thoughts and concerns about changes we need to make in our process that ensure that when we're impacting our low income neighborhoods, that we have the right tools put in place to really address these issues on the front end. I mean, we have an office of next nest, but we brought no tools to the table to deal with these issues. And that needs to happen not necessarily always by the developer, but as part of the process in looking at how are we solving these issues so that we're not exacerbating them for the the impacted communities. So you're hearing some of my frustration as well in in just kind of what's what's happening in general to some of these neighborhoods where, you know, because the criteria is there. When we meet the criteria, we have to say, yes, we're going to see the same thing when the metro district gets filed. The metro district doesn't give us the tools to make changes. As long as the criteria is met in the metro district and there's a host of criteria that they can choose and pick from, as long as that's met we're in the same boat, we would have to vote for it if it meets the criteria. So anyway, I'm going to stop at that, but I'm just sharing some of my concerns about where we're at in dealing with this area of town, knowing we've been dealing with these same issues over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Like most of my colleagues, I have some of the same struggles with with this particular application. And I appreciate the input and the questions from all of our colleagues as I've sat here and I've read all the material and it is very difficult and we do make a decision based on the criteria before us. And while it's easy to see how the application meets at least four of the five criteria, it's that third one that I always struggle with when the community comes out in force, and that's furthering the public health, safety and welfare. I have seen the impacts of increasing property values on my in my district in Mali, in Harvey Park, Brentwood. And I've seen how it's affected Councilman Lopez district. And then on up through that famous inverted EL that we keep talking about and but this is such a small piece and an adaptive reuse and the addition of of affordable units that that pulls me in the other direction as well. So I've struggled with how the impact will affect the longtime residents as well. And I'm. Well, we'll see how this goes on the roll call, because I am like Councilwoman Ortega, like Councilman Espinosa. I'm very torn on this. But I really do appreciate the questions and the comments from colleagues. It's been very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I I guess the theme tonight is is torn because I somebody made the comment earlier we come from or. Yeah. Sometimes you have folks in here who are opposed who can pack the place of their own resources and lawyers and consultants. And it keeps us out until past midnight thinking about these same issues. And sometimes it's actually folks who are opposed, right, to to affordable housing and things like that. I worry and I and, you know, I think community process as we see this a couple of times come in these chambers. You know, I really appreciate, uh, the extra month that the sides were able to agree to, to sit down and to try to iron out some mutual benefits. That, that, that speaks volumes to me, however. And I do, I, I get it. 700 units, 70%. And some of the affordable units, some say it's 10%. You know, those are things that we can consider in rezoning, but they do have an effect and they do have an effect on some of the criteria of the rezoning. Um, it speaks to changing conditions. It speaks to health, safety. And I'm sorry. And. Conformance with adopted plans in the vision. My worry is where I struggle with this is precedent. And are we setting the bar too low as what's acceptable? Are we setting the bar too low and are we setting expectations too low when we think about this from a perspective that's not just confined to on on paper in the letter of the law, but what the intent is. And. Councilman Flynn, I really appreciate the inverted l conversation and in point because this is part of that convert it all in that inverted L in the city we are losing people. This is where that struggle exists. So I too am conflicted with it because, well, really not much I can say there, except that I know that we can do better. And it requires a little bit more conversation and a little bit more political will, especially. From the city. Especially from the states and these chambers. And knowing that and knowing what it can be and seeing what it can be. Conflicts. Conflicts. Me with this particular reason. I know I can't base everything off of something that can happen in the future, but. I'm just I know that there's another standard. We seem to be able to push for so with a lot of conflict. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. See no other comments, Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 4: BROOKS I'm blessed. All right.
Speaker 5: ESPINOSA Yes.
Speaker 0: Flynn All right.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I. Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman They can each I. Lopez?
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 4: Ortega, no. Sussman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 4: Seven days, three days.
Speaker 1: Missing, and so on.
Speaker 9: Their mine did not show up.
Speaker 4: There's was a knee. Seven days. Four days.
Speaker 1: It still gets us 11. Don't we have 12 up here and.
Speaker 0: 12 up there.
Speaker 1: Though? We're still missing somebody else. A couple of.
Speaker 8: Folks learned something about.
Speaker 1: This, didn't push the button.
Speaker 4: Okay. Officially 8 hours. Four days.
Speaker 1: Eight days, four days. Townsville 127 has passed. On June 3rd, 2019, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 352 changing the zoning classification for 4891 Lincoln Street in Globeville in a required public hearing on Council Bill 380, changing the zoning classification for multiple properties located in the University Park neighborhood between I-25 and Harvard Gulch
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 E. 40th Avenue in Elyria Swansea.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 and I-A to I-MX-3 (light industrial to industrial, mixed-use), located at 2535 E. 40th Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-26-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04292019_19-0240
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvened. We have two required public hearings and one one hour courtesy public hearing this evening. If you could wrap up your conversations so that we can get started. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come up 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 of On the wall. You'll 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 put Council Bill 240 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19 dash 0240 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 240 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Good evening. Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a rezoning at ten South Colorado Boulevard. The request is to rezone from urban edge single unit to urban edge to unit. So if this is in Council District five in the hilltop neighborhood. I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time seeing my thing, and it's not so. Okay, so it's in the hilltop neighborhood. And the request, as I said, is to rezone from single unit to two unit and.
Speaker 0: We're working on the technical side for working on tech support here.
Speaker 2: I'm standing up there and it doesn't show up. So. So anyway, so the urban edge context is that blend of suburban and urban. Here we go. And it is intended to promote and protect our residential neighborhoods. It allows urban house, random house, duplex, building form with 30 to 35 feet height limit on a 5500 square foot zone lot. So the existing zoning in the area, north and east is that urban edge single unit to the south is pretty G17, which I think council remembers. And then West is grade three, which is a row house zone district. So the subject property is vacant to the north and east are single unit residential to the south is a vacant church. To the west is a mix of two unit and multi-unit residential in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. So this gives you an idea of the form of the surrounding buildings, a lot of one and two storey buildings . And so that just gives you that idea as far as the process goes. The informational notice of receipt of a complete application went out in January of 2018. The application was.
Speaker 12: Revised.
Speaker 2: After some discussion with the neighborhood, so a notice of that revised application went out in December of 2018. And then Planning Board was held in March of this year. And they recommended unanimously approval. And then Ludie Committee was just March also. And then we're here and this hearing has been properly noticed. We do have one letter of support from the R.A. in the area, the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association. And no other letters have come to staff. So you understand the criteria. We have plans that are relevant are Blueprint 20 2019 and Plan 2040 and the Boulevard Plan, which is a 1991 plan for Colorado Boulevard comp plan 2000 2040. Sorry, I keep saying 2000 increase development and housing units close to transit create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood. Ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing, encourage quality infill development consistent with the neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhood, and an infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Blueprint 2019. This is within the urban edge context that mix of suburban and urban, where there are low scale multi-unit and commercial areas embedded in one and two unit residential areas and a regular grid block pattern. The police type in Blueprint. Denver 2019 is low, medium residential. This is small scale multi-unit with single and two unit residential within single and two unit residential areas up to a height of three stories. Colorado Boulevard is a residential arterial, a high capacity transit corridor and a parkway. So the thought is this would be primarily residential. But because of the high capacity transit that is envisioned for Colorado Boulevard, this would be considered a transit corridor. And of course, on Parkway, as we seek to reestablish the landscaping of the parkway, Ellsworth Avenue is a designated local street. The growth strategy for this.
Speaker 12: Area, for this property, is all.
Speaker 2: Other areas of the city. That's the lowest one possible. They're anticipated to see 20% of the new housing growth in the city and 10% of the new employment by 2040. With that staff believes, Oh, I'm sorry, Boulevard plan the land use goals. No wholesale increase in overall development on the boulevard except where in on individual projects where a specific site it might work and seek to retain a diversity of land uses on the corridor. This plan was mostly an urban design plan for the corridor approved in 1991 and not very well implemented, I might say. So with that, the staff believes that this application is consistent with current Plan 2040, with Blueprint 2019 and the Boulevard Plan that by using a standard zoned district, we are contributing to the uniform application of zone districts for similar, similarly situated properties that excuse me by further that we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare by implementing our plans and allowing some redevelopment in our neighborhoods. And the justifying circumstance is changed conditions. There are multiple changed conditions in this area. As you know, the 3350 property to the south and multiple changes in the Cherry Creek area. So staff believes the changed conditions is an appropriate justifying circumstance and the urban edge context. That mix of urban and suburban with single and multi-unit zoned districts and sorry land uses is a is the hilltop neighborhood and Cherry Creek neighborhood. So staff believes the purpose and intent of the one and two unit zone district to further the existing pattern in the area is the appropriate zone district and with that staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It looks like we have five, five individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I will call you up and step right up to the microphone as your time will begin. First up is Adrian Parra Chavez. All right. Next up is Mike Dick.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council President Clark and council members. For the record, my name is Mike Court and Dick is spelled k r t n d c k. And I'm the principal of Land Incorporated. Having a business address, a P.O. Box nine Evergreen. I might add a very snowy evergreen this evening. Colorado 80437. I am joined by Adrian Parrish of his the the owner or the manager of ten Colorado LLC. That's the business entity that was formed for this project. Not present today is Jeff Kline with the Kline Design Group. Jeff is the project architect. We're very appreciative to have worked with three. Lucero, you're senior planner who just spoke about this case. I think we were one of the first cases that was reviewed against both your Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and the Council Apprehensive Plan 2040. And we did a similar exercise with Blueprint Denver basically meeting and conforming with those planning policies as well as the new comprehensive plan 2040. So we're very appreciative to have had Teresa work with us and give us some guidance as we navigated those plans. I'm a resident of Northwest Denver in commission member Rafael's District Espinosa's district, but live in live here but work in Evergreen. So it's good to be finally back in front of you all here in city county of Denver. Most of my work is along the front range. Additionally, we we've done a lot of work with with this project, specifically with some of the neighboring communities, more so it was Jeff Cline with Coin Design Group, again the architect. But I was brought in later on when some of the complexities of these various plans sets arose, and we wanted to go out and make sure that we complied or exceeded the language of both your former regulatory environment as well as your new one. So we really don't have a whole lot to say. What I'd like to do is put it back to you all. If you have specific questions of us and we've gone through the Land Use Committee, we've gone through the the hierarchy of your different hearings, and we think we've emerged with with a really good product that's going to be a good neighbor on on Colorado Boulevard. And I think there's a gentleman here that we've we've spoken with in the past representing those groups. And we're very happy to to have, at least my understanding, to have satisfied that group with with this proposal. So, again, I'll leave it to you if you have any questions of myself for the applicant, Adrian, and leave it at that. I know you've got a robust agenda ahead of you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 5: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Chairman Siku. I am the founder organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self Defense and also will be the next mayor. 2019, a city council. We come before you to. Share with you some thoughts around this zoning change. And while it seems to be relatively small in scale. It represents another opportunity to address some of the housing needs of the city that has grown exponentially in a way that seems as if we're being driven to make things happen that necessarily might not be good for the city . In the long run. Down the road. 2020, what we do today will impact 2020. And so when we look at some of the criteria that is being proposed, we're talking about diversity of housing and also ensuring that we have a diverse population for the city and county of Denver. And so we support this. Zoning change in the hopes that. The owners of this property will consider. Making this housing available for people who can afford to pay for it, not what they can afford to make in terms of profit. But we got way too much housing for profit first. And people last. And so. Oh, I'll close with this. What we would like to see for poor people is for council to embrace them like they did the cats and dogs that was presented earlier today with a smile. To provide housing for the poor with everything on top of the poor. It works like this scientifically. When you have everybody on top of the poor and you lift the poor up. All the classes in ethnic groups rise also. So what's good for poor people is good for everybody.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up next up, Tom Hart.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Tom Hart. I am the I the 4530 East Cedar Avenue. I am the zoning committee chair for the Criminal Park Hilltop Civic Association, and we support this rezoning. The owners approached us and showed us what they wanted to do. They took our suggestions and changed some things. What they're proposing to do is to build two duplex units here, total four units and what is now vacant land along Colorado Boulevard. And we are excited about this, are excited about having more housing options in our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 13: Good evening. My name is Jesse LaShawn Pierce. I represent for Denver homeless out loud Black Stocks, a movement for self defense and positive action, commitment for social change. And I'm a at large candidate for the May 2019 election. I'm on top of the ballot. Make sure you vote May 7th. We are against this rezoning. We have a housing crisis in this town and this is not going to be affordable for anybody. I want to know what the RMR level is going to be for this, because this is for Cherry Creek Hilltop neighborhood. That's usually 80 to 120% at my level. So is this actually going to be affordable or it's just going to be more luxury housing that people cannot afford? We already have 23,000 units that are sitting vacant that nobody can afford. So those are the questions I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council on this item? All right. Seeing no questions. The public hearing four counts, bill 240 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. I want to thank the owners.
Speaker 9: Of the property and the folks that have been helping.
Speaker 6: Him design what can go here on the vacant lot. And particularly want to thank Tom Hart, our volunteer.
Speaker 9: Architect who helps the Kramer Park Hilltop Association with all.
Speaker 6: The zoning considerations. Appreciate everybody working together to create this project and look forward to seeing it when it's completed. Thanks very much. And I and I would encourage my.
Speaker 2: Fellow council people.
Speaker 6: To vote for this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. See no other comments. I'll just add. Thank you to staff. Went somewhere. There you are, Victor. Thank you for the comprehensive staff report. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I'll be voting yes today. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: SUSSMAN My black eye.
Speaker 2: Rose Espinosa. Hi.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I. Gillmor, I.
Speaker 9: Herndon All right. Cashmere. I can eat, right?
Speaker 6: Lopez I knew.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I.
Speaker 9: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announced Results.
Speaker 9: 1313.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10 S Colorado Boulevard in Hilltop.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-TU-C (urban edge, single-unit to urban edge, two-unit), located at 10 South Colorado Boulevard in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-19-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04292019_19-0344
|
Speaker 9: 1313.
Speaker 0: Eyes Council Bill 240 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 344 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, I move the council bill 344 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved. Can I get a second to it has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for accountable 344 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Karen with Landmark Preservation in Community Planning and Development. And we are here to talk about the designation for Cablevision, which is at 4150 East Shangri-La Drive. This is a designation that came forward from the property owners, which is the city and county of Denver. The property is managed by the Cable and Foundation. It is in the general location of the Hilltop neighborhood near the Burns Park, and it is in Council District five in the new blueprint, Denver. It is in a low intensity residential and is currently zoned ESU d. This designation aligns with the new city plans that were just recently adopted both the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint. Denver recommending that designation to preserve the character of significant structures and districts. As you are aware, in order for a property to be a landmark, it must meet at least two criterion in history, architecture and geography maintain its historic and physical integrity, and LPC must consider how a historic context relates to a historic context or theme in Denver's history. The Landmark Preservation Commission found that this property met under history for having a direct and substantial association with a person or groups of persons who had influence on society and under architecture for embodying distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style or type. We received two letters of support for this property from historic Denver and from the Cranmer Park Hilltop. R.A. This property is associated with Bill Daniels. His early life influenced his later career and eventually his design preferences. Daniels grew up in the Great Depression without much money and learned the importance of hard work, which led to some of his philanthropic endeavors. Later in life, he was sent to military school, where he excelled in sports, which became a passion throughout his life. After military school, he joined the Navy as a fighter pilot. Upon leaving upon leaving the military, he followed in his family's businesses as an insurance salesman in the oil and gas industry, which took him to Casper, Wyoming. And at that point, he acquired connections with large oil and gas companies for some financial endeavors that would help him . Later, as he started to establish cable television networks during his travels, he stopped at a bar in Wyoming and stopped at a bar in Denver and saw a television for the first time. It was a boxing match in Madison Square Garden, and he was just entranced, entranced by the fact that he could see a live sporting event that was happening across the continent. Unfortunately, when he went back to Casper, Wyoming, they didn't have television or they couldn't read. They couldn't get the television signal. So he worked to help develop a solution that incorporated microwave technology, that connected a transmission to a very large antenna in Casper. And then multiple cables were connected to the antenna and established the first cable television system in Casper, Wyoming, in 1952, because this was a new and Denver endeavor and used new technology, he had to use his connections with the oil and gas company to actually finance these systems. Daniels continued on forming these systems in rural areas in Casper, Rawlins, Wyoming and Farmington, New Mexico. And he became a leader in cable television. He eventually became the president of the National Community of Television Association and then used his financial acumen to help establish cable television systems throughout the country in rural areas that didn't have access to the television signals, Daniels also became a leader in cable programing. He started sports networks, and then he was a very early supporter of CNN. Daniels used this his leadership in television and cable television to establish Denver as a headquarters of cable television and the Center for the Industry in the country. He established the Daniels Association Associates, and they were headquartered here in Denver, and he was later introduced into the Broadcasting Hall of Fame and received an Emmy for his work in cable television. The cable land itself is a culmination of his interest in cable television, as well as his film Philanthropy. He built cable land to be a large venue for entertaining and specifically to host fundraisers for various philanthropic endeavors. And so the cable land is directly associated with Bill Daniels in the culmination of his technological achievements in the cable industry and to his support of philanthropic endeavors throughout Denver. Cable land is also significant as an exceptional example of residential postmodern architecture. Postmodern architecture arose in the 1960s as a reaction against the austerity of the modern architecture. Postmodern architecture evolved into identifiable architectural styles in the 1970s and gained popularity in the 1980s. Postmodern architects critiqued modernism as anonymous, too universal, overly simplistic and meaningless. Well, modernist had to eliminate the traditional decorative elements. Postmodern architects reintroduced traditional elements such as columns, but used them in new ways. They included playing with scale and proportions, exaggerating and manipulating traditional forms. And they frequently used oversize geometric shapes. There are few examples of postmodern residential architecture in Denver. The style was more widely used for public and commercial buildings with Michael Graves, Central Branch of the Denver Public Library and Philip Johnson's Cash Register Building. The best known examples of postmodern in Denver, commonly referred to as the Moth Mansion Cable Land, reflects 1980s design trends excess theatricality, luxury and exuberance. When completed in 1987, table land featured four bedrooms, 13 bathrooms, three fireplaces, four kitchens, a sunken bar, a swimming pool, a combined cabana and guest house and staff quarters. And it showcased technology throughout the media room, featured walls of 64 televisions, one for each of Daniels Mile High, Cablevision. There were also an additional 24 televisions throughout the house, including a closed circuit system. Other amenities included ten telephone lines, 97 telephones and a surround sound with tactile systems. Sorry. This is. Frozen. Well, keys key post-modern elements seen in cable land include oversize stylized versions of traditional building elements arches windows surrounds columns, a strong geometric composition with repeated motifs, the use of textured surfaces and highly varied wall planes with projections and recesses and a play of light and shadows.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 9: Cable land also incorporates elements of brutalist style, including textured concrete, have a heavy feel and deeply punched openings and varied wall which create a play of light and shadow. Significant interior features include recessed lighting, warm colors, irregularly shaped rooms, multiple clever labels and geometric shapes. Inside the House is divided into public rooms designed for entertaining and private quarters on the South. The tall ceilings can give a feeling of spaciousness, and the recessed lighting was intentionally installed to flatter the visitors because people from fundraisers the architects felt, were primarily women, and they needed to be flattered with flattering lighting. In the 1990s, postmodern architecture fell out of favor. Critics declared it as kitsch, garish and cartoonish, overly commercial, a reflection of the excess of the 1980s. However, postmodern architecture has recently seen a revival in interest. Contemporary architects are beginning to look to postmodern designs of the past for inspirations, and efforts have been made to preserve significant works of postmodern architecture. Here are a few examples of properties that have been designated throughout the country. So far, only a few a handful of them have been designated. Denver would be on the forefront of the movement to designate postmodern buildings. Overall cabling retains a high degree of integrity. The House passed directly from Daniels to the city and county of Denver and is under the management of the Cable in foundation. When Daniels donated the property in 1998, he stipulated that neither the exterior or the interior could be substantially changed without approval from the foundation. And finally, OPEC considered how a structure relates to a historic context and theme. They associate it with the development of cable television and Denver's central role in the industry, and specifically then with Daniel's role in philanthropy in the foundation's strong role in Denver. The LPC found that it met the criteria under history of having a direct and substantial association with Bill Daniels and under architecture for embodying the distinguishing characteristics of the architectural style of postmodernism. They felt it maintained historic and physical integrity, and they considered how it related to historic contexts and themes in Denver's history. The LPC voted 611 to recommend approval and two forward to City Council for your review and I am happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak on this item this evening. First up, we have Tim. David.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Tim David. I'm chairman of the board of the Cambodian Home Foundation. That's the foundation that manages cable. And I'm here to answer questions people might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We'll go to questions after we get through all the speakers. All right. Next up, Tom Hurt.
Speaker 7: Again. My name is Tom Hart. I am the chairman, zoning committee chairman for the Kremlin Park Hotel Association and an architect. And I'm also on the board of trustees of historic Denver. When this came to our neighborhoods attention and we looked at each other and said, really, why this? But then you realize the connection to Bill Daniels and the architecture. Some might say this is in its awkward adolescence. There's not a lot of appreciation for this style, but there there is that out there. We talk to the neighbors and we have not had anybody object to this. So we support this designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 5: Yes. Germans, so-called black socks and movement to self-defense, advocate for poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens and students. We do do that. So please support this. Designation for historical reasons for. Let us not forget. And The Tale of Two Cities represents the history and legacy of this town of the haves and have nots. And it just so happens that I was born in 1952. And the legacy of this town in 1952 was that we was not even allowed to be on that side of town. Segregation was the law. And with the advent of cable television, what you see there is an accumulation of the masses of the people contributing to the success of Bill Daniels. So that that facility was designed. And also through his efforts, he opened the doors of that for those who couldn't necessarily live like that. And so we have a proliferation of nonprofit groups from my neighborhood that I grew up in, five points in Park Hill and all the way through the Eastside, who they would give that facility to those nonprofit groups in order for them to do fundraising to support the programs. And so we can see that sometimes out of what may seem to be strange, we can find folks who back then were willing to reach out and help folks that weren't as fortunate. And today it seems as if the pendulum has swung back toward an idea of when it comes to poor folks. Oh, NIMBY, not in my neighborhood. And so we're going back to a resegregation of this town. And it's in hopes that this legacy will continue to inspire those who selflessly and greedily think that this city is just for the rich and the privilege and to open up the doors once again for the folks who are not so fortunate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 13: Jesse Pierce represented for Black Starks and more for self defense positive actually commitment for social change. And I'm on top of the ballot for at large. Make sure you vote me. We actually approved this. We need to know the historical significance of the city, as was previously stated. The city has always been segregated. This is why we have a race street. If you ever wonder why we have a race street, that's the reason why. Because prior to 1970, blacks and others were not allowed to live past that line. So, yeah, we have to acknowledge that with all of these preservations, that blueprint Denver and historic Denver is passing. There's nothing I'm going to tell you that's going to make you not approve this because it matches all the criteria. But I would like to let you know that we know the history, we know what's going on. And, yes, we see that it is re gentrification. Gentrification is a fancy way of saying ethnic cleansing. We see that segregation never ended and it's making a resurgence. So we need to sweep the council, like to sweep the homeless every night. We need to get people in the office actually know what's going on. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: Kara, could I ask?
Speaker 5: You said that the vote at the Landmark Commission was six to 1 to 1. Did I hear that correctly? So could you tell us if you know why? Why the person who voted no, voted no, and why did the one person abstain?
Speaker 9: Well, as I said, postmodern architecture is just recently been designated a recognized as historic in some of the LPC. Members felt that they wanted a little more context. We as a staff strongly believe that there aren't any residential buildings of postmodern up to this scale. But the LPC members wanted a little more context and some just didn't feel postmodern was necessarily something that should be recognized.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: And does Brutalism itself qualify as an architectural style?
Speaker 9: Yes, it would. There are none designated in Denver that I believe for the brutalist style, but yes, it would.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: To that sort of the prior question answer, do you foresee I mean, you've sort of noted that this is an exceptional example of postmodern. So we're not going to see a run of postmodern applications. Right. And no.
Speaker 9: I don't think so. I don't actually think that we have many residential postmodern buildings that we as very much staff are aware of. Um, there are a few of postmodern institutional buildings, but not many residential that I'm aware of.
Speaker 4: Good. Because I believe we appropriately reconstituted them as something else. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comment. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there any memoriam for Mr. Daniels on the site?
Speaker 9: That building there is on the interior there. There's something there are some things that are dedicated to the mayor and there's some other things that talk about Bill Daniels. But someone from the Daniels Foundation may be able to answer that better than I can.
Speaker 7: That's fine. Thank you. That's all for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. See no other questions. The public hearing for counsel 344 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I was going to jump in there.
Speaker 2: Councilman Cashman, there's a.
Speaker 6: Lot of.
Speaker 9: Memorabilia of his inside the inside the house. In fact, it's pretty fascinating to watch, to walk through and see.
Speaker 2: One of the things that.
Speaker 6: I didn't mention was that much that she mentioned in committee is that Mr. Daniels served in the Navy and he really liked the dark places inside the ship that he lived in. And so the actual living quarters for this home have hardly any windows at all. It's very cave like and and rather interesting to go and see how he how he wanted his private quarters designed. I do think, though, though we don't have much neo modern we have some brutalist.
Speaker 9: Is Arapahoe Community College.
Speaker 2: A brutalist.
Speaker 6: Design I suppose I'd ask. Yeah, that's right. If you want to see what I think is a really good example of neo brutalist and you can see in this particular home some sort of.
Speaker 2: Addressing some of the brutalist design and some.
Speaker 6: Some of the neo modern design. Very happy to support this historic designation.
Speaker 9: Of course, not only the home.
Speaker 6: But the man was pretty historic for establishing cable television.
Speaker 2: Practically inventing it and helping make Denver one of the capitals for cable television in the in the United.
Speaker 6: States. So an urge my fellow.
Speaker 2: Council people to support it.
Speaker 6: Along with me thank you for the neighborhood to for checking it out to appreciate your work, Tom. Again. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Know. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say a couple of things. I had an opportunity to get to know Mr. Daniels a wee bit. He was a friend of my former wife's family. And the one thing, you know, people focus on the luxury and the opulence of this place. He was an extremely generous man with the people that he worked with. The people who built his fortune for him were extremely well taken care of. And as he did grow up in poverty, his concern that that children learn early in life about finances led him to found the Young Americans Bank in Cherry Creek Young Americans Foundation . I think the Young Americans Bank is still the only bank in the world specifically for people 21 and under, and they continue year after year to take kids on tours and teach them the basics of how to earn a living and how to make the most of of the assets that they're given. So. Yeah. I just wouldn't want the wrong impression to be taken of who this person was. I think it was the last time I spoke to him. It was at the opening of the Young Young Americans Bank. I think I had talked to him five or seven years before, and I walked up the steps to the bank where he was greeting people. And I extended my hand and I said, My name is Paul Cashman. He says, I know who you are. How's Amanda and Peter? Who are my very young children at that age? So this was a definitely a people centered man, and I just wanted that to go on the record. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I will. Just briefly then add to what Councilman Cashman had to say. Bill Daniels was one of Denver's larger than life people and totally deserves to have the the edifice that he built be recognized. And I fact, I would say, no matter where Bill Daniels lived, we would have sought out that place and designated it as a landmark simply because it was Bill Daniels House for many of the reasons that I would echo Councilman Cashman. Many people know of his philanthropy and how he and how he dealt with his fortune. And so this is a although having been in cable land, it is it's a little bit excessive, let's say more bathrooms than we have things to do in bathrooms. But it's it's but it's an incredible site and meets the criteria. And I will be supporting it. Mr. President. And I just to put you on notice that I'll be in honor of this being a center of the cable industry. I'll be casting my vote at any point between six and 10 p.m..
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Don't make us wait till 11:00 to get your vote. Yeah, I just my colleagues already spoke to the the association with a significant figure criteria and you sort of already digested if you follow ludi and what I just said my feelings about this sort of the style of architecture that said it'll be important for Denver in the future to be able to look at this in the past and sort of scratch their heads and go, Oh, what was this all about? Because it is a it is a prime example of that sort of that that thing that will will, will, will will generate some sort of thinking along those lines. That said, the only reason I really chimed in to comment is so that people understand that I am and I'm actually struggling with this more of a visceral level. And it was mostly because while I'm getting that presentation, I was reading this document on the Beloved Community Village, which is the next item. Right. And the controversy, I mean, the juxtaposition of these two very these two items. And so, you know, it's not lost on me that the gap between this level of wealth exists in this country and the level of of of of poverty that we're going to be dealing with next. And so I just want to acknowledge that many of you are in the audience for that thing. And it's in I'm sure my colleagues are also cognizant that there is this discrepancy. So we'll memorialize this, but we still have to tackle the other issues on a daily basis. But with that, I'll be supporting it because it does meet the criteria and I do think it's important for future generations. Take care of it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Comes from Desmond knows it helps me to.
Speaker 10: Make you spread the good. Daniel's incredible philanthropist the Daniels fund which manages his wealth is in my district and and it just does an incredible job. So I enjoy my wife and I enjoy every year we go to the celebration because the Daniels Fund goes away and funds thousands of college scholarships for students in four states. And these are all lower income, middle income families that are have they're having a struggle with financing their own college education. And it's just unbelievable what a ceremony it is to see those kids have their college education funded and and living up to the standards of what Bill Daniels has said. Paul mentioned the Young American Bank is just such fun. If you have ever been over there, please go over there to see it over there on First Avenue. The kids in there actually depositing a have savings accounts. And it's really sort of a really unique situation. Our neighborhoods had fundraisers there at the Yale sign and and had a great time. And the ones that feature this not mentioned is the fireman's pole that was in his bedroom that slid down from one floor to the other. It was quite a talking point of that of that of that facility. Beautiful facility is just wonderful. And I, I just want to thank the Daniels fund board and and the president, Tim David, for taking such good care of not only the facility as a beautiful facility, but also the history and the legacy of Bill Daniels. So I encourage all my colleagues to support this designation tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, you are seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: It.
Speaker 9: Susman.
Speaker 6: I'm black.
Speaker 9: Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Herndon.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 6: Can each. Lopez.
Speaker 9: I knew Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 813. Council Bill 344 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 367 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 4150 East Shangri La Drive, Cableland, as a structure for preservation.
Approves the designation of Cableland as a Landmark Historic structure for preservation, located at 4150 East Shangri La Drive in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-9-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04292019_19-0367
|
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 813. Council Bill 344 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 367 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council resolution 19 0367 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 367 is open. May we have the staff report? Lisa. Lonely in the building.
Speaker 7: Now Joe is here.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 12: All right. Sorry. Bear with me 1/2 while I pull up the presentation. It's okay. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you so much for bearing with me there. Good evening. Council President Clark and members of Denver City Council. My name is Jill Jennings Gorelick, interim executive director of community planning and development here tonight to provide the staff presentation on the request for use of city owned land addressed as 4400 North Pearl Street in the Globeville neighborhood. Let me start off by saying that this has been really, in the words of Evan Dreyer, described as an imperfect process, and that's accurate. There's nothing about this that any of us are pleased with, including that when we started that committee, we hadn't yet really had an engagement process with the community. In all fairness, there still hasn't been the kind of engagement process we'd like. That said, we've taken a lot of time over the last couple of months to engage with the neighborhood, to learn to ask questions, to allow people to express opposition and to share information. As a result, we've learned more about what is important to the Globeville neighbors, and we made important changes to the license agreement to accommodate that feedback, feedback and input of current residents. And I'll get to that in just a minute. But the heart of the matter right now is that the village is in danger of being forced to shut down, pushing people out of stable housing, away from a support network and back into homelessness. We do not want to see that happen, especially when there is a viable city property available for its use. So quick history. So we're here today to lease property, as I noted to the Colorado Village Collaborative for Use of the Beloved Community Village. Today they have 11 sleeping units with no bath kitchen facility, with 12 residents to port a potties, and then one common bathhouse with two showers fire. They have been at two sites, both essentially in the 30th and Blake area over the last 18 months and have successfully provided safe temporary housing and a unique support network for residents of the village. Five residents to date have transitioned to permanent housing and 11 of the 12 current residents are employed or in school and one is on disability. I will note that neighbors at 38th and Blake, who were originally concerned when the Village First Mervin, have reported positive experiences from having the village located near them. Additionally, as part of this effort, as it was a pilot program, the city undertook a monitoring program. So that was a program by which an inspector from Zoning and Neighborhood Inspection Services, as well as the Department of Public Health and Environment, would schedule visits at least 24 hours in advance with the village, go out to the site and to determine if it was still in compliance with permits that were issued and to make sure that there were no outstanding concerns or issues at the site. We have done that at both sites that the village has existed on today, and we will continue that here. We also used a survey at the previous site to gather feedback from the community, and we also we also plan to do that here to ensure that we are hearing from the community. If the village does move forward on this piece of property. In terms of site selection, and it's just a little bit back here. So as mentioned, the village has been on two sites to date, both at 30th and Blake. They had to secured a third site to move the village to. Last October rings be caught site owned by Zeppelin properties and unfortunately it was determined in late October by public works that that site was not a viable site to relocate to due to significant concerns of a spill from the river at that location and the velocity that the water would be traveling. So we had a time crunch on our hands and that is how we found ourselves in the situation. The village originally needed to be off their current site by mid-January. We were able to put forth a building code amendment to give an additional 60 days if they had not yet received a temporary certificate of occupancy at a new site. And that is when we, the city, stepped in to search dozens of properties and try to find a good fit. So that leads us to the site selection criteria. So in collaboration with the Village Collaborative and once that original site was deemed not viable, we work to prepare a list of criteria which you see here to help determine the best site. Following neighborhood feedback regarding the Pearl Street site, the City and Colorado Village Collaborative, we reviewed our original list of properties and other potential sites and reached out again to groups like Volunteers of America, Urban Land Conservancy and other private properties in the area to see if there were any other viable locations . But unfortunately, no sites became known to the City or Colorado Village Collaborative that met this criteria could be permitted within the timeframe of being off their current site by May 15th, due to the granting of a Denver Building Code Board of Appeals request for more time and allowed appropriate time to do public outreach and could be used for more than one year. So a little bit about the site. Our intent is to relocate the existing tiny home village to approximately 20,000 square feet of this site. The site itself is approximately 35,000 square feet. This allows the village to expand up to 20 sleeping units and provide a community kitchen and bathroom building connected to utilities . The site is currently zoned you annex three again located in the global neighborhood in Council District nine. Excuse me. I will also note that we have encouraged Clara, Colorado Village Collaborative, to work on a good neighbor agreement with the registered neighborhood organizations and communities in the area. Unfortunately, we do not yet have anyone willing to sign that. However, Colorado Village Collaborative will live by the terms of that good neighbor agreement, most of which was feedback we heard from a number of the community meetings, which I'll go into next. And I should note that, you know, that type of agreement takes time to put together and we'll continue to advocate if there's anyone willing to partner on that agreement. But we've also incorporated certain provisions we heard were important for the community and solutions we heard to some of those concerns into the license agreement. So in terms of community engagement, the city as well as Colorado Village Collaborative have held a number of neighborhood meetings to discuss this project and answer questions. The first community meeting was held on February 7th, and I want to note that it was hosted by Globeville Cares in partnership with the City, and I thank them for all their outreach to get people to that meeting. We've tried to incorporate feedback from the neighborhood, both in the Draft Good Neighbor Agreement the Colorado Village Collaborative has been working on, as well as the license agreement itself. And we've continue to listen to concerns of the neighborhoods. So I'm not going to read through all of the meetings there, but we've had a number of meetings over the last two months, including a community cleanup barbecue and community community meeting hosted on the site on April 8th, April 13th. So in terms of the license agreement itself, this is for a one year term with the allowance of two one year renewals at a cost of $10. That can be renewed administratively. The use of the property is tied specifically to the beloved community village with a maximum limit of 21 structures, so 20 sleeping units and one community building that can occupy the site. And renewal of the license agreement is at the city's sole discretion. And that is really because in order to stay longer than 360 days at one site, there are certain provisions they need to meet in terms of providing that community building and connecting to utilities. Otherwise, our code does not allow for more than 360 days at this time. So in terms of modifications to the license agreement. So Councilman Ortega and thank you for the suggestion, suggested that we look at incorporating certain elements from the proposed good neighbor agreement into the license agreement. And we have done so to the extent possible. We've done everything in our power to ensure that beloved community village will be a good neighbor in Globeville, like it has been only a half mile away in the Rido Arts District and whole neighborhoods and five points. These are the items we heard were important to Globeville neighbors. So again, we're including them in the license agreement. So just to quickly summarize, we reduced the term originally we were looking at a total of four years. We've reduced it down to three. The license agreement allows city authorities to enter the property with 24 hours notice to conduct that monitoring inspection program I mentioned earlier. The license agreement also requires bi annual check ins with the City and Colorado Village Collaborative and requires the city to attend a bi annual public meeting with the Colorado Village Collaborative. We've added language to be very specific that outdoor camping is not an allowed use and that this was quite a concern from the community. It's something called a village collaborative was certainly willing to do. Was that to the extent permitted by law, they will perform background checks, including criminal background checks to screen for sex offenders or potentially dangerous individuals. So we the city, will be ensuring that they do that. It requires of Village Collaborative to install any fences should they want to modify the fence that exists around the property silly along Pearl Street and also clarifies that the village is responsible for any snow removal, removal and maintenance on the property.
Speaker 3: You go back.
Speaker 12: So again, these provisions will allow the city to hold Colorado Village Collaborative accountable to certain standards and requirements that have come up as being important to the neighborhood. If this is move forward tonight, the village expects to begin relocation on or about May 13th. As I noted, their current property owner and lease has them allowed at the current site through May 15th. And with that, I'm more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your time tonight. I know this is a challenging conversation and I appreciate your time and attention.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. We have 33 individuals signed up to speak this evening in our one hour courtesy hearing. So we'll ask that you, if you can, get to what you want to say in less than 3 minutes and save that time, that's an extra person that we can get to. So please be as concise as you can. I also normally would ask you in the front bench to move somewhere else so that we could get through people quicker. But there's nowhere else for you to move to. So I'm going to have you stay put and we will try something different. I will call five names at a time. And if you could just line up in this aisle over here in the order that I called you to come right up to the microphone, as soon as the person in front of you is done so that we can get through as many people in the time as possible. I will also ask, I know that this is an item, as we often have here, that people feel very passionately about. But I ask you to hold your applause and anything else that will slow us down through this process. This is a safe place that people have different opinions. And it's important for us to hear from you on whatever side of this issue that you came here from. And so if you could please keep that there is another room at 432. If you really feel compelled that you want to go cheer and clap whenever a speaker is done, you're more than welcome to watch on TV in there. But in here we want to get through people as quickly as possible and also create a safe space for everyone to share how they feel. So I'm going to call the first five. If Elizabeth Garfield, you can come right up to the microphone. And then in this aisle, if we can get Kevin Conroy, Derek Martinez and Elizabeth and Amanda MC Douglas and Gail Lareau, if you can line up right here in this aisle and be ready to go. And Elizabeth Garfield, the microphone is yours.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Reverend Elizabeth Garfield. I am one of the members of the clergy, staff of St Andrew's Episcopal Church at 20th and Glenarm in Council District nine. I am also a 20 plus year resident of Sunnyside in Council District one and a member of the Sunnyside neighbor, United Neighbors. I stand before you tonight to speak in favor of Resolution 0367. This temporary housing is desperately needed in our city. As all of us are aware, we are experiencing a devastating crisis with regard to attainable housing in our city. And while much effort is being directed to this crisis, these efforts have not been able to keep pace with the magnitude of the deficiency in attainable housing. This is especially true with regard to individuals whose income is in the 0 to 30% AMI range. Too many of our neighbors are going without sufficient shelter and oftentimes lack even the merest resources to shield themselves from the dangers of violence and the ravages of the Colorado climate. This lack of safe, adequate and secure shelter is resulting in enormous adverse health and environmental conditions for everyone in our city. These conditions are inhumane and dangerous and have resulted in significant loss of life. Last year alone, as we know, at least 233 people died as a result of lack of safe and secure shelter. This fact should outrage each of us and move us to positive action. As a person who's a leader in a faith community and a person of faith, we are committed to using our voices and our abilities to live into the commandment, to love our neighbors, and to care for those who go without access to basic necessities. This is not just a slogan to the faith community. It is a mandate to take action. You may be aware that St Andrew's worked diligently for over two years to gain the necessary approvals to locate a tiny house village on our property, to no avail. It has now been almost a year since the denial of our application by the Landmark Commission. I would like to say we no longer have the luxury as citizens of this city to claim this problem is too overwhelming, too complex or too large. Lives depend on all of us engaging in new and creative ways to resolve this crisis. We need to pull together, to lean in and come up with as many diverse shelter options as we can to stem the runaway growth of this epidemic. You, as the governing body of this city, have the ability to institute changes that can begin to turn the tide of suffering and despair. You can help those of us in the community who are working tirelessly to provide shelter.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, Kevin Conroy.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you. I've been a resident of Global for five years before that, and I was in my twenties. I was homeless for quite a few years. I empathize with the people who are residents of the village at this time. That being said, I think you realistically look at the piece of land. This is not a viable solution. If you look at it on this side, it was basically a dead end street with eight houses on it. Down here, you have a railroad. The freight trains go over and on this side, you have a very tall chain link fence top with razor wire. On the other end of that, there is a sloping five plus foot drop to the street. Our neighborhood is now homeless resources. Our neighborhood does not have resources, period. We have no grocery store, no nothing. And order for these people to go anywhere, do anything, live their lives. They're going have to go a block up north to the bus stop on 45th and Washington Street. And the only way to go there is to walk up that 500 foot stretch of Pearl Street with eight houses on it. Now, you want to expand this to 20 sleeping. You ask the two people in this unit, you're talking about adding 40 people to this dead end street, you know, more than double the population. Okay. This is just a total failure of planning. This is not realistic. Even if everybody in the neighborhood was 100% on board, this ready to go, this is just a recipe for unnecessary friction. This is not good for the beloved community village. This is not good for Globeville. This is not good. Period. We need something much better. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record? Kevin Conroy. Thank you very much. Next up, Derek Martinez.
Speaker 4: Yeah. My name is Derek Martinez. I grew up in Globeville, lived there 31 years, just like Councilman Espinosa was talking about I-70 being that project, being forced upon that neighborhood. This tiny home village is being forced upon Globeville.
Speaker 3: We've been talking.
Speaker 4: We've been talking with a lot of different residents there. And now what I wanted to point out here is that. If you look around the room, how many people here are from Globeville? The rest. I've been all right here, forcing this upon Globeville.
Speaker 3: And I've grown up in Globeville.
Speaker 4: And my parents have worked hard their whole life to give me and my brother two small, little pleasures, only to have those stolen from us. I've grown up in Globeville and watched the SWAT teams go down my alley. I've grown up in Globeville and helped ramp neighbors from being shot. And what Globeville doesn't need is a tiny home village where Globeville doesn't need. Was our rec center taken away? What Globeville was given was a playground for Stapleton Rec Center and. What the island's Ashland's Global Rec Center was given was a brand new indoor swimming pool. Global was given sidewalks on Washington Street, we're told. But was that for Globeville or for the National Western stock? So when they brought these tiny homes to us, they said, Well, what do what is Globeville want? What are you guys need? Now you want to ask us what we want because you want to force something upon upon us. Tim Santos talked about a neighborhood plan. He said, well, we've got this in your neighborhood plan. We got this in your neighborhood plan. I said, What do you know? He said, the people global asking for for this and that. I said, Did they ask for a tiny home? He said, no. I asked if he they asked for porta potties placed in front of their street. He said no. Now, I spoke with the tiny home village resident and he told me a story. I'm not going to get into too many details for his privacy, but he was telling me that he was a felon. He was telling me that he got caught up in drugs, alcohol and pimping. Would you want that in front of your house? In front of your children? That's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, an Elizabeth.
Speaker 2: First of all, I would like to thank the neighborhood of Globeville for everyone who has participated in this. And I hope that the city and the city council will thank the neighborhood of Globeville, which, regardless of which way this folk goes tonight, should be honored, because this challenge has been visited upon this neighborhood, precipitating a conversation that should be citywide. And just like Globeville in their neighborhood plan being the first to respond to the deployed neighborhood planners created something that benefited in in template the entire push to get neighborhood plans. The conversation about how should a project be sensitive to a neighborhood coming into a neighborhood is being challenged by Globeville stepping up and saying , Hey, there is a 360 degree sensitivity here. Everyone who knows me here in the Housing First Movement knows I would stand at your shoulders for your dignity, no matter what your situations. And the same needs to be true for Globeville. One of the letters that was in here talked about how when the support talked about how when they moved into the neighborhood approximately 14 years ago, there were foreclosures and vacancies and they were waiting for it to blossom. And I say to those that have stood up to try and challenge this to greater sensitivity in the neighborhood, most of these folks that have stood up with Globeville first and Globeville cares are third and fourth generation families. And this is something that should be brought to the table. The animosities are part of the stress. We have the the debris. Right. And the 2040 plan. Now, that should create a framework for evaluating this as a citywide problem. We should not romanticize any one solution, and we should hold accountable the full relationships of how projects enter into a neighborhood, whether they're mission driven, full hearted, nonprofit services or return on investment developments. The the establishment of the relationship in the neighborhood depends upon how the possibilities of relating to one another are brought. This lot was a Asper and Ashbury aspirational lot for the residents of Globeville. There were many ideas about things that would enrich the neighborhood. I won't list them now, but we have to have a conversation about the impact of this. It is heartbreaking to be put in a position where where a person feels that the aspirations of the neighborhood, if we protect them, could mean that people could lose their housing. Nobody wants to be in that position. Denver has brought upon itself a problem that where we are, in a sense, fighting over scraps. We have to have things like tiny home villages, in my belief. We have to have many solutions and we have to find a way not to pressure a neighborhood that is just reaching a threshold. After serving and serving and serving the many diverse needs of finally reaching the benefits of what should arrive from all the changes that are coming in, it's not.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Could you state your name quickly for the record.
Speaker 2: For me and.
Speaker 0: Elizabeth, thank you very much. Next up, Amanda make Douglas.
Speaker 5: Douglas.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Amanda McDougall. Thank you for hearing us. I work for Bad Enterprises as a site supervisor for a Denver Day Works crew, and I also used to live at Beloved Community Village. When I came here, I had just gotten out of a very abusive relationship with which left me broken and with nothing. Through the people.
Speaker 12: Of Beloved Community, Interfaith Alliance, Bayard and countless others, I found love acceptance guidance so much more than just help. I found a community of people who helped to build me up.
Speaker 9: I've lived on the streets. I know how it.
Speaker 12: Feels to be invisible or even scorned simply because you have nowhere to go.
Speaker 9: The shelters were no better.
Speaker 12: But the community village is different. It's a real chance for us to do something that matters and to help ourselves at the same time.
Speaker 6: It's a place of love and healing. I personally have come so.
Speaker 12: Far because of my involvement with this community. As I said, I was destitute and alone in a.
Speaker 9: New place when I ran for my abuser.
Speaker 12: Thankfully, God had a plan. Four months or so after I arrived to Denver Streets, I was told of this tiny.
Speaker 9: House village that was soon to.
Speaker 6: Be finished. What's more, there were still open houses. I, of course.
Speaker 12: Applied and went to the interview. Finalists were told to be at the village on the.
Speaker 6: 21st of July 2017.
Speaker 12: That, for those unaware, was opening day.
Speaker 6: If you weren't there, you missed something special.
Speaker 12: That morning I had been awakened by police and and told I was trespassing.
Speaker 6: There were no.
Speaker 12: Signs and the land appeared vacant. But I made no trouble and moved along. This really.
Speaker 6: Dampened my spirits, though it isn't fun being.
Speaker 9: Awakened by police and treated like a criminal simply for having no place of your own to sleep. But then there I was at this big celebration here where all these people.
Speaker 12: Dressed in all different manners and.
Speaker 9: From all different walks of life, all in solidarity around these issues of houses.
Speaker 12: Helplessness and lack of community. It was so.
Speaker 9: Beautiful. I was in tears for half the day. The first tears were of despair.
Speaker 12: Hopelessness, pleading with God to help me. The rest, though.
Speaker 3: Were filled with joy and hope.
Speaker 12: I was then pleading God just to let me be part of it all. I remember thinking, I don't even care if I got a house.
Speaker 9: I just want to be part of this.
Speaker 12: Got heard me and I did get a house that day. I got a place to lay my head, lock my door, rest and feel safe, a place to leave my things and get cleaned up so I could go out and get documentation, get work, be productive again. But beyond that, and far more important than that is the community of amazing people who.
Speaker 9: Sprung up around me and built me up, the people who.
Speaker 12: Supported me and allowed me to support.
Speaker 9: Them.
Speaker 2: This community means so much to so many. Please vote yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Gail LaRue, and I'm gonna call the next five if you could come up to the aisle here. Amanda Henderson, Rose Reilly, Jennifer Wilson, Jaz Leroux and Sue Gomez. Go ahead.
Speaker 12: Hi. I am Gael Leroux, 30 year member of the original.
Speaker 2: Tiny home community.
Speaker 12: That community is Globeville neighborhood, northeast Denver. I'm here.
Speaker 9: Representing the 150.
Speaker 12: Home owners, renters, business.
Speaker 9: Owners, long term.
Speaker 12: Family.
Speaker 9: Visitors, as.
Speaker 12: Well as our displaced Globeville.
Speaker 2: Neighbors.
Speaker 12: I have met.
Speaker 9: These through neighborhood meetings.
Speaker 12: Basketball games at Stapleton Rec Center and at the front doors. It's been a pleasure.
Speaker 9: Meeting new faces as.
Speaker 12: Well as meeting old faces. Community members that have been in the neighborhood for over 50 years who paid $8,000 for their homes. These 150 residents are not in support of the tiny home village.
Speaker 2: Moved to Globeville.
Speaker 12: We did meet seven residents that do support the move. More importantly of the question, do you support or not support the tiny home moved to the Globeville neighborhood? Was the question If you could have anything you wanted at 44th and Pearl, what would it be? Immediately, faces lit up. Our neighbors thought, Wow, I've never been asked, What do I want? I would like to share with you what could have been at 44th and Pearl if the city had asked. After all, the city has been sitting on that piece of land for 19 years. A park, a place for swap meets Farmer's Market, Mobile Library, Food Co-op Cafe. Open Space Coffee Shop. Senior Building Flower Shop Open Community Space Community Garden A Park Educational Outdoor Space. A place where we could learn how to build our credit. A small pocket park, a place for activities with families. Outdoor Market Dog Park, Dairy Queen Pharmacy. Tres Park.
Speaker 2: Taco Bell Rego Spa Ninos Smile.
Speaker 12: Whole Foods Gym. Childcare Mini. Shopping Center. Retention Pond. We know that was you, Dave. Walgreen's, permanent housing, a park, maybe. Sound barriers from the trains, a small post office grass. And did I say a pocket park? We take care of our homeless community in Globeville. We take care of each other. I have a very similar story as the prior person who spoke, and I was welcomed in Globeville. I made myself to the rec center with my two young boys, and I introduced myself and I made a home in Globeville for over 30 years. And it's not easy, especially the dangers of the neighborhood. And I think Jill failed to mention that this piece of land is directly across the street from eight families with very small children. We've gotten to know those children. We've gotten to know.
Speaker 0: I'm very sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Amanda Henderson.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Reverend Amanda Henderson, and I'm the executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado. And we were one of the founding groups who came together three years ago to start imagining a different way, a different way in the face of the criminalization of homelessness and a different way in the face of the time that it takes to build housing. And so we brought people together from all different backgrounds and have pushed forward to this day. And it's been an incredible gift to be a part of and to see as we initially sort out, we weren't just seeking to build housing or.
Speaker 6: Shelter or safety. We were seeking to build community, which is far.
Speaker 9: Harder than building housing. And we sought to receive people together and into community while walking alongside one another. So these letters that I have here that you should have received are from residents of the village who were not able to be here, or it's too difficult to be here and hear these things after each meeting. So this is a letter from Luna Rain. Beloved community village for me has been my only chance. Chance at any sort of life worth living. A chance to get a job. A chance to heal. A chance to focus. A chance to be able to have the mental space. To think about my life and where it's going. And what I need to do to stand on my own. I came to Denver with nothing but a suitcase, a backpack, and the clothes I had on my back. I am not someone who has family or strong connections to help me when I need it. I was a domestic violence survivor on the run, and Denver was the only chance I had at survival. Beloved Community Village is my chance to make that survival happen. While this is far from luxury, I am afforded the space to be able to think seriously about my options in life. Because of my financial situation, there's still no way I can afford rent or sign a lease. The village is giving me the serious chance to work on all of this without family to lean on. There is no other option for me to survive. Aside from these tiny houses, there is no way I could keep a job, even retail, and stay long term in any shelter. I tried and I was saved by the village opening before. At the end of that week I was going to have to choose between having a job and sleeping inside. The village isn't a ticket to an easy life. The village isn't a luxury. It's a chance to be responsible for myself, to create a life. The community in Beloved Community Village is very much a true title to me. As stated, without family, the village brings me a sense of belonging and my neighbors have on multiple occasions been the difference to me between life and death. We create a chosen family.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is.
Speaker 3: Up, then the.
Speaker 6: Community.
Speaker 0: Next up, Rose Riley. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name's Rosemary Reilly, and this is my first chance or my first.
Speaker 12: Time speaking in front of you guys, so it might be kind of jittery.
Speaker 2: I would like to introduce myself. I am a member of Globeville first, also a member of Globeville. Care's a 50 year plus resident of Globeville. Globeville, homeowner. My children, my grandchildren and great grandchildren live in Globeville. They own their own homes there as well. When this was presented to us, the way it was presented to us was not the right way. We didn't know this was coming until it was there. There was no community input. There was nothing for us. Here we are today. For 20 years, 20 years, Globeville has been looking for something, someone to take note and to pay attention to the struggles that we have. Our rates are at least.
Speaker 6: 28%, if not more.
Speaker 2: Poverty. Below poverty, we have 1700 homes. And each one of those homes, most of those homes have children. Two or three or four or five children are people. The people that are here with us today are the people that took off from work. Most of the people in Globeville work two or three jobs just to survive.
Speaker 6: So when they came in CBC, it was a slap in the face to our neighborhood.
Speaker 2: How dare you? We struggle. Yes. We have nothing against the tiny homes, just not where you want to put it. Not across the street.
Speaker 6: From families, not in a neighborhood.
Speaker 2: Of course it did very well downtown.
Speaker 12: The only people downtown are the apartment dwellers.
Speaker 2: They don't have kids that play in the street. We do. We take care of ourselves. Am I angry? You bet I am angry. But I'm not angry for the reasons that you might think. I'm angry because we've done without for 20 years. And what do we get? A tiny home village that gets everything, just like the commercial. Free, free, free. We have to pay for everything we get. Even the rec center that was given back to the community, we have to pay for it. We don't get it for free. I heard that council here wants to throw another hundred and $50,000 at the CBC. What do we get?
Speaker 3: Nothing like usual.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jennifer Wilson.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Jennifer Wilson. I lead research at the Burn Center on Poverty and Homelessness, which is housed at the University of Denver. The Burn Center was hired in 2017 to conduct an evaluation of the beloved community village in its first year of operation. We're the ones who produce the report brief that you have on your desks, and the full report is available through the Barton Institute. The evaluation assessed villager outcomes and experiences, neighborhood perceptions and neighborhood crime. During my brief time with you, I would like to focus on our neighborhood findings. Our team deliberately chose to survey a random sample of 20 residential households within a half mile radius of the beloved community village. The significance of this is that according to fundamental research principles, by serving a random selection of people, the results can then be generalized to the population at large. So in this case, theoretically, findings among a random sample of neighbors can be generalized to the rest of the non surveyed residents of that neighborhood. Our research found that neighbors reported few, if any, challenges with beloved community village. When asked about the impact of the village in four distinct areas which were traffic flow, safety, noise and an overall sense of community, the vast majority of surveyed neighbors nearly 80 to 90% in each case reported that the presence of the village had either no impact or a positive impact on all four distinct areas. Reported perceptions of the village were largely neutral to positive as well. One neighbor said, I like it more than an empty lot across from the RTD having something there. Another observed, I haven't felt unsafe walking as a woman. I feel safer because there are people in it who want to improve themselves and do more. And yet another stated, they're good neighbors. They keep the weeds down. I see them coming in, going to work. Neutral perceptions included comments like, I've never heard anything. Even walking past, I never see anyone. Additionally, the burn center looked at eight categories of crime data from the Denver Police Department in the areas immediately surrounding beloved community village. Comparing the period from July to December 2017, which was the first six months of village operations to the same time period, one year prior visual inspection of map data illustrating the exact location type and frequency of reported offenses before and after construction of the village suggests that there were no increases in crime immediately surrounding the village. Rather, the number of reported offenses appears to decrease within a quarter mile of the village. Thus, we concluded and reported that there do not appear to be associate associations between increases in crime and the presence of the beloved community village. Together, the results of the random neighborhood sample as well as the local crime data demonstrate the beloved community village had either no impact or positive impact on the neighborhood. These results directly contradict the NIMBY sentiment that often precedes the development of residents for people experiencing homelessness in a given neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jazz LaRue.
Speaker 4: Hello, everyone. So my name is Charles LaRue. I'm a representative from Globeville. First, Globeville cares and tonight I'm also representing You Can three Globeville. R.A. So the first question I really want to pose is why do you suppose that no R.A. has signed to this good neighbor agreement? There has to be a reason for that. If this beloved village was as you know, as amazing as it's painted, then, you know, we should be chomping at the bit to have this in our neighborhood. Unfortunately, as an R.A., we represent our community, and the people that we've talked to do not want this in Globeville. And that's why I'm here tonight. Jill Jennings showed, you know, beautiful pictures. I'm sure those were taken when the village first opened. And during our due diligence as an R.A., that's not what those look like right now. There's tiny homes with spray paint on the side of them. There's tiny homes with what looks to be boarded up windows with a sign on the window that says toxic, you know, outside storage that's overflowing. As a father and a resident of Globeville for 28 years. This is what I don't want my daughter to grow up seeing. I want my daughter to grow up seeing a park. What she sees now. I-70. I-25. The homeless coming up from the Platte River. Those are conversations we have to have with her on a daily basis. And, you know, our expectation of Denver is to bring beauty and to bring something more to Globeville. And unfortunately, this project isn't that. As an R.A., we also want to point out that there is no support network for people in transition in Globeville. We're you know, there's no there's no support, you know, that forces us residents of Globeville to take care of each other. And that's what we've been doing for 50 years, 50 plus years. You know, we talked about the meetings with the neighborhood. What has that gotten us? Why are we here tonight? If three meetings where we've said, no, we don't want this, we won't sign a neighborhood agreement. Why are we still here fighting this? You know, April 13th, we've been asking the city to help us clean our neighborhood for years. And now all of a sudden, they want to come. You know, Denver swoops in with the CBC to clean that specific area and that specific block. That's more of a slap in the face to the residents of Globeville. That day, you know, the people I represent, they asked me Jazz, why did they bring a model tiny home? Is this a done deal? Why would you bring that to that land and place that there? You know, to to the residents of Globeville that looked like, you know, saying, we're bringing this here no matter what you want. You know, and with this much pushback, you know, we've heard here tonight one of the first speakers and they've offered Denver.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up next to Gomez and McCaul. The next five. If you could come up with Dial Kelly, Vanilla, Cole, Chandler, Brendan, Brenda Carrasco, Tobin Houser and David O. Let's see if you could come on up. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Sue Gomez, and I live at 35. Excuse me, 3554 North Mary. And that's two blocks south of the tiny house village. And having lived live there for almost nine years, I've seen a lot of growth in that area and also the growth of the beloved community village. I've been involved at the village since the construction began. In various smaller ways, you know, helping out with food to feed the workers during construction. And then I was also on the advisory committee and try to attend the potlucks that are held once a month.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 2: My involvement with the homeless individuals began back in 1986. And since that time I've been involved in various programs that were outreach or sheltering homeless people, and that included almost seven and a half years at the Catholic Worker House where we all lived together. The homeless didn't have workers. The beloved community. Villagers have not caused the problem in our neighborhood. They've always been very open and friendly when the village moves. Three of them lived in our house for a few a few weeks during that move. If they stop by to visit, then we we welcome them to our home and they welcome us to their home. I believe that we as a community and the city need to do all we can to respond to the needs of our homeless brothers and sisters. We cannot exclude them from their basic rights of adequate food and adequate, safe housing. They are people just like everybody else. My own son was homeless in Oregon just last year. So I've experienced homelessness in various ways. And I just wanted to say in closing, thank you for your time and for your concern in this situation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Kelly Bonilla.
Speaker 6: Hi, I'm Kelly Connellan, and I'm a ten year resident of Globeville. I would like just to see how many people currently live in Globeville in this room and everybody else all the way.
Speaker 0: Did you make sure to talk into the microphone to everybody?
Speaker 6: Yes. All the c of white faces that I that I see that want to replace the minority population that we have. I want to be clear. If this was an asset to a community, the village claims you would all be fighting over who gets to have it in your neighborhood. You wouldn't have had to pay Michael Sapp with our tax dollars to whip up support rather than gauge it. The city sat on this land for 19 years and as for as per the blueprint is supposed to have a pocket park or similar benefit for Globeville. I just got my tax assessment the third time in recent years that it's gone up in for this. Now we get a village of homeless people. Elvis is fond of saying that billions are coming our way and we are the G in s. We are not geese. We are not getting stuck show money. We don't see that no one has ever had an answer. Denver isn't seeing the bigger picture on homeless villages. Seattle's most well-known village is now closing due to a 62% rise in crime, assaults and property damage and theft. Believe has had only five graduates in two years, two evicted with a police escort. The rest call it home and plan to stay. We've never heard from any of the men that reside in the village. Only the same two women that are put in the front. Over and over again, one of the residents has been collecting cats, rats and snakes. How will she can? How is she going to transition into conventional housing? And Section eight is a six year wait. So how is somebody who is allowed to just collect pets? I'm going to move into regular housing. I don't understand how they transition. And I'd love to have an answer to that. A real one. How many meetings do we have to insist that something positive rather than more indigent residents come into the neighborhood? We don't have the resources. Please don't put a fifth transient place in our neighborhood. There is a lot of stress and contention in an already strapped neighborhood, and if 300 passes, it will be a tent city from the village to I-25. Perfect for developers to swoop in and buy up the properties that will be sold. There are already three on the market just this past week that have been listed to the other three. On my own home is located between one transient facility and one mental health clinic. I tried to meet with each council person. Paul Lopez.
Speaker 9: Refused several requests.
Speaker 6: To meet with us. I suppose you have checked out now that you're running for another position and aren't worried about my safety or property values.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, culture.
Speaker 14: Good evening, counsel. I'm Cole Chandler with the Carter Village Collaborative, and I'm a resident of District Nine. It's with gratitude and optimism that I address address you all tonight. For years, our organization has worked to create and operate a tiny home village in partnership with people experiencing homelessness. And for years, we have requested that the city and county of Denver play a significant role as a partner in that effort. Over the last several months, the city has taken a courageous step in this direction, and we are grateful for these efforts. Our partnership with the city has deepened in recent months, and we are optimistic that these are the next steps in a long and successful partnership. Tonight, I would like to remind everyone that we are here because the beloved community village has been a success. If it hadn't been a success, we wouldn't be standing here tonight. In 18 months of operation, the village is after safety, stability, community and transformational housing. Two nights in unique people. Five of those have now graduated from the village and moved into permanent housing. The do you study that was cited earlier showed that 11 of the 12 residents were employed or enrolled in school and that the village was supported by its surrounding neighborhood. In spite of the success that we now enjoy. This hasn't the way it's this hasn't been the way it's always been. We should remember that this pilot project wasn't wildly popular in our current neighborhood at its outset. We had hard conversations and Five Points Cole and Curtis Park to get where we are right now, to have several neighbors from those neighborhoods standing in the room with us tonight. I also want to express my gratitude and optimism for the global community. We recognize that this process has been imperfect in every way and has ultimately, ultimately place to marginalized communities in conflict with one another. We lament this reality, and we lament our role in that. The housing and homelessness crisis is a city wide issue, and it affects every neighborhood. Globeville residents did not ask to shoulder the weight of this public conversation around tiny home villages and how they fit into our spectrum of affordable housing. But over the last several months, these neighbors sitting right here without choosing to do so, have become fully engaged in this broader public dialog in the midst of this imperfect process. We're grateful and optimistic that we have found a way to work together to create some real improvements to our model that will lead to positive outcomes for village residents and for Globeville, neighbors alike. These improvements are included in the Good Neighbor Agreement that was created through considerable neighborhood initiative and leadership, thanks to input from Globeville neighbors. We made several important efforts to improve the process, which includes a formalized screening and intake process, clarification around the purpose and intent of the village, including the improving our transition plans for village residents. We've sought to make attainable housing available to those with connections to the global community and will be doing outreach for future houses for those folks. We want to share the resources that we have with village residents, and we want to work to bring a better lighting and vegetation plan, including community gardens and pocket parks on the site, which I think you have in the site plan. So we're grateful. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: About your time.
Speaker 14: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Next up, Brenda Carrasco.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I'm nervous. I want to start by talking about on October 24th, 2015 at Sustainability Park, we put up seven tiny homes then that the city came in and.
Speaker 2: Destroyed.
Speaker 6: That night. We did it on vacant land, trying to show the city a way to deal with homelessness. Cole just pointed out how he's built a strong relationship with you. And that's very important because I want to point out right now how the idea.
Speaker 2: That the city hosting a.
Speaker 6: Homeless encampment in a community that we have no say, what's happening to our community is just really startling. It's not moving the homeless out of the affluent, new downtown, you know, new Denver. People don't want to see that. And then shoving them into other areas, criminalizing homelessness, that's not the way that's going to solve the way out of this problem. And I'm not even going to pretend 20 homes is a way to solve this problem either. But our community, we've dealt with the brunt of all the displacement we're going through. We've dealt with the brunt of dealing with this city's development. And we're tired. We're tired of it. We don't want this here. We need something that lifts our community. We don't need a glorified.
Speaker 2: Homeless camp sponsored.
Speaker 6: By the city. In our community, we have homelessness at the Platte River. We have homelessness in our neighborhoods. We need something that lifts us. We've I'm glad Cole has worked with you. If any of you would have bothered to come out, you would have seen 150 others showing up at this center, these meetings right here, placate, because let's not pretend those of us without social capital, those of us working two and three jobs, can't get here either.
Speaker 2: I'm traumatized.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 6: What is going on in our communities. All this gentrification, all this displacement, the hierarchy of needs, we come last over and over as poor people in the poor neighborhoods keep coming last. We have no say. We have there is no accountability to us. We were not asked about what we wanted on that land. Even for 20 years, we've been trying to get something. Give us a story. Give us child care. Give us something that lifts us.
Speaker 2: But we don't need.
Speaker 6: What you're what you are literally sweeping away. I'm watching right now. All along the Jesus says and Samaritan, you all got taped up. So nobody can even sit against it right now. But you all want to sweep it into our neighborhoods. And somebody said, we're just stabilizing. That's wrong. We have had 50, 60 years of strong, stable home ownership in that area. Homes that our grandparents have bought, homes that we built, a community built, we built when we had no place at your table.
Speaker 2: We had to set our own table.
Speaker 6: And now you're coming in and trying to force things onto us that we.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 6: And we don't.
Speaker 0: Want. Next up, Tobin Hauser.
Speaker 11: Hi. My name is Tobin Houser, and I've lived in Globeville for 14 years. My property is about a block from the beloved community village property. Um, before I started looking for my house in 2005, I'd never even heard of the Globeville neighborhood. And nowadays, it is my sincere hope that I will never need to live anywhere but the Globeville neighborhood. I've studied the history of the area and know the hardship that people from North Side neighborhoods have gone through again and again. I can't join in with the Globeville first organization because I don't believe that stopping all projects in the area is a useful strategy for the future. Plus the fact that it would cause if we if we said no to the beloved village and causes people to go homeless, and that's just unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. I just want to go forward. I've always been acutely aware of the homeless in the area. About four years ago I had to stop working because my arms worsened. And so from a life that I routinely lived to 100 miles, stretches in my vehicle each night at work in the last four years has come down to about a two block area around my house. That's my whole world now. And even in this reduced area, the number of homeless is is just so high. It's astonishing. People are living in so many buildings that were not meant to be lived in. I always cross my fingers and hope that we would make it through winters without anyone dying of exposure or burning up in a fire that they started to keep warm. I have often wished that the city would do better by its homeless. They've been pushing them off Cherry Creek and on to the Platte River so you can dump them in the north end of the city out of the view of the rich. But then I got word that their beloved community village is coming to Globeville. Now, I had a completely different response than everybody else's. I thought, Oh my God, this is great. This is finally a humane solution to this problem. And, you know, it's only it's only a dozen or so people, but it's a start. And it's such a better solution than the sweep offs that you guys do a couple of times a year to get everybody out of the way. And, you know, it's actually helping. It's got this now. It's got a record with the neighborhood that it's been in and it actually improved that neighborhood. I've heard people talk about a lot of things like no more homeless shelters. This is not a homeless shelter. These are the same people going into the same house. We'll sleep in the same bed every night, not a homeless shelter. I don't want to live next to sex offenders. I've got bad news for you guys. I've been living next to sex offender since I lived in Globeville. That will just happen. We just live next to sex.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up now. Next up, David Walensky, if you could please hold your applause so we can keep getting through people. David Walensky, I will call the next five up to the aisle Janice Edinger, John Zalewski, Mike Kelvin, Kelvin, Scott Kerr and Marilyn Milligan. If you can come up and line up, good.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's start. My name is David Slutsky, longtime resident global. But first, I want to thank Paul Lopez for all of his years of service. And you're going to go on to great things, Paul. You know, you're a hardworking, honest man. Thank you for your service. You know, I've been in Globeville all of my life. My family's been there since 1870, and we never got involved in politics, but we all, all worked hard. And I finally threw my hat in the ring to run for city council for District nine because I've had enough. All these residents have had enough. Albence has been in city council for seven, eight years and he didn't have diligence telling these tiny homes all of a sudden they're just here. And that's when I said, enough is enough. You know, this has got to stop and there's no way to stop in years. Now, I'm going to ask you guys, did you do.
Speaker 7: Your due diligence to check.
Speaker 5: Out this tiny village organization? Have you looked at their books? Is this an honest organization or is this a big money scam in Seattle? They're doing the same thing with tiny homes and they've got 400 people working to write grants, get donors, call Brad, go. He had 600 donors already. How many you got now?
Speaker 0: Call thousand if you could please, please comments towards us.
Speaker 5: It's a lot of money. And they got 11 homes. You know, there's a many different ways you can do this. This is just an. Apple. They don't even know if this is going to work. Back during the Depression, they had work farms. If they've got this kind of money, why don't they put up a work farm, you know, and and do things that worked back then? Would work now. And this is this has just been too hard on all of us. It's too stressful. And what I'm going to ask you is if you if you're going to vote yes. You know, you're doing the wrong thing. You know, I know you're going to do it right. But if you decide maybe you ought to stop and do your due diligence and postpone this vote till after the election, I won't do that. You know, I don't believe this is completely about the tiny homes. I think this is about the election also. And I think if anything, you should postpone the vote. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Next up, Janice Ed.
Speaker 2: It's Janice, Eddie girl.
Speaker 0: I apologize.
Speaker 2: I've lived in Globeville for 35 years, so I'm a newcomer. I live across the street from Dave. My mom died in Dave's uncle's rent house. My daughter was born in Globeville and went to Garden Place. I have a few prepared remarks. I support the beloved community relocation to 44th and Pearl Street. I feel Globeville is a pleasant and convenient neighborhood for people of all backgrounds. We have historically offered small impact housing possibilities for workers, retirees, families, immigrants, anyone who has a need and an eye to see what a hidden gem our community truly is. I love Globeville and I love all my neighbors. So it saddens me that so much negativity has surrounded the issue of relocating the tiny home community here. Pride of ownership sometimes bumps up against distrust of change and distrust of city decision making where Globeville is concerned. I understand that. I love Globeville is dead ends. I love its gritty mix of warehouses and rosebushes. For me, I much prefer dozens if that's what it comes to of tiny homes to high rise infill, which I can see across the tracks. I foresee these proposed residents as impacting us not only positively but minimally in the area of traffic, environmental footprint and gentrification. I would welcome the new tiny home community members as vibrant and worthy Globeville neighbors. But I'm glad that we're all here, and I'm glad that we each have a voice and none of us speaks for everyone
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Zaleski.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I'm Joe MALESKY. I'm a member of a family that's been in Globeville since the late 1800s. And that I've seen a lot coming in there, and I've seen a lot that the city has not done for us. And then they come and try to drop this in on us. They're unexpectedly and we're they're mad and they should be at this. We're trying to better ourselves. And then the city comes in and said, Here, you got that? This is not a global problem. This is a Denver problem. It should be shared with Denver. All communities split it up, put it in, all communities, give it to Cherry Creek Highlands, give it to everybody, split them up and you share it with this. Don't just dump it in one neighborhood. And that and one of the deals is and just recently I had to call the police department there, and that was on March 23rd about a car coming to tear down a barricade in front of my house, which is a dead end street. They call the police. They came, we put a file in there and the individual left their license plate in the barricade and all that we thought was great. I called 311 on night on the 27. They gave me a reference number and I didn't see any work done. I called again on 410 a reference number, still nothing as of 530 the night when I left that barricade still down. And that's a safety factor. City is ignoring us on the safety issues. And when it comes to death, they want to say, oh, here you take the small village there and we're going to sneak it in on you. That's not right. I think this council needs to talk to each other and decide and get a better plan and share with the city. Not just Globeville. We know them. Yeah. These individuals need help. Everybody needs help in one way or another. But you just don't dump Intel on a community that's been struggling and not getting any support from the city. And any time I call 311 during the summer to get some weeds cut on city property, it takes a month to get it there. And the.
Speaker 2: Multiple calls.
Speaker 7: The city has ignored Globeville in that aspect. But when it comes to these individuals coming to put tiny homes in. Oh, sure. Come on in and we'll sneak in. That's not right. That's what I want you all to think about it and consider that this needs more think and more places to find a better place. Situations just don't open on Globeville. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mike Kelton.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Mike Yeltsin. So I'm a local high school Spanish teacher. That's a little different than my usual audience, so bear with me. So about a year over a year ago, when we chose to buy our home in Globeville and become local residents, I understood the neighborhood as a neglected, polluted, divided, literally divided with highways and a neighborhood that is now experiencing displacement. And I really wanted to understand that deeply and be a part of the solution. Apparently, we still remain divided in this issue. As a teacher, I come from a place of listening and in trying to have some empathy. So one of the first things I did as I became active in the conversation was I toured the village and I listened. I listened to the stories of a few of the people there and just humans that were fearful of losing something that they've gained. I've also done a fair share of listening to opposing voices who've expressed anger and distrust, rightfully so, because of the history of the neighborhood and also fear. But as you know, I talk to my students about listening to facts. We heard some of the facts before, so I won't repeat them. But there has been success here and there has been no major increase in crime nationally. With our social conversation, my heart kind of hurts with the conversation about who should be prioritized, who deserves it first, who comes first, who needs to be ranked. I fear this is fed by our national political climate, and I really feel like we should resist directing our anger in the wrong direction. I legitimized the anger in the in the neighborhood. I legitimizing it and I want to try to understand it. But for me, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that if we're compassionate and we welcome and we extend that it comes at the detriment of a neglected neighborhood, we must we should reject the binary choice of us versus them and endeavor not only to refuse and to refuse to accept the status quo. For Globeville, demand relief from displacement and new services, the parks and stores and the groceries that everybody's asked for, but also dare to listen and extend empathy and compassion to a worthy cause and a group of worthy individuals. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Scott Kerr.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Scott Kurt.
Speaker 5: I'm the director of the Employment and Opportunity Center at Baird Enterprises. And Baird has been doing economic development in the Denver metro area for over 50 years. And we've been involved with the tiny home village since its inception a number of years ago. We provide a number of services out at the village. We do benefit navigation. We help get folks hooked up to services like food assistance or Social Security, disability insurance and support, these sorts of things. We also do vocational development, we do job training, and we try to do we try to hire as many folks at the village as he can. And additionally, we offer a laundry truck services. We go there once a week and do folks laundry, including our neighbors in the community when we're out there. And we also service the shower shower room. I just give you this a context to say that I've been in and out of this village pretty regularly over the last two or three years, and I can say there are a lot easier ways to be homeless in Denver. We heard a lot about folks living along the river near Globeville. My experience with the residents at the tiny home village is folks are very motivated to make a difference in their lives and make a difference and in their community, as evidenced by the outcomes that Cole shared earlier. They're also tremendously accountable. These are folks who are really committed to making their neighborhood a better place. They're going to get to know their neighbors, and hopefully with the help of Bayard and others, they're going to work in their community. There's a lot of misconceptions about homelessness, and we heard a lot of them today about criminal histories and and sexual offenders and drug use, you know, about these are these are coworkers. These are low income workers that are low income students who have raised their hand and say, enough, I want to make things better in my life . And that's what the tiny home village is for and that's why they are enterprises is going to be there to support them. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Marilyn Milligan and asks the next five to step up into the aisle here. Tom lures us, says our Olivia Olivas. Laura Rosberg, Chairman Sekou and John Hayden. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Hi, my name is Brandon.
Speaker 6: Mulligan and I.
Speaker 9: Am a senior at Dance School High School. And one of my passions is actually architecture. I took an internship at architecture firm last year, but today and currently this year I am creating a project for the CVC program. I currently see the homelessness in my community. I live in the core community and I'm current. I constantly see the homeless population in Denver increase, and since call is right next to the Arena District, I constantly come into contact with the beloved community village and that is how I heard of the BBC. And right now, currently I am working on a.
Speaker 2: Project.
Speaker 9: Where I would design a more useful and.
Speaker 6: More motivating design for the.
Speaker 9: Tiny homes. I see that currently right now, the 11 formerly homeless individuals for the past two years have had at home and have not caused any trouble here. And I also see that in a flourishing area like the Reno district, they have only positive impacts onto the community. And as a student, I think the village is important because it become a bright place for achievement. I have seen villagers feel happier because of the village through my visitations with my mentor, Kyle Chandler. And for anyone that has fallen into homelessness, it is the best opportunity to have housing and create new beginnings for the bright future . This can also spark a great chain of tiny homes in our cities. Here in Denver. And it could also help across the nation. And I believe that is it is important for the city, the city council to vote yes. Keeping the tiny home village up and running the villages has brought more positivity into our community. And if we can continue this, we can help more homeless get off the streets and into a real home. To me, the village is our best solution.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tom Lewis.
Speaker 7: My name is Tom Luers. I'm the executive director of Saint Francis Center. And over the past 28 years, I've gotten to know thousands of people who have experienced homelessness but have not lived their whole life as people who are homeless. And it's pretty tough living a label. But if somebody has been in a home for a year, I would not refer to them as homeless anymore. And that's what the people who are in the tiny home village are showing us or should be showing us that they're not homeless people anymore. There's no reason to be afraid of them anymore because they are different. They are different people now and fear to have that rule. Our lives is is tough. And we see that a lot in many people's decision making. But I would say that the people that are living in the tiny homes have proved to us, if they needed to, that they can be successful citizens of this community if given a chance. And probably most of us have looked for that opportunity in our lives to have a chance to succeed. None of us would be here today if the people who were looking at us decided that we weren't worthy, that we weren't acceptable, that there was something wrong with us. And I say what we're saying to the people of the tiny home villages, please, is that you are acceptable in our community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Cesar Olivas. Main line. All right. Laura Rosberg.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I stand before you tonight in many of my roles as deputy director of the Delores Project, as a clergy woman in the United Methodist Church and as a citizen of Denver in favor of this resolution. I stand before you as the deputy director at the Dolores Project.
Speaker 9: We just last month opened up 35 units of permanent supportive housing with the help of this council.
Speaker 6: I sat there on the day our waitlist opened and saw the line down the block. We had 35 apartments that took years to make happen. Two years of writing service plans, designing.
Speaker 9: Them, getting approval for low income housing tax credits, a loan from the Department of Housing.
Speaker 6: And vouchers from the Denver Housing Authority. Then we watched it be built week by week digging dirt.
Speaker 9: Pouring concrete, putting up framing. It took millions of dollars to make that happen. And what a gorgeous.
Speaker 2: Building it is.
Speaker 9: However, in the span of 5 minutes, those apartments were all rented.
Speaker 6: With a wait list of over 100 people.
Speaker 9: Just hoping to get an apartment. I know how much time it takes to build housing, and that's why I'm here. We in Denver need all the housing we can get in all the forms it can be. I am very proud to have been a part of building the Dolores Apartments at Arroyo Village.
Speaker 6: But I also know that what we built isn't the right fit for everyone. And that's why Beloved Village is so crucial. It offers the.
Speaker 9: Housing that meets the needs of other individuals.
Speaker 6: Together in partnership, we can create solutions.
Speaker 9: I also stand before.
Speaker 6: You as a pastor.
Speaker 9: As someone who has a call to ensure that all of God's children have suitable housing.
Speaker 6: That meets their needs and offers them dignity.
Speaker 9: As seen in the story of the Good Samaritan, a stranger cares for another, ensuring they are clothed, fed and housed.
Speaker 6: It is one of the basic needs of all humanity. And as a clergy person, it is my call to ensure that people have access to meet their needs. We see that beautiful community and plan here.
Speaker 9: People coming together to find a dynamic.
Speaker 6: Solution to housing in our community. I also stand before you as a citizen of Denver.
Speaker 9: It is a responsibility of me as a woman who has privilege and owns a house in this town to ensure that all citizens of our city can meet their needs so that all can thrive. We know that the solution to homelessness.
Speaker 6: Is simple suitable.
Speaker 9: Housing that meets the needs of the.
Speaker 6: Diversity of people in our city. This housing must be built in every single one of our neighborhoods. I am thankful to the village for their creativity in seeking to meet their needs.
Speaker 9: And believe that we should all come together to support this incredible effort in our city to find solutions.
Speaker 6: To the affordable housing crisis in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We are at the hour mark on our courtesy public hearing and we still do have about ten people in the queue. So what I'd like to do is just give you one minute. If you're so mind, I apologize that we don't have time to keep going, but just to come up, introduce yourself state whether you are in opposition or support so that we know who is here and that can councilmembers can direct their questions to anybody who didn't get through the line in the hour. So if you can do that in a minute, we'll change the timer for that. That would be appreciated. Next up is Chairman CQ John Davis. He's after so.
Speaker 8: Many. Oh.
Speaker 5: Man. Good job. This is exactly what I was waiting for. One minute. Here we go. I heard through. And I heard Joe Fuller. Now what we've got to do here is we got to blend both sides. So. Because no matter what. We cannot afford to have residents. Taxpayers. And people trying to come up. Fighting each other. So that I can get through whatever it is my agenda is because I'm not that important as a man. I'm not. This is all about you. Now you want to stay in the role. So we've got to come together in accommodation because it takes teamwork to make this dream work so we can stop all of this bullshit now and come together.
Speaker 0: Mr. Speaker, your time is over.
Speaker 5: That makes sense.
Speaker 0: Could you state your name for the record, please? Could you state your name for the record, please?
Speaker 5: Oh. My name is the Boogie Man. One minute.
Speaker 0: Next up, John Haden.
Speaker 3: Okay. Hi. My name is John Haden. I live at 2014 Champs Street in the Five Points neighborhood where we've had the current village for the last three years. And I would like to say that they have been fantastic neighbors, and I hope that you will support this resolution. I think that is important to understand that every neighborhood should have a tiny home village, that the tiny home village is a benefit, not a detriment to the communities. People do best when they live in community, not in warehouses and not in tents, on sidewalk. So please give these people community, give them homes in your communities. It is unfortunate that this has come the way it has, but I ask you each to vote yes. And when you vote yes, say that you will also support community support tiny home villages in your own districts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Seth Sayegh. What society? Gwadar, imam. After that will be Brooke Klein, Julie Pitino, Jeff Baker, if you want to be ready.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Cecil Rama and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 12: I'm a housing organizer with 9 to 5 Colorado.
Speaker 9: 95 is a grassroots women's organization.
Speaker 12: We work on.
Speaker 9: Economic justice policies. Over the past four or five years, we've been working on housing issues as our members have been facing eviction and displacement. I'm here in support of the resolution and support of the beloved community village and ask that you please do the right thing tonight. We believe housing is a human right, not a commodity to be exploited for profit. We believe that communities most directly impacted should be at the forefront. And we also know that communities know the best solutions that work for them. Denver and Colorado is facing a housing crisis. And as we worked at the state legislation to address what we can on our side, I asked that city does the city does the right thing tonight. You cannot continue to just fix the housing crisis by giving developers tax breaks and incentives. Please do the right thing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brookline Mayor Brooke. Klein. All right, Julie Pitino.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Julie Patino and I work at the Denver Foundation. I'm the director of Basic Human Needs. I'm here tonight in support of this resolution. The Denver Foundation for many, many years has funded organizations in Globeville that are led by people of color. At the same time, we have also provided funding to the village community. The funding we have provided has been based on what Bayard described, as supportive services. I will note that these are supportive services that after due diligence by the village of looking at better models around the country, including Seattle, recognizing that Seattle had some issues and wanting to fill the gaps in providing services to the residents. I have experienced these residents as nothing but thoughtful, hardworking.
Speaker 9: Circumspect.
Speaker 6: Individuals who want to be members of community. The reason that I am here tonight in support of them is because they don't have a neighborhood to show up and support them. They don't have.
Speaker 9: A place to call home that's permanent.
Speaker 6: They don't have a neighborhood where they encounter people. Thank you. Bus stop, etc..
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeff Baker. And then we'll end with Jerry Burton, Jesse Pearson, Mark Marshall, Jeff Burton. Or Jeff Baker. I'm sorry. Jeff Baker. No. Jerry Burton.
Speaker 5: I have 5 minutes. Hey, a thank you. My name is Jerry Brennan with the Denver Broncos. Allow. I'm with you guys. Veteran Marine. I understand your plight. I do the same way the councilman and the council people have done to us in the homeless community, in the poor people community. Y'all have not done your job. You have not fulfill your job. You are you are taking people and you messing with their lives. You got people fighting against the police that the unhoused. Then you got the house. People fighting against the police. Because you are dividing us. You are taking each one of us and you take a city. Now you take a community and divide it with the poor. Among the poor. Do you have to stop y'all? Y'all have to account for this because this is not right what you are doing. And then on top of that, you're pushing people around in the middle of the night. We call a lady, a resident, ask for something very simple. Something we all do are porta potty. Porta potty for the homeless.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up.
Speaker 5: Y'all.
Speaker 0: Next up, Jesse Paris goal.
Speaker 13: Jesse Parrish represented for Denver Homicide Lord Blessed Arsenal Moment for Self-defense, a positive action commitment for change. And I'm on top of the battle for at large. We are definitely in approval of this. We need more tiny home buildings, more tiny home structures, more attainable means of housing in the city. I do not like the way that Globeville has been treated, though we've experienced the same thing in Five Points, Col, Whittier, etc.. You are not exempt. You are not the exception. We've all been dealing with this are people of color in this town. We've been gentrified, displaced and pushed out of our neighborhoods. This is exactly why we need a new council. Sweep the council to sweep the homeless every night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, Marc Marshall right here.
Speaker 1: I got it. You got to vote.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Mark Marshall with the Urban Land Conservancy. ULC has been involved with the Tiny Homes Village since the inception two years ago. We've hosted the tiny home village at our property at 38th and Blake and we are actually doing a groundbreaking now for 66 units of affordable, permanently affordable housing at that site. We are in strong support of this measure and stand by the city. And as well, we've partnered with the city on many occasions and asked that the city stand with us on this one as well. We've seen the positive results of housing, the group that is a beloved community, and there have been nothing but positive responses from the neighborhood and the whole neighborhood. We expect that to continue and we look forward to your continued support. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers are questions from members of Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you, Mr.. Mr. President, can I, can I get Cole and then I'll ask Jill a question and then I'll ask anybody. Do we have anybody from real estate? Wow. Oh, okay. No, no, no. The city agency. Real estate like I do. Real estate. No.
Speaker 12: No, that's. Lisa Lumley was supposed to be here tonight, and she unfortunately came down with an illness and was not able to be here. But Brad, back from the state attorney's office, worked on the license agreement with them. If that is helpful.
Speaker 4: For your great thanks, we'll start with call and just a quick shout out to Marilyn. Thank you for being here. You're the only high school student here repping. Good job, Colt. Real quick, can you just talk about the new elements and be very descriptive in specific about the new elements of this good neighbor agreement that. You've not put in these didn't have for the coal agreement.
Speaker 14: So thank you for the question. We actually didn't even have a good neighbor agreement with coal rhino Curtis Park five points. Neighborhood. We didn't get to that point. What we've done over the last several months is actually produce an extremely detailed good neighbor agreement, much more so than many permanent supportive housing projects would have produced for a project like this. What I was trying to point out in a rush earlier was that first and foremost, we've improved our screening and intake process. And so if you do have the good neighbor agreement in front of you, you can see from the from item one, the very first thing we're talking about, how we're going to do screening at the village. One of the very first things we heard from residents of the neighborhood was that there's, you know, mothers saying we don't want sex offenders coming into our neighborhood. Now, we had a little bit of trouble with that from a philosophical standpoint with Housing First, but we actually took that question to the village residents and we said, so they don't want sex offenders living in the village. What do you think about that? And village residents said, well, we don't want to live with sex offenders either. So that was a very quick and easy thing for us to put into that cold call.
Speaker 4: I'm going to stop you right there and go from a legal perspective or fair housing. Question with Beck. BECK Can you answer that from a fair housing perspective on sex offenders? There's a microphone for you over there. You don't have to.
Speaker 0: Brad Beck from the city attorney's office.
Speaker 4: Yeah. From a legal perspective. Can we do that? Around sexual offenders? We have. There are certain protections around fair housing. I just want to make sure that.
Speaker 0: The extent that they don't conflict with the Fair Housing Act. Then it's permissible. But that's that's how we have framed it with.
Speaker 4: With the license agreement. Okay. And so there's no we feel good about that.
Speaker 0: To the extent that they don't.
Speaker 7: Conflict.
Speaker 4: Okay. And what extent would they conflict?
Speaker 0: I'm I'm not prepared to answer that question. I'm happy to investigate it for you.
Speaker 4: Okay. That would be great if you would. All right. Cool. Can you there are a couple more items. Can you share what those items were that you didn't have a good neighbor agreement before, but what are some of the items that you added?
Speaker 14: So there's been one of the things I was trying to say was that this has improved the village, this process has improved the village. The reality is that residents of the Globeville neighborhood were saying, what are your transition plans like? And so we went back and clarified that and the Good Neighbor Agreement as well. And so that's taken up an item. Let's see here. It's taken up an item, but we've made a continue to make a strong commitment to ensuring transition plans. And this is an area that we want stronger partnership as well to help see the outcomes that we desire for village residents. But really clearly clarifying that the intent and purpose of this village is provide stability and community so that people can restore their lives, have that stability and then move on in terms of their income and employment into permanent housing. That's the ultimate goal. So that's one next item. You want more?
Speaker 4: No, that's good. I think you've covered. Let me ask you one last question. Did you go door to door in this neighborhood?
Speaker 14: We went door to door for a month on a weekly basis with Tanya Sally, who's my co-director, who didn't get the opportunity to speak earlier. Michael Sapp from the city's office, and Evangelina Flores, a mom from Garden Place Academy that we hired as a bilingual interpreter. Tanya speaks Spanish, as does Evangelina. We went door to door and we went primarily to provide information to residents to say, Hey, have you heard about this? What have you been hearing about it? And to explain to them that this is a transformational housing community where people have the opportunity to have safety, stability and healing.
Speaker 4: And how many how many people said, yeah, I'm in favor?
Speaker 14: Or so the count that we received was over 100 supportive signatures from the neighbors that we spoke with.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I'm actually going to call up Evan Dreier real quick from the mayor's office. Evan, this has come up several times, and I just want to have a conversation about how do we get here? Obviously, you know. We had a deal worked out. It seems like in the Rhino neighborhood, it seems like the analysis of that property should have been done. Much sooner. But we got a late analysis that scrambled, which messed up the process, got us in Globeville. Speak to that.
Speaker 7: Councilman Evan Dreyer, mayor's office. You're exactly right. The the beloved community on its current site had planned to relocate to a site on the taxi property. They submitted their permits when the review by public works came back. Public work said we can't approve this because of flood concerns. So that and that was late last year. And that set off a little bit of a scramble.
Speaker 4: Tell me tell me about that time that when they said they wanted to move until it went through the city process to public works, saying that they couldn't approve it.
Speaker 7: I don't know exactly what submitted their permits, but it was probably early ish in 2018.
Speaker 12: So I think it was April of last year that we in community planning and development started having conversations with Carter Village Collaborative on some possible sites for the third site. And I believe they we notified various agencies of the intention to select the taxi site. I want to say it was July and permits came in August or September. And then again, the public works decision came in October of last year.
Speaker 4: So they actually had permits to move.
Speaker 12: They had submitted for permits. They didn't have them yet. Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay. Okay. And and can we just talk about that analysis? Because that is why we're here today. I mean, what happened? Where do we go wrong on the city side and the public work side.
Speaker 12: Sorry, I'll say up here. Jill Jennings, go back again. Community planning and development. So, you know, this this was a pilot project, temporary, that we were looking at and we had done some analysis in terms of allowed land use is, you know, where could this go? It's not mapped as a floodplain. We had had some conversations with certain public works staff. Unfortunately, it was not the right public work staff. So certainly I think moving forward lesson learns that we will any future sites put them through our site development plan process which goes out to more people and more agencies. But that is unfortunately where the disconnect happened is that a study had been started in Globeville that identified the flooding concerns at the site, but it wasn't a mapped floodplain, so we were not aware of that fact.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you for the question.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: If you could stay up there on the gentleman. So just a few questions. And I think, you know, I think Councilman Brooks asked, too, but I just wanted to kind of get the timeline straight. When was the site officially a site, a potential site? And were there other sites in the city that were also candidates for tiny homes?
Speaker 12: So if you're referencing the Pearl Street site. So that was something again, the public works decision was given in October. We within the city again came to the table to try to find other opportunities and other sites. I believe the Pearl Street site was identified sometime in November, but there were some environmental concerns related to that property and some further analysis and testing that needed to be done before we could determine whether it was a viable option or not. And then at that point, we also brought forward a couple of other city owned properties along Colfax that the DITO is currently working on redeveloping to provide affordable housing as well.
Speaker 8: What are those sites on Colfax? I mean, you know, you may not want to disclose, but I'm just trying to get an idea of where else in the city, because that's what we've been hearing. Why? Just this neighborhood.
Speaker 12: Sorry. Bear with me. I don't have the addresses anymore, but it's 7900 East Colfax, so it's further on East Colfax and then 83 something East Colfax.
Speaker 8: Okay. So I wanted to understand that park neighborhood and the Good Neighbor Agreement. When were folks in Globeville approached with that first to discuss.
Speaker 12: So we started conversations, some initial one on one outreach about the village and the Pearl Street site in January. The Good Neighbor Agreement, I don't think really came up until our first community meeting, which happened on February 7th. And so it's at that point and Cole could speak further about that, that there was starting to be terms put in place around what a good neighbor agreement might look like.
Speaker 8: And I did want to ask the question. I appreciate that, Joe Cole. Can you can you answer that question? So what? So what I want to what I want to figure out is one is this the only site know based on what the needs are? Right. Why would it be the only site if there if it is the only site. To talk to me about a little bit more about the process with the good neighbor agreement who was at the table and who wasn't. Yeah. And then what are the things that have been negotiated? What haven't.
Speaker 14: Totally. So the the city showed us two sites, 4400 Pearl and 7900 East Colfax. The village residents wanted.
Speaker 8: To sign me up. 100 Colfax. Where is that?
Speaker 14: It's basically like Colfax and or Quebec City or something like that. So nearly, nearly Aurora, it's very far away from our current site. And that was really the first and foremost the largest thing for village residents. Village residents have become at home and the site that they are at at 38th. And Blake, this site that we're looking at is literally one half mile down the exact same street. It's half a mile down Washington Street. And for them, that feels like it's close to home. Moving all the way across town would be displacing people. There was also the situation of the timeline, and the 7900 East Colfax site already has an RFP out for affordable housing development. So the timeline on that site was very short. This site would give us a longer term option. At first that was going to be four years. We lowered that to three years by listening to the community. In terms of the Good Neighbor Agreement, the first items for the Good Neighbor Agreement came directly from our notes from the first community meeting on February 7th. Steve now you're with community planning and development. Took notes at that meeting. We went back through those notes and said, okay, what are we hearing from the neighborhood and let's put those items out. The first item is for good neighbor agreement. It was very rough at that point. We sent it off to Globeville cares and Globeville cares really took leadership holding down a table at point of area and having conversations with people in the community. The next iteration of that document was a document that just incorporated every single comment that was received on the comments that we had . We went back that second community meeting, worked with that, brought it back to a third community meeting where we engaged about it. And since then we've worked individually with RINO's on that. So it's been developed very much in partnership and seriously. It's been led by neighbors who took that and said they wanted to at least ensure there was going to be a strong dialog. And so I can't take credit for that at all.
Speaker 8: Okay. Let me ask somebody from what I think you call it la la, la. So let me. Gentlemen, do you want to come to the microphone, please? I actually wanted to. Somebody from Globeville, I can speak to the organization. I was going to ask Tony, but if you want to. One of you. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'll take it.
Speaker 8: So can the same kind of questions from when we all approached with the Good Neighbor Agreement. And why isn't it signed?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So we were first approached with a good neighbor agreement at the first community meeting. However, it was again, this is the whole imperfect process that was discussed. So it wasn't it? So basically the Good Neighbor Agreement was basically given to us almost as a contract, a sign that this is going in. And that's when we pushed back and said, We're not signing this at this moment. We don't want to work on this at this moment. And that that sentiment was echoed at all three meetings. It was it felt like, you know, the neighborhood is being held hostage, that, you know, in this neighborhood agreement, there was concessions that were , you know, you know, hey, this is coming in, so we'll give you this. And that's not something that we were open to at the time.
Speaker 8: Is there anything you wanted to add?
Speaker 4: No, I was just going to add and we had a second meeting at Learning Hall, and that's where they tried to separate the community and and discuss a good neighbor agreement and the concessions, saying, if you guys agree to the good name agreement, then we'll do this for your community. And which at that time, global cares was there, global affairs was there, and none of them agreed to the Good Neighbor Agreement. Or the bribe of concessions.
Speaker 8: So do you. If I may, Mr. President, just I'm trying to get at this because we. Sun Valley is very similar, but the good neighbor agreement came from the community and we were in this process here. So between the city and the community discussed at the city, I'm sorry, but the provider in the community discussed the labor agreement now, Bill, with hesitation. But let me ask you something. At what point do you see, if ever or and I say if ever, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. What would it take for the good neighbor agreement to be signed if it was to be signed? Is that a complete no or is a door open? And what are those things that that that would take it would take you to sign it.
Speaker 4: As of right now, no, we're not interested in good neighbor agreement right now. Okay? We have other things that we're trying to take care of in Globeville. And like we said earlier, we have a whole list of other things that that would benefit the community, that would help our community, and that would slow the process of gentrification in our neighborhood.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Paul, if I could just jump in there with that. And that has the the hesitation to sign a good neighbor agreement. It's both. You know, the fact that we feel that, you know, that the concessions that were being held over our head, but also we feel that Globeville right now doesn't have the resources to be a good neighbor. In terms of, you know, if, you know, we have, you know, these people who are truly in transition, you know, we don't have the resources for people in transition because the residents that are currently in transition are failing in Globeville. So that's the other hesitation to sign the Good Neighbor Agreement is that Globeville itself, as you know, lovely as our community is, and as much as we take care of our residents, as much as best we can, we feel we don't have the resources to be good neighbors.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jim.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Sorry if one of the council members calls on you, then you can address Councilman Lopez. That was your line of questioning.
Speaker 8: Sure. Ma'am, we're actually.
Speaker 0: Come up. Come on.
Speaker 2: My name is Sister on a coop. I'm on the CBC board. And I just want to say to you, Councilman Lopez, that at the second neighborhood meeting where the neighborhood neighborhood agreement was brought to be discussed, the neighborhood refused. They said, we do not want to discuss this. We only want to vote on whether or not we oppose the village. So that's my personal experience of the second neighborhood meeting related to the neighborhood agreement.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: And I think Councilwoman Ortega was there as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I have a few questions. So let me first start with I want to go to the heart of the Good Neighbor Agreement, and I want to ask the city attorney a question. So if we have a good neighbor agreement that is not signed, how what is the probability that it is actually enforceable?
Speaker 0: The Good Neighbor Agreement is.
Speaker 7: Between the community.
Speaker 0: And the neighborhood agreements. The city is not a signatory to it.
Speaker 2: I understand that.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure I understand your question then.
Speaker 2: Well, I understand the city has no enforcement role, but there are some things that the city helped insert into the good neighbor agreement, or vice versa. There were some things that were part of the good neighbor agreement that ended up in the in the lease.
Speaker 0: Yes. We took the portions of the good neighborhood agreement that we felt as the landlord of the.
Speaker 7: Property we could enforce.
Speaker 2: Okay. But I guess.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Maybe I'm asking you this from a legal perspective and you're probably not going to opine on this, but if there is no second party to sign an agreement, how do you how do you justify that? You have, I think, a legitimate agreement.
Speaker 0: If you don't have two parties to an agreement, you by definition don't have an agreement.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, all right. So let me let me just move on with my next set of questions. And I wanted to get to if you could stay there, have another question for you. This this is specific to the lease, and this is on page two. And you were asked a question about this earlier. It's under section four and it's the background checks. So you heard some folks make reference to concern that there are kids that live across the street and the neighbors wanted to make sure that there were some kind of background checks. Assuming this moves forward, what does to the extent permitted by law mean?
Speaker 0: It means to the extent permitted by law, they can perform these background checks.
Speaker 2: Okay. But are they able to perform the background checks? Aren't those typically done by law enforcement? The actual the background checks.
Speaker 0: I'm unfamiliar with the exact process.
Speaker 2: Most organizations contract with law enforcement to do the background checks.
Speaker 0: That would be a question for.
Speaker 2: Someone from.
Speaker 6: County councilwoman or I might be able to help out here. You want me to try to take a stab at this? All right. So to the to the earlier question asked by Councilman Brooks, the city is very limited in how it can regulate sex offenders. There was a case in the city of Inglewood that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that the city couldn't essentially zone out sex offenders in its community. But there is not the same limitation on a private party that decides that it's going to run background checks for someone who's going to reside in a private residence. I would assume that the to it to the extent permitted by law. My interpretation of that is there are a lot of privacy protections associated with what sort of information can be, you know, culled on individuals. And so I think that that's just saying, you know, law enforcement may be able to do a deeper dove into certain data, but to check on, you know, sex offender status is is not uncommon in private property owners or in situations like this to make sure that there's not dangerous individuals that they're leasing to or allowing in the present private residences.
Speaker 2: So, Sokol, can you come forward and just explain what that process would entail in terms of how you all would do the screening? Do you contract with law enforcement to do that? What is that process?
Speaker 14: So to our knowledge and what we've looked into thus far through the Bureau of Investigation website, we can verify potential of a potential villager as a registered sex offender or not. And we'll also show whether this person is a sexually violent predator or whether they have failure to register or and if they have any felony charges. And so we've said that we will bar sex offenders from living in the village, that if anyone has felony charges, we will look into that further and we will devise safety plans around that accordingly. And so that's our expectation for the way we will conduct that process. And we will be doing that screening on everybody that's currently living in the village. And anyone that would be coming into the village as well.
Speaker 2: Knows that CBI record a matter of public information.
Speaker 3: Or is that.
Speaker 14: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. So call since I have you up here, let me ask a question about the previous site that you all looked at in Globeville off of 45th Avenue. What what happened there? Why did that site not work out?
Speaker 14: So we actually started work after the women's village was denied by the Landmark Preservation District in July, which was spoken of earlier. We went on a search for a new site for that village and a private site was offered to us at 45th and Broadway. And so we that was actually how we first engaged with Ms.. Flores from Garden Place Academy. We hired her to help us with door to door outreach. We did extensive door to door outreach at that time to hundreds of homes in the neighborhood providing information. And we during that time, knocked on the door of the Globeville Care's president. And we met with Bernadette, and we met with Globeville Care's leadership. And then together we co convened a community meeting in December. At the community meeting, there were approximately 20 neighbors that turned out, and we had a pretty intense discussion at that meeting about the concept. There was no resolution at the end of that meeting. This was the first time that that landowner had met anyone in the neighborhood. And so she came to that meeting and introduced herself. And there were a lot of questions about why she was offering that land to us and who she was and these kinds of things. At the end of the meeting, John's been a long time resident of Globeville, stood up and said, I think we need to take a break on this conversation. Let's slow things down. Let's have more conversation. During the midst of that time. Our site at the taxi was falling through and we were totally scrambling, doing everything we could to keep 12 people in housing. And so we had to say, we're taking a step back from this. We're taking a step back from this project. And at that time, we began to prioritize this site at 4400 Pearl for the beloved community village.
Speaker 2: So how did the decision come about that as opposed to looking at 11 tiny homes that it jumped to 21? Where did that come up in the process? Was that at the original site.
Speaker 14: Our.
Speaker 2: Plans, Globeville, or was that when it came to this site on.
Speaker 14: 4500 Broadway was going to be a. Homes for women. There was a copy and paste of the St Andrew's project that we had tried to permit at 44. Well, sorry. So at taxi we had planned to go the village. So that was already in our conversation and we were planning to grow the village, add more homes, improve upon this model, get more people in housing that fell through. And we didn't want to give up on that idea. So we prioritized sites that were around this 20,000 square foot size so that we could have around 20 units. That also gives us a better economy of scale in terms of full time employees from the service provider to help deliver the outcomes that we want to see. So that was how 20 kind of became the number that we were looking for when we were prioritizing sites.
Speaker 2: Okay. So let me just follow up with a couple of additional questions. Somebody raised the question about porta potties. Will they be are they anticipated to be on the site or on the street? Somebody raised a question about. Sure. Potentially having them face their, you know, their their house. Right.
Speaker 14: So our we are proposing to move the existing village as it is with 11 homes and two porta potties. We will then be submitting permits to get rid of porta potties altogether, to tap into water and sewer, to have a new community building that will be built by Whiting Turner, our contractor. In addition to these eight new homes that we want to build. That being said, we will have porta potties for a couple of months and our initial site plan, we showed those abutting Pearl Street after dialog with the neighbors, we quickly moved those to the back. So the current site plan that we've submitted, the porta potties are at the rear of the site, not even visible along the street. They'll be blocked by the houses.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for addressing that. I have some other questions. We may have other members of council, if you want to put me in the queue to come back. Okay.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Cole. Thank you, Carl. So the topic was brought up as to the your organization's finances. Would you talk about that as you feel comfortable?
Speaker 14: So we do not have audited financials. We're a brand new nonprofit. That's something that we're working on producing. We don't have a lot of money. I mean, we bootstrapped it to build the tiny home village as it was. So we raised $140,000 from 400 individual donors to build the build the first village, with support from several foundations that are represented in the room today. And we created some very tiny support to provide beds, resources, and some small support to provide a half time salary for me. We have grown the organization a bit over the last couple of years. We currently have about two and a half FTE on staff for the Colorado Village Collaborative. But I mean, we're not we're not raking it in here. This has been an effort that's mission driven, and we're doing everything we can to gather support to make this successful. Sure.
Speaker 7: And I believe I recall from a recent conversation when you built the original village, you had projected the homes would cost about 7000 a piece and they were ended up more in the 10 to 15 range. Correct. Correct.
Speaker 14: We'd never built a tiny home village and we had no idea how much it would actually cost. And it also depends on what was required from the permitting department. So where we ended up with our homes was really about 11, $12,000 in material costs. We value them around $15,000 per unit based upon donated labor and things like that.
Speaker 7: Okay. Now, there was a missed, I believe it was. Mr. LaRue talked about concerns with the maintenance of the buildings in the village. Yeah. You sound like graffiti and maybe busted windows. Can you talk about are there requirements? Right. Do you have on site maintenance?
Speaker 14: We do have two folks that work on maintenance with the village. And then the village, you know, has weekly chores and responsibilities and things like that. There is one house that does have graffiti on it right now, and that's something that we're working on fixing. That wasn't done by a village resident. That was done by somebody coming into the site. And so we're working on that. Another thing that Mr. LaRue addressed was that this house has the word toxic written on it. That is because that person, that woman really enjoys Halloween. And she decorated her house in October for Halloween. And she's, you know, that annoying neighbor that's down the street that still has their Halloween decorations up. The other thing that the house says above the door and word is the word sanctuary, because that's the way that woman has experienced this house in the time that she's lived there as a sanctuary space for her. So, you know, not everybody keeps their porches as clean as we would like. That's something that we work on as the provider. That's something that we work with the village to do on a daily basis. But not every porch is as messy as others. It's it's variety. Just like there's a variety in people.
Speaker 7: And remind me, is in the agreement. What are the requirements for maintenance and security?
Speaker 14: Yeah. So every first of all, every village resident is required to sign a tiny home village use agreement which lays out what the expectations are for them as a resident living in the village. But in terms of the Good Neighbor Agreement, basically it puts the expectation on the caller to Village Collaborative to maintain the site the way that any site in the city should be maintained. And so what it asks people to do is if they have problems with weeds, with trash, with noise, things like that, that they contact us, that this document be a way to produce a relationship. And so we've given a 24 hour contact number to the Globeville residents, and we will also post that on a sign outside of the village. So if there's any complaints that need to be addressed concerning trash, weeds, noise, things like that, that they can contact us and we can work on those.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, everyone, for being here so late and for your passion call. I have a few questions for you. With only three years here, I'm wondering about your investment in landscaping and water and sewer. What's going to happen after three years? Sure.
Speaker 14: So the community building that we're designing is a mobile classroom structure. It can be moved. So everything we put into that, modifying that we'll be able to take with us with the exception of the taps for water and sewer. So those will be investments that we will not be able to take with us. And then the landscaping, obviously, that's something that we'll leave behind for the neighborhood we will work hopefully with. Local landscape architecture firms and and landscape companies to donate those kinds of materials that will ultimately be an investment in the community. The place that will lose the money is with the water and the sewer taps. That being said, Denver Water has volunteered to at least waive tap fees for us, but we'll still have to pay to run the pipes and that kind of thing. So we're budgeting around $150,000 for the community building and four additional units, and we'll be raising that from individuals throughout Denver.
Speaker 6: And have you.
Speaker 9: All considered some kind of.
Speaker 6: More permanent transitional housing that so you're not put in the position of having to relocate? And, you know, in three years, I'm guessing land where will be less land available and so you know could you foresee building that many units on a lot that size that are permanent?
Speaker 14: So definitely we would love to have permanent land. We would love to have permanent zoning. We think this is a both and we think that a site can be used on a longer term, temporary basis to get people into housing quickly that can then move on into permanent housing. And we think that this might be the right kind of thing for a long term community in some settings as well as it has been in Austin and other areas.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And then I have one more question for I maybe Jill. So one of the neighbors read a long list of the things that people would like to see there. And part came up a lot. And so I'm wondering, in three years, would there ever be a path for the city to put a pocket park there?
Speaker 12: So I think the city, in partnership with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, the real estate office, well, really wants to spend the next three years engaging in a conversation with the neighborhood. And it's great. They've already got a lot of good ideas in place to discuss the best use for the site and develop a plan for what the property may be used for once the tiny home village leaves. I will note the city does plan at least now to retain ownership of the property, given that it does have the wastewater lift station facility that's currently on it as well.
Speaker 6: Okay. That's good to hear. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Jill. You may have to stick around for this. Is Tim Santos still here? Great. Tim, I'm going to need you. And I think he left. But John Hayden. Is John Hayden still here? Okay.
Speaker 8: Hold on.
Speaker 4: Sure. Yeah. Sorry. Maybe I'm not speaking into it, so. I heard. Well, one question. Since everyone was raising their hands for Globeville. Can I see that same show of hands of who lives in Globeville? Okay. Can you. Other of that group say of how many support the the tiny home village staying there? I mean, moving to Pearl. And how many oppose? Okay. Thank you. Because that was the optic I couldn't quite picture is how many of your neighborhood residents. So. Did you see the list that the Arnaud's talked about, this sort of bigger list of needs? And can you describe what was on it?
Speaker 12: Certainly, I might have Tim answer this question, I think, at the second public meeting. And then since then we've received a variety of crusts from the neighborhood and neighborhood organizations about things they would like to see happen sooner or be advanced quicker within the neighborhood. And so Tim can respond to that. But but I do want to be clear. It's not a in return for the tiny home village, it's a separate conversation as a result of the neighborhood plan and other impacts of Tim.
Speaker 4: Thing that I want you to be cognizant as Tim responds though, is we have made land use decisions in this community that have drastically affected them in ways that we don't want, I don't think. But we're so we can change that. And so meaning that, you know, on their main street 45th, they got the storage building right and used to have a lot of jobs available there. And now we're talking about Home Depot at their TOD and now this. So some of this is going to fall back on CPD on what sort of structural things that we can do so that we don't, that we start getting the outcomes that this community visualized rather than what we're getting. So, Tim, go ahead. Thanks.
Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Tim Sanders, executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, which is mayor's initiative for clothier Larry Swanson. As Jill had mentioned earlier, the second meeting, we asked each of the runners to bring a list of recommendations, changes or things that they wanted to see worked on in the community. Jill pointed out, and I really want to stress that it was not meant to be lists of things that would be in offset of the tiny Homes village. Fact We really wanted to emphasize that these are things that we want to talk to the community about, that they wanted to do that were in the best interest of the community whether or not Tiny Homes Village was going to be created or not. And so a number of the things that were listed are already being worked on in the neighborhood plans or in other projects that are happening in Globeville right now. At that time, as you heard, Mr. Leroux, I believe it was, say that the neighbors chose not to want to discuss those in opposition of the overall Tiny Homes project. They didn't want to get into any kind of discussion that would suggest that the neighbors and the people who had voiced opinions over the last couple meetings were in support of the project at all. We have, again, three different lists of recommendations that were given by three different organizations. One of those organizations talked with us and asked for certain pieces to be put into the Good Neighbor Agreement. Those were included. Those notes that we took from the community with things that they had suggested they wanted in those community meetings were also considered for inclusion. I hope that addresses your question.
Speaker 4: That does because as you recall, the last committee meeting I had asked you for an update on the action plan that was established with the NBCC and the Globeville planning process. And I assume that you're going to be doing that. So I wanted to. One of the things that I'm worried about is we talked about many things in 2014 and 2015 and don't I don't have any real basis on how well that's going. And I think to the degree that we're being successful on, that probably plays into the sort of community's concerns about how much follow through . And, you know, when talking with Evan and Jill about this, that was the thing that I thought was a potential here, right? Which was, yeah, if we're going to recognize that that Globeville time is actually probably five years in the future because of all the impacts of all the different projects that are going on in there, that this might be a good interim use of this land while you actually make movement on these things. So is there a is that what you're contemplating? And is there any way to to speak? And I know you can't predict the future about what the administration will look like in a year's time. But, you know, if you if it were the same administration, couldn't you make commitments that we will you know, couldn't the mayor's office make commitments that this is a budget priority and we're going to move forward on X, Y and Z things and codify that in a way that this council and that community can, can, can fully grapple with.
Speaker 7: So a couple of things to your questions. One, we have had some really good conversations with the neighborhood organizations about what we might be able do to do for future planning. One of those things would be to go back and revisit the neighborhood plans because they the neighborhood in the area has changed and look to reprioritize what we would focus on in our neighborhood plans and our capital improvement project requests based on the direction that we get from the neighbors and what they're looking for in their neighborhood plans. Secondly, since we started this process, we're about to finish the Globeville drainage study that we've been working on for some time. In that study, there are some recommendations about needs to address drainage all around the global area. And so we would like to consider looking at that and the recommendations that come from that and start to explore if we might be able to use that property after tiny homes, villages, moves for a park that could be a detention holding area for the flooding and drainage that comes off of that area. So those are things that we would like to be. Discussing with the community and what the neighborhood organizations and the conversations I've had. And you heard someone testify to that effect. Those are the kinds of conversations that the neighborhood would really like to have to look towards the future and then what kinds of things we can be doing. In addition to that, we have agreed outside the Good Neighbor Agreement, the whole quarterly reviews in the community with the entire community similar to the mayor's community meetings that we have on cabinet in the community. We would ask the neighborhood organizations to identify three or four topics that they would want us to address. Each of these quarterly reviews and then have the rest of the city agencies, as appropriate, be there with tables to address what they're doing in Globeville, specifically what the last quarter data was, say , for police activity and what kinds of things they're looking for in the future and address any questions that people from the community participate would have. That can also then help us to understand things that we may not be seeing from the agencies, but the community living there can give us direction on so that we move to do things that are important to the community. Awesome.
Speaker 4: Great. One quick one then, Jill, was it was there any discussion about a waiver process if the other site, the rings be site were used? I mean, because, you know, the people there are there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of hundreds of homes and thousands of maybe lives that are already, you know, endangered of inundation to much deeper levels than the rings be site in a 100 year event. So we're talking about a very, very low probability event. Could we actually which might have some some forewarning. So we weren't really putting lives at jeopardy to say.
Speaker 12: We tried I suggested call suggested a couple of different alternatives to public works to consider. They came up with an emergency evacuation plan and some other ideas. But public works really felt that because of the velocity of the water, there really was no safe alternative and that while raising the site might be a possibility, they they estimated it would take probably a year of study in order to come up with a plan that could safely do that.
Speaker 4: All right. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flint wants to.
Speaker 5: Thank Mr. President coal to the extent that you can without violating any personal privacy, could you tell us why the two residents who were evicted were evicted? It was said that they were escorted off by police.
Speaker 14: So in both cases, those two residents were they made a threat of violence involving a weapon. And the village has a no tolerance policy for violence, weapons, illegal drugs. And so the village determined that a threat of violence involving a weapon was something that should be taken seriously enough that they should not be permitted to leave there . And so that was a really hard discussion that the village led and brought us in as a staff and as a supportive community to lead that process. We did also notify the police that that was going on because we wanted to take that threat seriously. And so we had the police there when we were talking with that, with those people.
Speaker 5: Okay. It sounds like this was one incident involving two people and not two separate incident.
Speaker 14: Two separate incidents. Both of them were that threat of that kind.
Speaker 5: And they were handled simultaneously.
Speaker 14: No different times.
Speaker 5: Oh, I misunderstood that. Okay. Can you tell me or tell the council and the public how are the support services going to be provided at the news site on Pearl? Are they the same as what we've heard described at 38th and Blake? Yeah. If Bayard is is involved in that, just briefly, maybe 30 seconds, describe that so bad.
Speaker 14: Brings the laundry truck to the village once a week as a point of contact with village residents. And then village residents have the opportunity to opt in to that resource navigation like Scott described.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. Okay. Are there any other supportive services?
Speaker 14: So we have staff. We have village organizers that work with the village to facilitate village meetings, to work on accountability, to ensure that that village residents are following the community agreements. Okay.
Speaker 5: We've learned caseworkers will come in and offer any sort of counseling or job training or education or how to respond to the folks getting to get into school or get jobs.
Speaker 14: Residents can opt into that through Bayard, but that is something that we would like to expand as well.
Speaker 5: Sure. Okay. Jill, I had to bet there's not a seat up here for you to permanently occupy. Is it fair to say that this. Was a flawed process as far as public outreach.
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 5: Because I understand the emergent nature of it. When we had a site and and what and I just want the community to understand that the emergent nature of this and and I don't know what could have been done differently. Maybe you could do a do an after, you know, after effect study or.
Speaker 12: I think, as I mentioned, you know, moving forward, we'll be moving sites through the site development plan process, which has 30 plus agencies looking at sites to make sure that any fatal flaws like this are known as early as possible.
Speaker 5: And then finally, I want to understand the legal basis and legal authority under zoning to to make this move. And this is a UMass three zone and temporary structures are not allowed there or I don't think anywhere. Actually, they're not addressed in the zoning code. They're in the building and fire code.
Speaker 12: So zoning does have allowance for temporary uses and temporary structures.
Speaker 5: But I didn't see this type in the UMass three though. So explain the authority for for doing this.
Speaker 12: Certainly. So the zoning administrator has the authority in the Denver zoning code to make unlisted use determinations, be that temporary use.
Speaker 5: That's why I don't see it in.
Speaker 12: Our primary sources. And so the way we have done this to date is through an unlisted temporary use determination. We have been working collaboratively through the group living process that is happening, a conversation right now with members of the community via task force and members of City Council to update our group living regulations and our zoning code , which are pretty out of date. And so the tiny home village is a component of that. And so we will be putting together actual regulations both temporary and eventually permanent to address this.
Speaker 5: And now temporary structures generally have been the way I've understood them in any zone district would be something like a construction trailer during construction. That's why we have them permitted for six months and we extended this to 360 days for temporary structures that are being used for residential purpose. And so after 360 days, this is a three year, this is a three year license. So do we have to do do we have to do an exception again each year to continue the license so come to us or does that.
Speaker 12: So we are proposing building code changes as well to the zoning code. The 360 day period really lives in the building code, not the zoning code today. And so we have worked with Cole and others to develop some language to really codify how we've been working this, working with the tiny home village from a code perspective and we'll be moving forward. Changes to our 2016 Denver Building and Fire Code as well as the 18, which is currently in drafting process that will codify what we're calling longer term temporary. And that's really based on a model from Denver water that they use. They have a two year water license that they will extend for a one additional two year term. And so that's the model which we are going with for the longer term temporary, which is how the site will be addressed and permitted.
Speaker 5: And is this a temporary use? Will this go away after three years?
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. And we will retain ownership of the water and sewer utilities that are installed.
Speaker 12: In terms of the pipes, I don't know that the lease I'm looking to, Brad.
Speaker 5: I didn't that's why I didn't I didn't see it in the I didn't see it in the license agreement. So when, when Cole talked about it, I, I was going to raise that because I know we've been told in committee that they will be required to hook up to water and sewer. Yes, but of course, you can't take that with you. Right. So when it's gone we will have water and sewer to the site. Correct.
Speaker 0: That's, that's, that is correct.
Speaker 5: We'll owners permanent.
Speaker 0: Improvements would become a permanent fixture to the property and.
Speaker 5: Would remain with the property. Okay. I believe that is all the questions. I am a.
Speaker 0: Citizen. Thank you, congressman. Councilman knew your next up. I'm sorry if you're called upon to answer a question. The chance for comments was before this. This is a chance for councilmembers to call on who they select. Councilman, your next stop.
Speaker 10: Cold mass question, please. We've been talking about a three or four year agreement, lies of, I guess, a license. Right. And what is the intention of that time period? I mean, is this a temporary situation? And because I got the the impression of what Tim was saying is that really this is a more permanent situation and not something that would be used for some other benefit for the community. Has has this going to work? Is this truly temporary or are you going to be looking for a more permanent location? Like Councilwoman Black said.
Speaker 14: Our intention is to use this site for three years and then to look for a new site. Whether that's temporary or permanent, we don't know yet. We don't know the answer to that question at this point. But we do think that this is a good interim land use that can be that can be replicated on other sites throughout the city. So my answer is that we will be there for three years and then we will be looking for a new site, either temporary or permanent.
Speaker 10: Okay. Tim, can I ask you a question just to address a. So if Cole's correct and this is just temporary location and, you know, like Jill saying, it's all temporary approvals and and so this the permanent location is found, then it'll it will move and then this site will be used for something else for the benefit of the community. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: Yes, Councilman. And that's part of what we would like to engage the community in discussions of over the next couple of years. There are any kind of plan. As you know, generally it takes a little while to get set up. Let's say specifically a park use was going to be there. It takes a couple of years for the design, for the recommendations from parks and then funding for what it would take to do that. We think that we could be using this three years to try to efficiently identify what can be there so that we've got something ready. When Tiny Homes Village moves.
Speaker 10: And say, say we approve this this three year deal. And what assurances the community have that you'll be leaving in three years and they're going to have some of the benefit restored to that site. Can you give a quick in the city, give some kind of agreement that can it be put in the license or can it what? I mean, the the good neighbor agreement didn't have a legal authority in. So it's not going to matter to the residents. But what can sure is can the city give that? That is going to be a win win situation. We're going to have temporary housing for the tiny homes and we'll look for a more permanent location. And and in three years, the community is going to give this land back for their benefit.
Speaker 7: Okay. So right now, Councilman, I don't know that we've got a mechanism to make any kind of guarantees going forward. We have said that the NBCC would take responsibility for working with the communities and continuing with the work that we do now in the neighborhoods, both to look at the existing neighborhood plans and then see how this would fit in there. As we start to move down the road with Parks and Rec, with the drainage study and recommendations that come from that. We may have some better options than I can give tonight, but tonight I don't know of any mechanism that we could use to give a guarantee unless Joan knows something. She's stepping up.
Speaker 12: Well, I think just just to clarify, the license agreement is for one year a term with two renewals. So it's a three year license agreement. What you are voting on tonight.
Speaker 10: Right. Well, I'm just worried about what's going to happen after three years. And the main thing is I just want to I think if you tell me, if you could give your guarantee, the residents or the mayor's office could give some guarantee to these reserves that this is really a temporary situation and you're going to get some improvement back to this. I think maybe the residents would be more comfortable with that kind of.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. Excuse me. If you're not called on, this is the part that the councilmember can call on. Otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you to watch. And. 432. That's part of our process. I know it can be frustrating is the councilman's prerogative. Who is asking the question to please don't shout things out.
Speaker 7: So what we had done in addition to the good neighbors agreement is shared with the neighborhood. Our commitment to work with them over the next three years on this and virtually every other project that we've got through the neighborhood plans, the neighborhood plans do have within them a goals and hopes opportunities that we want to drive for . We are committing to working with the neighborhood to refine those and then to be able to work from the recommendations that they give us.
Speaker 10: I hope you be able to do something more concrete than than that. Strategies. Again, I see actions in a in a letter. Be nice. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Happy to put that together.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. New councilman giving.
Speaker 10: You the last question. You'd like to come up.
Speaker 7: And.
Speaker 10: Give your comment about the situation so.
Speaker 6: That land was black, topped without anybody knowing about it. It's got some contamination contamination issues and we're having it tested. That was blacktop without anybody knowing it, and it will never be able to be turned into a park because it was a former Superfund site.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: Yes, we have. We. We're having it tested.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Councilman, do anything further.
Speaker 10: Jill, let me just ask Jill about this. Yeah. What's the story on this site?
Speaker 12: Hi. I'm actually going to have Zack Clayton from Department of Public Health and Environment come up to talk about it.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Good evening.
Speaker 3: Council Members Clayton Manager, Environmental Management Planning for Department of Public Health and Environment for the City of Dover. We did a comprehensive we did a comprehensive soil investigation and groundwater investigation consisting of 15 submarines and three ground waters at the site. There was minimal contamination found in three of the points. So in order to alleviate or eliminate any exposure to that, we had public works bring in the recycled asphalt, which is a preapproved, beneficial reuse by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment.
Speaker 10: And why was that? Why was that so put in? Sorry. Over with. Why was that asphalt.
Speaker 3: The recycled asphalt? Yeah. It's just a minimum is to eliminate any exposure to any contamination within the soil.
Speaker 10: Can. Can that. Can that land be converted to a park later?
Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
Speaker 10: To safely that with no problems?
Speaker 3: Yes, sir. It's just recycled. It can easily come up, to be quite honest.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 12: Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 9: And Elizabeth, can I have.
Speaker 2: You come up to the microphone, please? I wondered if you might share with us a.
Speaker 6: Little bit about your perception of the process that's transpired.
Speaker 2: From the beginning until where.
Speaker 6: We're at.
Speaker 2: Right now. I appreciate the opportunity to do that. There are a couple gaps and spins that I think are very important to to address. I would like to say that from the very beginning, when Global Cares brought folks to the table, the statement coming from the neighborhood was And is that regardless that Globeville cares, that starting with Globeville cares and expanding out, is that a stress was being put on Globeville to enter into the conversation for the possibility of bringing in the tiny homes? And regardless of what happened with the tiny homes, the advancing of the improvements of the neighborhood should be on the agenda with the city. And it and it appeared that the city was receptive to that. And there were prepared documents that got very specific department by department one regarding projects and that those sorts of things. I think it should be made very clear we don't need to change the neighborhood plan. We don't need to have a three year conversation. There are things as simple as creating exporting a map of all the sidewalks that have already been provided for to so we can see what's on the timeline and see what else needs to be done. Can we consider immediately talking about things that can be dealt with that are clearly part of the neighborhood plan that certainly don't take three years? We have we had a situation here where there were two sites considered for tiny homes, the 4500 Broadway site, which which called didn't mention and gave the gave the impression that there was a certain type of outreach. But I'm going to stop myself from saying too much here because of time. But I really would ask the council to understand there's a there's a lot more going on here than we're able to represent. The I highly recommended to the city that they not divide into groups. At one of the meetings, the Laird and Holt, the Laird in hall meetings of the Laird and Hall Group, and we were divided into groups from the outset to discuss asked to discuss a good neighborhood agreement and a list of of benefits. And there were clearly people that justifiably felt any conversation about anything having to do with a GINA or benefits was an acquiescence to something that was not being had not been made clear in terms of how it was going to impact the neighborhood. And on the on that moment, Globeville took up the difficult mantle of saying, this has to be vetted and it is not a judgment of the individuals coming in. So so there are very specific things that can be dealt with and moved forward. Now, I trust the report that that land can be reclaimed because that was just given and I reported this to the neighborhood, to I talked to the project manager from from public works during during during the the somewhat embarrassing clean up that was done. And he he was very clear it could be the asphalt could be brought up and it could be reclaimed. And then one thing about this Gina conversation early on in the conversations, I want the council to know in the there was some conversation about what was in somebody's going to have to bring this forward from from the city or something about what would be called an advisory group. The GINA that has been drafted and I was I was the receptacle of a lot of it because I type well essentially of a lot of these things that ended up in the annotations that came from the minds of the neighbors in these discussions having to do with Gina Hayes and possibly accelerating the benefits to the neighborhood that was taking on the stress by land use being taken out of the larger revitalization of the aspirations of the neighborhood. There was conversation about an advisory committee that was very indigenous to the neighborhood. If this happened, that is disappeared. And the genie that was drafted has what appears to be is a list of of Arnaud's from Kingdom Come. And my assertion is this is a one year agreement, irrevocable license with possibly two years renewal at the discretion of the city. And if there is not if this passes and if there is not a very strong relationship between the the folks in proximity from Pearl Street to Lincoln between East 44th Avenue and East 45th and possibly East 46th Avenue, in conversation directly with the city on this, as their guardian, as landowners and with the enforcement on the as the operator, then the that can't be that is a license that can't be renewed because the relationship is not formed. And I just want to ask that this be recorded. Nice that there's the city has an obligation. There are specifics that have been named in particulars with DNA types of things. There have been some put into the lease. That is very the license that's being proposed. But let's not spin the process. The the the the the. We don't need to create inertia through overburdened conversations about these lists of things. Some of the some of our long term some of are could be dealt with immediately. They could be sequenced. So in sharing the stress of creating whatever is going on here and whether or not it ends up in Globeville, this has as Cole mentioned, the project has been improved. The the tiny home project has already gained insight, gained structure, gained wisdom for other neighborhoods, relationships gained momentum. And it has largely been because this neighborhood challenged for their own well-being. The the standards and practices of how the neighborhood was entered and what was going on here. So I hope that helps grounded a little bit more in understanding that we can get specific about a lot of things. And it doesn't have to be held up in in a three year conversation or modification of a neighborhood plan. There's a lot of things that are easily accessible and there's some that are long term. Perfect. Thank you. I have a final question for Cole.
Speaker 3: I'm assuming, Cole.
Speaker 2: That you were at that meeting at Laird and Hall. Was that meeting at Laird and Hall.
Speaker 3: Led by the.
Speaker 2: City in partnership with you or.
Speaker 3: Solely with as the city?
Speaker 14: So it was hosted by. Yeah, the City and Village Collaborative. Evan Dreyer and Tanya Saleh kicked off the meeting, invited us to split up into two groups, one to discuss the Good Neighbor Agreement, a second to discuss community benefits. The majority of people stayed in the middle and said, We don't want to have a discussion. Some people did come and sit down at the table with me and discuss the Good Neighbor Agreement. A few a handful of neighbors did so.
Speaker 2: Within the The Good Neighbor Agreement is the advisory group. Or would.
Speaker 3: You be open.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 9: Having an advisory.
Speaker 14: Group? Yes, I'd like to call your attention to item 14 and the Good Neighbor Agreement, which says CBC will hold monthly advisory council meetings for as long as necessary upon the opening of the village. The Advisory Council meetings will include Globeville, neighbors, village residents, staff and then less the group Ivory Every that has jurisdiction and community based organizations that have jurisdiction in this neighborhood that will be invited to attend those advisory council meetings.
Speaker 2: And even though.
Speaker 3: You know, the second party to the the Good Neighbor Agreement, maybe they're not interested in signing at this point in time. But you as a partner in that good neighbor agreement, you're ready to implement and uphold all of the parts.
Speaker 14: We believe that this document makes the village better and as it improves the neighborhood, if the village is to be there. And so we intend to live up to this document. And we also have every intent to continue working with neighbors to try to reach an agreement in the days ahead.
Speaker 2: Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to put a pin in a question that councilman you had asked regarding whether the city could promise that there wouldn't just be an extension of this site forever. And so, Kirsten Crawford, can you just clarify for us this lease one year with two renewals? Is there any legal way that the city could continue the site without coming back to this council beyond the three years? No. So it's within your purview. So you would have to approve the extension so there would be no way for them to just extend it. There would be a vote of this council through all the public processes if there was any discussion about this project not having the site. That's right. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman each. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a few left, and some of them have been covered. Joe, would you mind coming back to the microphone? And those are you in the front as we keep calling them up. There's a bunch of seats open, if you wouldn't mind, maybe vacating a couple of seats so that we as we keep relying on our city folks, it might be helpful to just have them sit in the front row, if you don't mind. Thank you, Jill. One of the things that your agency has committed to doing is whenever we have any development that is adjacent to railroad tracks, a developer is asked to check the box and then they're asked to look at how they would address buffering. This site should be no different and this has not been part of the discussion at all. So I want to know how has that been addressed and if so, how? Because as we all know, the site is adjacent to a storage yard. And I can remember a time when this very yard actually had both Globeville, as well as lower highlands, evacuated because of an acid spill. And we have tanker cars that often sit on these tracks that carry flammable liquids and other hazardous materials. So help me understand if that was addressed with the tiny homes and I'll let them speak as well. So where we're at with that issue.
Speaker 12: Yes. So that is something we did look at. There is a 25 foot buffer between the essentially the edge of the tracks and then the start of where the tiny home village property would be. And that's, again, to provide a buffer between the railroad tracks and the village, as well as provide access for public works to access their wastewater facility that's closer to the Washington Street side. So we did consider that, and that's why we put that buffer sort of roadway in place.
Speaker 2: So did you look at the recommendations that were in the work product that came out of the six month process that was spearheaded by Chief Tade that spelled out buffering recommendations? Because it's my recollection that it's far in excess of that. If you're not doing some kind of burning or in cases where somebody is building a garage structure or the garage could be the buffer adjacent to the tracks.
Speaker 12: So again, outside of having sort of the general conversation and understanding the concerns about the proximity to the railroad track, know that that was as far as the conversation went. But again, we felt like because this was a temporary use of the property, we had done at least enough to help mitigate some of the possible concerns.
Speaker 2: Okay. So let's talk about drainage for a minute. Clearly, we know that both of these sites are in the inundation area, both the site on the taxi property, which city has allowed new construction and permanent structures to be built on that air in that area, knowing that it is still an indentation area? But this site also receives flooding not just from the South Platte River, but also from the Utah Junction outfall. So how is it that we think one site is more safe than the other, knowing that both of them received flooding issues from, you know, stormwater during flooding? So so we.
Speaker 12: Reviewed both sites at the Pearl Street site, in particular with the city's floodplain staff. And yes, you're right. While it is also in an inundation area, it is not have the velocity of water that the taxi site has. And that was really the concern. Public Works has required that finished floor elevation of the structures be I think a foot and a half above elevation, which they will be and they'll be meeting that requirement. So they shouldn't have flood waters inundating the residences. But that, for my understanding and foresight, there's no one from public works here. But it was the really the velocity of the water at the taxi sites that would have the most concern. That is not as big a concern at the site.
Speaker 2: Well, this site of Washington is we've we've been told there were other people that wanted to develop in this area on the east side, the west side of Washington, and have been told they had to build a four foot high foundation. The storage units that Councilman Espinosa talked about were required to build that because of the flooding issues. And so I guess I'm a little concerned about the safety of the residents who would be expected to be living in a flooded area. And so I just want. Share that. The last thing I'll mention is that I pleaded with our public works department when we were doing the plant to Park Hill Drainage Project that dumps all the water into Globeville landing outfall, which is just right at the edge of well within the center of the Globeville neighborhood. And there was nothing done to address the flooding in the Globeville neighborhood, which is an unfortunate situation when you consider the fact that we spent $300 million for that drainage project. One last question, and it is about. So I guess when when we look at the the process and Evan, are you still here? There you are in the back. I would like you to come forward, Evan. It's it's my recollection that before the very first meeting was held in the Globeville neighborhood, this lease was actually moved forward to the city council committee that moved it forward, I guess not having realized that there had not even been a first community meeting . I guess I'm trying to understand what the logic in that was, given the fact that we had a misstep in the Sun Valley neighborhood around not extending that same kind of courtesy to a low income community and and thought we would have learned from that process, but yet we encountered the same thing in this neighborhood. So help me help me understand. Why? Why we can't get this right, because this should not be happening. We should not be treating our low income communities any different than we would be treating any other neighborhood in this city. And and this is part of the the crux of what has us at this crossroads right now, because had we taken the step back, not move the least forward, I think we'd have a whole different conversation here tonight. But that that has created this situation where people who feel like they were totally disregarded have dug their heels in the sand to say, wait a minute, we're tired of not being considered. And when you consider the fact that this particular corner, just this property is is a very property the neighborhood had been asking to have cleaned up and whatnot and and yet, you know, couldn't get a response from the city. But yet, you know, we turned around and paved the site and, you know, the community saw the improvements go in. And that was a clear indication that it. So let me let me just let you answer the question. Sure.
Speaker 7: I mean, I wish I could tell you that any of what you just said was wrong, but it's not. And while we have apologized to the village and the village residents and to the neighborhood, I think we also, all of you and apologize as well for putting you in a difficult position where you're going to have to choose and make a decision. The the specific reason why we brought the proposed license agreement to council before there had actually been neighborhood engagement or neighborhood meeting is again, we were victimized by timing.
Speaker 5: We had a deadline that the village's landlord had placed.
Speaker 7: On the village at that time. We had a permit with the city that was about to expire and we felt like there was urgency and we needed to act. So we scheduled the committee meeting.
Speaker 5: We had also scheduled.
Speaker 7: The neighborhood meeting to.
Speaker 4: Happen just two days later.
Speaker 7: I think all of this combined is just it's another example of the immense imperfection of the process.
Speaker 2: But we did take six months at the previous site. Right.
Speaker 7: We did get some additional time.
Speaker 2: When when when it originally went in to the the site that it's at. Wasn't that a six month process?
Speaker 7: It was. It was a longer process. Okay. Yes.
Speaker 2: All right. Let me just see if I have one last question here. I think I've covered all of them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other question. The public hearing for Council Resolution 367 is closed. Comments by members of council.
Speaker 8: I'm going to make the cut.
Speaker 0: Councilman Brooks, this one is in your. Yeah.
Speaker 4: First of all. My goodness. It's 10 p.m. and you all are still here. So thank you for coming through security and sitting on those hard seats. And each of you really given an impassioned. Debate and conversation about this issue. So I'm coming I'm coming to you tonight as a city councilman, but also a father and a husband in this district and who's been on the front lines of all of these conversations on all of these issues. And it's not an easy one at all. This is this is a tough conversation. But I want to I want to just start by saying and acknowledging the folks from Globeville who are here and who have heard it all the meetings. It's been about 80 years of not just not acknowledging the racist oppression in this city. Our our our our. Our community in our city. Turning our backs on you. And that's real. And that's where a lot of your frustration comes from. A lot of your anger comes from and to people out in the community who've been upset at Globeville about this process. I think to understand that history, I think is really important. So I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge. Since about 2012, 13, 14, 15, there's been a radical shift where equity in my mind means that you right the wrongs by making an extreme investment in that community more of an investment than you do to the rest of the city. So what I'm about to say is you may see some shaken hands along here, because these folks on this council have been like, man, Globeville, getting Globeville again, Globeville again. And I'm read it. I'm just going to read it because I've been writing it down and I've been hearing that we haven't been making that investment. So I just want to be quite honest. Several councilmembers have told me that and around the city that we don't have small area plants in this city and this area we do. And we're actually we're actually activating those smaller plants faster than any other part of the city. And that's because there's a lot going on. A lot of folks talk about investment in the parks. Every park in this community has been invested in at the tune of $10 million since I've been on city council. Our goal here on platform, real sanguinary. I mean, all of them, right? Someone talked about Stapleton Rec Center, an investment of over $30,000 just to make sure it has new equipment and things like that. Someone talks about executing on the Globeville plan to make sure that the oversaturation of marijuana facilities are Stop this. This council right here actually brought legislation to start limiting the use of more marijuana facilities. Some of us want to do a little more. It didn't pass, but that happened. And my staff myself stayed to midnight, closing down one particular marijuana facility, the Denver Bond. This community is going to see over $30 million. And in the in the Denver bond and that Denver bond is this it's connecting all those sidewalks that he was talking about in this community at the tune of $17 million. Because it's a disconnected community. It should be connected. Washington Street was something that has been identified as something important in this community and to take trucks in a different direction. So let's make sure that it's a pedestrian, heavy bike, heavy activated place so that grocery stores will come. All of those things are happening. And then lastly, I got about ten more things, but I'm gonna stop because other people want to want to talk. Lastly, the National Western Center is seen as not a community project, but this actual community in these precincts voted for the national western sitting higher than anyone else in the city and a fund, a citizens community investment fund that Councilman Ortega is working on along with myself, along with the National Western Center, is being set up just for the neighbors. So when we say that there hasn't been an investment, that that's just not accurate. What's accurate is you've been overlooked. I've been at every meeting. I led a meeting and, you know. This pains me because our process was completely broken. The process wasn't right. And you heard that. I went so far as to say. Okay. Call team. Let's figure out where to put this in the coal community, because the coal community was the first community to set this actually this process went well. And those leaders wanted to go around the city and.
Speaker 2: Say.
Speaker 4: That this process went so well that we need to implement it other places. So we looked at this property that we took from Douglas Bruce and said, Let's put it here. Unfortunately, the time did not go right for us to do it, and it was late. I'm just going to say this and leave it at this. The process is wrong. But people's lives are important. And we can't build walls in our community. We can't at all. It's not acceptable. And we need to lead in this area of the city and have an example to say, yes, Globeville, Globeville first and the rest of the community, too. And so the entire city of Denver. This is not just Globeville. I'm just I'm take the words out of John Hayden's mouth tonight. The entire city of Denver has to be accepting. Of the continuum of housing plan for all or we are in trouble. We're in trouble as a city. Yes. Cherry Creek.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 4: So I'm voting yes because this is about our whole city and this is about our future in Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman Kasich.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank my colleague for his very moving comments. I wanted to pick up on a thread that Councilman Brooks mentioned, which is about the history of racial oppression in this neighborhood. And I think that actually I want to be more specific that part of the reason that Globeville was a community of mostly individuals of color and working class folks was because of a history of land use. That said, we go to certain communities and we ask them who they want to live near, and if they don't want to live near, someone else will put them somewhere else. And so the history of that with single family zoning, right, is that we're going to build big lots and only people can afford a house this big can live there. Right. Well, first, we actually did it explicitly by race and we said you can't live here because of your race. But then that got ruled unconstitutional. So then we came up with other ways to create it. And so we said, if you can't build your house this big, you can't live here and can't have multi-family housing, which is what most people rent. So you can't have that here. And so, in fact, we created areas of our city where decent powered communities were concentrated and so weird there was unsafe air or near industrial areas like Globeville. And so what we have learned is that we can't ask folks permission for who gets to live next door, right? Like, I'm out, I'm gay. And in the past, folks used to say, you can't live next door to us if you're gay because two unrelated people can't live together. And then there was an HIV crisis in the eighties, and we used to say, You can't have someone with AIDS because I'm afraid my kids might catch it and you can't live next door to me. And each era, whether it's about race, whether it was about sexual orientation or HIV status, you name it, we have this really challenging part of process. What is the process? And so the process cannot be do you white neighbors want to have folks who might be of different races next to you? I can't ask that question. I can't give one neighbor permission to keep out another neighbor. And that where we are now in that evolution is we're at that conversation about income. And I will share with you how it looks sometimes and we'll see what the vote is like on this council tonight. But sometimes that has been wealthy neighbors wanting to talk about why wealthy single family homeowners talking about why they don't want market rate apartments. I'm not talking about even affordable apartments, but we had a very prominent project in a neighborhood that was on the agenda earlier tonight on Monaco Boulevard, where there was a question about whether it was appropriate to have apartments of any kind because renters, renters, you know, were inferior. They brought crime. Some of the same comments that were made tonight about crime and these other issues. And so lower property values, all of that. And so the challenge this city faces, I think, is what does good process look like if what you're not doing is going to a community and saying, do you give permission for someone else who's different than you to live there? And that is really tough. What does authentic process look like if what I'm not asking is permission? And so I don't think we have a great answer to that. We made clear mistakes here in this in this case, no question. And we've made them in many processes. But I think what I want you to know is that your concerns and your tensions are not without ears hearing them. And so for me personally, what my last few years on this council, watching these conversations happen has led me to is that we need a process that has leaders in neighborhoods coming together with people who provide services, together with the people who fund them and make the rules to say, here's what authentic process looks like. It's not permission, but it is. How do you want this relationship to look? How is it that you want to be engaged? How is it that you want to learn about the residents of this site? And how can we have the conversation differently than how it happened? Because I do believe we can do better and we can do different. But it may not ever get to the point where some folks get to say, you can't live next door to me because your income's different. That's not a place I think we can go. Just like in the history when we went there, it was wrong so we can do better and I'm convening that process. So in May we're beginning with a stakeholder group to. Come up with a model for how we talk about supportive housing for those who are exiting homelessness and how we have an authentic conversation. And we are. John Sathyan is one of the participants. And so we have members of more affluent communities and members of communities that are more diverse so that we can talk about how to do it better in. And so you can teach us and we can teach each other. So that's one thing. I don't want this to happen again and this is an action item to prevent that. The second thing is, how is it that you have more choices for where these different pieces go? I will tell you, one of the things that's interesting being an At-Large councilperson is I can count on all my fingers and all my toes, the neighborhoods I've been in in the last year who've told me they're the only ones getting these services. So I get to move all around. So I hear Globeville tonight saying, Why us? Why always dumping on us? And again, that word dumping has been hard for me to listen to tonight. I got to tell you, to use that word around human beings in their housing is has been tough. And so I'm just going to acknowledge that it's been hard to be empathetic with that word being used. But I've been in Capitol Hill telling me they get all the services. I've been in Curtis Park telling me they have all services. Southwest Denver has recently been telling me they have too many services I go to. And so there are services going in in almost every corner of this city because each of those neighborhoods tells me there's too many of them in their area. So one of the things that I get the privilege of doing in this At-Large seat is seeing that bird's eye view. Does that mean that there's enough opportunity for services everywhere? Nope, because guess what? That history of zoning is still there. So we have areas that are exclusively single family. We're not going to be creating the same opportunity for racial diversity as where there is multifamily zoning. So there is work to be done in this case with tiny home villages. Part of the reason there weren't a dozen more sites for the city to look at was because the zoning is so ad hoc. You heard a little discussion about the fact that it has to be a decision with an administrative appeal of an unlisted use. Right. That's all gobbledygook for saying the zoning code doesn't allow this. So I want to credit the city staff and the community who've been working in this group living process to create a path. But it was going to take a really long time for that. So I want folks to know that I will be bringing forward a public process in June with the department doing the hard lifting for there to be more sites zoned or these I'm sorry, not more site zoned, more zoning districts where this use is allowed so that there are more diversity of neighborhoods. And it's not just a small group of industrial areas or a small group of multifamily areas that there has to be some broader range so that there so that instead of us saying to you, we're sorry, but there were only two sites in the whole city, we could go because that was true. It was true because we have a land use barrier. So we're going to fix that land use barrier, I hope with the support of this Council and we'll have a public process and everyone will get to engage with the proposals that have been through some vetting. So so those are two concrete steps to try to change that history of inequity, the history of inequity, of land use, decisions being based on permission and the history of inequity in terms of where certain uses can go. It's it's happening after this debate. And I understand that. But what we can't do is answer the historic inequity with exclusion. Adding exclusion to people based on income in this neighborhood doesn't correct the history of inequity. And I will continue to advocate, just as I have been an advocate for the platform, open space in Globeville, for the investments that are needed. And it's took us way too long. It took us eight years. We're going to break ground this year, but that park is in one of the quadrants. There are many Globeville, right? There's for Globeville. I will continue to champion those investments, but exclusion is not the answer to inequity. And so for those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight while I work to make sure that this system is not so flawed the next time around. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kathleen Kennedy, Councilman New.
Speaker 10: Yeah, thank you, Ms.. Chair, I think you've heard several times tonight this process was flawed. There's no question about it was flawed. You know, you were given the respect that you deserve when this kind of decisions are being made, and we hate these kind of decisions on council as well, we respect that process to go smoothly because we want it to go smoothly. We want to make sure neighborhoods have a voice in what decisions are made about their neighborhoods. And we also believe in what's going to happen with the tiny homes, too. We're just desperate for affordable housing, especially for the folks. So I feel badly for what happened to you. And I look back at it, the just the lack of planning and communication about this whole process and, you know, and maybe it should have occurred when they first. Moved to their second site. Not even before you even considered. Maybe we should have been planning. Then. Where's that permanent military home? Couple of years ago for tiny homes, you know. In hindsight is great to say these things, but I think we need to be thinking much further ahead in the future so we can avoid these kind of situations like we like we're having tonight. So, you know, I'm going to be making my decision on an understanding that that there probably will be no license extension. I'm hoping there'll be no license extension on these property and that this property is going to come back to Globeville and the city is going to make an investment to make sure it's an asset for your community. So that's my understanding, and that's how I'll be making my decision to make and also call. I'll be expecting to see progress reports on what's going on with the planning for a permanent home as well as the is what's going to happen with this this site as well. So we'll expect to see some progress reports in the future about that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. So I'm going to start this by saying a few things. One, I appreciate folks being in the chambers and staying all the way to 1020 probably be a little while longer. So this neighborhood is is very near and dear to my heart. A lot of folks think I'll be West Sider, been in District three and represent District three for 12 years. West Side. I know this neighborhood very, very well. And I cut my teeth in this neighborhood. My mother was a teacher over at Swansea and I really younger years as a community organizer was under the mentorship of Lorraine Granado. I'm very familiar with the area. I before the idea of even doing anything 1970, we were knocking on doors and knocked on every single door in this whole corridor and got to know a lot of of priorities and needs. And these were this was years ago, almost 20 years ago. And one of those has been a grocery store. One of those has been a park. It's been so many different things. So I understand when people say, hey, look, this is a vacant parcel of piece of land. And as a neighborhood, we want to see something happen with these parts of land. But the truth is, is aside from a park, the city is not a developer, even though it owns the land doesn't mean it can just plop a grocery store down. I've tried that in my neighborhood for 12 years to try to get a big grocery store in the neighborhood. Cities. Not the fact. There are other factors that are beyond our control. We've created two new parks at a vacant land. So it is possible and it takes that leadership and that organization. So I'm going to say this and I'm sorry that we left because I wanted to address this as well to. You always have to have an open door. You always have to have an open door to communication, to negotiations. I am not happy with the way neighbors often pit against each other. I don't like this now, just like my my colleague, Councilman Ortega. We're here. Just. I'm here rubbing my forehead because it's frustrating. But it's not enough to say that this is flawed. We deserve better leadership and we deserve better a better approach of this. I hate when people come to council and say that. And and I get it. I get it. Say, hey, y'all, why did you do this? Y'all are making this up. Is not an initiative of the council's is brought in front of us to.
Speaker 0: For a vote.
Speaker 8: To consider Sun Valley is an excellent is an excellent example. Even though we knew that it was similar services for folks who don't have homes, we're going to be occupying a building that had been flattened, vacant. Homeless individuals with services living in the neighborhood. There was push back. Same arguments. We made sure that there was a neighborhood agreement. And folks in the neighborhood made sure that they were able to negotiate those terms. But the door has to remain open. And I have to and I have to say this, because these are other Globeville residents. These are other people who are no longer homeless. They have a home, albeit it's tiny. But I know some homes in Westwood that are tiny. I know folks who are living in converted garages in our neighborhood waiting for a two year designation so they can continue to live in the neighborhood that previously they could be homeless. I don't know. It's none of my business. All I know is they're my neighbors. I don't ask them where they get their income. I don't ask them how they get it. I just treat them with the same kind of respect. And I'm not putting the casting blame on anybody or anything else. But that's that's all we really have to take a look at now. I'm of the school of thought, though. I get it. Tiny homes were a solution because having people just outside isn't. Folks need a place so they can go home, iron their uniform for their job, and be able to go to work, to shower, to shave, to cook a meal, at least to get ready for the next day. Or else you cannot expect anybody to lift themself up from some kind of proverbial bootstrap. And yes, it is our responsibility in the public. It is a function of government to look after each other. Right? It is. And we have. And so what I wanted to say with that is that it's it's not necessarily I'm not slamming tiny homes when I say this because it is a viable solution. But the the best thing to happen is a home. What's better than a tiny home, a regular home? If there was affordable housing being built at this site, would there be the same kind of pushback? Because these are folks are often mostly homeless. I know in our in our neck of the woods, we've done everything possible to make sure that we create affordable housing where we have the opportunity to. As a matter of fact, that's going to come before us. Again, I have to say this, and I'm sorry to go on, but I just I got to really, really stress to community the importance of making sure when you're organizing to leave that door open or else you're not going to get anything out of it. You have to leave that door open. There has to it's it's not a zero sum game. The other thing is, I don't believe in burning scorched earth politics. I don't. That's not negotiation. That's not community organizing. And I want to put this out there because I got called out. When you organize and there's something you care passionately about, you give a best foot forward. My staff have been in my office for nine years. They have won. They are probably the most courteous not to take away from anybody else's time but their professional. They're really good people. They deal with a lot of phone calls on my behalf, a lot of mean stuff. A lot of a lot of just people coming in. They deserve the same kind of professional respect. They deserve the same kind of courtesy. They seem that they deserve to be treated with that respect and courtesy because when they're not, he ain't got no business in my office. I'm sorry. If you cannot come into the office and treat regular people who are just doing their job with respect, you ain't got no business with me. And I would do the same thing for anybody else. I come from the restaurant industry. I know when somebody's discourteous to me after serving them food, after taken a washing their plates, you can really judge a person by the the way they treat people who have nothing to offer them. I want to make sure and I wanted to say that with all love and respect. That's why. And I asked I love to meet with somebody else who can come in here and carry this flag in this cause and the importance of this voice in our neighborhood that can do it in a way that's respectful. It's courteous and we did. So I understand the issues. I just want to make sure that that that I wanted to put that out there. I'm not going to be a city councilman. Right. But for me, that that that's critical. I'm going to end by just saying this. I'm sorry. I went off on a tangent, Mr. President. I just. I really feel like I just had to put that out there. Mm hmm. The alternative is vacant land. Vacant land in a city that people are being priced out of. Vacant land in which some of your neighbors are being priced out of. Even some of our in our poorest neighborhoods are being priced out of vacant land and which somebody can call home. Let's call it home. Let's make sure it's not just in the poorer areas of this city. Let's make sure that it's in truly every corner of the city. And let's make sure that tiny homes aren't just the new standard, that they are regular homes. It is when I won't be on council. I hope to see this from another point of view, even if it's just as a citizen. But there is nothing to stop the city. From making these tiny homes bigger. And operating, and as such, nobody should be sitting, sleeping outside, being criminalized to do so, and then not an opportunity to live in a regular home. I'm not talking about single family. I'm just saying a regular home that is dignified. And that's what we all feel. Right. So I understand with all love and respect, I absolutely understand. But I'm telling you as your brother and as somebody who knows the neighborhood, somebody who was born and raised here, somebody who's been homeless, whose family had to move from places are all over the place. There's nothing like even if it's a two bedroom for six people, there's nothing like being able to come home to a shower and ironing. My poor messed up Dickie's to go to school the next day. It sure beats anything else. So with that, I'm going to be supportive of this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, we've got Councilman Espinosa up next.
Speaker 4: A lot of people know that before I was on council I was an architect and I think I've said it before from the dais that that's one of the things I definitely said in the community, that I think I said it from the dais before that one of the biggest sort of struggles that I had is that when you're in the architecture profession, everyone is hired by the property owner or the project owner. And even though there might be some animus among them, you know, some disagreement among the team between the owner, the architect and the contractor and subcontractors and everyone involved and consultants. You're still trying to complete the same thing. And so the other thing, though, that is different than this job is that everyone's employed. Everyone's like either a professional or in a trade. I mean, either a professional in in a design profession or consulting profession. They are wealthy because they own a project or they're a contractor in a at the scale that I did projects, they were pretty well-off contractors. In this role, you deal with people at all levels. And there's this thing called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and it deals with personalities and people who are, you know, at the base and are like looking for food. They're operating different than somebody who's got all of those things taken care of. So when you come to me as a community at the lowest levels of Maslow's pyramid, I don't expect you to treat me respectfully. I recognize that because you heard it here tonight. You have been disregarded. Tim Regan in the back. In the back. Know when these things came before council, before I said be prepared because this is a conversation we're going to have to have in the future. You can't put a temporary permit. You can't extend it without thinking about what you just set up. The real problem here is DHS not even in this room. Right. They're the ones that cleared their housing site ten years ago. And this group found an opportunity to make a case. And then DHS kicked off. That land is still vacant where you were. Today. It just sold for $15 million. Remember, I sold it for seven. Sold on February 6th. Good. New York, right. Or New York Trust Real estate company, apartment developer for 256 units are being planned for that site. Market rate. Somewhere in there was the capacity to house people for the better part of ten years. In a format like this. Somewhere in there was the ability to to collateralize that land value into something on site. There is an affordable housing component, the Curtis Part group. I believe that site remains vacant that was supposed to be owner occupied affordable housing, but at $80 115%. Ami, again, you could be there right now. That's the question I was going to ask John Hayden if he was still here. He's from Curtis Park. He says this needs to be in everybody's neighborhood. What could we put 12 units of tiny homes on that site if there's no plan going forward right now to that manifest or funded? So why it's really a problem for me and Dapchi is we just gave them 100 plus million dollars of bonded money. To do what they do. And that includes this. You know, there should be I'm not going to be on this dance, but there should be a priority on this council that our nonprofit partners anybody who is sitting on vacant land you all season there among them. Sorry guys. Every one of your properties that are sitting there fallow, unused, should be subject to required licensure for tiny home use. The effort to Councilwoman Canisius Point, though we should have a better process, but it should meet you where you're at and not expect you to come in like people on lead still. You know, they can go and have that fight at the highest levels because they hire the best attorneys. They hire the best consultants. Good luck with that, Globeville. They party with the best people. Seen it. I was in. I'm Jefferson. I was Jefferson Park. I moved there 20 years ago. It was Globeville. It is not Globeville anymore. We tried to keep ourselves in there at the same time. Is allowing new newcomers in. Guess what? Developers, wealthy developers, they don't ask. They just do. They acquire. They move forward. They they come to the city and make everyone fend for themselves. And so what started all this is I want to acknowledge the stress that you, you two gentlemen and and Jerry Burton particularly clearly communicated, which is I believe it it happened in my neighborhood where we're operating at a high level. DHS wanted to do a project that was completely incompatible with the neighborhood. Neighborhood put up a fight for two years. You know, but what they did when they came in is said, look, we're going to build this affordable housing. Housing is a crisis in this city. We're going to end around you and your community because this council won't turn down an affordable housing project that D.J. puts forward, because our priority and what we're doing is too important to listen to you. So I don't know if this crisis was legitimate because of the whole bunch of things that went wrong or if this was manufactured. That's conjecture. I'm telling you right now, I don't know. But man, if you wanted to force somebody something down a community's throat, put it in crisis. Right. And we will respond because we care. So the good news is, is we did care. You guys cared, everyone cared. And you got to this point where all said it was the licensure was one year plus two plus one plus one go and some got some concessions. But yeah, um, needed more time to get it right. The thing that frustrates me is we keep talking tonight about it should be everywhere. I don't know if this is going to turn around, but I had already mentioned my concern when we approved. This land tonight. That's the Shangri la property. That is city of county of Denver. Why not put a bunch of tiny homes on that nice grassy park on Shangri-La? You could put the entire village right now right there and put it in the community. That's not Globeville. So. And I'm telling you right now, there's an XL site in my district, 3938 in Irving that is decommission, demolished sometime in the next two years. That probably will come up for sale and the city will have first right of refusal, bring it to Northwest Denver, a cottage, a cottage village. Make you guys part of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, I won't be there. But I think all my predecessors, I mean, all my all the people vying for my seat would probably feel the same way, you know. So I you know, I just you guys, I already mentioned it in my questioning. You guys have been getting shafted. And so it's the difference between what you want and what you're getting. Right. You've been promised a lot, but you've been enduring way more than what you've been promising. Been promised. And what you've been promised isn't actually the things that you're you're desiring or needing. And so been talking about that thing for four years. These are things we can see why with some of us can see eyes wide open. And I think people in the community see it better than anybody. And but we. Don't we keep going the way we feel we're handcuffed to, not the way we even though we know we could do better? I think you're seeing you've this effort, this occupation of that site, the subsequent removal and the village and its iterations, along with a whole bunch of other things in the city, have finally moved the conscience of this city. To a place where we will be more accepting. We will have to figure this one out. I'm rambling now. I do it. I've done it a lot, and I'm doing it again. My the thing that I'm just getting at is $1.5 million for together Denver. Right. To oppose your effort against to fight the campaign which we could have done something about but the votes were never there. The the. But this project was $140,000. So you could have done ten of them for the amount of money donated to fight that effort. Why don't we come together on a solution? If we're telling everybody that it should be everywhere? You know, I think if we allowed two tiny homes on every block, you could do this in 16 blocks. What we're doing here now, we don't have the central services and things like that. And so there's real benefit to what is being proposed here. So what you're hearing from me is very, very a very, very torn attitude. Because I want to be there 100% with Globeville residents who are in opposition, because I understand where that's coming from, and I think it's real genuine and it's valid. We did create this crisis. We are in crisis mode and we need a solution. And I do think that this solution is actually good in the in in the regards that I was talking about before, which is I think globally, I think what we've done as a city to Globeville is made you guys the future of Denver , not the now of Denver. And recognizing that, owning that and saying, okay, we're going to make Denver mean Globeville as complete and as healthy as we can right now. We're going to work with them to sort of actually come up with a plan. And I think Tim's always been capable of this and has proven it, come up with a plan on how we're going to get there in five years and get that commitment from the mayor's office that we're going to fund those efforts on a strategic way. So that and we're going to do it in a way that we're going to address displacement and gentrification so that we have mechanisms so that you don't lose the equity that you've put into your home and that you that you've endured, you know, throughout this time and that the windfall that will eventually come because of all the other investments in that area land on your lap because I have seen too many households in Jefferson Park not have their properties. They've had their properties sold out from underneath them. The opportunity comes after they leave. And somebody who's totally not interested in the city but only interested in turning to profit pulls money out of the community so we can do better. We can do different. And the conversations are happening. It's it's too slow for me, but it's happening and you're making that happen. So that said. You know if I vote for this. No. Then it's because there's an end in sight. We have Tim in the northeast, in the north, you know, working on this. And I have a separate commitment and I'd love it if you'd not nod your head in an affirmative. Evan Dryer in the corner. But we have commitment from the mayor's office that we're going to follow through on the things these action plans once they've once they've been fully articulated and worked out with the community. Thank you. And so that was the only thing. And so all we have is near there now is their word, which is less than an agreement. And it's a lot what you've had already, but. I you know, I will be I am somewhat empowered by having the bully pulpit, and I'm using it right now. And hopefully after I'm out of office, if you guys aren't getting that follow through, you will hear about it from me. And I will go into your community and work with you to help make sure that those outcomes are achieved. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Following this issue, when it first came up after the the other site fell through, I had the feeling all along that we were being presented with a real Hobson's choice, which is really no choice at all. Hobson's choice is take it or leave it. And I know that that's how the Globeville community feels. But in a broader sense, it's worse than a Hobson's choice, because it's not take it or leave it. If if we were to vote no on this license, then the status quo does not remain. It changes. It changes for a dozen people. Voting no on this doesn't leave it the way it is. Voting no on this means that the tiny home village at 38th and Blake goes away and 12 people who are working on putting their lives back together and some of whom already have and have been replaced by new tenants , go back on the street. So voting no is not something I can do on this. And so I'll be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all for coming down. And as Councilman Brooks always reminds us, sitting on those hard chairs, hard views for so long. I want to thank the long time residents of Globeville. I want to thank you for loving your neighborhood and loving the city much more than the city. Loved you back for a long time. As as again, my colleague, Councilman Brooks pointed out Denver has awakened to the injustice and has begun trying to write some historic wrongs. If I was in your chair, I, I think you all are handling this issue and yourselves extremely well. And I appreciate that a great deal. You know, I spent a lot a lot of time in Globeville when I first came to Denver a lot of years ago. My friends Larry and Dean Moore lived up on 45th. And when I went back through the neighborhood recently to look at the property in question and drove down 45th, y'all had some great bones, some some wonderful older architecture that that I hope the city. Makes use of. And really turns this into something special. Not just another invisible community as far as the public process. You know, imperfect is such a lousy word for it. You know, it's terrible. It's just terrible. And it's it happens over and over that, you know, we all get so involved in in the projects that we're trying to create, that going out into the community doesn't happen at the first blush the way it should. And that needs to be changed. And along with Councilwoman Nature's efforts, Councilwoman Sussman and I are looking at formulating a stakeholder group to see what we can do in general in better supporting our neighborhood groups across the city and how we can do a better job of of that two pronged responsibility of having those neighborhood groups telling the neighbors what the city is doing and having those neighbors come back and and tell us what they think about what we're doing. We're also and as far as just looking at the tiny homes where a group of us will looks like be going down to Austin in in June to look at their community first project, their 51 acres that's looking at getting 500 people off the street now. Will we be able to replicate 51 acres? Maybe. I don't know where that plot of land is right now, but it's something that the Reverend Henderson said earlier that it's much more difficult to to build community than to build buildings. And it's something that we that we really need to do. I so appreciated some of my colleagues words about the demonizing of of not just the homeless, but of anyone in lower economic groups or race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation that still goes on. And we need to to do better at that. And I just want one thing that this just the whole discussion really frustrates me with is we're we're talking about 20 units. We all know the numbers that we need, not just for the homeless, but for our workforce, so on and so forth. And we need as a city to get way more in, way more focused and with with with more focused intent on where we're going to come up with the land to build this, because we need to find the land and we need to build. So I'm 110% behind a beloved community village. I'm 110% behind the Globeville neighbors, the the beginnings of what we're talking about, where the equity need to continue. And it can't just be a quid pro quo. Well, if we build this village here, we'll give you a 50 bucks or whatever. This needs to be a long term reparations. And again, I appreciate you all very, very much appreciate what you've done for decades and very much appreciate your handling of the situation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just sort of piggybacking what Councilman Cashman was talking about. The city has decided to follow the work that Seattle is doing around race inequity, and we have well in excess of 100 employees in our city who have been trained. But it can't be lip service. It has to be genuine and has to be done on the front end. We cannot keep, you know, treating low income neighborhoods, including our tiny home village folks in a different way than what we treat other neighborhoods. We have voted down requests that have come in before this body from affluent neighborhoods where neighbors didn't want a project in their neighborhood. But in this case, we're talking about a community that has I have a list here. So we've got Laird and Hall in Globeville. We have Salvation Army, which is the facility on Broadway. It's not open right now, but we're not sure what they're going to do with the site. There is homeless housing in the Polish Catholic Church that was done with Denver's road home. Mile High behavioral health is in the neighborhood on the other side of I-25. And then we have the Crossroads shelter that is also one of the largest shelters in the city that houses upwards to 500 people a night. That's part of the Globeville neighborhood as well. So. To say Globeville is not doing their part. I would argue that that question. I've served on the group living ordinance with with Kohl, who I have a great amount of respect for. And I actually said from this dais, we should have tiny home villages across the city that are permanent locations. We have not yet completed the work of the group Living Ordinance. But if we have the flexibility for our zoning administrator to be able to flex the rules to allow a three year agreement on this site, we should have been able to do that at the church location or any church locations where we know there are. There's a large amount of land, and there are at least a couple of addresses that I provided to Cole to take a look at that are in southwest Denver. That could be ideal for other locations in the city to be able to have tiny homes in their neighborhoods. I'm not sure where we're at in that process, but in this case. Our administration has to learn that respect and process matters. In all of our neighborhoods. It can't be. We pick and choose where we apply the rules. Right. They're either consistent or they're not. And I'm frustrated. I mean, because I have the greatest amount of respect for the work that has taken place with ensuring that we have housing for people who are living in our tiny homes right now and and really making a difference for the lives of these individuals. But at the same time, you know, we ignored process with neighbor, a neighborhood that has struggled with trying to get the attention and priorities that they want. Solving the dam flooding problem should have been a priority for the city. But guess what? We spent $300 million on addressing flooding. That does not a damn thing for Globeville. Right. That's that in itself. And I said this to our public works manager at the time This is a crime. How do we justify that? So you're hearing some of my frustration just having tried to, you know, be in the middle and work on behalf of these neighborhoods that are dealing with the monstrosity of a new highway project coming through their neighborhood, where half the damn time you can't get in and out of the neighborhood. I've tried to go to meetings where I've had to literally go all the way around to Suncor just to get to the neighborhood. So I know the struggles these neighborhoods are dealing with. And I say these because, you know, Globeville, Larry and Swansea are struggling with some of the same challenges. So I guess where we can flex the rules in one place to say we can make it work here, we should have been able to do that at the church site. And the fact that we didn't frustrates me, and I'm hoping that with the changes that will be coming forward with the group Living Ordinance, it not only gives us more changes and more flexibility for our tiny homes, but with many of our other group living categories that will hopefully free up opportunities for people who are struggling across this city to find something they can afford to live in. And I'm committed to the work that that the group has been doing, along with my colleague, Councilwoman Canete, who who's been serving on that process as well. I am concerned about the safety of the individuals who will be living on this site because of the proximity to the railroad and the fact that we have hazardous materials that daily, multiple times throughout the day are are on that track right next to the site. The drainage issue is is one that we know that this side of of Washington experience is flooding. And it may not be at the same velocity as the taxi site, but I don't know what that will look like if we have a really bad rainstorm. So are we are we intentionally putting people in harm's way? I don't know. I don't know. But I am concerned about the safety of people who will be on that site. I appreciate the work that's being done around the other safety issues that we talked about. I think that will provide some some greater safeguards, if you will, not only for the residents of Globeville, but for the rest of the people who will be living on the site. I really want to support this. I'm frustrated with the process. I want to support the Globeville neighborhood in all of what they have struggled to achieve and to try to make sure that there is this solid community agreement. And I would say if this goes forward tonight, I heard a pretty clear commitment from Cole that regardless of you all signing it tonight, that there is a commitment to still have a community engagement effort ongoing. You called it a community advisory committee or whatever the appropriate name is. But that. The fact that there is no official group signing the agreement doesn't mean that there's no dialog back and forth. And I know Cole has that commitment, and I think the mayor's office is committed to ensuring that that process continue as well. So at this point, I just think that as a city, we need to do a better job in addressing just the the basic needs of folks in our community. I mean, we're still dealing with a community that has no curb, gutter and sidewalk, even at this very site we're talking about and throughout other parts of this neighborhood. And I've said to my colleagues, one of the things we should be doing is making sure that with our, you know, skip process, where we get to set priorities and have influence and input into the administration. Every neighborhood in this city should have a basic standard of living. We shouldn't still have neighborhoods without curb, gutter, sidewalk, where kids literally have to walk in the street to go to school because they don't want to walk in the mud. Right. So these are some things that that I think we have more work to do on. And yes, maybe Globeville and Illyria and Swansea are getting a lot of money spent in their neighborhoods, but it's on some of the infrastructure that has been needed, like the pedestrian overpass that we just had a groundbreaking for a couple of weeks ago where kids literally climb in between train cars that are stopped, unmanned train cars because they don't want to be late to school. So these are these are basic priorities for these neighborhoods. So I'm going to stop at that and I will probably vote for this, but I'm going to do it reluctantly because I'm I Evan , we have to do a better job. We cannot have another one of these brought before this body and and expect this council to just fall in line when we have not, you know, done the right job. So and I don't mean to single you out, but you're a point guy here from the mayor's office. So. Anyway, thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other comments. I'll just end by saying thank you again for all of you, for coming down here, for spending your time and your passion, for being respectful of one another in a difficult room and in coming braving the weather in security. So thank you for that. I'll echo what a lot of people up here said and that this is a very difficult position to be put in between two communities, both of whom the city has not done a good enough job for and to have to try to try to come out of it with a yes or no vote is is not a situation that I think anybody up here wants to be in. These are not two communities who should be pitted against each other. These are two communities that we should be as a city, working to lift up and to support both of. And unfortunately, what we have here is a yes or no vote where there is a winner and there there's a loser. And I wish we were in that situation, but that's the vote that we have in front of us. So for that, I'm sorry. And I do hope that we have a better process. And I do hope that this council really does push back on some of the things that have been said tonight about about every part of the city doing their part and making sure that this conversation is city wide. So with that, I think Councilman Flynn probably said it best as a no vote on this. I mean, some people who are housed right now are homeless. And for me, it's a difficult decision. But I will be voting yes to make sure that those people stay housed. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Brooks Black.
Speaker 9: Espinosa.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 3: Flynn. All right.
Speaker 9: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 4: Herndon, I.
Speaker 9: Cashman.
Speaker 6: All right. Can each.
Speaker 8: I knew, huh?
Speaker 9: Ortega.
Speaker 2: A reluctant I. Sussman, I.
Speaker 9: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please. Because the voting announced results 1313 as Council Resolution 367 has passed, saying no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Revocable License between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative for a tiny home village site located at 4400 Pearl Street.
Approves a revocable license agreement with Colorado Village Collaborative for $10 and for one year with two additional one-year extensions at the City’s sole option, for use of city-owned property for the use of a tiny home village, located at 4400 Pearl street in Council District 9 (FINAN-201947500-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-20-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-16-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04222019_19-0349
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out. Miss anything. All right, ma'am. Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 349 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Certainly. I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded questions and comments by members of Council Council in Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry to take time away from tonight's very important meeting, but an incredible amount of energy has gone into this extremely modest compromise, and it's been quite an experience. I'm not even sure how the vote will go tonight, especially with certain absences, but I've got quite a few things I'd like to say about it. I've been asked why I even bother to work on this issue, and there are four reasons. The first reason is the voters. I feel like there's a disconnect with our voters. Millennials are Denver's largest demographic group. I think we've seen that in our recent elections and they overwhelming whelming support this industry. Denver voters have approved multiple marijuana measures, both locally and at the state level. Amendment 64 passed in a landslide with two thirds of the Denver voters in support, with some of the highest support in District one and District ten. In November of 2016 over Denver, voters approved the neighborhood supported social consumption pilot program. And we need.
Speaker 9: To honor that.
Speaker 10: The second reason I've worked on this is kids. The purpose of this initiative was to protect kids from seeing and smelling consumption in parks, on sidewalks, the 16th Street Mall and along our rivers. There are multiple protections in place to protect kids in neighborhoods, including the fact that neighborhood support is needed, which will greatly restrict what neighborhoods are available, and give communities power additional protections for kids and neighborhoods, including a required public hearing. The fact that consumption cannot be visible from the outside, unlike a bar and signage, cannot indicate that there is consumption going on inside. All of these things protect kids. I'm really perplexed by people who are opposing this in the name of kids. It seems to me that they would be in support of concealing consumption from kids by opposing it. Are they saying that they're okay with people smoking pot in our parks? I find that completely illogical. I'm also perplexed why, in the name of protecting kids, we don't hear from the same people about bars being next to schools or our general acceptance and celebration of alcohol, which is a far more widespread and dangerous product, especially for kids. I have the feeling that most of the people opposed are actually marijuana prohibitionists who still oppose legalization and Amendment 64. So they come out in force to oppose all things marijuana, no matter how impractical. The third reason I've continued to work on this is business fairness. This industry is far more regulated, restricted and taxed than any other industry. We collect a lot of tax revenue, which we all welcome. This council voted unanimously to increase the marijuana sales tax to fund affordable housing, and I presume we all hope that those revenues will go up. It seems contrary to me that we heavily taxed the industry. We welcome sales to tourists, but we won't give them a legal place to consume. The fourth reason I pursued this is the process. There was a four part process. The first part was when voters approved the law. The second part was excise and license. After their advisory committee, they added restrictions over the objections of many, including the proponents, who believe that the setbacks are frustrating the intent of the voter approved initiative. The task force unanimously agreed that the distance requirements were preventing prospective businesses from finding a viable and available location, and the task force recommended either eliminating the added setbacks or creating an exemption. After six committee meetings, council members were not supportive of the task force recommendation, but there was support for this very modest compromise to reduce the added setbacks to 500 feet while maintaining the 1000 foot setback from schools. For those council members who are wanting to wait until the state hospitality law passes. I do hope you understand that the state law includes a business model exactly like the one that Denver's voters approved. The state law will not provide any guidance on how Denver should regulate, nor does it create setbacks. The state law does provide another business model allowing consumption in stores. So for those council members who are opposed because they don't like this voter approved business model, I wonder if you'll be leading the charge for the city to adopt consumption in some of our over 250 stores across the city. And with that, a reminder that this proposal is more restrictive than the federal drug free zone law. The intent of the voter approved initiative was to protect communities and children from seeing and spelling public consumption, and that by reducing the added setbacks with this modest compromise, some businesses will have the opportunity to find a location and provide that out of public view opportunity for our taxpaying consumers. I hope you will consider supporting this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 10: Was it councilman before that?
Speaker 0: You were next.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you very.
Speaker 10: Much. I was able to serve on the task force for this particular ordinance. And yes, it was the general consensus of the task force that there were restrictions that thwarted the will of the voters. And the outcome has made it evident since there are only two social consumption businesses in the city. The task force was made up of many voices on both all sides of the perspective. Then importantly, the neighborhood representatives agreed that the distance requirements were too restrictive, most significantly because they continued the concentration of marijuana businesses in minority and low income neighborhoods. One needs merely to look at the maps to see how it is perpetuated by the thousand foot restrictions. There are also many other restrictions that were not part of the ballot issue. I think that the the task force was made up of many folks thinking about what we should do, and particularly for the safety of children, certainly was top of our mind. Reminded me a little bit about the short term rentals where we worked on it forever, but we also established an advisory group for short term rentals so that they could sort of follow as the ordinance goes, pass and tweak it as we go along, which we have with short term rentals, and perhaps we might be able to do something like that if this ordinance passed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I just made an extensive comments last week, so I will reference those about the evidence in terms of marijuana. Risk is mostly determined by, for younger kids, their home environment, their level of parental contact, and their level of involvement in activities. And for older children, the biggest determinant to deter kids is based on their peer group as well as that parental involvement again. So there is really strong evidence on how to deter children from marijuana use, and none of it has to do with the distance by which something is inside of a building from them. But so I will reference all of that from last week. But I just have one question for our legislative counsel, if I may, Ms.. Crawford, if you could answer for me. So if this ordinance does not pass tonight, so the ordinance stays as it was passed by voters, and then the rules that were passed by excise and license are challenged based on the fact that they may not be within the authority of the voters. In terms of, you know, if a court were to decide that, what would be the result if those rules were struck down? What would the distance requirements be if the if the rules were struck down by a court? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. So the question you present is, you know, analyzing a litigation claim. And I think, you know, certainly there could be a viable claim that was brought that talks about the rules, frustrating the intent of the initiative. But the outcome is up in the air and we don't know what a court would do. And we don't know at this point what what the evidence would show in a court's mind. But I guess the the underlying question that you're also asking is how would someone frame a claim more so if if the rules were struck down, would there be any distance requirement from day care centers, from pools if those rules were found to not be in compliance and they were struck down? The reason it's a it's a complicated question, and it is something that I can't step in the shoes of the court and determine where they would go, whether they would determine whether they have the authority to permanently enjoying the city from from enforcing the rules. I suppose that could happen. Okay. Let's let's do the question in reverse then. So my I would posit that we're at risk we are at risk of the rules being struck down altogether, which would mean the only distance requirement would be schools. You're not you don't want to weigh in on the odds of that. And I understand, but it's a possibility if we pass this ordinance tonight. Then what we have, the ordinance will have distance requirements in it and the rulemaking process becomes. Yeah that that's right. I think there is at least an argument from, from your perspective that you're actually codifying this in an ordinance and then the distance requirements are something that only could be changed by council. Okay. Thank you. I just I wanted to clarify that and I realize I didn't do a very good job framing my questions. Right now, we have some debate about whether the department had the authority to pass the rules they passed or not. If you really like distance requirements, putting 500 foot distance requirements in the ordinance is much safer than having there be no distance requirements in the ordinance for anything other than schools and taking your chances with whether they're challenged and whether they're struck down. So that's the point I would offer to colleagues who really want to see some 500 foot who really want to see distance from daycare centers, pools and these other things. This is putting them in the ordinance where they can't be challenged, as you know, beyond the scope of the rulemaking authority. So that that's my poorly tortured legal question point. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 11: Along that same line of thinking to our attorney. How vulnerable would we be to such a such litigation if from this day, as we just acknowledged prior to this vote, that there are ample opportunities in communities of color and and lower income neighborhoods, because what then it's saying is that these social consumption opportunities, the industry doesn't want to build social consumption opportunities where they have no problem growing their product and that they only want to do that in more affluent communities. That would be sort of opened up by virtue of a vote. So, I mean, you can't at one time say there are opportunities that are just not where these businesses want to locate and at the same time say we're not granting the opportunity for social consumption was you know, so is a vote to not decrease the limitations really make us susceptible to any sort of litigation on that front.
Speaker 9: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. It's a similar question posed a different way, but I think there's not any way for me to determine what a court would do if a claim was was brought about frustration. I think a court would look to the evidence and try to determine what are the reasons that that the businesses are not finding locations. I do think to a point that Councilwoman Canete made in our at the time of the hearing that the rules talk about excise and licensing, having the authority to administer and enforce, and that perhaps this goes beyond that. But there's just no way for me to guess what a court might do.
Speaker 11: And would that be a 1 to 6 action should those actions have been made within 30 days of that rulemaking or.
Speaker 9: No, no, not likely. You might see it in the form of just a complaint or a declaratory judgment.
Speaker 11: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Actually, my question was addressed in the last line of questioning. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. I don't see anybody else in the queue. All right. Well, before we vote, I'll just end by saying, first of all, thank you to Councilwoman Black. We had a lot of task force meetings. We had a lot of committee meetings. We had a long meeting last time. And here we are again. So thank you for doing this, especially because it was called out in the ordinance that this was a part of the function of what we do, you know, as serving on the task force and being personally someone who did not vote for this ordinance when it first passed. I you know, I am a little surprised that we're here struggling to even do this, because this was, I think, a very conservative attempt at a compromise to something where there is one business license. The voters voted and said, we as the citizens of Denver want this. And the system that we have has has led to only one. Maybe you could argue two, although that one quickly went out of business for now, I guess two licenses. And so I think that it is incumbent upon us, no matter whether we supported this or not in the beginning, to try to live up to the voter's intent as best we can. And I think that what the task force pushed for was an even more aggressive approach to open that door. And I think where we landed was about the most conservative approach that you could take the one next small step to see if that door opens. And I'm not sure that even by opening that door, we would end up with, you know, more than a handful of licenses citywide as compared to what we have for consumption of alcohol. So I thank you for for sticking with this and for bringing it forward. I will be supporting this. I hope that my colleagues will support it. And we can take that one step towards seeing if that makes a difference in honoring the voter's intent. So councilmembers, a quick reminder that any referred ordinance adopted by a vote of the people may be amended or repealed by city council only by a two thirds vote. So nine affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes. Our counts of council are required to pass this bill this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 10: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 2: Espinosa No.
Speaker 3: Flynn No.
Speaker 8: Gilmore No.
Speaker 3: Herndon No. Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Can.
Speaker 3: Lopez I.
Speaker 2: Knew.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Ortega Sorry. Sussman.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting in those results.
Speaker 2: Seven, nine, five nays.
Speaker 0: Seven ays, five nays, custom bill 349 has failed. 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. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put the proclamation resolutions and for adoption and the bill on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 10: Yes, Mr. President. I move that proclamations and resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. Numbered zero 4 to 1 334327332333209330212299306307. And that looks like it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. Hi, Brooks.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore.
Speaker 8: I Herndon.
Speaker 2: I Cashman. Hi. Can each find Lopez. Hi, New Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please call the voting announced results.
Speaker 2: 1212.
Speaker 0: Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a combined public hearing on Council Bill 302 approving and accepting Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Council Bill 303 Approving and accepting Blueprint Denver.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance concerning designated consumption area setback requirements.
Designated consumption areas will be permitted to operate at least 1000 feet from of a school, 500 feet of a Child Care Establishment, 500 feet of a alcohol or drug treatment facility; 500 feet of a city-owned recreation center or city-owned outdoor pool. Council member Black approved direct filing this item on 4-11-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04222019_19-0302
|
Speaker 0: On the wall you'll see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the meeting and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council's hold and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please vote Council Bill 302 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Certainly I move that council bill 19 served three zero to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded before we go into the hearing. Councilman Cashman, I understand that you have some amendments to offer this evening so that speakers may address these amendments during their comment period. If they should choose to. Would you do a brief description of them now?
Speaker 5: I will. Thank you, Mr. President. And I do not take lightly putting an amendment on the floor at this point, but for reasons I'll discuss a little bit more later, I felt it was important to do so. Later this evening, I will offer an amendment to Council Bill 302 to change the clerk's reference number to the Filed Comprehensive Plan to allow for inserting the following sentence on page 57 of the Comprehensive Plan under the environmentally, environmentally resilient introduction. And that amendment reads, The science is clear. Our planet is facing a global crisis attributed largely to human behavior that is changing climate patterns around the world. This environmental emergency threatens to alter our normal landscape, limiting where we can live, where we can grow our food, and how we are able to access natural resources. 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. I will also offer an amendment to Council Bill 303 to change the clerk's reference number to the Filed Blueprint, Denver to allow for inserting the following sentence on page 27 of Blueprint Denver under the Vision Introduction. Same sentence, but I'll read it again. The science is clear. Our planet is facing a global crisis attributed largely to human behavior that is changing climate patterns around the world. This environmental emergency threatens to alter a normal landscape, limiting where we can live, where we can grow our food, and how we're able to access natural resources. 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. Mr. President, I'll just add that this amendment has been put together with the cooperation of community planning and development and the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Cashman. The combined public hearing for Accountable 302 and Counsel 303 is open. Speakers may addressed either or both bills, including the amendments that Councilman Cashman just read out and will offer up with each bill when we vote later this evening at the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each bill and separately on the amendments as well. So with that, may we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Hi. Good evening. Members of city council. My name is Jill Jennings Gorelick and I am the interim executive director for community planning and Development. And I I'm absolutely thrilled to be here in front of you tonight to present the final draft of Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. Based on three years of hard work by tens of thousands of Denver residents, neighborhood groups, community leaders and city staff, these plans reflect our shared community vision for an inclusive, connected and healthy city. I want to thank City Council for all of your time that you have put into shaping these plans. Your extensive review, countless briefings with staff and invaluable assistance to help us schedule public meetings has helped make tonight possible. I also want to thank the thousands of Denver ites who took the time to engage in this process and give us their thoughtful comments. These plans reflect their voice and we are excited to see them adopted and to begin implementation as we start that work of implementation. We look forward to continuing to partner with the community to make this vision a reality. Through such things as using zoning to improve residential design, protecting historic neighborhoods, and integrating cultural heritage into our preservation program, supporting public works and their updates to Denver street design standards for safer, greener, high quality streets and sidewalks, and creating a citywide incentive for building affordable housing near transit. Just to name a few. I will now turn it over to Sara Showalter, who will present the staff report on Comprehensive Plan 2040. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Joe. Good evening, City Council. I'm Sara Showalter with Community Planning and Development. And I'm going to talk about concert Comprehensive Plan 2040. So I just wanted to start with a quick reminder that we have a great foundation comprehensive plan. 2000 was a good starting point for us as we launched this process three years ago, and there's still some great values and vision components of that plan that we're carrying forward in the draft plan. Before you tonight, I also wanted to remind everybody that comprehensive plan 2040 is part of the Denver right package of plans that we've been working on for three years now. As a reminder, that includes five total plans, comprehensive plan 2040 plays the role of really tying all of those plans together. Denver Right. Was a very, very robust community outreach process. We were committed to try and reach as many people in Denver as we could. That includes all the different geographies of our city as well as as many demographics as we could hit as well. So we really focus on how do we engage people in different ways throughout the process. This included having traditional public meetings and community meetings was a huge component, but it also included a lot of other techniques to try and reach as many people as possible. So some of the different tools that we use was our website. We had a great interactive website with lots of surveys that included map based surveys where we could get comments on draft maps in the plan. We also had paper surveys that we brought, particularly to some of the focus groups that we did in communities that don't have as much online access. We did a lot of events, but we called our street team, which was a great group of staff and volunteers that went out to meet people where they are, recognizing that some people may never come to a public meeting, but we still want to hear from them. We, of course, also had a lot of volunteers that spent countless hours working on the different plans through the task forces, as well as the Denver right think tank. And we did office hours throughout the community as well, which was more focused on one on one time with staff for people to really dove into the content of the plans. I mean, all together that totaled over 25,000 touch points from the community. We don't have a way to track exactly how many different individuals participated because many people participated multiple times, taking different surveys, coming to different meetings. But we know it was well over 25,000 pieces of input received. And this is just a summary again of all the different tools we used. This is also a map showing how much we tried to reach every city council district throughout the city, going to the far corners of our city as well as the Corps. And through all of that community input and the many, many voices that we heard from, we were able to develop what we call our six vision elements that are the foundation of Denver. Right. And in particular, the foundation of the comprehensive plan. These are the six vision elements before you all walk through them. If folks aren't able to read them on the screen in just a minute and just wanted to remind everybody the role that the comprehensive plan plays, this document really is about what do we want Denver to be over the next 20 years? What are our values as a city and what are the important policies that guide us as we make decisions in the future? So all of those vision elements come together and they also have informed a series of goals under each vision element that tie together all of the plans that we have as a city, not just Denver. Right. Plans, but other plans, too, like the Climate Action Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver. And imagine 2020, we really worked extensively across multiple departments in the city to reflect what we heard from the community, but also bring components of these city plans together and show how it's all interconnected and formed by the same vision. And so the way that the plan is organized, so there's a short chapter on each vision, and that vision element contains goals and then more detailed strategies. Under the goals we also have where to find more for each vision element, which is basically kind of a guide to point you to all the plans that are more that are most relevant to that vision element with more detailed strategies on how we'd actually implement. So we really want the comprehensive plan to play a role of bringing all of our plans together and kind of stitching them into one vision framework. So very quickly, I will walk through what's in each of those chapters. This is by no means a comprehensive review that the draft plan was included for you, and it's been online in its final form for people to view as well, but wanted to hit the highlights. So under the first vision element, equitable, affordable and inclusive, we very intentionally put this vision element first. I would say of all the community input, we heard the concerns around equity and really building an inclusive city where we have the ability for everyone who wants to afford to live here to do so was a huge theme. So some of the topics that you'll find addressed in the. Goals and strategies in this chapter deal with affordable housing, with equitable access to all the services and amenities that our city needs. Mitigating involuntary displacement for residents and businesses. Education. And really trying to integrate equity into all the work we do as a city. Thinking about how we can better integrate it into decision making, including things like our budget decisions and all of the plans that we do moving forward. Strong and authentic neighborhoods. We also heard so much about this from the community. We have so many wonderful, unique neighborhoods in Denver, and preserving them, reflecting what makes them so unique was very important to the community. So we have a lot in this chapter about urban design, historic preservation, creating complete neighborhoods.
Speaker 8: And.
Speaker 13: Safety was also another big concern that came up that's addressed here connected, safe and accessible. This element is really all about mobility, how we get around the city, making sure people feel safe. And we've designed a safe transportation network for all of our users, people of every age and every ability. It's also very much about providing the highest and best range of options for people and really thinking about what that means in terms of implementing and advancing a multimodal network. And this vision element, economically diverse and vibrant, is very much about how we can have a rounded economy in Denver, well-rounded economy that's diverse and sustainable and able to weather downturns because of that diversity. It's also very much about on the vibrant component, the arts, culture and creative industry that makes for a strong economy and a vibrant city environmentally resilient. This was a huge theme that we heard a lot from the community about. It is really important and it focuses a lot on climate change and the realities of that and what it will mean for Denver if we don't continue to work to adapt and mitigate climate change. Also, a lot about water and the importance of water conservation, solid waste reduction, protecting all of our waterways and the river in Denver , as well as green infrastructure, stormwater, soil remediation and as well. Another big topic under resiliency is emergency planning and making sure that we have a city ready and prepared for any large event that might come our way. And then we have healthy and active. We also heard a lot from the community about how much they treasure living in a city where we have access to mountain parks. We have so many great open spaces and trails and recreation and how vital that is to our vision going forward. This this vision element also says a lot about increasing and making sure we have equitable access to the health services that everybody needs, as well as including health analysis, which is something we already do in a lot of our plans, but looking for opportunities to advance that even more into our work as a city. And the final chapter in the comprehensive plan. This is an example where we use the Comprehensive Plan. 2000 is a great foundation. That document had a lot in it about the importance of regional collaboration. Still a very, very important theme now, and we're very aware that many of the vision elements in this plan can truly only be implemented with regional collaboration. Whether you're thinking about a transit network or our goals for open space and affordable housing, regional solutions will be really important. And as the core of the region and the city, that's the model for everybody. This chapter really tries to set the standard that Denver will be a model but also help read lead regional collaboration. There's a lot more in the plan. Happy to answer more questions tonight, but we have a lot of people here to speak. So I want to keep things moving. And I will close by saying that the proposed comprehensive plan 2040 conforms with our code requirements for a city comprehensive plan and staff recommends approval. And now I'm going to turn it over to David Gaspar to do a presentation on Blueprint Number.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Sarah. President Council. David Gaspar, Principal City Planner and Community Planning, Development and Project Manager for this update to Blueprint Denver. As with Sarah, we do want to mention that we are building off of an existing plan document blueprint. Denver, 22. If you're familiar with the appendix of the new plan, we did a thorough diagnostic of Blueprint Denver, which has been guiding our land use and transportation since that adoption and has served us very well. Moving forward to the new plan is in front of you today. It is our land use and transportation plan for growing and inclusive. Denver And we have three key elements to move that forward. First would be the addition of social equity factors to tailor solutions by neighborhood in the plan. It also contains a measured, common sense approach to growth in Denver out to 2040, and it does that by working on creating complete neighborhoods and connecting those complete neighborhoods across all of Denver with a complete multi-modal transportation network. When adopting a supplement to the comprehensive plan, there are three criteria to follow. It's an inclusive community process was used to develop the plan, that the plan was consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan, and that it demonstrates a long term view. So I'll just walk through those three questions with you tonight and try to answer them. So first, was an inclusive community process used to develop a blueprint? Denver Sara has already mentioned the considerable amount of Denver Rite Outreach with the 25,000 touch points. So I won't bring that back. But I do want to highlight our task force, which has 33 community members that were tasked to guide the plan throughout the entire process. They did bring an immense amount of professional, personal and community expertize to the process. And also they worked as a liaison back to the community to communicate how the plan was evolving. 20 meet meetings over a three year period at the task force met. Those meetings were open to the public and they provided feedback. Feedback on the community, values, vision elements, plan framework, draft maps and the draft recommendations that are in front of you tonight. We also had an equity subcommittee that was formed out of the task force, and they analyzed the public review draft of the plan, focusing on racial equity and institutional racism. We had six different community engagement windows ranging from 1 to 6 months throughout the three year process that included two public review drafts, the first being released in August of 2018 and then a revised public draft two coming out this January. Communication. Additional outreach thanks to the umbrella of Denver. Right. We had a significant amount of promotion of the planning process, which was great. Much help from council members, too, to get the word out on on all the efforts. We had a robust website that had all the Denver right plans in one location. Our public comments that were received through the public drafts were actually posted on our that website. We also had annotated versions of the drafts as we were trying to show our responses to those comments. We had translation services of of the key plan documents and the website content interpretation services and child care were available to public meetings and additional outreach. Focusing on underrepresented communities was another key component of the process. So start finding his blueprint. Denver was developed through an inclusive public process. Next is playing consistency. Is the plan consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan? Those are the six vision elements that Sara just went through with you. So I'll just step through each one of those and highlight the Blueprint Demo recommendations and how they advance. The comprehensive plan, first and foremost, with equitable, affordable and inclusive is the strong commitment to equity. We have those three equity concepts in our vision chapter and we also speak about completing creating complete neighborhoods for everyone in all of Denver, across all of our neighborhoods. It advances affordable housing and housing diversity in all of our neighborhoods and considers the potential for involuntary displacement with city led projects. Second Comprehensive Plan Vision elements Strong and Authentic Neighborhoods Blueprint Denver Recommendations focus on complete neighborhoods with increased access to amenities, high quality urban design in all of our neighborhoods, working to preserve the authenticity and character of our neighborhoods and empowering more people to be involved in planning processes, especially our small area plans as we go forward. Next Rear Vision element excuse me connected, safe and accessible places. Blueprint Denver presents the complete multimodal network to connect our neighborhoods and supports the city's Vision Zero Action Plan and mode share goals. It has recommendations related to equitable access to opportunity and services throughout Denver and focuses on growth near transit, especially in our centers and corridors. The economically diverse and a vibrant vision element here were focused on providing a diverse economy for all of Denver with a great mix of jobs throughout the city. Our job growth is focused on our regional centers, community centers and corridors with equal access to those job areas. We have targeted investments for small, locally owned businesses. Recommendations to preserving high value manufacturing areas and also promoting the innovation economy, including handcrafted maker spaces. With environmentally resilient blueprint. Denver has recommendations addressing climate change and how to mitigate environmentally responsible resource and efficient building practices. Another recommendation has recommendations related to the landscaping requirements being climate appropriate, recommendations on environmentally friendly and green infrastructure in development, and also managing stormwater as a holistic ecological system as well as in recommendations on improve air quality and water quality. And finally, with healthy and active, we never had recommendations, increasing opportunities for a healthy lifestyle, supporting greater health considerations and analysis for more city wide programs, and expanding tools and regulations to ensure high quality parks and open space throughout the city. So staff finds that blueprint is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040. And finally, a long term view. Does the plan demonstrate? A long term view? We remember establishes a vision for an inclusive city of complete neighborhoods and networks in 2040. Plan recommendations are based on that long term holistic vision and will take many years to achieve. So staff finding is that blueprint never has an appropriate long term perspective. And we are here tonight with our counsel hearing on April 22nd. So a staff recommendation based on the findings, I believe, from Denver, using an inclusive public process is consistent with a comprehensive plan 2040 and that the plan takes the long term view. Stack recommends adoption of Blueprint Denver. That concludes the staff presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have 58 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if I can if you're sitting in this front bench, I'm going to ask you, unfortunately, to move somewhere else so that we can bring a remembering five people at a time up to the front so that we can get through people and get people right to the microphone. So if you wouldn't mind, could you clear a little bit of room in that front bench for five? So I'm going to call you up five at a time with 58 people. You may find that by the time your name gets called, someone has already said what you wanted to say. And so feel free to reference other people who have spoken. You don't need to use all 3 minutes if you don't need it, but they are yours to use. So with that, if I call your name, if you could please come up to the front bench Kimball Kringle, Joel Noble, Terrence Wear, Chris Pelkey and Abdur Ali. If you want to come up to the front right now. So you're ready. As soon as I call your name, the next time, then your time will start to lapse. So step, step right up to the microphone. First up, Kimball Kringle.
Speaker 9: Hi. Good evening. My name is Kimball Kringle, and I had the great honor and distinction of being one of two co-chairs for Blueprint Denver. Joel, you'll hear from next. I'm here tonight to voice my support and urge you to pass Blueprint Denver tonight. I do need to pay a great deal of thanks to the members of our task force, many of whom are here tonight. Our task force represented a diverse group of stakeholders that represented their various community groups and stakeholder groups. Our task force has been committed and dedicated. We've been total pains in the butt to staff over the last three years in the sense that we all pushed. We pulled. We asked. We were impassioned. We called out. We read. We edited. We asked more questions. We asked for subcommittee processes. And in the long run, we made Blueprint a very thorough and guided document from the various stakeholders that we all represent. This plan is what it is because of the stakeholders and the community input that guided this document. Blueprint Denver provides the foundation for policy related to land use, mobility, design and growth since the 22 blueprint Denver was passed. We've seen tremendous growth in the city, growth that's presented great opportunity, but also incredible challenges. We know that this growth is going to continue. By passing Blueprint Denver we get to account for what thousands of residents and stakeholders have asked for to guide growth through the lens of social equity. To be honest about institutional barriers based on race to improve urban design, to direct growth to centers and corridors tied to transit, and to emphasize neighborhood area planning. Equity is a term that you'll hear about a lot tonight. Equity is when everyone, regardless of who they are or where they come from, has the opportunity to thrive. This plan integrates equity into our planning policy without accounting for and adjusting for this equity. The forces of change will prevent our city from achieving the vision of an inclusive and complete city. We set the stage to advance equity through improving access to opportunity, reducing vulnerability to displacement, and expanding housing and jobs. Diversity in all of our neighborhoods by guiding implementation actions. We can have a more inclusive and equitable city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, John Noble.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Council. President Members of Council. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street. It's been my privilege to serve as co-chair of the Blueprint Denver Task Force for the past three years. As you heard from Kimball, we had a large and diverse task force ensuring that public engagement reached and continued to hear from communities that they're a part of. In all parts of the city. I believe that comprehensive plan 2014 meets all the requirements of the Denver Revised Municipal Code and Blueprint. Denver meets the requirements of Comprehensive Plan for adoption, namely, an inclusive community process was used to develop Blueprint. Denver And I'd like to point out the time frame for Blueprint. Denver was extended based on public requests for additional time to comment on the first public draft and an entirely new public draft that was not in the original plan. Blueprint Denver is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of Comp Plan 2040, a very successful strategy to develop them together. Under the Denver Right family approach and blueprint, Denver demonstrates a long term view blueprint. Denver is a worthy evolution of the original blueprint. Denver for the next 20 years, whereas the original blueprint Denver set the intention of linking land use and transportation blueprint. Denver 2019 goes much further. Being co-developed with Denver moves, transit pads and trails and informed by Denver moves bikes. It sets modal priority for streets, identifies pedestrian priority areas, and deeply incorporates vision zero principles calling for complete streets policies and new street design guidelines. Whereas Blueprint Denver 2002 described a simplistic and often misunderstood concept of areas of change in areas of stability. Blueprint Denver 2019 evolves this concept into a growth strategy map more strongly emphasizing transit, transit rich corridors and centers as the key areas for sustainable growth, where Blueprint Denver 22 incorporated the concept land use map blueprint Denver 2019 goes further by providing direction for our context based zoning code and also including other recommendations. Blueprint Denver developed with extensive public input, incorporates goals, strategies and that are all summarized in an implementation matrix with specific timeframes and responsibilities, which includes the topics highest on the minds of the public today, including design, quality, accessory dwelling units and strong consistency with many matters identified in agencies point by point requests and direction in their transportation platform and zoning and planning platform that I also had the ability to participate in developing. It also captures existing practices that we have as a city but are not in any adopted plan yet. Vision Zero Neighborhood Planning Initiative and the Denver Multimodal Network Plans. This is the first time there will be an adopted plan. It's my hope and belief that in the years to come, as we do neighborhood plans, people will think first of Blueprint Denver as the plan that requires complete networks and complete neighborhoods. With that, I'd like to thank our task force and ask for your support in approving these plans. Adopting.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Tahrir. Where?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Terrence where? 2380 Albion St, Arizona, a member of the Denver Right Advisory Board. And I have to say I'm disappointed in the process and the product. The key thing that I think is missing from the plan are economics and the interplay of economic patterns, impacts and trends which are entirely missing from the discussion. The role of government is not just to provide high quality life, but to provide services and the regulatory framework to direct development where it provides the greatest public benefit. Those services are paid for primarily by property and sales taxes, but nowhere in the plan does it talk about or discuss whether or not there is enough commercially zoned land to generate sales taxes to support these services. Does the mix of residential densities create a drain or supplement the tax base? How do development economics impact the location, cost, construction, quality of new development, or the preservation of existing neighborhood character? How does zoning impact property values and does it act as an incentive for displacement of local businesses and long time residents, or as a disincentive to housing affordability and diversity? Job growth may depend upon the location and size and availability of land. Is that accessible? Does it have the capacity and the infrastructure? Does the city's infrastructure have the capacity to accommodate additional growth? If not, where will the cost be absorbed? The visual preference survey approach to developing this plan could have incorporated metrics to have given some depth and answers to these choices and decisions, but it didn't. Instead, implementation is primarily regulated or dependent upon the planning department, which is doing as best job as it can. But clearly, when you read through the plan, it talks about a multi-year and 20 year process for that to occur. I think the plan has some great components to it. It's a real format. It's easy to read, but I really think that there is additional work that needs to be done to make this plan worthwhile. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chris Mulkey.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Chris Mulkey. 3835 North William Street number. Happy to come tonight, both as a resident of Denver as well as an avid supporter and put my my young career's work towards affordable housing development in Denver. And this plan is really exciting to see you come forth and really become the tool that we need to take forward . The wonderful efforts have already been done as part of the inclusive Denver five years, five year affordable housing plan. And and I think it really meshes well with allowing a lot of the tools that would be created to really create truly mixed income, mixed use development projects that are appropriate for each neighborhood will serve. And so then specifically around aligning with the goals of the five year housing plan, I think that one of the great suggestions in implementation follow up tools is creating informative data and mapping that allows for each council district and also each neighborhood to truly analyze where, you know, an affordable housing project and what type of affordable housing project makes sense, as well as obviously creating additional permanent supportive housing, homeless projects and where those need to be dispersed throughout Denver. And I think that another unique part of this that we do not have today that really allows the framework to be put in place for the small area of small area planning initiatives that are in a lot of the work that we're doing where existing zoning doesn't allow for the mix of uses and truly creating complete neighborhoods that we like to see specifically around transit and also larger neighborhood redevelopment efforts that by allowing and empowering residents of that specific neighborhood to come forward and really tell us what is the missing gaps of services that aren't here, that this plan would allow us to do that much more easily and and include not only affordable housing projects, but also a mix of uses that really, truly serves that neighborhood. And then as far as just a quick closing, trying to keep it quick, I mean, everyone knows land is very scarce and growth is inevitable. And we need to find a way to incorporate an appropriate level of density to really create a true inclusive Denver for the next 20 years. And I think this plan does that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Abdul Ali.
Speaker 3: Left.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to call the next five up to the front. Gabriel. You. Me? Sorry about that. Christine O'Connor. Logan Meyer. The radical. Her and Ken Strobel. Gabriel is a first.
Speaker 3: Is. Good evening. My name is Gabriel, G.M. and the president, CEO of Live Oak, Colorado. We work on making sure that people in under-resourced communities and communities of color have access to healthy food and physical activity. I was honored to sit on the Task Force for Blueprint for the past three years. And I just want to also say that the the Planning, Community Development and Planning Department did a really an extraordinary job and should be commended for how well they managed such an inclusive process that really required an enormous amount of expertize, openness and tenacity. As an advocate for an expert in access to healthy food and physical activity, I can say that I am pleased with the attention paid to and creativity displayed in the policies and recommendations.
Speaker 14: Included in this blueprint.
Speaker 3: From the aspirational expectations that every Denver might be within a ten minute walk to a park and a full service grocery store to specific policy recommendations to.
Speaker 14: Maximize urban agriculture and access to locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables.
Speaker 3: To what I believe was one of the more central themes a blueprint to ensure excuse.
Speaker 14: Me, multi-modal transportation system, investing in walking, biking, rolling and public transit, and the potential of what new technology will bring us in the future. The blueprint has recommendations for and clear straight strategies as to how the health and wellness of Denver sites can be advanced through its infrastructure. I also know through my 15 years working in the health and wellness arena that the most important strategy lies in our collective ability to implement an.
Speaker 3: Inclusive and equitable vision. In my opinion, the Equity Subcommittee.
Speaker 14: Which I also had the honor of sitting on its most important contribution to the blueprint, lied in its recommendations in translating vision into implementation. Every single policy recommendation here is at risk of being implemented in a way that is not equitable or inclusive.
Speaker 3: If we are to accomplish a healthy city, a thriving city.
Speaker 14: And innovative city, we must have the wisdom and courage to engage in an inclusive process that measures success through an equity perspective. There will be many city council elections between now and the next time the blueprint will enter into this process again.
Speaker 3: Over that time period, over that time period, many conditions will change.
Speaker 14: But our commitment to inclusion in multiple cultures, to resident voice, to diverse economic growth, to multi-use infrastructure, to neighborhoods that tell us our history and inspire our future, should be, as the blueprint implies, centered around equitable opportunity. Approving this blueprint is about accepting that challenge and accepting it for our future leaders. I'm optimistic that what we've done will help accomplish that. And I appreciate your service and leadership on council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Christine O'Connor.
Speaker 8: My name is Christine O'Connor. I'm going to make a brief personal comment and then put on my ANC hat. First of all, the narrative itself in all these plans is wonderful. It identifies everything that we've heard from people throughout the city, identifies the inequities, the displacement, the erratic gratification of affordable housing, stock congestion, loss of park acreage . It's perfect. It says it all. It's picked that up. The problem is it focuses on mitigating these impacts and spreading these impacts equitably. There's no discussion, as another gentleman already mentioned, analyzing whether what rate of growth we can tolerate, how much water we have, whether it's sustainable. Those are the things that I think are missing. So now I'm going to put my ANC hat on to make way for Loreto, who's going to read the ANC statement. And I'm just going I'm the chair co-chair of the Zoning and Planning Subcommittee, and I've been on air and sea for about ten years. And I'm going to read the list of the neighborhoods that make up ANC Alamo's policy to ask more. PARC Baker Stark. Bellevue Hale. Berkeley Bluebird. Bonnie Brae. Capitol Hill Chun. Chappie Park. Neighborhood Association. Cherry Creek. East Cherry Creek Neighborhood Association. Cherry Creek North Cherry Hills Vista Community Association City Park Fans City Park West Cole Neighborhood Association. Colfax Avenue Business Improvement District College View Concho TownHome Congress Park Neighbors Cooke Park Merrell Corey Merrell Country Club Historic Neighborhood Cross Community Coalition Krammer Park Hilltop Civic Cultural Arts Residential Organization Curtis Park Neighbors Driving Park East Colfax Neighborhood Organization Eastside R.A. O'Leary and Swansea Neighborhood Association. Fans of Washington Park Fans of Cheesman Park. Golden Triangle Creative District. Greater Park Hill Community. Harkness Heights Harvie Park Highland United Neighbors Historic Montclair Humboldt Street Hutcherson Hills Inspiration Point Jefferson Park Alma Lincoln Park Larimer Place Lower Downtown LoDo and a Lowry United Neighborhoods Mayfair Neighbors Montebello 2020 Old San Rafael Neighborhood Overland Park Platte Park People's Association Rosedale Harvard Gulch. Sloan's Lake Citizens Group. Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association. South City Park Neighborhood Association South Hilltop South More Park East South More Park South Stokes Place Green Bowers Sun Valley Swallow Hill The Unthinkable United North North Metro Denver University Hills University Hills North University Neighbors Uptown on the Hill Virginia Village Washington Park Wilshaw East East 38th West Colfax West Highland West Washington Park and Woodson Downs and sorry.
Speaker 0: Good times. They made it okay. You made it just under the wire. Thank you. Next up, Logan Meyer.
Speaker 8: Hi there. My name's Logan Meyer, resident of Capitol Hill.
Speaker 14: Denver is at a critical point for addressing its housing crisis, its role in future environmental sustainability and economic opportunity for residents. And the Blueprint Denver plan is a step in the right direction. A 2018.
Speaker 8: Article in the Denver Post had Denver growing by.
Speaker 14: 100,000 people in the last seven years, or roughly 20% since 2010. This is despite Denver only adding 22,000 housing units, according to the U.S. Census Bureau over the same period. Even if all those housing units were generously two bedroom units, we have where of the other 55,000 new Denver sites without new units set up residents, simply stated . Whether or not Denver leadership addresses the housing crisis, people will continue to move here, and this change and diverse population will continue to be the result of people doing what they have always done in cities, which is simply making it work by living with more roommates, often moving in with family, often spare bedrooms are often an unpermitted accessory apartments. These are natural adaptations that have happened in cities since the beginning of time are only natural reactions to natural market forces. Only in Denver, the market forces have been compounded by inherited, onerous and restrictive housing policies, limiting the number of unrelated people in a single unit. Technically, the only two people and requiring a bureaucracy for building zoning and change of occupancy units that are quite simply too sophisticated and costly for the vast majority of Denver residents who could benefit from legal adaptations to the housing supply crisis. In addition to creating a windfall for large, legally sophisticated developers who are able to navigate the official processes, this has significantly contributed to the soaring housing costs affecting many long term residents.
Speaker 8: It is important to remember that making policies that limit the housing supply does not mean that people will stop moving here.
Speaker 14: It simply means that residents will get displaced and or will unnecessarily put tenants in illegal housing conditions. Today, you will hear from people claiming that Blueprint Denver plan is too fast and that they managed to sleep through the last three years of community input development in countless meetings. To those grappling with the effects of the housing crisis and economic inequality, it is a step in the right direction and long overdue, as current conditions will only continue to further stunt economic prosperity. As large rents continue to move from poor to wealthy, young to old and local residents to large out of city corporations. Ultimately, Denver is one of the lucky cities in America that is attracting new creative talent that is moving to the city. Whether the city's leadership decides to get out in front and lead from the front or not from the sick for the sake of Denver's residents, families and its future, I sincerely hope Denver's leadership will heed the call to lead from the front and make this city into an example of what a modern, complete city for all can be.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Loretta Koehler.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Loretta Kaylor. I'm vice president of ANC.
Speaker 10: And member of.
Speaker 2: Baker Historic Neighborhood Association.
Speaker 10: And you heard from Christine talk about.
Speaker 2: All of our neighborhoods that are part of ANC. ANC as a cooperation is in a neighborhood. Cooperation is an organization of active invested citizens who promote the integration and promotion of a healthy, strong Denver. So in understanding.
Speaker 10: That we had a resolution.
Speaker 2: On February 9th, that resolution passed from the majority of our our members present at that time and with some concurrence later on email. And so let me read that resolution. The resolution, although it says April 15th, the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Denver, right blueprint. Denver and the Denver Game Plan for Healthy City are scheduled to be voted on April 22nd. Now, the Denver Right plan documents are volume is detailed and complicated, whereas collectively the Denver Right plan documents, more than eight documents total more than 1000 pages and over 100 goals and 300 policies and recommendations in more than 450 strategies. The maps crafted for individual and neighborhoods and subdistricts of the city are complex and require layering.
Speaker 8: Of.
Speaker 2: One on top of another to evaluate the implications. Whereas there were multiple requests for staff to come and meet with neighborhoods throughout the city to explain very detailed information in the documents and proposed changes in local neighborhoods. Whereas such meetings with neighborhoods to explain impacts of these documents have not occurred throughout the city. The city's official website listing information received through citizens and neighborhood comments is missing many individual comments that were formally submitted, submitted information, identified changes made to the plan. Documents for the second draft are divorced from the materials, listing specific requests for changes and additions received from the public. Whereas these plan documents continue to be incomplete and vague in terms of addressing impacts on the city's budget and work program is especially with more than 450 proposed strategies, Denver citizens need more time, thoroughly and intelligently to review and provide meaningful input upon the Denver Ray plan documents and all city council members and the mayor up for reelection on May 7th. And the mayor. But two city council members have challengers. Basically, the Denver Ray plan documents will be Denver's guide.
Speaker 10: To be used.
Speaker 2: For the next 20 years, among other things, to guide decision making by city officials, staff, citizens, etc. And these comments basically just say that there's too much for one public meeting for somebody to sit down and go through 1000 documents. That can never happen.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, make it through. It can support and I think I'm going to call it the next five before you get started. So the next five, if you could come up with front bench, Sara McCarthy, Fred Glick, Charlotte Winsberg, Perry BURNETT and Sherry Way, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Good evening. Denver City Council. My name is Ken Trouble. I've been a Denver resident for 30 years and I currently live in the Highland neighborhood. I fully support the new comp plan and blueprint. Denver. I particularly like Blueprint Denver's conceptual framework of complete neighborhoods as opposed to the suburbs where land uses are usually so segregated and dispersed that everyone must drive everywhere. Urban areas offer a more fine grained mix of land uses housing options and compact building forms, which leads to increased walking, biking and transit usage. The foundation of any great city. Denver already. Denver already has a legacy of complete neighborhoods in many parts of the city. Through Blueprint Denver's new Complete Neighborhoods Framework, we can help ensure that every Denver neighborhood can welcome their fair share of new residents, whether they are renters or owners, or whether they want to live in a single family detached, home attached, or multi-family homes or an accessory dwelling units. And that all residents have some neighborhood retail offices and other uses nearby that they can get to without a car. Ad in blueprints. Vision for a multi-modal transportation network supported by the recently completed Denver moves, transit pad and trails and bike plans. And we have the smart and sustainable approach we need to allow Denver to continue to grow and accommodate new residents to live in the city. Finally, I'd mentioned that over the past several years I attended several Denver right public meetings and completed several. Online surveys to provide input into the playing process, which I found to be thorough and engaging. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you tonight, and I urge you to support both the new comp plan and blueprint. Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Sara McCarthy.
Speaker 10: Good evening, city council. Thank you. I'm Sara McCarthy. Do you still tell us tell where you live? 300 block of South Clarkson Street. Blueprint was originally passed in 2002, but without changes to the zoning code, the fullness of blueprints implementation couldn't occur. That changed. The zoning code changed in 2010. Yet zoning variances and code changes continue unabated. I have questions for which I am waiting for a direct answer relative to blueprint the missing middle. Are we talking wages or are we talking housing? If housing, then why are our smaller, more affordable houses being demolished at an alarming rate? Other cities new plans mention this concept of missing middle. What are the research studies that were used as a basis for placing such an important on this concept? Transit. A recent book uses Denver as an example of cities with transit systems built where people were not. Have city planners analyzed this book and its thesis to determine if the results are accurate for Denver? Folks along federal are shared in West 38th Avenue or Martin Luther King are still hoping for their transit systems if Denver is a glaring example of transit in the wrong place. Why does this plan follow the current transit locations to build out our density? West Washington Park was redlined in the 1930s, like Lama Lincoln Park and Curtis Park with their many single family homes. People, though, couldn't get mortgages for a $25,000 home in the West Wash Park neighborhood along South Pearl Street in the mid 1970s. Yet this plan suggests that single family homes are segregationist. Based on what research results? Then in the late seventies, a group of residents banded together and got a federal grant to upgrade the houses. And they're building it up to building code standards. These efforts continued with one way street conversions the Mountain View Ordinance, Broadway marketplace, Gates redevelopment. Yet these efforts brought popularity, and the West Wash Park neighborhood is used as an example of the kind of neighborhood people want. We are characterized as not wanting any change when what we want is predictability and maintaining the quality of life that we've worked hard to generate and so many others find popular. I have become skeptical after participating in the first blueprint process. Let's settle on the comprehensive plan before codifying underlying plans like the new group blueprint. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Fred Glick.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. President, members of city council. My name is Fred Glick, 3850 York Street. I'm here this evening to encourage you to approve, without any further delay, the group of plans before you collectively known as Denver. Right. You've read the reports, you've seen the presentations. You know how many staff hours have gone into this? How many thousands of Denver residents have participated in the process? It is unfortunate that this process into which so many have put so much time, energy and thought has become politicized and come to be seen by some as a way to further an anti-incumbency agenda. As a member of the Board of Clayton United R.A., I would like to make clear that the Clayton United R.A. has certainly not voted to oppose or delay the approval of the Denver Wright plans. When the draft came out last August as an R.A., we reached out to the Denver Rite Team with questions about how the plans might impact our neighborhood. One of the principal city planners leading the process arranged to come and speak with our members, as well as a few neighbors from just outside our boundaries. David came with his daughter in tow as to accommodate people with work obligations. The meeting was held in the evening, he explained. He answered questions. He listened. We submitted comments that were acknowledged, and as I read the subsequent draft, they appear to have been heard. Some have suggested that postponing the adoption of these plans, or even as some have advocated, scrapping the work that has been done and starting the process over should be done because there was not enough time for people to read the plans, that there was not enough opportunity for residents voices to be heard. Let's not kid ourselves. This is politics talking, and it is an insult to the thousands of residents who volunteered to be part of the process, showed up for public meetings, responded online, read the plans and took the time to give their input. It is an insult to the city staff who have led this process, who have done the research, who have read the tens of thousands of comments residents submitted. Staff who have worked nights to bring the process into Denver's neighborhoods. Staff who have listened and worked to make these plans reflect what they heard. I urge you to do the right thing and approve these plans tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Charlotte Winsberg.
Speaker 15: Can even you? Members of council. My name's Charlotte Winsberg. I live in the 500 block of South Sherman Street in West Washington Park. I sound like an echo of Sarah, but I'll try to be. I've worked on the blueprint for nearly three years since the first advisory committee was put together, and there's much to be admired in advocating for equity in neighborhoods and for complete neighborhoods hoods that serve the needs of residents. But there are some issues that give me concerns. The urban and general urban contexts are already quite dense. The lots are smaller than the exurban and suburban contexts, making them more densely populated. When I guesstimate it from the last census that we had probably around 9400 residences within our boundaries in the last ten years that our edges, which are Spear, Broadway, I-25 and Downey, we have seen built or permitted almost 5000 new units. That doesn't include the Gates and Broadway station properties on the west side of Broadway that have yet to started the redevelopment. We we've paid at the office with ink on our interior. There is no missing middle. The middle, the duplexes, the small apartments, the little row houses have been spread throughout for over a hundred years. We don't need accessory dwelling units to give lots of good and affordable spaces for people to live. We do suggest that we should now allow adus in all residential zones when we have worked to accommodate density in large redevelopments around us and co-operated with it. It wasn't an adversarial situation or will be incredibly detrimental to our quality of life. I moved to West Washington Park 35 years ago. Then much of the housing stock was often worn outdated, fair code and code violations because of the neglect from the city. The one way streets. Everybody in that neighborhood either lived on a one way street or was one block off. And then, as Sara said, many Larry areas were even redlined. But by the efforts of the people who live there, it's become a vibrant, livable, popular neighborhood. So I'm just speaking to ADAS at this point and saying that allowing them in all residential neighborhoods will slowly take them back to investor owned rentals that will slowly deteriorate as they began to do in the 1920s and thirties and had reached the state of near blight by the 1960s in our neighborhood. Think about that, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Perry BURNETT.
Speaker 10: Happy Earth Day of council members. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for your your resolution. My name is Perry BURNETT. My husband, Dan Slattery, and I have lived in Platt Park in the same 1885 home, raised two adult children there. For 35 years, I've worked as an activist and in public service for sustainability, climate and for mobility. For the past three years, I've been very honored to serve on the Blueprint Advisory Board and no other collective endeavor and I've been involved in many have I experienced such depth of inquiry, sincerity of community engagement, professionalism and patience by our city staff, and such dedication of volunteers. You'll hear about equity, housing affordability, design and mobility, all issues that are explicitly addressed by the plan and blueprint. UPDATE You also heard some of the details in the Environment Mental Resilience Section. What I want to talk about tonight is that I think with this plan, Denver is setting a new standard for urban planning. That is, climate forward. Complete neighborhoods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All neighborhoods in Denver deserve to be places like Platte Park, where more people can afford to live and meet most of our daily needs with an A walk, bike or transit ride. Complete networks will reduce greenhouse gas emissions networks and streets that are designed to prioritize the convenience and safety of walking, bicycling and transit will reduce vehicle miles traveled together. And this is really important. Complete neighborhoods and complete networks will increase social interaction between people. Our relationships with our neighbors will be closer. Our capacity to work together will be deeper, and our resilience to disruption will be stronger. The Denver Right plans envision our city in 2040, the same year envisioned by the recent report in October by the U.N. Scientific Panel on Climate Change. The report is urgent. They warn that in the next 21 years, lower temperature increases than previously predicted would produce more extreme weather responses. Rational scientist us that, quote, avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has no documented historic precedent. Back in 1989, I was working in the climate change arena, worked on a symposium in Sundance, Utah, called Greenhouse Glasnost. We knew enough at that time to take action. There is no more time for delay. The 2040 comprehensive plan and Blueprint were three years in the making, three years of research, analysis, outreach, discussion, mapping, listening, innovation and revision. The proposed plan charts a way forward, and there will be opportunities to improve it as plans. They mean nothing until we begin the hard work of budgeting tonight, even after three years, our work is only beginning. Let's keep let's keep moving. Please support both a comprehensive plan, the the Blueprint Initiative and Councilman Cashman's amendments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Sherri Weight. Oh, and I'm going to call the next five up to the frontbench Lindsay Fender, Charlie Bush, Tamir Goldstein, Jesse Paris and Pam Joyner. Come on up. Go ahead.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Council President Clark. My name is Sherry Way. I live at 1231 South Ogden Street, and I am the president of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. Sorry. For those of you who are familiar with our neighborhood association, you may know that we have spent significant volunteer hours both from our neighborhood association itself and getting input from our community and residents within our boundaries. As Charlotte Winsberg noted, we have approximately 9400 residential and business units and largely residential within our boundaries its very large district encompassing the Spears statistical neighborhood in West Washington Park. I feel like I spent the last 20 years working on plants, working, commencing with the T.Rex plan, the original blueprint . Denver The zoning maps. We have the Broadway station area plan, the Alameda Station Area Plan, and the Louisiana Parole Station plan all within our boundaries are on our perimeter. So we are no novice to planning. We have reviewed each and every iteration of this blueprint. Denver the plan. Denver moves game and game plan. And whoever said it's over 1000 pages. That's right. Multiply it by four. And that's the amount of work we put in our neighborhood. Association is not now, nor has it ever been anti-growth. Rather, we are smart growth. We are directed growth. You asked us where do we want to see growth in our community? And we've told you we don't want to see growth within the interiors of our boundaries. We have supported and will support it and will continue to support growth on our perimeters. We've supported extreme density at the Broadway station, Alameda Station, and we also have density at the Louisiana Pearl Station, which is a walk up station. So obviously that's lesser. We were accommodated and thank you very much, David Jaspers, Shira, Sara Showalter and your teams with a number of our comments. And I think they worked very hard to address them. There were some instances where we couldn't be accommodated and in those instances we sought assurances. I'll read those assurances to you now and ask that you confirm them. First, we were assured that future zoning decisions about increased density will respect our neighborhood plans small area and the small area plans we participated in. That's very important to us. As carte blanche density will destroy the character of our neighborhood. Secondly, we've been told that the appropriateness of proposed zoning and map amendments in our low density residential area will be based on our existing and future neighborhood plans. And not just on having a duplex. One or two blocks justifies putting a duplex on every blocks. We've been invited to create overlay districts. We've done that. We will ask for your support when they bring them forward. Lastly, we ask for future neighborhood plans that we, to the extent we have two or three neighborhoods, that our individual plans be accepted and not something that I'm sorry, one size fits all. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Next up, Lindsay Fender. Last chance, Lindsey Fender. All right, Charlie Bush.
Speaker 8: First of all, I want to say that I am a lifelong project manager and I have had to run many meetings and this one is just amazing. So I think for all of you that have to listen to us talk very quickly. One comment. I am ALS. My name is Charlie Bush. I live at 715 South Sherman. I live two blocks from I-25 and Broadway Light Rail Station and next to Lincoln. I am also part of West Wash Park. The the research that we did when somebody was talking about it to use, I heard people around me going are all issues are great. The research that we did in Portland showed that one neighborhood that went total 80 use actual home ownership with homeowners living there reduced from 80% to less than 50% because it became an investors neighborhood. And the quality of the homes actually over the ten year period went down because they were all renters and the quality of the neighborhood was destroyed. So my question is, when you're considering the complete neighborhoods, at what point is it kind of a tipping point for just investment and not for people who want to live there? We have a complete neighborhood. We have townhomes, apartment buildings. Our price points are between $200,000 and up to 1 million. I am here because I have been on a 20 year journey to try to get Denver to be a more walkable place. I lived in D.C. for ten years, very walkable, lots of transit. Here in Denver, we allow patios, sidewalks, patios to be drilled into sidewalks, which then become part of the buildings, and it becomes an impediment to people being able to go down the street. If you look at the pictures I just handed you, this is at the corner of Sixth and Grant. There's a patio there that just jumps out into the sidewalk. You can't get around the patio because when you go around the patio, you run right into an electrical box. If you try to get into the electrical box, there's only two places to step into the street or into the ramp that is there for 80 for the ADA purposes. I can stand and balance quite well, but I've been on crutches a number of times in my life and it is a just a dangerous corner for anybody that has balance problems. If you look at the next two pictures below, it is the corner of the Washington Park Grille. The part that you see that was cement 20 years ago was part of their exterior patio. They have grown and and gotten to the point where they have actually put up a brick exterior and now they have two additional patios on the exterior of those original patios. This is what we allow in Denver. My frustration with these plans and David Gasper just tried to tell me that the Pedersen Trails plan really is in part a blueprint. If you look at the second page, it's page 17 of the PEDs and Trails plan, and it gives the limits for sidewalks. Harry, let's do sidewalks. We had somebody here and I'm going to run out of time. We get to shorten sidewalks because of patios. We need to be able to have sidewalks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tamir Goldstein. Tamir. All right.
Speaker 3: Jesse Paris.
Speaker 16: Jesse Paris represented for Denver, home of Salau. Black starts a movement for self-defense, a positive outcome for social change. And I'm on top of the ballot for at large. Make sure you vote by May 7th. I want to read this resolution that was mentioned in the Westword a few months ago. So I'm going to read the passage from the Westword article about this Denver right comp plan 2040. In this resolution, Denver Ink declares the incoming mayor and city council members cannot be held. I got to go back. Sorry, wrong page. On February 9th, Denver Inner Neighborhood Cooperation Neighborhood Association, otherwise known as Denver IOC, passed a resolution urging the city to pump the brakes on its comprehensive plan 2040, which covers everything from areas of the city designated or not, for growth and development. That part of the plan is known as Blueprint Denver to how the city should build out roads, parks and transportation options for the coming years. The sheer volume of the Denver Wright planning documents have been daunting for the MO for most neighborhood associations and those insensitive citizens to respond to thoroughly and intelligently by city set deadlines. Denver IOC declares in a news bulletin released after the passage of the resolution, which was supported by 80% of its members. That documents total more than a thousand pages, with over 100 goals, nearly 300 policies, recommendations and more than 450 strategies addressing the neighborhood to 2040. As Denver population increases, the plan 2040 is scheduled to be held and voted on Denver City Council today being Earth Day, April 22nd, just in time for the new election. The election and its resolution, deborah IOC declares the incoming mayor and city council members cannot be held accountable accountable for the Denver Wright plan. Plans passed immediately prior to their election. This is something that will guide us for 20 years, and it's happening way too fast, says Drew, Dr., a architect, president of the area, and Suozzi, a neighborhood association and delegate at large for Denver, AC. Something of such impact, that long impact ought to be carefully considered. Not sure. Claims that drafts of the current plan 2040 only include cherry picks, feedback from community meetings with residents instead of some other common suggestions, like requiring stricter design rules for new buildings. As for development, Delta maintains that the current plan is too vague. I will say that the Denver right documents are aspirational and very lofty goals which are unimpeachable, sustainable health. All of the things I'm sorry, but we love about Denver. Vote on this. I urge you to vote no on this. You need to give it to the new council. Let us decide. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Pam Grier.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Pam. Designer one, two, two, one, one is 52nd place in Denver. 80239. I didn't know I was signing up to speak, but I'm glad you.
Speaker 3: Called my name.
Speaker 9: Look, I am very, very happy with the plan. Living in Bel-Air for 45 years, I'm just really, really pleased to see something coming our way. I would just hope that once they start actually doing the work and develop it, develop the plans that they really consider the voices that they heard, you know, like well.
Speaker 15: That they just really consider it. And that equity is number one on the list.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, five of you could come up to the front. Kyle Lisi, Steven Sweat, David Nye, Dimitri Zorro, Tony and James Wardle and Steven Sherwood. You are a first. Oh, I'm sorry. It was Kyle lives here for. I'm sorry, Kyle. Lazy of first.
Speaker 3: Hello. I'm Kyle Lacy and I live in Capitol Hill. Sorry, mine's going to be really short, but I really support the this plan. And I really hope you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Steven Sweat.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll I'll keep it short as well. And I support strongly support Blueprint Denver and I hope the council will pass the resolution.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, David, I.
Speaker 3: I'm David Nigh from 91/14 Street in Denver. I'm here to speak today. For those who are too afraid to cross Colfax, too afraid to cross fear or too afraid to cross Broadway to make it here to this meeting tonight to walk across, of course. And for those who couldn't make it here because of busses that only run every 30 minutes, sometimes on time, and we're prevented from coming here tonight because of those. I'm here to just say I strongly support this plan for obvious reasons, and I urge you to pass it today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Dimitri is Czar Von. I'll let you say your last name.
Speaker 14: It's Dimitri Zavala at me. I live in 1950. North Logan in Uptown. And I'm. I'm here today to urge council to please support Blueprint Denver. I think it's been we're approaching close to 20 years since the last blueprint. And since that time, Denver has grown from about 500,000 people to about six 7680. I think, you know, this process has been going on for about three years and a and delaying it is simply a tactic to, you know, to stop growth. And I think what we need to understand is that growth is not the enemy. It's the lack of housing that's the problem. As long as we have a robust economy, people are going to want to come here for the opportunity. They're going to come here for the for the sunlight and the mountains. And you're not going to stop that. What you're going to end up doing. And here's a quick anecdote. I immigrated to this country in 1998. I move to Boulder in about 93. My parents were looking for a house in Boulder. And Boulder, as you know, is very restrictive on housing. And they decided to deny building permits that year. As a result, they moved over ten miles away. And for the last 30 years, they've been commuting, adding to the to the carbon footprint and adding to the pollution of this area. If we go the direction of Boulder, we're going to see housing prices skyrocket. I believe their their average housing prices, 1.5 or above. That's that's absolutely insane. We need to build enough to to house everybody. And how's everybody equitably? I think it's very appropriate that today's Earth Day, I think cities are at the forefront of of combating greenhouse gas emissions and and pollution in general. I think by providing the opportunity to live close to where you work or close to transit so you can make it to work and not be forced to drive. I think it's it's very important. And I think the cities such as Denver need to be leading the way. Again, I urge you to please support this and pass it today and don't delay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, James Waddell. And then I'm going to call the next five up, David Schultz, Shane Wright, Jill Loken, Tori, Sarah Center Hall and Darrell Watson. If you want to come up to the front, go ahead.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. My name is James Waddell. I live in Fine District nine and I'm the executive director of by Denver. We are also part of the Demonstrates Partnership Coalition. I also represent the voice of over 10,000 people who bike every day in our city, on our streets that are often dangerous emerging. You ought to adopt the updated version of Blueprint in Denver tonight. I've said publicly that Denver is the gold medalist in the planning Olympics and a sometimes finalist in the implementation Olympics. I think if we pass Blueprint Denver, all of the plans that lead up on the Blueprint Denver will have a better chance of implementation if we don't pass Blueprint Denver. I can see us just stagnating and a lot of these plans are just gathering dust and dust. You know, when the original version of Blueprint Denver was passed, it was 20 years ago. We're in a very, very different city. And to sit on that plan essentially for another two or three years doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is a land use and transportation plan. So I've heard a lot about land use, but I want to make sure that we all recognize this is a transportation plan as well. And that, you know, if we do just leave this, our streets are going to become more congested and more dangerous. We need to do something. Okay. One of the plans that comes out of this is the Denver Moves Bicycle Plan. It calls for a complete buildout of the network. And I think a lot of the plans, if they're just left in isolation and not building up under one plan, we're going to continue to have this mishmash of of disconnected streets and unsafe streets. I would also say that the public process, from what I've seen, has been very, very strenuous and very in-depth. A three year process shouldn't be needs that. And I would just say that plays on all of the work that everybody's done creating this plan and adopt Blueprint Denver tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David Schultz.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. My name is David Schulz. I live at 1376 Raleigh Street in the West Colfax neighborhood. And first, I just want to say that I'm in favor of not only the comp plan, but the Denver I plan as well. I believe that this has been a long and thoughtful process. And we, my wife and I and I've been to some of these events and believe that the three years is plenty of time to go through this. And is it perfect? Certainly nothing is perfect, but there's a lot of work to be done still with us. So I have a company that specializes in building accessory dwelling units. So we hear from people constantly about Adus and what they can do for a city. We've traveled to Portland and many other places that have more progressive views on how to use, and we continue to see that this could be a very integral part to the affordability and equity bit of what the city is trying to attain. And I would encourage anybody that does not think this I will come and show you the stuff that we've built and the stuff in the neighborhoods and how they fade into the background and fit with the neighborhood feel of the various neighborhoods. It's the 80 ups especially is I think can be a key component to the affordability aspect and especially with the proliferation of more. It's a simple supply and demand. We need additional small units. We've gone from household size of over 4 to 2. And so we don't have enough housing, small housing especially and 80 use can be a way to provide some of this affordability that we're sorely lacking in the city at the moment. So I'm asking my councilman, Espinosa, and all the council people to support these plants. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Shane. Right. Shane. Great. All right, Joe, we'll continue. Sarah Sanders off.
Speaker 10: Hi. I'm Sarah. Under half. I live at 1378 Raleigh Street. And I'm also asking to that this plan be approved this evening. I personally live in an accessory dwelling unit, and I'd like to kind of focus on that tonight. There's been a lot of good comments that have been made that I also feel supportive of that it's not necessary for me to repeat with me being able to live in this. ADU At 1378 Raleigh It is an affordable housing opportunity for me to live in the city and not be pushed out into the suburbs or actually be a Denver resident. And I do feel like 80 years will continue to help more people stay within our cities. The Adus they do help preserve our neighborhood character. And you do have to really in order to even see these, you need to be driving up and down the alleys because it's hard to even see them from the streets. So they do really fade into the background. And I think that they do also allow us to have a more inclusive neighborhood where we see we're seeing a lot of people right now being pushed out of neighborhoods. Adus are an answer to that, to be able to allow more people to be there. And I hear a lot of comments and people being worried about parking with all of the ideas that are that my company has built. We've built over we built ten. We have five under construction right now. All of the garage spaces, all of the garages have that where we have built these adus people were using them for parking. It was basically a big storage shed. And by the 80 use that we're building, we're building garages with living quarters above and we're actually adding parking most of or more, seeing an additional 2 to 3 parking spots that were never used before. So I'm asking that this plan be approved this evening by all of you and my councilman. Espinosa. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Darrell Watson. And of course, the next five up will cover Lubbock. Jeff hopping and back people and human. Naomi Gold, Gornik and Leslie Tori Gorski. Come on up. Go ahead. Good evening.
Speaker 3: My name is Darryl Watson. Thank you so much, Councilman Clark and members of council for holding its public hearing. I live at 2625 Lafayette Street. I've been a 23 year resident of the Whittier neighborhood, and I stand here today in support of both the Comprehensive Plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver. I also wear a separate hat. I've had the honor for the last three years serving as the co-chair, along with the great amazing Florence Navarro for the game plan for a healthy city process. I'm here to speak really as to how these plans and this planning process intersected and how that actually evolved into my very strong support for both of these plans. First and foremost, a comprehensive plan, 2040. Not only did that the Blueprint Denver plan, but also the game plan for a healthy city to focus all the strategies for each of those plans really were derived from the comprehensive plan. I think this was a very unique structure that the city and county of Denver engaged in when they decided to focus on the the Denver right planning process. To say that equity was a priority would be to to under highlight the importance of equity, not just in the comprehensive plan or in Blueprint Denver, but also within the game plan, something as simple as within the Blueprint Denver to highlight the ten minute walk or roll to a park in prior iterations of blueprint or land use planning. Such discussions as such highlights were not included because the idea of having a continuous, seamless planning process in which all of our plans build on each other really, truly was not the crux of the process for land use and transportation planning. But the Blueprint Denver plan to Comprehensive Plan for 2040 included those thoughts because we knew that they knew that this process needs to build on each other in order for the city to continue to grow and to be healthy. I stand here tonight to say that each of the three factors that were highlighted by staff as to what City Council stated that they will use to identify whether Blueprint Denver, a comprehensive plan 2040 were successful have been met and those specifics were articulated by staff. So I won't repeat those points. I would like to speak just specifically to one point concerning the thousand pages of paper. We know that this process has been a three year process. Thousands of us have engaged in this process. We thank you for engaging with us tonight to listen to us. And we encourage your support for both plans and hopefully as Blueprint Game Plan comes down the pike that you also support us as well. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Will Karlovic.
Speaker 3: Yes. The name is Will Karlovic. I live at 2828 Zuni Street in North Denver. I'm here tonight to represent all in Denver, and I'm also here representing myself as a concerned citizen, as well as a person that has actually three master's degrees, two of which are in city planning and urban design. And I've spent 33 years doing real estate development, community development, economic development and urban planning. And last year, I actually started the Denver and Colorado's first social impact real estate development company to build more affordable housing and community serving development. So you might say I know a little bit about this subject tonight. I'd like to read a message from the all in all in Denver board. All in Denver is a nonprofit advocacy organization that believes Equitable C is where all people have the opportunity to prosper and thrive. In July of 19 of 2016, All in Denver offered the city of Denver a list of guiding principles as they were initiating this three year process to start updating. Blueprint Denver. The five guiding principles that we urge the city at that time were as follows one to incorporate a broad set of community values. Two To prepare, better prepare the city for growth. Three To shape a vision of the city beyond just the physical form. Four To provide more sophisticated version of land use and transportation planning beyond the old binary framework of either areas of change or areas of stability. And five, to emphasize innovations in housing, equity also was an important criteria of ours, and we actually applaud the city for using that as a lens for the entire process. We have reviewed the final draft of Blueprint Denver Document, as well as all the conclusions, values, policies and recommendations contained within it. And for all these reasons, we therefore actually support Blueprint Denver and urged the council to pass it tonight without any delay. One last thought. We actually find it a little ironic that the critical voices asking to delay the vote are the ones that who are also concerned about land use and development patterns that are alarming people. Without passing this new blueprint, Denver is merely going to perpetuate and continue to increase the bad, bad planning patterns we have. And we believe that tonight is the time to implement more progressive and equitable change and enlightened growth patterns. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeff, Jeff hopping back.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Jeff Offenbach. I'm a resident of Congress Park. I live at 1350 Clayton Street, and I'm here to urge the council to pass this plan for two primary reasons. First, as a matter of principle, this plan is the result of three years of input hundreds of hours, if not thousands of hours of staff time , work of hundreds of volunteers and input of thousands of community members. It's a was an incredibly thoughtful process that I believe should be respected. And I object to the idea that more time will lead to a better outcome or that the plan should be politicized in the way that it has. Also, as a matter of policy, I believe that this plan is a step forward for a city. I represents a step towards equality, towards inclusion, towards sustainability and frankly, towards better design. And in particular, I'm encouraged by the push towards more missing middle housing strategies. I think that we have an affordability crisis in our city and this is a really thoughtful and low impact way to address those concerns and address those real problems that we have. I know this because I live in a neighborhood and on a block that epitomizes the missing middle. Our block has three low rise apartment buildings. We have two duplexes. We have 14 single family homes. We have eight Adu, and we have two for taxes. It is the missing middle and it's a lovely place to live. It's diverse. We have a million and a half dollar house and we have Section eight housing diverse, different people that live there, different income levels. And frankly, I think that more people in our city should have the opportunity to live in such a wonderful neighborhood and in a connected community like we have it at 13th and Clayton . I ask the council to support this plan and approve it today. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Benjamin.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Peter van Leuven and policy director of Bicycle Colorado. I'm also chair of the Denver Streets Partnership. The partnership is a coalition of community organizations working together to advocate for people friendly streets and Denver streets where walking, biking and transit are the first choice of transportation for all people, no matter their age, income level or ability. We share the belief our city street designs directly support our community, health our streets, connect us to jobs, to school services, amenities, our neighbors and neighborhoods. Our coalition includes many nonprofits, among them all in Denver. Groundwork Denver. Bike Denver. Walk Denver. Bicycle Colorado. Colorado. Public Interest Research Group. Colorado Cross Disability Coalition. The AARP and the American Heart Association. We provided regular feedback to the Blueprint Denver Project Management Team to community planning and development, and also to Denver Public Works throughout the blueprint process, including multiple face to face meetings and at least two formal letters with a very long list of specific recommendations. We also promoted public engagement opportunities to our memberships, and our involvement dates back to 2016. We're very happy to tell you that the project team adopted the majority of our recommendations. And in particular, we're excited about these elements. Priority streets for walking, biking and transit. A priority order that focuses on the most efficient transportation modes with people walking at the top of the pyramid and personal vehicles at the bottom. Vision Zero and Improved Street Design Strategies. A framework for complete networks that recognizes our streets should be designed for vulnerable users like users like youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. And then finally, strategies to pursue more long term funding for mobility options. So as advocates for street safety, walking, biking and transit, we know Denver needs a land use and transportation plan that recognizes the importance of completing mobility networks and establishes walking, biking and transit as priorities. We ask you to vote yes tonight so planning can transition to action. Please give Denver the blueprint it needs to build our safe street networks.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, Naomi and Maha call Nick.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Naomi Mahogany.
Speaker 10: When I grew up, I walked to elementary middle school most days. This is partially because my parents both worked full time jobs and weren't able to take me to and from school. This was also because I was fortunate to live in a neighborhood where the sidewalks were complete and connected and I could then get around to the places I enjoyed the most. Enjoying the scenery I love the most, caring the things that I love the most. Walking to school as a child helped me shape my perspective on mobility and transportation issues. I know from my personal experiences that complete streets, protected bike lanes, access to park and sidewalks that accommodate all users can surely help children grow up to be successful and healthy. That young girl with the dream of really trying to serve and help our community groups who serve as a committee advocacy director for the American Heart Association. So I'm here on behalf of my organization and also the Denver Streets Partnership urging you to adopt Blueprint Denver Plan. We ask that you adopt this plan because it helps really guide the next 20 years values specific to complete neighborhoods and complete transportation networks. Land use decisions through the lens of social equity. Sidewalks that connect the community to.
Speaker 9: Parks, public.
Speaker 10: Transportation and schools. Roads that include designated and protected bike lanes and streets that accommodate all people and can help us see safely and actively get around our community. When our children can play and either walk or bike to school parks or playgrounds, they're more likely to be healthy and do better in school. A study from the American Journal Preventative Medicine assessed 154 communities using what they called a community walkability index. And through that research, they found that youth were more likely to be healthy and less likely to be obese if they lived in walkable communities. Adopting Blueprint Denver will help ensure a framework for complete networks that recognizes that all streets are designed for the most vulnerable users, including our youth. Therefore, I ask that you all vote yes to adopt the plan, and we look forward to working with you in the city in.
Speaker 9: Adopting this plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tore Gorski.
Speaker 2: Hi. Thank you, Leslie. Terry Gorski, 1754 Olive Street.
Speaker 9: I'm with the East Side Reno. We do not agree with the alliance's.
Speaker 2: Statement of.
Speaker 10: Postponing this vote.
Speaker 9: We're strongly in favor of the Blueprint Denver plan, and we strongly urge you to pass it tonight.
Speaker 10: On a personal note.
Speaker 9: I'm very excited for ideas. I think they absolutely belong. Well, I think we need to look at density additions in all neighborhoods, not just analysis district, not just in Rafael's district.
Speaker 13: But all across Denver.
Speaker 2: So I'll be back.
Speaker 10: Next week to talk on behalf of this small, tiny houses.
Speaker 9: Which also belong in our neighborhood of East Colfax. Thank you very much. We strongly hope that you.
Speaker 15: Pass this initiative tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. The next five, if you could come up, John, Ricky, Teresa, Saint Peter Ryan, Keany, Andrea Byrnes and Adam Astrof. And John.
Speaker 3: You're up first. Hello. Good evening. My name is John Ricky. I live at 2650 West 13th Avenue in Sun Valley. I don't claim Sun Valley as my own. I've only lived there for about a year. Before that, I lived in Capitol Hill. Before that, I lived in Clayton Congress Park, Uptown, Virginia Village, Montclair. And when I was a child, I lived in university. I have not lived a static life. I have lived in houses. I've lived in apartments. I have lived in condos. I even lived in an 80. You. I have rented. I have owned. I have been a landlord over the course of my life. I have moved. I have grown. I have changed. Our city is moving. It is changing. It is growing. The city should do that. This plan is allows for growing and changing. And and it is not static. This plan should not be static. It should move and grow and change. This plan. We will find out things that don't work in the future and we will change those things. This is not the end of the line right here. This is the beginning of the journey. Cities compete for growth. More growth brings more resources to everyone, more talent, more opportunity. It allows us to provide more services. We need these things. We fight for these things. We've come to this point. We come to a point where we think that we can have economic growth, commercial growth, without allowing any residential growth. Those are ideas are at odds and we need to move past that. This plan acknowledges that that growth happens. It doesn't stop that growth. It doesn't change that growth, but it does guide that growth. And that's what we're looking for. We're looking for guidance. So what are the risks of not moving forward tonight? There's a risk that there has been a lack of input on this plan. I would say I would venture to say that of the 700,000 people who currently live in Denver, maybe 695,000 of them simply want a functioning, resilient city with economic and housing opportunity for everyone. How they get there, they are not really interested in the details. That's just the general direction that they want to go. And they will. They'll if there's a plan in place, they're happy. Over the three years that this plan has been created, which I'll remind you is 15% of the time that it's actually supposed to be in force. Everyone has had an opportunity. They might not have taken it, but there has been an opportunity through the 25,000 comments, through the dozens, scores of public meetings, different times, different places. It's all been there. In conclusion, I would like to warn that delaying this plan, or worse, allowing that delay to become a scrapping of the plan and starting over from scratch would be a waste of resources, a waste of time, and a waste of goodwill. I urge you, not allowed it to happen. Please vote in favor tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Teresa Saint Peter.
Speaker 9: Hi there, Teresa. Saint Peter. All of my points have been covered.
Speaker 10: Tonight, so I do want to say two.
Speaker 2: Things. I live at.
Speaker 9: 1235 East 12th Avenue. I am a.
Speaker 2: Responsible, caring community member and a renter.
Speaker 10: That is not a contradiction.
Speaker 2: As some other folks may.
Speaker 10: Have alluded to earlier today.
Speaker 2: And thank you so.
Speaker 9: Much for all of the years.
Speaker 10: Of.
Speaker 2: Extensive effort that council staff and the community have put into this very important plan. And I hope.
Speaker 9: That you pass these.
Speaker 10: Tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ryan Kinney.
Speaker 3: Hey, I'm here to support the adoption of Blueprint Denver in the comprehensive plan. First, I'd like to state that I participated in many public meetings regarding this plan going back to early 2017, and that I participated or volunteered on the Denver Rite Street team to collect public input at the Colorado Black Arts Festival. I think the notion that the community has not been sufficiently engaged is preposterous in the face of all of these meetings and the thousands of public contributions. Second, I would like to state that I identify as someone who holds yes, in my backyard values. I believe that in order to be as inclusive as possible, Denver needs to allow for growth. If if we don't, I worry displacement will worsen. Blueprint Denver provides a vision to accommodate that growth in ways that are minimally disruptive to neighborhood character. It calls for allowing 80 use and duplexes in all neighborhoods and allows for focusing and calls for focusing the most intense growth in transit corridors and centers. This leads to my third point on this Earth Day. I support blueprint diverse call for sustainability. We put the inverse called for complete neighborhood makes it easier for people will make it easier for people to access goods and amenities on foot. And the plans focus on transit, pedestrian and bicycle prioritization will help us reduce the most share of car trips in our city. This is critical. If you want to stand a chance in the fight against climate change, land use and transportation must work together to help us change our unsustainable car dependent lifestyles. Personally, I think Bluford Denver could go further in allowing more diversity of housing types in our single family zone neighborhoods. And I know that I'm not alone in this. I think the plan, as is, is really quite modest and as a testament to being a good compromise of all the different perspectives of the residents of this city. Because of this, and because it calls for a sustainable, equitable and inclusive growth, I urge Council to adopt these plans . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andrea Burns. All right, Adam Nesteroff And I'll call the next five up Jeff Walker, Alison Turek, Gaucher, King, John Desmond and Brad Buchanan. Come on in. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Adam Astrof. I live at 1801 Chestnut Place in District nine, and I'm the president of Yimby Denver, where a group formed to promote Yes in my backyard values. Many of our members and supporters are here tonight and we are encouraging, both as a group and myself individually are encouraging the passage of Blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan. This new plan is great because regardless of who wins the upcoming elections, it's a better plan than the old one. This is a plan that was built out of three years of compromise. As Ryan said, this doesn't go as far as I would like to see, but that's because it represents working really hard with members of a number of different neighborhoods, many of whom have shown up here tonight and a number of other meetings. This change that's going.
Speaker 8: On in Denver.
Speaker 3: It is pretty scary. Our homes are part of our identity. There are community. They mean a lot to us. And, you know, so people are fearless, fiercely protective of them. And I just really appreciate how much everyone really cares and loves this city. I believe that the changes called for in Blueprint Denver are going to spread.
Speaker 8: Development more.
Speaker 3: Equitably. Living where I do, I have seen the displacement that's occurred in the Highlands and in five points. We've seen new housing types occur in some parts of the city, whereas in other parts of the city we simply just see scraps as the underlying value of the land just vastly outpaces these small bungalows that were built on it a long time ago. This plan, by allowing a to use and duplexes is going to allow us to have a better utilization of that land. And, you know, maybe something other than an $800,000 single family home. I also do. Since it's Earth Day, I want to speak to, you know, the environmental goals here. And we haven't talked about it as a group, but as an individual, I strongly support Councilman Cashman's amendments. You can't be strong enough in talking about climate change, but really focusing on making sure that we're getting, you know, investment out of our transit dollars, which, you know, the plan will do by making sure that we're getting that payback around those transit areas. And then, of course, the complete neighborhood model itself. You know, if you're giving people things they can walk to, they don't need to make as many car trips. There's a grocery store across the street from my apartment and it's amazing. It's just one of the most wonderful amenities that you can possibly have. There's also a park a block away. You know, it's really it's it's not quite a complete neighborhood. I have a lot of thoughts, but it's a great place to live. I hope council will adopt the plans tonight. I look forward to coming back next week to talk about the tiny home village because I believe this will also these plans will also help us to meet our housing first goal. So thank you so much for all your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeff Walker.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Good evening. Jeff Walker, 2354 South Lincoln Street in Denver. I'm on our TD's board of directors and I represent some of you in that room. All right. So first, I was a member of the Blueprint Denver Task Force. I encourage your improve your approval and acceptance of this element of the comprehensive plan. This is an ambitious plan. I'm excited about the attention it pays to functionality of streets and their effects on residential and commercial uses. The attention it pays to equity. The attention it pays to opportunity, and its acknowledgment of the possibility of displacement. I'm excited about the partnership between RTD and Denver and how this sets the table for better regional land use and transportation planning. The city clearly sees transit as an important backbone for future mobility. We all know that funding for transportation is scarce, and I appreciate the prioritization of future investments in transit. I believe that partnerships between local jurisdictions are key to keeping transit at the forefront.
Speaker 0: Of mobility.
Speaker 3: In the region. I feel that the continued partnerships between RTD and the city and county of Denver is central to successful mobility in the region. Thank you for your work. Thank you to staff that. I think they did a phenomenal.
Speaker 0: Job.
Speaker 3: And I encourage you to accept.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Aliza Allison Tawfik.
Speaker 10: Hi. I'm Alison.
Speaker 8: Tawfiq. I live near East High School near Vine Street Pub near the Kala Madison Rec Center.
Speaker 2: That neighborhood.
Speaker 10: First of all, I wanted to point out.
Speaker 8: That a bunch of us who are in support of this are wearing blue today. So if you see a theme, that's our theme.
Speaker 9: I strongly.
Speaker 8: Support it. I am three years into this process and I'm going to be super disappointed if this also gets thrown out. I was three years into the process for the City Park playground and that got thrown out at the last minute. You've got thousands and thousands of thoughtful ideas that have come through. So let's listen to everybody. Some people are going to hate the ideas, but we need to have a vision for where we're going to go. Maybe we don't need to have each sidewalk issue debated tonight, but let's know if we're going to go to Chicago or if we're going to go to Los Angeles. You know, we need to have an idea where to be in the next 20 years. And that's really all I got to say. They said, oh, one more thing. Gosh, Kong, who's after me? Had to leave early. Her nine year old son had to get dinner and go to bed. But he said, we need more busses.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right, John Desmond.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 11: Members of city.
Speaker 3: Council. I'm John Desmond. My address is 1515 Arapahoe Street. I've been very honored to serve as a member of the Blueprint Denver Task Force for the last three years. I'm also speaking tonight on behalf of the Downtown Denver Partnership, and I first want to commend the task force ably led by Kimball and Joel, the city of Denver staff.
Speaker 8: And I want to call out.
Speaker 3: Dave Jaspers here in particular for his leadership and the consultant team, which we often forget about, led by Big Man Mike for the incredible amount of thought and vision they have put in and for the thorough outreach effort they've made to an enormous.
Speaker 4: Number of stakeholders.
Speaker 3: I want to call out just a few points that we strongly support about this plan. We strongly support the overall growth strategy, which rightly focuses both residential and employment growth on regional centers such as downtown, while allowing other areas to evolve in smaller ways. It strikes a commonsense balance between fostering smart growth and stability across Denver. We're also very much in favor of the overarching goal goals of providing complete neighborhoods and networks, as well as the plan's focus on measuring social equity and then tailoring implementation of the plan recommendations to reflect the needs of different areas. The citywide recommendations portion of the plan is strong, especially regarding these recommendations increasing the development of affordable and mixed income housing, ensuring Denver has a vibrant retail and hospitality marketplace, creating exceptional design outcomes in key centers and corridors. Ensuring an active and pedestrian friendly environment. Prioritizing people walking and rolling over other modes of transportation. Improving safety on Denver's streets, especially regarding the.
Speaker 11: Implementation of.
Speaker 3: Vision Zero policies and ensuring high quality parks and open spaces to.
Speaker 11: Keep pace with Denver's.
Speaker 3: Growth and for downtown in particular. We applaud the plan's emphasis on these items the high density mix of uses, high quality of design, especially at the ground floor level, a focus on humane, well landscaped public realm, especially creating a robust urban tree canopy which we lack. And downtown right now, a mix of multi-modal options highlighted by pedestrian having priority, a complete network of safe, easy to use bicycle facilities and frequent, reliable and high capacity transit. So to reiterate, the Downtown Denver Partnership strongly supports Blueprint Denver and looks forward to working with the City Council and the administration in admitting and implementing this ambitious and visionary plan in the coming years. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak this evening. And also we urge you to pass this plan this evening. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brad Buchanan. And I'll call the next five up Stuart Lundy, Heather Noyes, Greg and Joe Fowler, Jesse Adkins and Caitlin Quander. Come on up.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Brad Buchanan.
Speaker 0: My address is 1705 17th Street. For most of the last.
Speaker 3: Five years, as.
Speaker 0: Denver's former executive director for community.
Speaker 3: Planning and Development, I have had the privilege of working with the most incredibly dedicated team of planners who work to facilitate this significant and important community driven plan that you're considering this evening. I've also had the privilege of sitting on the original Blueprint Denver Stakeholder Group before its adoption in 2002. Blueprint Denver anticipated the coming growth in our city and successfully guided it to areas of change to lessen impacts on areas of stability. Tonight, you consider the next generation of our city plan that once again represents the leading edge of citizen.
Speaker 0: Driven urban thinking.
Speaker 3: And planning or using the change in areas of stability where advanced in 2002 today and into the future. Investment in change must be informed by much more sophisticated, nuanced and critically important assessment tools focused focusing on equity and healthy development. You might be wondering and thinking, should our city planners control the pace of change? Controlling the pace of the market simply drives real estate prices higher. Experience has clearly shown us this. So how do we balance the success of our welcoming city while also protecting that which is most important to us? All our plans don't control the pace of change. Our plans can direct how and where change happens. The plans before you tonight do just that and in ways that are more relevant than ever. The last few years we've experienced some of the most significant investment our city has ever seen in our plans have guided that development. That is because our city has valued planning for 100 years and certainly 20 years ago. It has been these plans that helped to create the city we are today and why we once again following the discipline that our city was built on, started this citywide planning effort. Three years ago to inform and guide the next 20 years. At whatever pace it comes. Our plans choose to value all people in all cultures. They choose to value open space and art and opportunity. They choose to value equity and design. They choose to create livable, affordable neighborhoods that grow responsibly and thoughtfully. These values we hold require sophisticated planning tools to consider more than ever before to ensure we are considering all the contributors that create change in our city. The plans you consider tonight have been driven by the voices.
Speaker 0: Of our community.
Speaker 3: They represent thousands of staff hours in working with thousands of citizens hopes, fears, concerns and dreams for their block, neighborhood and city. Never has the community conversation been better informed with data and the impacts of their choices involved in the process of creating a city plan. I hope you will support this important next step in keeping Denver. Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Stuart Lundy. Stuart. All right, Heather Noyes, Greg.
Speaker 10: Sid Evening my name is Heather Noyes. Craig I live at 4492 Xavier in Northwest Denver. Many of my concerns and comments have already been addressed, so hopefully I can keep this short. I was honored to serve on the Blueprint Denver Task Force and also the Equity Subcommittee. I want to just say that staff was over the top, responsive throughout the process, super organized and very, very flexible. The consolidated list of public comments that I hope you have looked at and the responses and the corresponding notations in the draft, I believe, set a new precedent for both inventorying and.
Speaker 9: Tracking public comment and.
Speaker 10: City projects. This was no small feat. This was an an added task. It was a request by Blueprint Denver Task Force members, and it was greatly appreciated by all of the task force I know and also many members of the public.
Speaker 9: In northwest Denver.
Speaker 10: To the chairs, Joel and Kimball. The task force was comprised of diverse and expertize, people not only knowledgeable about issues and challenges, but incredibly passionate about the city and its future. Keeping discussions on track and focus was no small feat, and thank you both so much for your leadership. Blueprint Denver Process was thorough, inclusive and accessible. The document is visionary, progressive, action oriented and comprehensive and will provide guidance in the evolution of our city and most importantly to me.
Speaker 9: To the Public Realm City Council.
Speaker 10: I urge you to adopt Blueprint Denver tonight so that the hard work of implementation can start immediately. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Next up, Angela Felder.
Speaker 8: Well, good evening. My name's Angela Foster, and I live at 4900 Troy Street in Denver. I am a resident in District 11, and so a lot has been said. I don't know if I'm 57 out of 58 and I think there's more to come, but I won't go down into the weeds with you. I would like to just talk about my feelings, talk about how I feel. And I had the privilege also to serve on the Blueprint Task Force for Blueprint Denver for three years. And I have to admit, when I first was appointed to the committee by Mayor Hancock, I was skeptical. I'm a resident, born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, where politics are kind of gritty. And, you know, it's it's a little hard to believe things until you see them. And so going into the process, I believed that things were going to be pretty prescribed and that perhaps our roles would be perfunctory. I would like to say that I have felt very proud to be part of this process. I have felt that the staff and the members of the task force have been very responsive. When we took a look at the next 15 to 20 years is it's very hard to know what to expect. And no doubt those that crafted a blueprint some 15, 20 years ago had this same dilemma. But what I feel is that we have been inclusive, we have been responsive, we have been creative, we have been adaptive. I feel proud that 25,000 individuals had input into this plan. I feel proud that we took hours upon hours to layer on an equity focus and really analyze how this plan would impact all communities and recognize that different communities need different things. I feel proud that as I did research of other communities throughout the country, while some had a comprehensive plan, I did not find one that had an integrated, comprehensive plan or blueprint that layered equity into it. And I feel proud that Denver has an opportunity to be the first, if not one of the first. The first to be the first. I feel proud that we are here today and we are considering this plan, and I want to feel proud that this council passes it and urge you to do so with my full support and affirmation of the process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Jesse Adkins. My name is Jesse Adkins. I'm an architect with Sures Adkins Rockmore Architects. And I was appointed to the board or the Committee for Blueprint through the EIA. So I in some way am representing the American Institute of Architects. I think we do have to congratulate staff. This was an immense undertaking and the consultant team that was assembled very, very talented. So I didn't see and even into the committee, our co-chairs really did do a great job of keeping us on task. And even to the committee members themselves, everyone in that room contributed and meshed extremely well. There wasn't a single time where we didn't have a challenge that we couldn't overcome. Most of the contribution from my seat at that table had a lot to do with how this plan was formed relative to our built environment and how people and vehicles and and our lives are maintained through what we're trying to update from the 2002 plan. And I do believe that this does a number of great things that are aspirational in nature. And to some of the previous folks that commented about it not going on off or needing more detail, I warn against that as an architect that deals with urban design or design guidelines and design standards all the time, sometimes those documents can be very, very prescriptive and that can be a challenge. So there's a balance here that this plan had to strike that I feel like we were able to accomplish. And so to establish its relationship relative to the neighborhood planning initiatives that will continue to to look at where our city grows and how it develops, we'll link directly to that. And I feel that this does a fine job of establishing and. Overarching trajectory for where we're headed as a city, because I think last last week I heard there were about 44,000 people that moved to Metro Denver last year, which is staggering. And they're coming. So how do we how do we accomplish that? How do we solve for that? And this is the plan that I think that does that. So I urge you to support it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Caitlin Quander. Caitlin. All right, I will call the next five up. Carson Roar ball. Rebecca. Rebecca. Alexis. Matthew Crick, Will Martin and David ROI Ball. And first up is Carson.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members, and thank you for your time. Here to voice my support for Blueprint Denver, most specifically as it relates to the changes regarding its use. I know we've heard a lot about that tonight. Two things I want to point out that haven't been mentioned or so. Clarifications to use are as they're explained in Blueprint Denver. They're for primary residences, not investment properties. So you're not going to see people coming in buying five houses in Wash Park West, where I live. By the way, I left that out intentionally with how many people had comments from there earlier. You're not going to see people coming in, buying a bunch of houses, turning the garages into its use, and all of a sudden, you know, it's just a bunch of investors without any interest in the community. These are people like myself who have bought houses, are looking for ways to make them more affordable. About a year ago, I purchased my first home, a 125 year old Victorian style house in Logan Street in the Wash Park West neighborhood, despite higher offers from other parties. The sellers chose my offer for two reasons my commitment to keep the house intact and my sincere interest in restoring the beauty of the property. I was told that the other interested parties were developers with plans to scrape the lot, divide it, and build two modern houses where my current house stands. They can't be faulted for their objective of maximizing the use of the land by turning one residence into several. But the inevitable change to the neighborhood landscape and the loss of the innate beauty of one of those streets. Older houses are changes that can't be undone. Adding an 80 you to my lot is an alternative that accomplishes the same goals of the developers. Blueprint Denver. More efficient land use additional housing without disrupting the neighborhood or the landscape of the neighborhood or the integrity of my 125 year old house and the even older neighborhood. My current zoning restricts my ability to build near to you. That's why I'm here tonight. Please vote yes on Blueprint Denver and give homeowners like myself the opportunity to make our mortgages more affordable while helping to increase housing throughout the existing communities. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rebecca Alexis.
Speaker 9: My name is Rebecca Alexis. I'm a Denver native practicing architecture living in the Platte Park neighborhood.
Speaker 8: I recommend approving Blueprint Denver and the Comprehensive Plan 2040 as it is written. I agree with many here that that there is no time for delay. The state of care, in particular the allowance of age to use into all neighborhoods is critical. Over two years ago, the state of California mandated aid use in every jurisdiction throughout the state. They did this because of safety here and there. People are building spaces in their homes and in their garages that are not safe for their family and the people moving to Denver. By allowing aid to use everywhere, we can support safe permitted housing that does not impact the curb appeal of established neighborhoods and.
Speaker 9: Literally cleans up our alleys.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Matthew, quick.
Speaker 3: Thank you, city council, for hearing all of us tonight. And thank you to all the city planners who put all this all the work into this and to make this initiative something really great. I'm here in front of you. I'm from Lincoln Park neighborhood. And I think it's been it's been a long enough. It's been three years now that we've been working on this. I know I've been to a bunch of city meetings myself, and it's we've heard from a lot of people all around the city. And I think it's time to make this make this a reality. There's three main reasons I really like this one. It's ideas. I think those are awesome. They provide a lot of great flexibility for any homeowners. You can have your, you know, people rent in there. You have in-laws in there. You can have a you can just gives you a lot flexibility over the whole life of your property. And it's a great way to build density without demolition and it's a great way to also improve our alleys. And if anyone's ever walked in, or at least they're not always in the.
Speaker 7: Best shape, there's a lot of trash or.
Speaker 3: Rundown garages, so having it used back there gives eyes on the eyes on the alley and increases their security back there too. I really like the bike paths. I like the addition of the bike paths in Denver. Great Denver, Plan and Blueprint Denver. I think that's going to be a great addition to the city. And three, I there's a lot of people living here to Denver. We have to plan for it. We have to have a great plan that's in place. And if we don't have a plan, we're we're not going to grow well. We're not become a great city. So I urge city council to adopt this Denver plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Will. Martin. No. Will Martin David Rebel.
Speaker 16: Be left.
Speaker 0: Or right? The last three. I'll call up Margie Valdez, Jeff Baker, Steven Chester. Margie Valdez. You're up first.
Speaker 3: You just.
Speaker 9: Mr. President, members of council, good to see everyone. I echo what many of my colleagues on the Denver.
Speaker 10: Blueprint Task.
Speaker 9: Force have.
Speaker 10: Testified to today. It was a real pleasure and an honor to serve on the.
Speaker 8: Denver Blueprint.
Speaker 9: Task Force.
Speaker 8: They were we were a diverse group. But the.
Speaker 9: Thing is, we were all dedicated to making Denver.
Speaker 8: Better.
Speaker 10: We had a goal of helping Denver to grow intelligently.
Speaker 9: Fairly and equitably, equitably. The plan is very thoughtful and will serve Denver well in the next 20 years. Denver needs a good road map.
Speaker 10: This is the opportunity to go ahead in a responsible manner. I urge you to vote for to adopt this the plans.
Speaker 9: And lastly, I would be remiss.
Speaker 10: If I did not think Joel Noble.
Speaker 9: And Kimball and David and Sarah and all the community.
Speaker 2: Planning.
Speaker 10: Development staff for the many thousands of hours that they must have put into this.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jeff Baker.
Speaker 3: All right, I'm starving. Let's just pass this and get on it. My name's Jeff Baker. I live at 2422 Chapel Street. I'm also president of Curtis Park Neighbors and which is a neighborhood registered neighborhood organization within five points. And we have had lots of interaction with our neighbors throughout reviewing drafts, community events and support the adoption of these two plans. We also do not support the agency position, which suggests that the last three years of work should be delayed. We were not part of that and we voted against that in response to the use. Curtis Park was a pilot neighborhood, has original ideas from the late 1800s and has a lot of ideas that have been built. We have not seen disruption in the neighborhood. And secondly, you're not going to see investors flipping these or people flipping these because this is a long term investment in their property to sustain and be able to have flexibility. Like they said, there's all sorts of flexibility that comes with having an EDU and the cost that's associated and the blood, sweat and tears that people put into building these things. They're not going to turn around and flip these units. So Curtis Park has been a good pilot as a proof that it works. And Curtis Park neighbors voted earlier in the year.
Speaker 11: To support both of.
Speaker 3: A comprehensive plan blueprint, Denver and the other three.
Speaker 11: Denver plans. So please adopt this tonight without delay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Steven Chester.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members of council. My name is Steven Chester. A little bit. 843 Steel Street. Took my wife and I three years to buy that house at 843 Steel Street. Partly because we're extremely picky, but also because we were unwilling to compromise in our desire to live in a walkable, bikeable, transit rich neighborhood . And it turns out many other people in Denver want the same thing. And also, as it turns out, there's not many neighborhoods that fit those categories of being walkable, bikeable and transit rich. Looking back on that process, I'm left feeling angered. Angered primarily because I'll be the first to admit my wife and I are privileged. We're privileged to live in this great city, but we're also privileged because we don't face the barriers that many other residents in Denver face when it comes to institutional racism, socioeconomic barriers. And, you know, let's just leave it at those two barriers. Those other residents of Denver also want to live in walkable, bikeable, transit rich neighborhoods as well. And this plan goes deeper than any plan has ever before in Denver to do those barriers and to create a truly more inclusive Denver. So I urge you to support this plan with a slight disclaimer that I previously worked with the city and county Denver with CPD for about eight years, and I had the privilege of working alongside David and Sarah for many of those years, and I just want to thank them for their unbelievable amount of time and effort and passion that they put into these plans. Denver is truly lucky to have two people working to create a more equitable and diverse future for Denver. So thank you, sir and David so much. And so working with the city. I had the great honor of being in the front lines when this plan was created in terms of really, truly creating a community plan. This is not the mayor's plan. This is not city council's plan. This is not CPD's plan. This is the communities plan. I saw with my own eyes the hours of deliberation that took place in small, hot conference rooms, going over every single comment that was submitted to Blueprint Denver. I witnessed the many, many events all over this great city and the chili fest in Westwood and in community meetings in Marbella and movies in the Park and Virginia Village, along with the equity training that this plan went through in order to make sure this plan creates an equitable future. So I urge Council to support this plan because it outlines an innovative, comprehensive and inclusive future for this great city. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Thank you all so much for coming down, for spending, for sitting in those seats and for sticking around. We are now going to go to questions from members of council. Councilman Brooks, your first stop.
Speaker 7: Wow. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to start off a little different and just staff folks from CPD. Can you please just stand if you were a part of this deal for three years. Great. Thank. He shared it. Mr. President, I didn't ask them to clap. I was just going to recognize them. But thank you for the clap. I think a lot of blood, sweat and tears in there. So we gave Gasper and Showalter a little time. I just wanted to make sure we had extra time for the people who spent time on this. And so, Brad, we can call you up first. Hi, Brad. How you doing? Good to see you. Brad, you had 3 minutes. You've been you know, you kicked this thing off. And so I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything else you add to kind of the chorus of individuals kind of talking about this plan.
Speaker 3: I think I think a lot of it's been said I think a lot of it's been said very diplomatically this evening. But, you know, cities, successful cities grow. And that's why we've been growing the last 20 years. That's why we've seen such amazing investment in the city the last seven or eight years. And while that changes is a painful and hard thing. Just the pace of the change is hard to consume. The folks, the planners, the citizens, the the task force get that, but refuse to give up on the promise of of what is great about Denver. And and it's not perfect and things change. But this plan, I think, authentically addresses the the impacts to what that change in pace of change and the realities that if we continue to sprawl outside, if we continue to not allow density around transit and to increase even a transit oriented density, we, as it was spoken by one of the speakers tonight, will absolutely just increase the carbon footprint, spend more time in single occupant vehicles. And so we need to think very creatively about how how we handle both of those things, how we value open space in our city and green space and natural space in our city. And and I don't I don't think it's it's magic. And I think that blueprint and the Denver suite of plans get to the heart of it that looking around equity and and density and affordability and design quality because density can be a very livable place when it's when design is valued at the highest.
Speaker 7: Very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call up our co-chairs, John Noble and Campbell Crandall. You all got paid $0. And so I wanted to ask a question, but I also wanted to give you as much time as you wanted to to to talk or excuse me as much time as the President will allow for you to share some of of your feedback. I guess the leading question that I'm going to give you all is I represent a district where there's a lot going on. There are a lot of people who are pro density, you know, a lot of urban is a lot of folks. But there are a lot of a lot of folks who don't want to see a tiny home in their neighborhood. They don't want to see an Adu in their neighborhood. How did you all balance this over the last three years of being progressive, having a vision and having a progressive vision for the future, but at the same time, recognizing that this growth is scaring a lot of folks. This growth is hard for a lot of people. How do you balance it?
Speaker 9: Sorry. We always have to talk to each other first. So I'm going to let Joel talk about the neighborhood plans and small area plans, because he's so eloquent about that. But what I'd like to talk about care about is the neighborhoods of Denver. I've had a great I love Denver. I moved to Denver in 2003. So I'm a transplant from Kansas. And when I moved to Denver, I moved into the Harvard Gulch neighborhood, and I found a city that was very welcoming to me. I didn't know many people. I actually didn't know anybody in Denver. And I had a choice about where I wanted to live. Even though I was making a pretty low wage at the time, I was able to find a community that I felt comfortable in and that I could take the bus to. I didn't have a car. I couldn't afford a car downtown to my job at 19th and Grant and I've moved a lot. I like to move. I like to experience new places. So I've had the privilege to live in La Alma Lincoln Park and Congress Park and West Wash Park and Harvard Gulch and my offices in the Golden Triangle I've office downtown. Most importantly, I do work in affordable housing, and I've worked for Denver Housing Authority for six years and led the Mariposa redevelopment in La alma Lincoln Park. I've worked in Lowry when I was the executive director of the Lowry Community Land Trust. I've built great projects in Westwood, in Globeville. We just are we just acquired the Colburn Hotel and preserved it from flipping to market rate in Cap Hill and. The work is big. It's overwhelming at times, especially when you see the families that have lived in general in Denver for generations and all of a sudden, you know, they've lived in Westwood in a home that meets their needs, had, you know, family members sharing their household with them and all of the sudden their property or their suite of properties gets purchased and they've got 30 or 60 days to move and find somewhere else to go. Well, where do they go? Where do you go for a family? And how do you uproot your children and your lives like that? This is big. And in Denver, this is what we're facing a lot. We have that extreme. We have seniors that want to downsize and can't. They can't age in place. We have parks that are in neighborhoods that aren't safe to walk around at night or even during the day. And people think, oh, well, there's green space right there. Well, you walk around that, see how you feel. We live in a in a great city, but we live in a city with a lot of challenges and a lot of inequity. And until we face that head on, which I think we're doing now in Blueprint Denver and we're acknowledging institutional barriers that have existed for a long time, and we're saying redlining might not exist the way it used to, but it still is prevalent in many of our neighborhoods. Until we face that head on, we're going to perpetuate the innate and equity that exists. So when I look at Blueprint and think about, well, this person doesn't want an ADU and this person doesn't want a tiny home. I think what we can say collectively is that we want to live in a safe place with amenities and walkability, where our kids are safe and where our parents are safe. And I want, you know, my family to be able to afford to move into town. And I want my neighbor next to me to be able to stay put and not feel like they're being forced out because of property tax increases. That was the Denver I moved to in 223. Not all of that, but some of that. And Denver's changed a lot. And Denver's worth fighting for. It's worth saying we're going to grow. We should keep our doors open. But there's a way that we can grow that's welcoming and safe and comfortable. And I think it's worth it. And I think our neighborhoods want many of the same things. It's how we accommodate and funnel growth in a way that's respectful, tolerable and sustainable. So that was way too much talking.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman. I think I'll just have one point micro. One point macro at the micro level. There was a strong emphasis here on neighborhood plans because to take the the vision and the values and the goals and the strategies and blueprint Denver and make them hit the ground. These plans leave a gap. They aren't regulatory. So it will be up to the council, will be up to speed working with the communities to say, okay, we've agreed as a city these are the tools we have in the toolbox. Now how specifically does that meet the ground in your neighborhood? And those neighborhood plans should guide the regulations like zoning. I mentioned at the end of my comments that it's my hope and my belief that the thing people will have on their lips when they talk about Blueprint Denver for the next 20 years is complete net, complete neighborhoods and complete networks. And that's a deceptively powerful framing. Complete Neighborhoods is going to challenge people to have discussions among themselves as they're doing their neighborhood plans, to say, what do we have completeness in and what don't we? Does our neighborhood support a range of age levels? Does our neighborhood support a range of income levels? Does our neighborhood have things to walk to or only residences? Completeness on a lot of dimensions, and hopefully that will generate a lot of very good conversation that leads to neighborhood plans that lead to more complete neighborhoods and networks. And serving on the Denver Planning Board. I look forward to challenging staff as they bring us neighborhood plans. The first one will be the far northeast plan and say, all right, this plan is going to be adopted under the new blueprint. Denver If council acts tonight, how does this plan? Provide complete neighborhoods, show us that the conversations have occurred, and I very confident they will zooming out to the macro. I was reminded the other day about April 2017, the April 2017 public meeting here it was the growing a better Denver game for those of you who attended that session. And the question is, how much growth do you accommodate and where? For 20 years, we've had this idea that you put growth near transit, so much so that people who are not involved in planning and don't come to public hearings at night, you ask them, where should the growth go? They'll say, Well, near transit. Of course, we've got that in Denver. But where and exactly how? At the task force level, we talked abstractly about growth strategy. But it was at this April 2017 meeting in the in a high school cafeteria that people broke up into different tables you set where people you knew when you sat by , people you didn't know, but you had six or eight people there and you played with playing pieces and you worked out where should growth go? And staff went and blended those together as the as one way that the community was expressing itself that later got refined into the maps that people could comment on online. So at a macro level, how did we say decide where to grow? We asked people to very tactfully show us, leave aside abstractions, where should people go? And the centers and the corridors that are in the plan emerged. That's great. I think, Mr. President, that's another question that really helps me to understand each of your perspectives on some very tough questions that we're dealing with on city council. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Joe.
Speaker 11: Till I can ask you to stick around. Just sort of a follow up to your response there, because I've heard the term a lot about complete neighborhoods, particularly in your response. Is it fair to say that we're not doing a very good job right now of compelling, complete neighborhoods as an outcome?
Speaker 7: I think as we've heard testimony tonight, some neighborhoods are certainly more complete than others. We talk about walkable, bikeable places to live where you don't have to drive to do your normal trips of life. Certainly. Yeah.
Speaker 11: So the thing that I've been struggling for four years from this day is is sort of a massive amount of opportunities on Fox Island and the limited ingress and egress for that part of Globeville. And and so one of the things is, as I've said from here as well, that we should treat it as an island. Right. Because, you know, the doctor should be present there. That should be present there. Grocery should be present there. Sort of all the things that you would need to sort of live on an island should largely be present there. That I think those would those elements be consistent with this idea of a complete neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Or.
Speaker 7: I think that's the kind of conversation I hope happens in the neighborhood plans is as people talk about complete and let that very positive idea roll around in their minds and then meet each other and compare their ideas. A completeness. The vision for that neighborhood should emerge. Now there's market realities as well. A plan or city zoning can't compel a business to open there if if there's no market for it. If they don't if we've seen that with grocery stores, the community wants a grocery store, but it's not economically viable. So it also raises the opportunity to have two way dialog with the community and with with planners to say, if we agree, we want that. Then as a practical reality, a prerequisite of that is this, for instance, rooftops.
Speaker 3: For the grocery stores.
Speaker 11: So it's fair to say that the and are you going to be around for the blueprint Denver discussion?
Speaker 7: I will be here till we're done.
Speaker 11: Great. Because these are sort of more in that realm on the recommendation side of these things and trying to figure out how we would get in these recommendations to those outcomes. Because I don't disagree with the idea of complete neighborhoods, because those are the things we need to take to get to all six vision elements. But I'm I'm worried that the you at least you acknowledge the market element to this is how these documents will get used by the market. And the timetables associated with it, you know, will play out if the market continues in the way that it's been.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'll certainly be around for any other questions.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Desmond, as this is our question session for both. This was a combined hearing. So once we move out of this, that will only be comments of your questions.
Speaker 3: I do then.
Speaker 0: Now would be the time would welcome.
Speaker 11: All right, Joel, then let's go into the into that. Right. So the final comment or Mr. Steven Chester made some very eloquent remarks about sort of the disadvantaged elements of our of our community. I think those align with vision element goal five very well. Reduce involuntary displacement of residents and businesses. But then in the strategies, it says advance a comprehensive approach. This is really to staff or to advance a comprehensive approach to mitigating involuntary displacement that includes expanding economic mobility, creating new affordable housing, and preserving existing affordable housing in the recommendations underneath item five on the implementation matrix. There are three items listed, but they only address major city projects and this potential. I'm going to disregard the fact that they reference OED, which is an agency that means an office that doesn't exist anymore. So I hope we're not sending them somewhere that doesn't exist. But, you know, how is it? That integration. How is it? I mean, how do we address the situations that might happen that are like Jefferson Park and the communities that I represent that didn't have major city investments or projects, but exhibited major involuntary displacement? Which tool, which recommendation are we putting forward in this plan to address that level of displacement?
Speaker 13: And I'm sorry, could you clarify which plan you're reading? Because there's very similar recommendations in both.
Speaker 11: Yeah. So I'm actually.
Speaker 8: Reading from both.
Speaker 11: Referencing goal five in the current plan, which then goes to Blueprint Denver recommendation five in the general and then has an actual implementation strategy in the matrix in the back. So actually talking about The Matrix because that's sort of the nuts and bolts of what's going on.
Speaker 13: So let me start with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan as an implementation matrix to. Do you have that in front of you?
Speaker 11: No, I didn't have that.
Speaker 13: So I think part of the challenges that you're jumping from one plan to the other is let's start with comprehensive plan, because goal five that you pointed out in the implementation matrix for the comprehensive plan has strategies there that go well beyond just major investments. So there's in addition to the one that you already read, advanced comprehensive approach to mitigating involuntary displacement. That includes expanding economic mobility, creating new affordable housing and preserving existing affordability. We also have stabilized residents and businesses at risk of displacement through programs and policies that help them stay in their existing community and evaluate city plans, projects, and major regulatory changes for potential to contribute to involuntary displacement. So I want to just start there. The comprehensive plan does have more because its scope is much broader. I think you might also have an outdated version because we did go through and change all references from OED to Dito because we agree with you. We want to move on the right direction. Although now we'll have even a new challenge ahead of us to update the Matrix and point people to a new Department of Housing and Homelessness that this will be created because we worked really closely with our partners in what's now DITO Economic Development and opportunity to focus on a really comprehensive approach to displacement blueprint. Denver was trying to take a little more of the lens of a land use and transportation plan, not the whole involuntary displacement picture, which is going to involve a lot of programs and policies that go well beyond zoning and land use and transportation investments. So the blueprint recommendations that they might feel a little more limited in scope to you, that was actually intentional. We were trying to really link where involuntary displacement comes together with land use and transportation decisions and the comprehensive plan. Our hope there was that it has broader policies that cover other things, which to your point, yes, there are a lot of neighborhoods that may not have those big investments, but we still want to stabilize residents there. And then also point you to housing inclusive Denver and some of our other plans that have much more detailed strategies on what some of those tools might look like.
Speaker 11: So where I'm struggling, which is how do these plans, especially if if and I apologize because my my Excel spreadsheet is cut off. So I didn't know the first half of the.
Speaker 10: Yeah sorry.
Speaker 3: Things.
Speaker 11: How, how these two things that are in conflict seemingly which is you know recommendations in certain places for increased density based on some transit notion that may or may not exist marries with with the economic market reality which is that somebody could go in there and justify that creating the opportunity for increased density in an area, even at a low scale increased density that would be sort of commensurate with the form of the surrounding neighborhood would still result in the displacement of people occupied housing. Do we would we look at is there anything in here that prescribes us going forward, looking at the existing property, its use and if it's occupied before moving forward with the rezoning to sort of address the the the displacement? Or are we still agnostic to who's there and what's there right now?
Speaker 13: Yeah, it's a great question. I would say that generally the approach that we've taken this is based on a lot of input from people working on this topic, you know, trying to prevent involuntary displacement in Denver, as well as a lot of research we did into other communities. Denver actually through through Dito is the lead is part of a policy link network across the city policy links a national nonprofit. That brought together ten cities. We had to apply. We were accepted into the network to be part of what they called an anti displacement network. And we've learned a lot from peer cities through that. And I would say through that research as well as people working here, generally the approach has been the best way to try and solve these problems are through policies and programs that aren't going to be side by side. So one small rezoning, we also don't always have the data to really understand what the displacement impacts might be from a small site. So we've seen in the language and Blueprint Denver, the focus is on how do we take the involuntary or the vulnerability to displacement map that's in the plan and integrate that at a minimum into our larger scale rezonings? I don't think we do have a good model for saying that every single kind of smaller parcel coming through would go through the kind of analysis that you're bringing up. But I think if you look more comprehensively at the plan recommendations, when we would do the analysis for plan consistency, that would be part of any rezoning we would certainly be considering if it's in it, particularly if it's an area that's vulnerable to displacement. Do we have tools or programs in place in this community to address those needs? So it may not be the burden of one particular rezoning, but we would certainly want to be thinking about that community as a whole.
Speaker 11: Does this plan, would you say, would it address existing conditions that we created? So I have a lot of some $500,000 homes that are that are that are being ground up for multi-unit. Well, north of a half a million dollars on resale. Again, will this plan are we basically saying what we've done in the past and what is existing? Is is is is. Or are we. Are there any recommendations that compel us to sort of revisit existing fabric and and put in new tools to address the involuntary displacement? In some cases? It's weird, right? It's not involuntary. Some people are actually choosing to to to leave that afford formerly affordable unit and make a slight windfall off of that transaction. But now we're creating a Denver that doesn't have those affordable units. So what? Which which recommendation addresses the century? The situation that I have in West Sloan's Lake or East Sloan's Lake or on Long Tennyson? Yeah.
Speaker 13: That's a great question. I would say there's several recommendations, but I guess a couple that I would highlight is that we have very strong language around the importance of missing mental housing. That's something we heard about a lot from the community, but we also heard a lot that the exact scenario described basically where you in the name of housing diversity or, you know, new units right in the neighborhood are actually losing. Affordability is a huge concern. And so we very specifically have the recommendation that where we're going to look to enable gentle density in our neighborhoods that we should seriously consider things like income restriction for the the added units that are kind of a bonus. So that's one tool we're looking at. We also have a strong recommendation to look at more incentives for affordable housing across the city in all of our transit rich areas. So doing something, at least for now, given state law, since we can't just do a lot of requirements, the model is, well, let's do more of what we've done at CBD Area and 30th. And Blake, it may not be that exact same model because we want to figure out how to apply it to some of our lowered on city areas as well. But the concept of saying because we had really strongly from the community that there was actually more acceptance and you might think around density or adding more to a neighborhood than what's there now, but only if in exchange for that it comes with affordability. And so we have recommendations saying let's look for more ways to incentivize that kind of have a base, but then an incentive that comes with doing more affordability. I think those those are the kind of strategies that would hopefully help prevent some of the situations that you mentioned.
Speaker 11: Do we have a timetable for that? Because we've spent three years developing this document. How fast can we get into that realm? Because because it might. These are when I talk about Tennyson, those are areas that are not in the NPI process. They're not going to a neighborhood planning process. This conversation may or may not happen for better part of six years.
Speaker 13: Right. You are interested in the design. All right. So, yes, great point. Honestly, on a lot of this run, we should have started it three years ago. Right. So I think I want to be clear, this implementation of those ideas, we actually really tried to set them up to be a citywide conversations. You don't have to wait for a neighborhood plan. And the incentive for affordable housing is one of the zoning code amendments we'd like to kick off this year as major implementation item. You know, we do a very robust community process around a major change like that. So the process would probably take a year and a half to two years, but we're hopeful to start it very soon if the plan is adopted.
Speaker 11: Okay. Yeah, I think.
Speaker 13: And then did.
Speaker 14: You I just wanted to add one quick policy to your question, Councilman. So Policy three in Blueprint Denver on housing Policy three on page 83 is incentivize the preservation and reuse of existing smaller and affordable homes and a strategy that talks about implementing zoning tools incentivize the preservation of those homes. So I think that's really to one of your points.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Councilman Espinosa, you good for now?
Speaker 11: No, I'm chuckling because this is this is this is one of those laments I've heard from the community, which is that that recommendation is three is in the housing recommendation, not the general recommendation. It's very it's a lot of recommendations, sort of the. Yeah, I would be happy to skip unless there's no one.
Speaker 3: Else out.
Speaker 0: There. A couple other people in the queue. All right, Councilman, you're next. All right.
Speaker 17: Thank you, Mr. Sarah. First, I want to thank you and Dave for the great work your leadership did and the co-chairs and all the volunteers. It's really good to see all the massive positive support that we heard from the public tonight. And that was, you know, I didn't know what was going to happen. And I was so glad to see that there was that overwhelming support. So congratulations on a great job done.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 17: We're talking about a couple of issues strictly from a residents perspective. Issues we've been talking about each time. Now your responses to it. Let's talk about rezoning, you know, on page 66, 67 as the rezoning process. Yeah, the rezoning has probably been a concern or anxiety of a lot of residents and neighborhoods. And and what's going to happen, especially in the process we're going through. There's been some concern about in certain neighborhoods. But the in looking at the type of 67 it describes as the rezoning process, but it doesn't mention neighborhoods. It doesn't mention resident involvement in the rezoning process. Well, can you describe what the role is of neighborhoods and residents in the rezoning process so that people might have a clear understanding of what that is?
Speaker 13: Sure, yeah. So neighborhoods play a really important role of informing the analysis that staff and the Planning Board and City Council do to evaluate whether a rezoning, the first criterion that they would get reviewed against is is it consistent with our adopted plans? And as you can imagine, sometimes there's a bit of subjectivity or disagreement sometimes around whether it's consistent with the plan. And that, I would say, is one of the main roles that we see the public really informing and improving the process. So the neighborhoods have a lot of opportunity. We have a required notification of any registered neighborhood organization at the time that we receive an application and then again for the planning board and city council hearings. Thanks to Councilman Espinosa, we also now have a requirement for postcard mailing to go to all owners within 200 feet of the property for both of the hearings. So there's lots of advertisement. And and through that, we see a lot of neighborhoods get engaged sometimes to the extent that they even help change or influence what the proposed rezoning is, what the applicant goes for because of that neighborhood input.
Speaker 17: All right, Mr. Good, so been left out of this process. That doesn't mean they're being excluded. They still going to be a valuable component to the rezoning process, right?
Speaker 13: That's that's correct.
Speaker 17: Okay. Looking at the future places, you know, that map, you know, we talked about, you know, and even though, you know, maybe there is a change, the stability is simple that, you know, sometimes residents like very clarity. They like concise, simple things. You know, they don't have the knowledge about sophisticated tools to figure it out. But and that was the thing about areas of stability and change was really good. And this and this map here shows the future, shows the changes. And I like the color coded version. It shows it shows you what the the the zoning is going to be. Have you had is a resident know what's going to change? How do they know what area that is, how much change is occurring, and how do they go about that kind of discussion by looking at this document
Speaker 13: ? Yeah, great question. We're actually thinking about developing a companion piece that would really kind of be a flowchart almost of because the pieces, the steps you would go through is you could look at an existing zoning map, which we have online and see what the zoning is today. And you can also look at existing land use because sometimes the zoning doesn't match the land. She sits there, then you look at the plan map, the calls for the future, the aspiration, and to understand if there's a difference, you would go to the section of the plan that describes usually we have a whole paragraph describing what that future places. So if it's a community quarter corridor in the urban context or if it's a community corridor in the suburban context, then we have different scales of those corridors. And so it's kind of about going to the plan, finding what we say is appropriate for that type of place, and then comparing it to what's on the ground today. And I think you've had some good ideas about how we could make that a little clearer for people to understand. And we're going to explore how to do that in the Web version of the plan.
Speaker 17: Okay. They'll have somebody come to the they can actually see what a zoning change is going to is going to be recommended.
Speaker 13: Yeah, exactly. See if there's something that would support a change in zoning. Yeah.
Speaker 17: I love the implementation matrix. You know, we talked about that and I've been loving to see this come in, hoping we have that every one of our plans is great. And we talked about some things and I especially like the the priority section and the responsibility section. I mean, you know, I'm a purist when it comes to some of this. I mean, we're missing the action plans. And most important, the resources, the money is is not there. So that's the thing that I think, you know, I know that you're limited and just want to know, did you have a discussion with the finance department has been going through this 20 year plan about resource that can be applied because I see that we've done that in go bond in 2017 we had resources applied and I know we're working on like six year, you know, CFP plan. We've got resources apply. Somebody can estimate some of these. Can you have any discussion at all about the resources to make sure you can implement this plan?
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's a great question. We did what was actually really valuable about doing the Denver right process is that we aren't the only ones generating recommendations, right? So you throw in the transit plan and game plan and the head trails plan, there was actually a lot of discussion around, wow, this is a lot. It's the right things to be asking for. But we also want to talk about different ways we might implement. So yes, there were strong discussions on that and that included thinking about the existing tools we have, like the ones you mentioned, certainly Bonds and our CIP every year. But also there's some ideas in the plans about needing to explore other ways that we might be able to find the resources needed to fund a lot of the ideas.
Speaker 17: Okay, pull this out of the old Blueprint Denver Museum. This was the guy that everybody loves. I mean, is that executive summary document of 27 pages from several hundred pages, you know, is it's a great thing that the public can really sink their teeth into and look at and see the essence of what happened in Blueprint Denver . The thing that I would encourage you to is the the priorities. What are those key 10 to 20 priorities are going to make a difference for this city, you know, and I hope that you'll include that in there. So they can see that because you look at the implementation matrix and there's a lot of the strategies are just ongoing. It says ongoing. It's not new things that the public needs to be aware of, that they may not be aware of going to, but still. But the the new strategies are the ones I think they're going to make the difference. I would hope so. I just encourage you and hope you. Are you planning on having a sort of a document like that?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think we have the starting point of our executive summary already, but I think you raise a good point that maybe there's a middle ground between the executive summary and the full plan, so we can definitely look at that.
Speaker 17: Yeah. And if you had top priorities, I'm sure you can do maybe four, ten years or so hard when you get it out to 20 years, you know. But yeah, at least it would give the public an idea of what the future is going to hold.
Speaker 13: So yeah, it's a great point and that's certainly part of what we want to do with the annual reporting. And our goal to keep this a living document is to do a better job, you know, of organizing that matrix and showing these are our priorities and how are we doing on actually implementing them?
Speaker 17: Well, thank you. Great job. Congratulations again. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kels minu, councilman flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. president. Maybe david or sara either one of you could handle this question, but i heard one of the witnesses state and I want to say maybe I didn't hear it correctly, but that addus would not be owned by they had to be owned by primary resident. And which implies that an aide to you could not be owned by an absentee owner of the primary residence. Is that true? Are we contemplating that? And if so, how do how would we enforce that? Or was or did I hear that incorrectly? I think it was. Mr. Rohrbach.
Speaker 14: Yeah. So the existing Denver zoning code has language speaking to how accessory dwelling units can be used today. And you either need to be the primary residence to be occupying either the house or the accessory dwelling unit.
Speaker 4: That's in the current zoning.
Speaker 14: As in the current occurrence.
Speaker 4: Okay. Because I know there was a concern in Westwood as as the Renaissance project, there developed more ideas that they could turn into investment properties and and whatnot. So that's we're not contemplating changing that. Correct. Okay. What is the status of existing neighborhood plans? Would they now be were this to pass, would they be considered automatically as supplements to these new plans? Or is there a cut off to them? Because we've dealt with plans that are 25 and 30 years old. And then if so, which I assume is true, what would be would there be a foreseeable occasion where a recommendation in the new blueprint would override guidance in an existing neighborhood plan during a rezoning hearing or application process?
Speaker 13: Sure. So I'll start the the ordinance for the Comprehensive Plan, which is what the neighborhood plans are supplement to, includes the list of all the supplements. So if it gets adopted tonight, it will include all the current small area plans that we have.
Speaker 4: Okay. So if there is a conflict in the guidance in Blueprint, what and the neighborhood plan, how would staffers?
Speaker 13: I would say there's not a straightforward answer to that. We actually have that challenge today sometimes already. Right. And so you've probably seen rezonings before you where we've the legally there isn't something that clearly says this plan always trumps this plan based on your it's adopted or its scope. So we we consider with the same amount of weight what both plans say. But we also acknowledge sometimes, particularly if one is 20 years old. Correct. You know. Oh, okay. Well, that things might have changed. We also sometimes acknowledge, well, this this this plan took the time to dove into a deeper level. And this area, in a way, a citywide plan can't. Right. So it really depends on the situation. We always have to consider both plans. They both legally need to be considered. But how we address it would would vary.
Speaker 4: Sarah, do you know standing here right now, do you know if any of the plans that are are adopted by reference? Do you know of any of them that have conflicting recommendations?
Speaker 13: Oh, I wish I knew group enough to know the recommendations of all these plans.
Speaker 4: No, you don't.
Speaker 13: Nobody does. I mean, the list here, I don't have the total count, but it's you know, it's it's well over 70 plans and some of them were adopted well over 20 years ago. Yeah. So I'm going to venture to guess that there might be some things in there that aren't consistent.
Speaker 3: I don't have.
Speaker 4: To worry about that in my district cause I've never had one, but I'm getting one now. And finally, is can.
Speaker 3: Shrapnel here still?
Speaker 4: He was sitting over here. Did he leave? Okay, David or Sara, maybe you could answer this. Something that can said kind of set off a little anxiety in the pit of my stomach, and maybe I misheard him, but I think he was talking about the suburbs of Denver as opposed to the suburban areas of the city and county of Denver. My council district is entirely suburban context right now. But he seemed to say that suburban areas are antithetical to complete neighborhoods as envisioned in Blueprint, and David and Sarah know well because of our many back and forth conversations and emails, and especially in the last few weeks that I have a great deal of anxiety over over the a one size fits all or homogenizing all of our neighborhoods to be complete. Maybe in the same way when the differing characters and contacts between urban, urban edge all the way down to suburban might call for different and more discrete approaches. How does CPD view those? Does CPD view suburban context areas as antithetical to complete neighborhoods? And if not, which I I'm hoping you'll say, no, you don't. How would suburban context be treated when trying to declare that this is now a complete neighborhood?
Speaker 13: Sure. I'll start and then let David chime into. Yeah, you are correct. We very much see suburban neighborhoods as part of what makes Denver great. And we have a lot of people that live in suburban neighborhoods, participate, coming to community meetings as well as some task force members. So you're very correct there, and I think it depends on the strategy. I'll hit a couple and maybe Dave in particular, I'm going to talk about about transportation, because that's a big component. But it's interesting because we don't want to this gets to the equity a little bit. We don't want any neighborhood to feel like it has a lower bar because of its context. Right. In terms of being complete. Right. But we also there are basic amenities that you think no matter what context you're in downtown to suburban everybody should have, including things like transit. But we also recognize what that's going to look like and what the kind of the standards are. For example, the expectations of how many services you should be able to walk to in your neighborhood or how close a lot of high frequency transit is is going to vary by context, and we're very much aware that in a suburban context we'll need a nuanced approach.
Speaker 4: Very happy to hear you say that. Because definitely we are not complete when it comes to mobility. Mobility looks different in any in all the different contexts.
Speaker 14: Yeah, I think the plan in its context based approach is very intentional about how suburban parts of the city need to be complete in their own way. And so just for example, in the equity concepts, the axis of opportunity, we looked at at different distances to access different types of centers and corridors. And it is different in, in a suburban setting to reach a regional center or a community center than in a urban neighborhoods. So we're very cognizant of that. And I think it's also important to note that we have a lot of recommendations on how to think about how our suburban context can evolve over time. And there's a lot of opportunities in some of our corridors that are very auto oriented today, and we'll still need to accommodate the auto in the future. But also it's a transit investment along some of those corridors, like federal, for example. How could we see infill at some of those large parking lots, etc.? That makes it more walkable and transit friendly community.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa, you back up.
Speaker 11: So I want to thank David for if anyone was watching Lou to you saw me sort of question the you know, the vulnerability that I just was mentioning, neighbors, neighborhoods without statistical neighborhoods that have never had plans and basically asking you guys to consider having language that in those areas that have never gotten any sort of major scrutiny from the city to have customized that that be the appropriate place where customized zoning be to be used and to to get these outcomes because we talk about transitions, right? But there's nothing in the zoning code that requires transitions other than, you know, the relationship to existing mean to protected districts. That said, where you directed me was page 73. I hope that page number hasn't changed. Again, in the record general recommendations, but I'm worried because it's the last line in item recommended recommendation be so David or Sarah, because that line is an afterthought in that second paragraph. And it's right next to this big blue box that talks about the challenges of custom zoning. And we have policy that is averse to custom zoning. And in the Denver zoning code, it talks about essentially a lack of wanting to use custom zoning. Are we still pointing everybody in the direction of base zone districts should because I the thing I was asking for then and I'm going to still ask for that now is rather than have it be a tag on sentence, it says custom zoning tools are the are most effective when a standard zone district does not exist to implement the adopted plans for an area. Why can't we just pull that out? Do another bullet point in, say, custom done zone districts and I'll say it.
Speaker 3: Shall.
Speaker 11: Be used when a zone when a standard zone district does not exist to implement the adopted plans in an area because this is the only adopted plan. This will talk about transitions. This will talk about equity. This will talk about all the elements, the vision element. We don't have a zone district that does that today.
Speaker 13: You do have the current page in the current language. So yeah, it's a great point. I would say that we're trying to strike a balance between acknowledging when it is completely appropriate to use custom zoning, which as you've seen, there's been a lot of custom zoning that have come through council recently and it's it's definitely not the policy to always steer people away from it. So the starting point is, is there a standard zoned district? That's the intent of having the form base code with the context based approach is to start with, we have this vast menu of districts. Is there something there that can get us, if not all the way there, than very close? But if there's not, then there's certainly an appetite to discuss custom zoning. And I don't think that the language here is trying to set us up to say that we we don't want to do that in the future.
Speaker 11: But haven't you seen developers basically be averse to approaching something when there's that many flight red flags telling them not to do something like that? Because I have I have had conversations, developers that don't want to approach that because CPD essentially advise them not to approach the customized zone district.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I would say that's not something we hear a lot about. I feel like a lot of a lot of advocates we work with are usually pretty open to wanting to just have a very successful process. So whatever is most likely to get them the to get through the zoning criteria and showing plan consistency as well as community support. And it is true. I mean, there's a reason why the language is in here. We are trying to recognize not just because of the development community, but also even neighborhood residents. You know, we have people in Cherry Creek East that we've heard from most recently saying, you know, we we really want to support as much as we can getting rid of old code zoning and having to do kind of site by site negotiation because they have a neighborhood full of feuds. So we're trying to balance the desire to have predictable straight forward zone districts that implement our plans, but also recognize sometimes the custom zoning is an appropriate tool.
Speaker 11: Are you is KPD aware of the hubbub right now, whether it's fact or fiction about the Home Depot on Fox Island at 41st and Fox Station?
Speaker 3: Of course.
Speaker 13: I'm not quite sure what you mean by the hubbub, but I'm aware that there is a proposal to build one there. Yes.
Speaker 11: So the hubbub that I'm referencing comes from the fact that, yes, repeatedly I talked about and staff acknowledged that there were no minimums. Right. So as a district that allows 30 allows one. Yeah. And if we look at the Globeville neighborhood plan, which is only now five years old, it doesn't contemplate big box retail. It contemplates something much, much more dense and much more mixed use. And so that's what I'm talking about is we could take an MCs 30 or 20 or whatever we have there and put the minimum there. And that's a custom zoning and basically have precluded a big box retail, single story, big plugs, retail project. I don't know that it's going to be that. And so that's how we can get plan objectives, whether they're this plan or NPI generated plans, but only if we tell people that know if we don't have a zoned district that compels the outcome that is envisioned, we will tweak the zoning so that we do. Why not state that very clearly that our objectives here is as an equity component, we want to mitigate displacement. Therefore, we're going to we're going to we're going to have a housing component within a requirement within this distance to the TOD. We need a neighborhood serving retail, so we're going to have a retail component. Why not put that in? Yeah.
Speaker 13: Well, I think overall, I would just say that we feel like the best way to address those kinds of issues, like doing the minimum density requirements next to transit, which I would point out land use vote form, general recommendation number two and Blueprint Denver. That's what it's all about. How are we going to address the equity that you mentioned? Those things are best addressed by a more comprehensive approach an amendment to the zoning code creating zone districts that accomplish what we need. If you start doing it, every site that comes in side by side by side, not only does it add a lot to the process, you don't necessarily end up with consistent results. So one landowner negotiates this outcome, the next lander owner negotiates this outcome, the next landowner negotiates this outcome. And now in an area where you want one kind of comprehensive outcome or playing field site by, say, you've negotiated something differently. I'm not saying we still have done this particularly for large rezonings. We have used customs earnings or other tools like a. Development agreements. To get to the outcomes that we want when we can't get it fully through standards or districts. But I guess my point would be we have other tools that we're trying to use to get those outcomes. It's not just through a custom zoning.
Speaker 11: I don't think that CPD should fear the uniqueness of our areas. Right. Town of Highland developed one way. Denver developed a different my area developed a different way. And they sort of came together and turned into something beautiful. And Lowery's standards are not the same as Stapleton standards, and they're not the same as downtowns.
Speaker 13: Well, I want to be clear. I'm sorry if that was unclear. Totally agree with you. I didn't mean to imply that has to be the same solution for the entire city or half of the city or whatever. But I mean, like you brought up Fox Station when I was saying a comprehensive approach, I mean, for an area . So it's not one landowner at this point compared to this land over landowner over here, but it's all within a half mile radius has completely different rules.
Speaker 11: But we have a that's what's frustrating about those rezonings, right, is we had an adopted plan and it envisioned a certain negotiated outcome that the community envisioned. But I the things that you heard me say time and time again was that this plan there's nothing about this rezoning that compels any of these outcomes that the neighborhood sort of envisioned that are the justification for those those rezonings. And somehow to the the idea of complete neighborhoods. We need to figure out how to make these tools deliver that. And until we have zoned districts that do, I'm saying it should be a requirement when you're going to map to these new places, a new zoned district that has no precedent in any existing plan because they don't exist. That should be a condition whereby we do have that neighborhood discussion and yeah, it is a one off, you know, and CPD seemed averse to doing that too, putting that in the language. And then with all three places stating that customized zoning is essentially a big taboo, don't do it because it's hard to implement is antithetical to getting the outcomes of complete neighborhoods in areas that don't have a complete neighborhood already. That's the real beauty of Northwest Denver. Would you not agree? And why it actually scores so low on our need for plan is because it actually was a complete neighborhood. It developed around fixed rail transit in. So the infrastructure was already there in the built environment and the walkability of it. I mean, that's why it scores better than Lowry and Stapleton on plan need. And that was done without that holistic one size fits all. And I think there's benefit to that and I wish we would codify it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions, I have what I hope will be a quick one for you, David. Thank you for all your work with the Wasatch Park Neighborhood Association. Although I know you've met with them a lot of times there's a letter that they submitted. They read, you know, into the record just on some things where they're you know, I think they were saying we reinterpret this way. You're saying that's not what it means. This means the same. Can you just confirm that the issues that they had in the letter, I won't go through one at a time unless you want me to that the that that the assurances that they were looking for just in terms of what the language read and how it would be interpreted that you guys got that ironed out and that that was accurate.
Speaker 14: Absolutely. Yeah. So I was able to read their letter and the four different bullet points on the assurances. And I agree with how they've written that there was the dialog between us to make sure we were understanding the interpretation of how the plan was written on those points and is a fair way to assess how the plan is applied to West Washington Park. And we'll look forward to working with them in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. See no other questions. The public hearing for council bills 302 and 303 are closed. Councilman Cashman, would you like to formally offer your amendment to Council Bill 302?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Microphone.
Speaker 5: Microphone. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19, dash three zero to be amended in the following particulars on page one Line 24 Strike April ten, 2019 as 20190012 and replace with April 23rd 2019 has 2019001 to a.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of the Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. So in 2019. As we prepared to consider the documents that will guide planning in our city over the next several decades, we must be clear on what the challenges are to our civic well-being that these documents must address. Some challenges affect some neighborhoods. Some affect our entire city. Some extend even further. As the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has elevated concern over continuing warming of our atmosphere to emergency levels. It's critical that whatever plans we implement hold the need to mitigate our civic impact on global warming and protection of our planet and its resources. As a Prime Directive, I fully support the six vision elements. Excuse me around which comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver have been organized, equitable, affordable and inclusive, economically diverse and vibrant, strong and authentic neighborhoods, well connected, safe and accessible places, healthy, inactive and environmentally, environmentally resilient. While sustainability directives are present in numerous places throughout both plans. It became clear as I examined the documents that climate change needed to be given more prominent placement as an area of primary concern. I would like to thank David Jaspers and Sara Showalter of Community Planning and Development for their partnership and willingness in finding the prominent placement we saw in Tom Herrod of the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment for his assistance in fine tuning the wording of the amendment. These plans are indeed aspirational in nature and do not include precise directives in most cases, but they will in fact provide grounds to inform future discussions by clearly stating the priorities by which the people of Denver felt future development should be guided, along with increased emphasis on pedestrian safety on our streets, the need for affordable housing for all Denver residents, and long overdue attention to equity. In the application of all our plans, Denver needs to come. We'll know that in 2019, the citizens of Denver in this Council, when stating priorities, declared our intention to preserve not just a livable city but a habitable planet for future generations. As stated before, the purpose of this amendment is to allow for inserting a sentence on page 51 of the comprehensive plan under the environmentally resilient introduction.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. I think this is critically important. I'm excited that you brought it forward and thrilled to support it. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 2: CASHMAN Hi. Black Hi.
Speaker 3: Brooke, i.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, I.
Speaker 3: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I. Herndon. I can. Lopez. I knew Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and know the results. 1212 US counts about 302 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 10: Certainly I move that council bills 19 dash 0303 be placed.
Speaker 0: Oh sorry we're on 0203.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 10: I move the council bill 034003 or to be passed as amended.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Thank you. All right. Comments on 302. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Are we going to do them individually or in a block individually?
Speaker 0: Because we we've just amended this one. Now we're going to vote on adoption of comp plan. And then we will Councilman Cashman put forward his amendment, a blueprint, and then will vote on blueprint.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I have remarks that were aimed at both. So should I do those now?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead. Okay.
Speaker 4: So this is for both comp plan and blueprint. And so I strongly support so much that is in these plans, particularly the intentionality with which they take on historic systemic inequities among different populations and different neighborhoods. I like the emphasis on developing design requirements, especially in my suburban context, with its emphasis on improving pedestrian access. When I walk to my King Soopers, I can walk on the sidewalk up to it. But there are no sidewalks from the driveway, no sidewalks lining a driveway into the shopping center. So we walk in the driveway. With the cars. I'm also extremely grateful to the planning staff and its responsiveness, particularly to my district in southwest Denver. A little more than two years ago when Colorado Heights University was forced to close and they put the historic Loreto Heights campus up for sale at my request. David and Sarah and the core staff from CPD organized Ad Hoc. One of the very first general public meetings to gather neighborhood input not only regarding the campus and vicinity, but especially in every southwest Denver statistical neighborhood, none of which had ever had a community driven, city council approved neighborhood plan. I was very concerned that this large redevelopment site coming on the market right at the beginning of blueprints rewrite without any neighborhood level plan. And I hope that this had some small part in shaping the characteristic, the characterization and recommendations for the suburban context areas of the city into which my entire district falls. My district, in my estimation, already reflects a lot of the values expressed in blueprint and in comp plan, at least as far as residential, if not in mobility. We have, as the draft blueprint concedes, the most varied types of all neighborhoods. Southwest Denver has greater diversity than many neighborhoods in terms of population incomes and access to opportunity. It has a higher percentage of households of color than are represented in the city as a whole. The maps and blueprint of the changes in nonwhite households since 1990 show clearly that my council district is one of the only areas of town where households of color have increased. While the overall percentage of households of color in the city as a whole and in our gentrifying neighborhoods has decreased. We are the part of Denver where people are moving to buy homes when they're gentrified out of other areas. My single family neighborhoods are where households of color increasingly found that they can own a home and build wealth and equity. So at least in my estimation. But the plan leaves me uncertain going forward. Whose estimation will matter when it comes to guiding density and change because of the highly aspirational and frequently unspecific nature of the plan ? I can't sit here today and be certain whether the character of Southwest Denver will be preserved or disrupted by these plans. While I can interpret the recommendations as supporting preservation of character, I also see that ten years down the line when none of us is here any longer. This plan is vague enough that it can be substantially disruptive when interpreted differently than what I and my neighborhood leaders and residents have in mind right now. For instance, one of the recommendations in comp plan is to ensure city policies and regulations and encourage every neighborhood to provide a complete range of housing options at the statistical neighborhood level. My district already meets this, but in discussions with staff, I have a concern about applying that recommendation at a micro level, which the plan might lead to. There's a huge area of apartments and rowhouses a few blocks east of my house. My constituents don't want single family houses scraped off to build multi-unit structures in their midst, as they have seen elsewhere in town. But this plan can support that. Their biggest fear was not Don't let happen to our part of town. What's happened in in Highland, in north Denver, in Jefferson Park and Sloan's Lake? I spent the past few weeks reaching out to discuss this with numerous neighborhood leaders and constituents. And to a person, I heard great anxiety that these new plans could lead to the kind of unpopular change that has disrupted some other parts of town, almost illogically. Many places where we've added density in an effort to preserve affordability are now some of the most unaffordable in gentrified parts of town. Meanwhile, in southwest Denver, a full 40% of dwelling units are in multi-family developments as expected. In the suburban context, though, they are found in their own spaces, not interwoven in the same blocks as as is common in the urban core that developed that way over decades. My own subdivision sits astride large multifamily developments of apartments, condos, row houses and townhouses, duplexes and a few for plex's blueprints. Guidance could be used, however, to justify the insertion of four plex into suburban blocks of single family homes. And my constituents have told me they don't want that. In fact, I believe in my Marston neighborhood, a majority of the dwelling units are in multifamily developments of all types. The recommendation to allow adus as a use by right in all residential districts also conflicts, in my opinion, with the guidance to preserve the character of suburban context neighborhoods. We had a person who lives on Raleigh Street testify about her Adu. The folks here who spoke in favor of ADA use everywhere have talked about how well they fit into urban contexts, but not suburban. The Raleigh Street Adu had an entrance off the alley. In fact, they're often referred to as alley homes. My district has one alley. As much as we've talked about respecting different neighborhood characters. I keep hearing echoes of one size fits all, so I have a great concern that as much as the plans express a commitment to preserving unique character, the recommendations and strategies inexorably may point to an outcome that will homogenize our unique and distinctive neighborhoods. Suburban context areas can absorb more growth and density, and my constituents, in fact, look forward to seeing, for instance, more commercial density. As the drafts acknowledge, suburban areas are characterized by these different types and uses having their distinct areas within the neighborhood. My concern is that these plans, with their lack of sufficient specificity, will open the door to disorderly change rather than in those areas where infrastructure is in place to handle it. So it is with an abundance of concern and caution that I will be voting no. My vote does not reflect disagreement with the plans overall, but is cast because of the very few areas with which I have an irreconcilable concern. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other comments on this one before we vote on comp plan. I just want to say I'm really excited about comp plan and I know a lot of the talk gets on the blueprint very quickly. But comp plan is, I think, one of the most exciting planning documents that I've ever seen. I think it's really cool to see how we talk about climate, how we talk about equity, how we talk about our city in that document. And I think you just did a really amazing job with the comp plan part of it. So I'm speaking specifically to that because that's what we're about to vote on. So, you know, I want to say thank you to everybody who stuck around this long to finally see us vote on something here. But also to just say that in particular on the comp plan piece. Really excited about this document. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on the comp plan as amended.
Speaker 9: Black Eye.
Speaker 7: Brooks Eye.
Speaker 8: Espinosa Eye.
Speaker 2: Flynn. No.
Speaker 8: Gilmore Eye.
Speaker 2: Herndon. Cashman. Carnage Lopez.
Speaker 3: All right, new assessment.
Speaker 10: All right.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close voting and the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes, one may.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one nay council bill 302 has passed as amended. Councilwoman Sussman, now, will you please put Council Bill 303 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting Comprehensive Plan 2040, as the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of Denver.
Adopts Comprehensive Plan 2040 as the city’s required comprehensive planning document to express the city’s vision for the future. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-2-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04152019_19-0183
|
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 Black, will you please put Council Bill 183 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0183 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second in the public hearing for Council Bill 19 0183 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Hi. I'm Alice. Stevie and this is the proposed rezoning for 22800 South Bannock Street from YouTube C to YouTube. So we are in Council District seven in the Overland neighborhood. The site is located on South Bannock Street, north of Isle of Avenue. It is 9370 square feet and has a single unit house on it presently. The applicant is seeking to resolve this to split the lot in two and build an additional unit or duplex. The Urban Neighborhood two Unit B zoned district allows up to two units and either duplex or tandem housebuilding forms on a minimum zone lot area of 4500 square feet. Urban House building forms are also allowed on certain smaller zoned lots. So the existing zoning the subject site is currently you to you see the immediate surroundings are the same zoning transitioning to you RH 2.5 a block to the north I am x three. You go to a couple blocks west and you three you are one and your two a block and a half to the east. The current site, the current site is a single unit residential and that is the predominant land use in the area with many two unit and multi-unit uses interspersed. Then you have industrial uses farther west in commercial, retail and office uses further east. So this is within the state home park view plane, but the maximum allowable height is approximately 86 feet. So that's not going to impact this rezoning. And then the image on the left here highlights the subject property. And on the right are some examples of the surrounding residential buildings. And then here are a few more. So planning board recommended approval on February 20th. In this case was moved forward by a ludy on March 5th. From the public receipt, we received five letters or emails in support which are included as an attachment to the staff report. So for the rezoning criteria, starting with number one, there are four plans that are applicable at this site. CBT found that the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several comprehensive plan 2000 strategies, as it would facilitate residential infill redevelopment at a slightly higher density within a transit node. And Blueprint Denver This area is mapped as single family duplex, which blueprint defines as being primarily residential but with some complementary small scale commercial uses. It is also in an area of stability which is intended to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. Bannock Street and Isle of Abner are both under designated local streets, and we found that YouTube is consistent with the plan direction. The proposed Zone district allows single and two unit residential uses within building forms that maintain the character of the area. So the Overland Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1993. One key recommendation in this plan is to encourage property owners in residential areas to invest time and necessary resources in the beautification of the neighborhood. This rezoning facilitates redevelopment by allowing slightly higher density, yet compound compatible development. And then we have this Evans Station area plan from 2009. So this plan also talks about maintaining the residential character and encouraging a range of housing types. This area is mapped as single family duplex and it specifically recommends a 4500 square foot minimum lot size. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan direction as it allows single and two unit uses within a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. So CPD found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plan guidance. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form use and design regulations, and also furthers public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and facilitating housing density near transit while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. The application lists changes in this area, including recent rezonings, new duplexes on Bannock and significant commercial development along Broadway. Therefore, the proposed Map amendment is justified to recognize the change character of the area. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context which exists in the surrounding area and consists primarily of single and two unit residential uses. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the residential districts, which are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods. And finally, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the specific intent of YouTube, which is intended to allow up to two units on a minimum zone lot area of 4500 square feet. So based on finding all review criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval and I am very happy to answer any questions. I did just inherit this case about a week and a half ago, so I apologize if I'm not able to answer questions that are more relevant to previous steps as I was not taking them through. But I will do my best.
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 issue, if you'd come up to the front bench, when I call up your name, when I call your name, you can step right up to the microphone. First up, we have Amanda Phillips. Amanda Phillips. All right. Next up, John Roberts.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilmembers. I'm actually the applicant in John Roberts, and I'm just here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pearce. We'll let you know if we have questions. Six.
Speaker 11: Jesse Paris represented for Denver Homicide, Low Black Star Action, Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm on top of the ballot for our large May 2019 election. I was originally against this because I thought it was going to be more gentrification as usual. I had a few questions. I wanted to know if this was a accessory dwelling unit that was going to be included in this rezoning and what the AMI level was going to be for this proposed rezoning addition to this lot. So if you could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Just a couple of questions. Your staff. Do you happen to know? What the front property line with the zone lot with this on this in this part in this will not.
Speaker 10: I don't. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: I don't know how they get to the.
Speaker 11: Last.
Speaker 10: 75 feet.
Speaker 4: So that's right on the sweet spot. So do you have any was there any understanding on why it was. No. I mean, the area was zoned to, you see, for the 5500 square foot lawns versus the 45 that is being sought.
Speaker 10: So I looked into that a little it was are two previously and I didn't in the in the notes from the 2010 rezoning there wasn't anything specific to this area. My guess is looking at the lot sizes in the area, it's kind of a mix. And so I think if you had to pick the most predominant one, it was probably in the sea size. There are, you know, several you know, a lot of other lots in the area that are the size. But they may have just gone with what was the most common at that time.
Speaker 4: And sorry, because you did adopt this. So maybe you're not aware on those multi-unit on the in the existing forms land use map. Actually, I think I can tell here. Any sense about the existing duplexes? There's looks like there are three on Bannock. Are they. Modest in their in their in their stature. Because because the only reason I'm asking is, you know, I've seen this play out many times in my neighborhood so this zone lot reduction would would allow because the the minimum lot with is 35 as opposed to 50 feet. So you would allow a 75 foot wide lot to be then subdivided into two lots and they would both be eligible for a duplex form. So now you're putting four units where a single family previously was occupied and that in and of itself is not a problem. The problem that I see in too often is modest. Homes that are affordable being displaced mean the occupied units, occupants being displaced, and then being replaced by market rate units of this scale, you know. And so what sort of what is the. From a zoning staff perspective. Is there any consideration when we make this move from A to C to A to B that will create those conditions that are favorable for that sort of gentrification to occur? Are you guys having that discussion, which is is this our intended outcome? Are we trying to encourage subdivision of lots for more units that are more expensive, more units and agnostic to the to the cost of those developments? Or, you know, because it seems fairly clear that this whole area was mapped this way to begin with. Mm hmm.
Speaker 10: I think that can be that that is, you know, part of the discussion, I think, in this case, because the Evans Station area plan specifically calls out that smaller lot size. We felt that that was, you know, having that kind of input from the community on this exact issue made us feel that this was this was still consistent, even even if, you know, there were some different iterations that could come out of it.
Speaker 4: And this is really my again, my thinking going forward. Once Denver rite with its equity components is adopted sort of a new world order as far as I'm concerned. When on on adopted plans would that alter the thinking with regard to is it just proximity to Todd that then results in this sort of encouragement of density? Or would we actually see there are recommendations for affordability? Would we actually be asking the applicant, what are you doing to to meet these other objectives of this of this plan in this similar situation?
Speaker 10: I think there are definitely conversations about that. The specifics I haven't been part of. Exactly. So I don't want to speculate. But, yes, that is you know, there will be a lot of discussions on.
Speaker 7: How how.
Speaker 10: Our valuations are going to be affected by the adoption of the new blueprint.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Because that's been consistent with other conversations I've had in the staff, which is that we will start thinking about some of these metrics, I mean, these other sort of aspects. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have a question for you as well. So I'm trying to understand if the tube is being used just for the sole purpose of being able to split the lots versus, you know, the the existing zoning that's on the site. Can you just clarify that?
Speaker 10: Yeah, well, the difference between the current zoning and the proposed is the smaller lot size. And under the current minimum lot size requirement, the the applicant would not be able to split the lots, but under this rezoning they would.
Speaker 6: So by splitting it still allows the does that. I don't have the screen pulled up to show what the size of the lot is once it's split. Is that within the 4500 feet?
Speaker 10: Yes. Yeah. The full site is 9370.
Speaker 6: Okay. So by doing that, then each lot then allows a duplex on them. Is that correct? So was there a conversation about what kind of precedence this sets in terms of. What happens if if more of this stoning occurs, you know, on a contiguous block and then the sites are assembled? What then would that look like if you had two or three parcels that had the to be zoning? Does that what does that assemblage do?
Speaker 10: The do you mean if if like a larger swath of the properties in this area all did the same thing if.
Speaker 6: They were contiguous to one another? How how does that change? So if you've got three or four lots that have all been split and they can all allow up to four units on them, does that then allow a different building form to exist on those properties? Moore Do they all have to continue to be what we've just discussed?
Speaker 10: It's there's still going to would be within the t u so the two units that they would only be able to have two units per 4500.
Speaker 6: Unless unless they assembled and nothing came back and then resold the entire area. Correct.
Speaker 10: They would have to then rezone the entire area. Like any other.
Speaker 6: OC.
Speaker 10: Rezoning. Okay.
Speaker 6: That's what I was trying to understand. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. Public hearing for Council Bill 183 is closed and will move in to comments. This one is in my district, so I'll start. I just wanna say thank you for picking up an inherited application and thank you to staff for putting this together. I think that there's clear plan support and the staff report shows how this meets the criteria. So I will be voting to support this, this evening and seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 2: Black Brooks II. Espinosa, i Flynn, i Gilmore.
Speaker 7: I Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can teach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 1313 I as council bill 19 0183 has passed. Councilwoman Blackwell, you please put Council Bill 187 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2280 South Bannock Street in Overland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-TU-C to U-TU-B (increases minimum lot size to 5,500 sf), located at 2280 South Bannock Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-5-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04152019_19-0349
|
Speaker 0: 813 ies Huntsville 19 0187 has passed. Councilwoman Black, will you please vote council bill 349 on the floor.
Speaker 8: Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Black, do you have a motion to amend?
Speaker 8: Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0349 be amended in the following particulars on page one line three Strike Committee of Reference on page one. Line four Strikes, special issues, marijuana.
Speaker 0: And the amendment has been moved. Can I get a second and seconded? All right. Questions by a members of council about the amendment before jump in here.
Speaker 6: Just clarify what it does.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, I take it you had a you wanted a clarification on asking for the clarify. Councilman Black, did you want to take that?
Speaker 8: The purpose of the amendment is to administratively correct the committee of reference. I direct filed this bill and it did not come out of committee and an error was made when someone made a change. But to put it into context, the Special Issues Marijuana Committee discussed distance requirements for social consumption areas at six different meetings. The proposed bill is presented on March 18th. It was not proposed to move forward on March 18th due to scheduling issues. But since no additional information had emerged, I was advised that it was appropriate to file the bill directly.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other questions or comments before we vote on the amendment? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 7: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks I. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: When I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Can I hear Lopez? New Ortega. Hi assessment, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm secretary. Please close voting in the results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Constable 19 0349 has been amended. Councilwoman Black, we now need a motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council be they'll 19 dash 030 to be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for Council Bill 19 0349 is open. May we have the staff report comes with.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to remind everyone that tonight we're voting to publish the bill which requires seven votes. It's not necessary to deliberate tonight since it will be on final reading next week and it will require nine votes to pass next week. I scheduled the hearing for tonight to be considerate of fellow council members since we are expecting next week's meeting to be very long. In November of 2016, over 168,000 Denver voters approved the neighborhood supported social consumption pilot program. The purpose of the initiative was to provide opportunities for businesses, to work with neighborhoods, to create legal places for people, including tourists, to consume marijuana out of public view and to protect children from seeing and smelling consumption in parks, sidewalks, the 16th Street Mall and along our rivers. Other cities are also struggling with public consumption and creating laws to license places that are out of public view. Social consumption. Businesses have been legal in Colorado Springs, of all places since 2015, with no setbacks at all. The voter approved initiative included 1000 foot setbacks from schools, which is consistent with the federal drug free zone law, excise and licenses and their rulemaking process added 1000 foot back setbacks from daycares, rec centers and pools and treatment centers. The proponents of the initiative believe that this setbacks frustrate the intent of the law. In the two and a half years since it passed, there are only two businesses in operation and they are functioning without incidents. But there are many more people who we have heard from who want to open a business but cannot find a location. They report that the added distance requirements are preventing them from finding a location that has an available property, is in a desirable location and has neighborhood support. The voter approved initiative also called for the creation of a task force to examine the impacts of the social consumption program. The task force met five times in 2018 2018 and determined that the added setbacks are inhibiting prospective businesses from finding viable locations. The task force recommended that the added setbacks either be removed or that some sort of appeal process be adopted. The Council Special Issues Marijuana Committee considered the recommendations of the task force and discussed the issue at six different meetings and came to consensus on this very modest compromise, which is what this bill is. It maintains the 1000 foot setbacks from schools as was approved by voters and is consistent with the federal drug free zone law. It respects the rule making process that exercise and license engaged in by not eliminating the added setbacks, by simply reducing them to 500 feet. The 500 foot setbacks are more consistent with alcohol, but in reality are much more restrictive than alcohol. It is a very modest and reasonable compromise that might allow new businesses to open and serve the need for social consumption without resulting in a flood of applications. The proponents of the initiative are supporting it all. They, although they would prefer to completely eliminate the added setbacks, the Denver Post or the editorial board is in support of the 500 foot setbacks, as is the federal bid, the Colfax bid and others. The following protections for neighborhoods and children are already in place and will not change with this bill. They include a 1000 foot setback from schools. The fact that designated consumption areas cannot be visible to the public. There are strict advertising and signage rules. People must be 21 years or older to enter. They must have neighborhood support or non opposition to even apply. A public hearing is required. There can be no dual or poly consumption. They have to comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. They cannot be in a residential zoned district and 54% of the city is owned. Residential, not including the area, cannot be on publicly owned property. There is a requirement for monitoring of this designated consumption area and sales of cannabis is not allowed. The intent of the voter approved initiative was to protect communities and children from seeing and smelling public can. Sumption by reducing the added setbacks. With this very modest proposal, some businesses will have the opportunity to open and provide that out of public use location.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. We have 28 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what we're going to do to try and get through everyone as efficiently as possible is I'm going to call five people at a time when I call your name. If you could come relocate up to this front bench so that you're ready to jump right up to the microphone when your name is called to speak. So the first five people to come up to the front bench right now are Sara Woodson, Jude del Herrero, Aubrey Labbe Izzo, Jenni Leslie and Chris Hines and Sarah Woodson. You are up first.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you all so much for your time. My name is Sarah Watson and I own cushion canvases. It is a 420 friendly smoking paint class and people love the idea of it. In 16, when the amendment went through, I was super excited. I was like, Yeah, I'm going to get my license. This is going to be a breeze. And what I quickly realized was because of the thousand foot setback, especially with daycare centers, I was just having no luck at all. I actually had three landlords that were ready to go. I thought it was a great idea and just couldn't find a place. So I've been at a total halt, pretty much. I can't open a business. I know that, you know, one of the things is protecting the children in the community. But I will say that kids in Colorado, they know what weed smells like. They see it around all the time. And that's part of the reason, because there's no private place to smoke weed is what I feel. So I feel like set. Getting the setback in place is going to help open viable businesses. Also, it would still protect children because as you already know, it's not visible. And then finally, something that's important to me is that this is really the only opportunity for minorities to really enter into the cannabis space at this point, because social consumption has a low barrier as far as how much the application cost.
Speaker 3: Excuse me.
Speaker 7: So I mean, by allowing this to pass, that's going to be a huge thing for minorities, black and brown people, to be a part of a cannabis and a social consumption ancillary way. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, judo hero. Dude. Nope. All right. Aubrey lives, though.
Speaker 11: Hmm. Good evening again, Mr. President. And council members. My name is Aubrey. Life as I am in support of the compromise proposal. Compromise. I'm a Denver resident in Council and Wayne News District ten, a former owner of a business in Councilman Paul Lopez. District three, a former llama Lincoln Park board member, the grandparent of ten year old and two year old granddaughters, and a person who for over 13 years has given hundreds of hours in developing and presenting kids programs that educate kids and instill values like empathy and compassion at the Children's Museum of Denver, at Montessori and pre-K schools throughout Denver and for the last six years at Greenlee Elementary School in District three, protecting kids is absolutely my top priority. But if we don't provide places for people to consume, we're not protecting kids. We're allowing them to be exposed to open public consumption in parks and public places. It's important to note that I represented all of Lincoln Park in testimony in support of the coffee joint, the first licensed social consumption business at there, excise and license sharing not only as a coffee joint located in Lincoln Park, but on a reader say Look, now serves on all the Lincoln Park board of directors and as importantly for the neighborhood. There have been no issues with the coffee joint. When I served on the Social Consumption Advisory Committee as a neighborhood representative, we did not see any maps. A consequence was that we impose ownership restrictions and added the setback and added setbacks, continued to push marijuana businesses into oversaturated neighborhoods. As a neighborhood representative on the A300 Task Force, we examined maps and we heard from prospective business owners and it became very clear that the setbacks were too extreme. I believe the modest compromise the task force agreed on is respectful of the excise and license process. Thanks to size and license, many protections exist outside of distant requirements like neighborhood support and public hearings, and most neighborhoods are well protected with control over whether a business locates in their neighborhood. I respectfully ask that you please vote in favor of honoring the will of the voters. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jenny Leslie.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Unfortunately, my name is spelled incorrectly. It's Hannah. Lastly.
Speaker 0: We were not even close on that. I apologize.
Speaker 7: No problem. And I just want to make sure you didn't think I was somebody else. My name is Hannah Lasley, and I'm the co-founder and one of the executive directors of Smart, Colorado. Smart Colorado is based here in Denver, Colorado. And we formed after the passage of Amendment 64 to protect the public health and safety for Colorado kids. Sir, we respectfully request that the city council vote no against the reduction of setbacks by half from daycares, city owned rec centers, outdoor pools and alcohol and drug rehab centers. Here's why. According to my Denver card data, the majority of users of outdoor pools were kids over 45% excuse me. Over 45,000 kids visited Denver rec centers in 2018. Denver Rec Centers partner with federal food programs to feed our neediest in the summer, playing a crucial role as a safeguard for our children. In 2017, 31% of the statewide admissions to drug and treatment centers for marijuana abuse were under the age of 21. Finally, this is an important decision and impacted because the state is currently considering legislation that Governor Polis has already said he will sign. This bill will be an expansive bill that will set regulations for marijuana, social consumption, clubs. While we completely understand and respect that the City Council will have local control, the bill will allow a new opportunity for the City Council to consider setbacks from collapse. The business model from the House bill will be much more favorable for the marijuana industry to allow for a profitable social consumption business model. Please join Mayor Hancock and the following organizations in opposing the distant setbacks. Children's Hospital. Colorado. The Kemp Foundation. Illuminate. Colorado. The Colorado Children's Campaign. The Denver Partnership for Youth Success, whose membership includes Denver Public Schools. Denver Public Health. Denver Afterschool Alliance Rise Above Colorado. The Boys and Girls Club of Metro Denver. The Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Colorado chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Confluence Ministries. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Chris Haines, and I'm going to call the next five. If you could come up to the front bench. We have Jesse Paris, Jonathan Circus, Luke Neff for Atlas, William Changeless and Leslie to our Girl Ski. If you can, come on up. And Criss Angel.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Chris Hynes. I'm a District ten resident, which means I'm in councilman. Whose district? I'm here to talk. I don't want to violate any rules, but I want to talk about a project that I'm working on that's due on Election Day that involves a lot of outreach to voters. We've reached out to more than 23,000. We've made more than 23,000 voter contact attempts anyway. And so we've talked a lot about issues facing specifically District ten voters. I wanted to talk about the map of 410 with me. You probably already know what it is, just in case it starts with. I want to start with Cherry Creek. That neighborhood is, you know, just in general when I talk with people about this particular setback variance. People in Cherry Creek want weed illegal. It's just, you know, and this is one way to oppose the setback because they want no cannabis in the in the state at all. Unfortunately, the voters have voted. Well, not unfortunately. Fortunately, the voters have voted many times in favor of cannabis at the state and local level. And and but there's more to District ten. If we were to go north and to say Congress part the number one issue facing people in Congress park in in my outreach is what about our kids and our grandkids in parks that are within a few feet of people consuming or smoking marijuana. We want to we want to get the marijuana away from our kids and they are over overwhelmingly receptive to a place where people could go in private and consume. You know, if we were to go west of it, in the Capitol, in the uptown neighborhood, that's capital is more than 60% millennial. They are overwhelmingly in favor of cannabis, but they are a lot of renters and and a lot of lease agreements preclude them from consuming cannabis in their homes. Well, how can they legally consume? Well, if only there were social consumption facilities. Also, they have visitors that come from out of state and the out-of-state visitors don't know where to go either. And so this solves two issues for the Capitol and an Uptown residence. So just just to share a little bit about I was a little surprised that there was a survey that went out Friday night from the District ten office, mainly because there are a lot of people knocking doors and making phone calls. So I figured I would share some of the some of the the context that I've received and content context. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 12: Who's up?
Speaker 0: No. Just Chris. All right. Jonathan Circus. Sorry.
Speaker 11: Nobody can get it right. Hi, my name is Jonathan CHERKIS. I'm also a District ten resident, which is nice to see. And I voted in favor of A300 when it came out three years ago. I served as governor policies kind of as outreach coordinator on his campaign for the governorship. And one of the things that we really noticed was that marijuana is not a losing issue. I think that's one of the big things that the governor policy was able to show was that this isn't the sort of big issue.
Speaker 4: That people necessarily.
Speaker 11: Are up in arms about. Colorado has led the nation in legalization, but Denver has sort of been the center of all of that.
Speaker 3: And so I want.
Speaker 11: Social consumption venues for maybe a different reason than other people, is that I want someone to be able to go, and I don't have to drink if I don't want to and I don't have to do all of the sort of things that are more dangerous or more harmful or more just unpleasant than what I want to do. I live in District ten, a 1000 District ten is the most the dense, most densely populated neighborhood in Colorado, which probably means it's also for here years, five states a thousand feet in District ten is very different than a thousand feet in District four or District two, which are much larger in terms of just geography. I know I've seen a map provided by the city or maybe just excise licenses. I'm not sure that showed where where social use places would be allowed. And I don't remember really anything in District ten or maybe very small little slivers. I just don't think that was the intent of the voters.
Speaker 4: Was to have this.
Speaker 11: Sort of pushed aside, moved out of the places where people live, where Chris said 60% millennial in Cap Hill, where in the city would be a better place for a social consumption area than in Cap Hill? I don't know. But they're not allowed there. They are pushed out by, I don't know, 18 feet or whatever the setback was. And so I think it's just really important that we sort of look at this as the voters voted for this three years ago. And we haven't. We have two places open and we've been arguing about the same things now for I'll give it two years. And so I think it just is really important that we sort of look at what the voters voted on and make the setbacks reflect the city. It's a neighborhood thing. So if the neighborhood doesn't want it within 500 feet, the neighborhood can decide that. But it's not the city's job to decide that a neighborhood couldn't possibly support this, given the setbacks. So I just think the set back requirements are overly restrictive and you super usurp the will of the voters. And I would just like to see a social use place in my neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Luke. I'm going to let you say your last name.
Speaker 3: You had it right on the first one before Otto's nice, long Greek name. President. Members of the council. It is so nice to speak with you this evening. Thank you for sticking around this late to hear us. I'm looking for Otto Sun, the chief of staff and senior policy advisor at Sam Smart. Approaches to Marijuana. We're based in D.C.. We're a national organization fighting against commercialization of marijuana. And on this issue, particularly because we're concerned about the public health consequences, and I look at something like this, first of all, I live here in Colorado. My father in law actually is Pastor Michael Walker. Councilman Brooks, I know you know him well. You know his church. And, you know, in fact, he sent me a picture I can show you. You got your yard sign on his on his front lawn, but his church just opened a daycare. And when I look at the rules of this, it's reducing it from 1000 feet to 500 feet for anywhere where there would be a daycare. He wanted me to pass along the message that they really don't want a social consumption site within 500 feet of their daycare. And I think we have to think about those real examples of what the impact is going to be on the ground here in the city of Denver before we we consider moves like this. And really, you look at, you know, our state as a whole and you look at the pot industry and the way that this is going. You know, you hear this word, I've heard it thrown around a few times already, desirable locations. And the reason why we need to pass this is so that they can find more desirable locations. Well, what defines a desirable location? Well, we can look at this bill and we can get an idea. It's something that's closer to kids, closer to recreation centers and close, you know, so we're, you know, define desirable for me. I'm going to look at the bill and it's saying it needs to be closer to these places. I think they can find other locations that are, you know, a thousand feet from these various places where kids are. I don't think it's the job of city council. And I mean that respectfully, because you all obviously know the job better than I do. But I don't think it's the job of any member of elected, you know, an elected government to make it easier for a drug industry to make more money, to make it easier for drugs to be used. I think what you have to think about is your public health and the safety of your communities first. Not, you know, whether somebody can open up a social pot consumption site, you know, closer to a schools. I think you all have much bigger fish to fry. So, you know, we have to look at the dynamics of our state right now. Colorado is the number one state in the country for first time youth marijuana use for the last two years in a row. I just saw a few months ago, Cookie Monster was used as an advertisement for a cookie edible here in Colorado. So clearly our youth are being targeted by this industry. We saw it with big tobacco. We see it with many other drug industries. And so the pot industry has taken this playbook. They're using it over again. And now they're asking us, please, let's start reduce. It's only been six years since we legalized this and they're asking us to start reducing these limits already. What are we going to be considering a year from now? What will we be considering ten years from now? The more that this is normalized, the more that we give, give, give, the more they will take, take, take from our kids, our communities and the places, honestly, that are most vulnerable. So I urge you to please reject this today, and I thank you for your time and considering what I have to say. Have a great night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, William Auchincloss and I'm going to go. Close enough.
Speaker 12: It's Greek.
Speaker 0: My mother remarried.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Good afternoon. Thanks for staying late, like the man said. My name is William Chen Jealous. I'm chairman of the United States Marijuana Party. I'm a resident of Colorado and I'm a resident of Denver. Paul Lopez is District three. I'm here today to tell you about what it is for had had people living in hide housing. I no longer live in HUD housing. I used to live in Halcyon House downtown. I had to go outside my house to Medicaid or lose it. I got a ticket.
Speaker 3: In in alley for medicating in the alley. I had to pay it. Luckily, I have enough legal.
Speaker 12: Expertize that I played it down to 4 hours of community service. But we need places for people to go. There isn't a place that you can't go. I ride the busses all the time. People are getting on the busses. They smell like pot. They've been smoking like pot and bus stops. So it's all over town. It's not just the 16th Street Mall in the parks. It's everywhere. And people need a place to go. Thank you very much for your time. And please vote on this.
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tore Gorski and I'm going to call the next five up Larisa Boulevard, Melanie Rose Rogers, Liz Bukowski, Tom Downey and Nick Phillips, if you want to come up to the front bench.
Speaker 7: Hi. Thank you. My name is Leslie Trois Gorski. I'm a resident of Council District eight. I'm a mom. I'm a parent of three. Protecting kids, including my own, is a top priority. But without legal places for tourists, residents and patients to consume. Kids, including mine, are exposed to marijuana in public places like parks, especially near playgrounds, which happen to have a lot of trees around them. Stoners go for those as well as the public right away. 16th Street Mall. I was a task force member as a neighborhood representative of the Federal Boulevard bid and R.A. we examined maps and heard from prospective business owners, and it became very clear that the setbacks are too extreme. We have a lot of public housing around Federal Boulevard. We have the Sun Valley neighborhood. We have the Del Norte Veterans Apartments and other facilities where people live but cannot smoke inside. As a result, we have a lot of people smoking in our public right away, including near our schools. And so while I respect the the speakers who came before me to talk about keeping the weed away from children, this is exactly what we're trying to do. My hope is that we will be able to corral the weed usage away from where it currently is on the playgrounds near our Montessori school, because right now they're smoking openly and unashamedly right in front. And to get them to an out of sight and out of smell space 500 feet away, I think would be very beneficial to all in some people need safe, discreet and legal places to consume responsibly. Please honor the will of the voters by reducing these set back requirements from Parks, Rec centers and daycares. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Larissa Boulevard.
Speaker 7: Hi. Thank you. My name is Larissa Boulevard. I'm the executive director of the Cannabis Consumers Coalition and also on the board of Colorado Normal. As everybody's been testifying, consumers have very limited options to go consume cannabis, something that we voted for with with a majority. Obviously, there's public safety issues that everybody's concerned about, whether it's children. We have our own concerns about public safety right now. We are not able to educate cannabis consumers on consuming cannabis safely.
Speaker 8: Nor are we able to monitor.
Speaker 7: Intoxication. And a major public safety issue is that children are currently being exposed to public consumption pretty much everywhere in the city. It was actually pretty disappointing to hear Smart, Colorado testify that so many organizations and the mayors support exposing children to cannabis. It seems like they're using that argument to win a position when the unknown unintended consequences are going to be more children being exposed to cannabis use. I would like to know if they have data to support their allegations that exposing children to cannabis in parks and on.
Speaker 5: Sidewalks is safer.
Speaker 7: Than having people consume in inconspicuous.
Speaker 5: Licensed facilities.
Speaker 7: Another thing that I like to point out is that having these set backs would create more opportunity for.
Speaker 5: People of color to have businesses. We have a huge disparity here.
Speaker 7: In Colorado and in Denver, where we have a lack of minority business representation. In June, I'm actually going to be speaking at The Economist about this issue, and I would hope that I can speak on behalf of the city that we have forward thinking policies. At one point, Colorado and Denver were leaders in cannabis policy, and now we're not implementing the will of voters. And I don't think that we're making sound policy by using children as a as a scapegoat.
Speaker 8: When, you know, we need.
Speaker 7: To protect consumers as well and all parties involved. I ask that you support the.
Speaker 5: Will of voters, protect public safety, protect children's safety.
Speaker 7: And consumer safety by voting yes for these setbacks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Melanie Rose Rogers.
Speaker 8: Hi City Council.
Speaker 10: My name is Melanie Rose Rogers and I'm in District nine in five points. I'm a homeowner and also a business owner and an influencer.
Speaker 7: And within the cannabis industry.
Speaker 10: My company is called Influential Acts.
Speaker 7: And we are about.
Speaker 8: Education, advocacy.
Speaker 10: And social responsibility in the cannabis space.
Speaker 8: And including hemp. I'm also a co-founder for Safe Access, Colorado. Safe Access, Colorado, as a part of Americans for Safe Access. We have over 100,000 members and we advocate for patients rights and access to cannabis and what influential.
Speaker 10: Acts and what I'm trying to do with.
Speaker 8: Safe access Colorado is really uplift the community, help educate. And right now, to the gentleman who said more bigger fish to fry, how about this opioid epidemic? How about people hooked on pharmaceutical drugs and this plan, as you know, with states and with facts and data.
Speaker 10: That, you know, with.
Speaker 8: States that have legalized, we see that number decrease of opioid deaths.
Speaker 10: This is very real in my life. I'm in my mid-thirties and this is the number one killer.
Speaker 7: Of my time.
Speaker 8: So I've dedicated myself to help educate the patient community as well as.
Speaker 10: Consumers on this plan and to really provide a resource. I believe that in 2019, especially.
Speaker 8: Here in Denver, Colorado, if you're sick with cancer, you need to find a group that you can actually talk to about.
Speaker 10: The cannabis plant. You shouldn't have to refer online, but with these setbacks and with no places to consume and no place to create an.
Speaker 8: Uplifting community, these people have no resources and no support. And so I really ask you to all vote in favor of a bright future for Denver.
Speaker 10: By doing this, we create opportunities for minority groups.
Speaker 8: To get involved in a cannabis industry.
Speaker 10: And I also believe that even in my neighborhood in five points.
Speaker 8: That we need to address the nursing homes and the elderly and make sure that they also know about this plan and they have access to it. And so I really encourage you to vote yes on this. I encourage you to really follow the will of the voters.
Speaker 10: And coming to these meetings at this time is very difficult.
Speaker 8: I've tried even last time.
Speaker 10: I signed up and I wasn't able to speak because there was only 30 minutes for a public hearing. So having so there's much more people that we represent and they aren't here.
Speaker 8: They haven't been able to come here.
Speaker 10: People wanted to sign up today. There's people sitting here that.
Speaker 8: Can't testify.
Speaker 7: Today. So I just really want you all.
Speaker 8: To please follow the will of the voters and give I mean, we're talking about 500 feet. 500 feet. Let us have a chance.
Speaker 10: To really build a community that we can be.
Speaker 8: Proud of and that I can actually give back to.
Speaker 7: The.
Speaker 10: Communities that we serve.
Speaker 8: I'd love to volunteer and do more on five.
Speaker 10: Points with, you know, some of the revenue definitely that would be generated in putting a viable business together that educates, that creates community. So please give this a chance.
Speaker 8: Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Lizzie Koski.
Speaker 8: My name is Lizzie Koski. I've owned and lived in my home in Capitol Hill for five years. I voted in favor of social consumption in 2016. I have been to one of.
Speaker 7: The two social consumption businesses that are open.
Speaker 8: Currently. I went to the coffee joint and I.
Speaker 7: Actually really enjoyed it. Once I got inside, the staff were very helpful. Setting made me feel comfortable.
Speaker 8: And I felt very welcome. Unfortunately, due to its location and circumstances.
Speaker 7: That are outside of the business owners control, it is not a desirable location for social consumption. The area is located in a difficult to access.
Speaker 8: Industrial part of the.
Speaker 7: City.
Speaker 8: Even when I was using Google Maps, I had trouble, not trouble navigating the dead end roads and the chain linked fences that frequent this area. There are no sidewalks. There are no bike lanes in this area. The streets are poorly lit and the sounds of traffic from I 25 assertively ushered people inside the building, inside the businesses that exist there. There are few eyes and ears on the street. For these reasons, I have not returned to the coffee joint. It doesn't feel safe for me, especially if I'm alone, especially after dark. I voted in favor of the initiative so I would have a consumption place in my neighborhood, a place I could walk to safely with my friends or alone, a place I could hang out and meet other people. I did not expect to be pushed into an industrial corner of the city.
Speaker 7: However, these are the types of places that are eligible for social consumption today based on our current setbacks, when distance restrictions from daycares, rec centers and outdoor pools and substance use treatment facilities are reduced to 500 feet.
Speaker 8: Viable properties in appropriate areas open up where those neighbors want them.
Speaker 7: Please vote to reduce the.
Speaker 8: Setbacks, to honor the will of the voters. Without legal places for us to consume legal products. Kids are going to continually see and be exposed to marijuana consumption in public split public spaces like our parks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tom Downey.
Speaker 12: Good evening. My name is Tom Downey. I'm a proud resident of District eight with Councilman Herndon. I am here to support the bill and appreciate Councilwoman Kendra BLOCK and all of her efforts with the task force. I have three daughters that are in Denver public schools. Two, they're in high school now. So this is very personal for me. I was also a member of the task force and I'm a former staff member at Denver's Excise and Licenses. Back in private practice, I represent licensees on both sides, not just marijuana, but all regulated industries, including medical practices on both sides, those that are applying and those that are opposed to applications of all kinds. And I am here in strong support of this. I am not a marijuana advocate. I work with legislators, AGs, governors across the country on marijuana legislation. And my purpose is to rein this in and have it effective. I do not advocate for marijuana legalization on the personal side. I've never tried the stuff myself, but I have three daughters and it's very important to me, the world that they live in and the city that they live in, and the intent of the overly restrictive restrictions on this social consumption bill have had the opposite effect of what was intended. It's in the parks. It is at the parking lots. It's in it's on the 16th Street Mall. It is prevalent. And as a as a father, I'm tired of my children being exposed to it. That is very personal. These folks need a place to go. The efforts to curb it have not worked. This effort has not truly been made. That's on the personal side. On the legal side, first and foremost, this does undermine the will of the voters. And what is most important and hasn't been said is the plain language from the ballot initiative that was passed by the voters. It says the rules and regulations created by excise and licenses shall not frustrate the intent of the ordinance. It is clear in this that it is that if a business otherwise meets the requirements of the article, they should get the license. But the extra restrictions imposed by excise and licenses have gone far and above that, and we saw the impact of that from the task force. It has undermined what the plain language of the ballot initiative said. Finally, on the legal side, we have been through this before social consumption clubs for alcohol, otherwise known as restaurants. We went through this in 2012, rulemaking that pulled back some of the distance restrictions that were on that. We worked very carefully with all the folks that were involved neighborhood associations, licensees, businesses, council members, and in the end it went through and there has been zero increase in alcohol consumption, no impacts on schools or anyone else. That is the intent to protect with that. So thank you for your time and I appreciate encourage you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Nick Phillips and I'm going to call the next five, Stacey Lin, Joshua Capell, Adam Bruce, Shawn Coleman and David Wasserman. Go ahead.
Speaker 11: Hello. My name is Nick Phillips and I'm a Denver resident living in House District five in support of the reduction of the setbacks by Councilwoman Black. I'm a local activists and entrepreneur and voted yes when given the opportunity in November 2016. I spent several months at the beginning of 2017 attending the panel meetings alongside Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Black. Learned a lot and had aspired to be a leader in this industry. As an example to my family of how a venue like this could be operated responsibly. They're not exactly your cannabis fans, and I have a 14 year old half brother that I want to be a good elder brother to and a role model at the best I can. So with that being said, they're not huge Denver fans anymore. They've always been Rockies fans. And Opening Day was something that they always have done, but recently with out places for folks to publicly or to socially consume their cannabis, they're forced to illegally consume in public. And, you know, your mix of drunken fools at opening day is mixed with the smell of cannabis in the air. And it's not the best place for kids exactly anymore. So with that all being said, I hope that by reducing the setback that the city of Denver will see an increase in venues where folks can responsibly consume their cannabis and allow this program to find its full potential. So we may so that we may set a standard for the rest of the state. And. The nation as this flower continues to be less prohibited and different states. So yeah, thank you all for your time and for being here and for considering this. And I hope that you will reduce the setback.
Speaker 0: Thanks again. Thank you. Next up is Stacy Lynn.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Stacey Lynn. I'm the executive director of Cannabis City Foundation. We are a foundation that gives helps parents who have medically fragile or disabled children get safe access to medical cannabis treatment for their children. I am the mother of Jack Split, for whom I created the law, created Jack's law to allow children to have their medical cannabis at school. I started Accountability Foundation because I wanted children to have access to this very important medicine. But. The second half of that is that I am equally as passionate about making sure that children who are not medical patients do not have access to cannabis. So as such, I am kind of appalled that we didn't do this set reduction setback specifically for the children because as has been documented, thousands and thousands of children hang out at pools, they go to rec centers, they go to parks. Well, here's the deal. Cannabis consumers do not have setbacks. They can stand by the fence at the pool while the smoke wafts into the pool. They can cruise through the park. They can walk down the 16th Street mall smoking while my 14 year old son inhales it. However, we can create reasonable setbacks for businesses, and as such, I think that is the only way to protect children. It is the only thing that makes sense. We have legal consumption in this state and we have legal consumers. And if they have nowhere to consume, they will do it in front of our children. And I'm tired of it. I am a cannabis consumer. I would never do it in front of my child and I don't want anyone else doing it in front of my child and without. Perhaps we need a consumption center on the 6/16 Street Mall, not in an industrial park where no one is. No one's going to go to the unsafe industrial park to consume. They'll just stay on the 16th Street Mall. But what if they could walk four blocks away and consume out of everyone's face? I think we have to do this. There is no other solution we've been talking about in talking about it, and there just isn't. We all want cannabis off the street. How do you get it off the street? You put it in a closed, secure building that is highly regulated and monitored and out of sight of children. Not having a bunch of cannabis consumers hanging out at the park and at the pool, by the way, where that child can jump right out of the pool and go smoke with that consumer. They cannot do that at a concert, a consumption establishment. So I encourage you to please pass these reduce setbacks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Joshua Bell.
Speaker 13: Thank you, President. Thank you, Counsel. My name is Josh Kaplan, one of the partners at the Sun, Cedarburg. You know, we've been working with counsel for about ten years now on cannabis regulation. And, you know, I think overall, I think he has had to give yourselves a pat on the back for for really taking this issue on and really putting in the thought to be a leader in the country when it comes to how do you responsibly regulate cannabis. Then after we drafted Amendment 64, you know, we were listening. How is this going to work? How is cannabis legalization going to work? What we kept hearing was there's a problem with people consuming cannabis in our streets on the 16th Street Mall, in our parks. And we we we asked, well, how do we fix this? You know, and what we did is we put together a draft initiative, 300, and we worked with a lot of different stakeholders in putting it together. And we put together a measure that we knew was very progressive because it hasn't been done before, but we did it in a very, very conservative way, and we gave the city an immense amount of power to create responsible regulations because we trusted we've worked with the city for a while. Looking back on that today, you know, and I have to applaud the city for putting so much thought into regulating where can where cannabis consumption can happen. But looking back on that today, it's clear that that we overregulated it that we did not fix the problem we went out to fix, which is providing places for people to use cannabis. You know, there's still hundreds of people ticketed each year in Denver for using cannabis in public. There's still reports of cannabis consumption all over our streets, in our parks. And so, you know, we're in favor of this bill to reduce the setback requirements and most in part because, you know, that's trying to ease the regulatory burden a little bit to actually allow a few businesses to open here. You know, today we have two businesses that are open. They're in inconvenient locations. And there's an overall we haven't figured out how do we fix this policy issue that we have, which is where do people consume cannabis. So, again, thank you for your time. Thank you for the thoughtfulness that you've put into this issue. And and I'd urge you to support this. And I will say, you know, as one of my final days, as one of the drafters of Initiative 300, you know, I do believe that these regulations frustrate the intent of the measure. And it's most evident because there's no place are very, very few places today where people can consume cannabis. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Adam Rouse.
Speaker 11: Thank you, President. Thank you, Counsel. I appreciate you guys being here this evening. My name is Adam Bruce and I'm a resident in District four. Councilwoman Black, thank you so much for all your work on the special committee. I am the founder of Ganja Guru Yoga. It's a cannabis and yoga service, if you would, if you couldn't put that together in 2016, we did vote for initiative 300 to pass. The Denver voters had that as their will and their intention. And unfortunately, because of the restrictions, it's been nearly impossible to find a place to start a business and to be able to have a location to consume. I've worked with a few different real estate agents. I've worked with several different law firms to try to find a desirable location, as we might call it, or really any location to be able to host a cannabis and yoga class under, you know, this initiative. And it's been it's been really difficult. I mean, I think that the will of the voters is to obviously protect our children. It's to obviously protect our public who do not want to have cannabis in their faces. So I think that it's the responsibility of the council. It's the responsibility of the city, and it's the responsibility of the pioneers who are all sitting here in the industry to be responsible stewards of that. And I think that we have the ability to do it. I've worked in the yoga business for several years now. I understand the business model. It is certainly viable. We can look at the books of many different public yoga establishments and find that. So I think that there are certain concerns that the public does have and that the council probably has about, you know, reducing these setbacks. But in doing so, I think it would only give us these business owners and the citizens who voted this initiative in the opportunity to be responsible stewards. So I do think that, unfortunately, these restrictions did disturb the will of the voters. And I would ask you, as councilmen and women, to please vote in favor of this reduction of the setbacks. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sean Coleman.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council Sean Coleman, 36 Solutions Public Affairs Consulting. I'm one of you a first time think your staff for the social equity workgroup they've convened this issue of making sure the communities who have been the most negatively impacted by the war on cannabis do not remain disenfranchized from the profits of the peace . It is a complex issue that has got systemic problems. It's got statutory problems, it's got capital access problems. This set back issue is one way to meaningfully trust that. And I want to talk about that because what you have in this question both and Josh Karp, one of the judges spoke to this briefly, is you have an opportunity to have about business viability that you can take this license and attach to an already viable business. And that's incredibly important, particularly in communities of color, lower income communities where the hospitality facilities and those communities are the extension of people's living rooms. It is the community meeting place. And it's important that these people have an opportunity together, because what we see in Colorado is and in Denver and frankly, unfortunately, in every state that legalize cannabis is a continued arrest disparity for people of color and people of lower economic economic status. So when we talk about public safety, that is another public safety risk, because when you dove into the numbers, particularly here in Colorado, what you see is something even more troubling is that even though you have a direst disparity, you don't have as sympathetic charging disparity, which means that people are being arrested and taken to taken downtown and then subsequently not charged. That means these are low level offenses, probably outdoor consumption. So what changing the set setback does is it gives the opportunity for businesses that are already viable, that already exist in people's neighborhoods, and have those businesses provide this service so that those customers, those consumers, those people who are otherwise simply being exercising their constitutionally, constitutionally protected right, but then being arrested for it and then subsequently not being charged, it removes that whole process by giving them a safe, legal place to engage in that activity. And it's also saying, as other speakers have mentioned, there is a state bill that is moving through a process that would address some of the issues that have been raised by your own staff in terms of the business viability. However, again, I want to encourage you to move forward with this proposal this evening, because it is this sit back issue that is really the barrier for existing business owners. And those are the people who have been left out of this, who have been disenfranchisement, profits of the piece and the communities who have been most negatively impacted. And it's about time that we gave those people an opportunity to participate in this industry. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Wasserman and then I'll call the next five, Frank Turk, Turk, Jawn Valdez, Michelle Walker, Amber Leong, Archer and Brian Ortega. If you want to come up to the front, go ahead.
Speaker 11: Thank you for allowing me to speak. I appreciate you guys time and staying here late on a monday. I'm in favor of reducing the setback. My name is David Wasserman. I'm the legislative liaison for the Southern Colorado Cannabis Council. My organization has been representing cannabis clubs since legalization. The Springs has licensed clubs right now. Denver doesn't. The Springs has licensed clubs, one of which was next to a daycare for quite some time. They do comedy there. They host poets, they have poker tournaments. They hold space for yoga in Colorado Springs of all places. They have more social consumption venues than Denver does. Right now, directly across the street from us, people are smoking cannabis in Lincoln Park and in Civic Center Park. I walked past that on my way here. I don't regularly see people drinking at City Park even though it's allowable. I'm assuming that they can go to any one of the hundreds of bars within walking distance, and that's why they aren't at the park. The same thing cannot be said for cannabis. There's no safe place to consume cannabis at the moment. Our tourism economy is booming, with 31.7 million people visiting the Mile High City in 2017. Many of those individuals are looking to consume cannabis during their stay here. They cannot legally smoke in their hotels, and they're forced to illicitly consume the cannabis in public and break the law or illicitly consume in their hotel rooms. I've heard this statement that there are more recreational dispensaries than Starbucks or McDonald's in Denver. There are many similarities between McDonald's, Starbucks and our current recreational dispensaries. And all three, you can purchase something. But while Starbucks and McDonald's allow you an environment where you can safely consume the product that you just purchased, Dispensary Center is out the door with no options. Many end up at the parks I was just speaking about. They cannot smoke in their hotels and they're forced to illicitly consume their cannabis in public or break the law. With that, I would just like to say that I'm in favor of lowering the limit. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Frank Turk.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Frank Turk. I live in the Five Points area. I work as a cannabis tour guide concierge. I think a lot of people on tours around town there. They have a great time with us, but they're always looking for an establishment to go to. There's not that many to go to. I refer them to a couple of places and they go to those places. But I think Denver's definitely missing out on a tourist dollar in an opportunity in history where they could be establishing these places. These places could be getting established. As we've been here, we've been doing it. This is the opportunity time for you guys. It's going to happen anywhere anyway, across the nation. Cannabis is totally healthy, it's nontoxic. It's awesome. It's better than alcohol. Alcohol is toxic. It causes problems, causes litter, causes smells. It causes all the all kinds of so we know we can compare. We can go online to Google, we can compare this stuff pretty easily. So this summer. Full alcohol is allowed at the parks this summer of me as I'm 48 years old. I don't really appreciate that. I grew up in an alcoholic home. My father was a heavy drinker, had a full bar downstairs. I started drinking a young age. Cannabis saved me at a young age as well when I found cannabis, thank goodness, because who knows what I'd be like right now if I'd be energetic and exercising the way I do now, looking at life positively the way I do now, and going about it the way I do now, especially with all the obstacles and things that have come at me in my journey to get to this point in my life where I'm at. I've been living here, like I said, for six years. I live on the East Coast where it's definitely is the East Coast. It's not legal yet there. It's definitely more stringent. So like I said, though, I think Denver is definitely missing out on the key opportunity in history to help these places create a commerce, create a place for people to come. We do now, like we said, cannabis is totally nontoxic, healthy, beautiful plant and needs to be free. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Valdez.
Speaker 11: Hello. My name's John Valdez. I'm the owner of High Yields, Cannabis Consulting, Valdez Investments and a licensed commercial real estate broker with great ray real estate. With the thousand foot setback, it makes it extremely difficult for my clients and myself to find any viable properties. I've had several clients that have left the industry or went to different states to to open up other businesses. I realize that there is 9000 eligible properties, but that is not there is not 9000 available properties. The properties that are available are in this area. Excuse me, I'm not a public speaker, so the large amount of them are not for lease, their existing businesses are not for sale. There are an open space country clubs, cemeteries, railroads and are not available to the cannabis industry. The current allowable locations are in industrial areas, undesirable and hard to access locations. A successful, thriving cannabis consumption club needs to be in an area where we have tourists. We have people like Rhino Low Union Station music venues like Bluebird, Ogden and Fillmore. If I cannot identify a location for my clients, this cannot go to licensing and it will be dead at that point. What you need for this to work is you need real estate, capital and labor force. We have the capital. We have the labor force. We do not have the real estate state. That's not a viable location. As an investor and a business owner, I would not invest in any of these locations. It will not work with the lack of tourism that you're going to have, the lack of foot traffic. There was a map. How can I grab an applicant? What we're looking at.
Speaker 0: You have talking to Mike from sorry.
Speaker 11: With the locations that we have on the map in the Green Zone, we're looking at in a very industrial areas off I-70 and then going down the 25 corridor towards Six Avenue. The areas that people are at are in the downtown area. This is the locations that will have a thriving cannabis consumption club for this to work. And these location retail events, short term or long term rental, cool workspace, food service, business partners, services like massage, acupuncture, yoga art classes and cooking classes and many others. I need to build to provide a atmosphere for 21 years older and over a professional networking opportunity, education classes in the industry and offer a safe place for consumption. I also am a parent. I look at this on a parent's side also. I take my daughters downtown to go shooting photography all the time. We have to skip Ali after Ali because people are smoking marijuana in the alleys, in the streets. So we skip the incredible art that my kids will not be able to see because of this.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I appreciate it. And I'm a favorite. Please vote of all the people.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Michelle Walker. Michelle Walker. All right, Amber, let you say that.
Speaker 7: Thank you. My name is Amber Flanagan. I live at 1237 Jackson Street, District ten. Thank you all for your time, Councilman Black. Mr. President, for everything that you've done. I'm originally from Florida. The government there is moving at a snail's pace with medical marijuana. So I really appreciate everything you guys do and all the consideration and thought that you put into all of these rules and regulations. I support the new bill with the with the reduction of 500 feet in setbacks. This is a very important issue to me and a lot of my friends. The need for social consumption is apparent across the US. Public consumption is happening here, is happening everywhere. Jurisdictions all over the country and all over the world are starting to contemplate this issue. Where can people go to legally consume, especially tourists? I appeared before the task force a couple of times and gave a couple of public comments that I wanted to share with you all. The first was when I first came here with my little brother. We traveled across the country, got here, stayed in a motel six out by the airport. I am a consumer and my little brother is not. And while we were in our hotel that first night here in Denver, there was marijuana smoke wafting in to our room through the vents from the other rooms in the hotel. I asked the hotel management what they could do about this issue, and they said there really wasn't anything they could do, that it was out of their control at this point. So while I didn't care, I was bothered for it by it for my little brother on his behalf. Secondly, I have been to the coffee joint several times and big fan. I went there for a date not too long ago as I really don't consume a lot of alcohol. Neither did the gentleman who I met online. So we went to a coffee joint to meet up in a safe place in public. I do echoed the sentiments of the previous speakers that it is in an area that is difficult to go to at night and especially in an industrial area. It doesn't feel super safe to go there. But I went. I had a blast and was really grateful for the opportunity to go somewhere and consume cannabis just like you would alcohol in a bar. So I think that kind of puts a face on the cannabis consumer in ways that perhaps you guys hadn't thought of before. But also just wanted to raise one final point when asking you guys to approve this bill. We've heard a lot about affordable housing today. And recently you guys approved a retail marijuana tax hike and a lot of those funds from that tax to go to affordable housing here in Denver. So I think it's important that we consider that those people who are trying to help in those circumstances, a lot of them medical marijuana patients, may not be able to consume in their homes. So thank you all so much for your time. I would appreciate a vote in support of this bill. And thank you again.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brian Ortega and I call the last three. If you could come up to the front, ask Marcus, Alissa, you four, and Alexis Armstrong.
Speaker 12: Good evening, members of the Council. Thank you for staying late. Allow me to testify. First off, I am a father. My name is Brian Ortega. I am on the board of Directors of Veterans for Natural Rights, a veteran founded organization with over 100 members, ambassadors and affiliates in the Denver area advocating for natural rights. I am also set to relocate to District five before May 7th. I've been a Colorado Colorado resident for over three years now. Cannabis has granted me many abilities I lost due to my military service. The setback is there's nowhere to consume legally. I'm a medical refugee and I live in a multi dwelling facility. I cannot legally medicate, nor can a lot of my brothers and sisters who reside in federal housing. Medicate legally. Most residents and tourists are forced outside of parks, streets and a multiple multitude of public spaces sure to have children looking to enjoy the outdoors, not cannabis smoke. This bill will create a safe place to consume for everyone. Cannabis has increased my mobility and allowed me to do things like leave my house, which led to things like physical therapy and the end of a ten year opioid dependency. In August 2017, I was accepted to the University of Colorado Boulder Math and Science Program. I would like to see social consumption allowed because I've come this far in my healing. With the current consumption laws, I can only imagine how much further I can go along with so many others if this passes. Let's exercise our natural right to consume in the public domain where excuse me, let us exercise our natural right to consume in the public domain where cannabis is already consumed illegally, and on responsibility on responsibly due to the current regulations. The cannabis community wants to do this responsibly and respectfully. The emphasis is protecting the children. There are not many places for people like me, a patient and a resident to legally consume, as well as for the tourists who visit our great city. Please vote to honor the will of the voters. Let's reduce the setbacks some more social consumption businesses can open, aiding in the responsible reintegration of cannabis. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, ask Marcus. Good evening, Mr. President, distinguished members of the Council. I'd like to thank you again for staying late. And thank you for allowing us to be the voices so that you can hear them from us. My name again is Eric Marcus. I'm the chief operating officer of the Grove Spaces. We are a cannabis, hospitality, entrepreneurship, and we are looking for venues that are compliant where we can provide our hospitality services to guests of the city of Denver as well as residents. You've heard from multiple people here, and hopefully you can see by the turnout that there are many people who would love to get into this industry and our businesses that want to support not only what the public is looking for and what people voted on in November of 2016. And ultimately, these are services that people desire for an entrepreneur like me and for the people in my firm. The current setbacks have really disallowed us finding viable locations that are in areas that are appealing. If I can't bring my own family members or my wife with me to enjoy some cannabis out in a well-regulated space, then we're basically forced out to the car, to the alley, behind the bar. And ultimately we're looking for safe spaces for everybody to be able to consume cannabis. I don't think anybody thinks or should think that exposing our children to cannabis is of any benefit. I would remind everybody that written into the legislation is a community approval requirement that if we are anywhere in a neighborhood where we can meet the other conditions to be able to be licensed, if the community says we can't be there.
Speaker 3: We're out.
Speaker 0: So we are looking for other locations as it is. So I am here in favor of the setback reduction. I would ask you all to please take it into consideration and let's.
Speaker 11: Realize the will of the voters here.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next up, Alissa, you've heard.
Speaker 7: Hi. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. My name is Lisa Offer and I am the owner of Kayak Event Designs. We are a private event company that plans private invitation only and cannabis consumption friendly events. It is extremely difficult for us to do these events. We follow the same distance requirements as I A300 and operate under the same type of model only completely privately. We have a lot of venues that are private event venues that still cannot host cannabis events because they are just within that thousand foot requirement. Marijuana consumers need somewhere to go and socially consumed together. People need that community and be able to come together. And by allowing marijuana sales in the state and then nowhere for any tourists to go can consume is just forcing people to be criminals. I went to school for tourism and event management and Denver has been the example of tourism for the entire nation in our schools across the country. And as a when it comes to cannabis events, we are falling very far behind the rest of the country. So I ask you, please vote in favor of changing the set back restrictions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Alexis Armstrong.
Speaker 10: Council members. President, thank you for your time this evening.
Speaker 7: My name is Alexis Armstrong. I'm a current resident in District ten, Denver's Uptown Neighborhood Representative News District. I've lived here for about four years now and voted in favor of Initiative 300 in 2016. And I'm just here to support the rest of the voters and ask you to please go along with what the voters requested in 2016 and change the requirement to 500 feet. This way we can keep our legal cannabis use away from children and we can have cannabis friendly establishments for tourists and visitors to consume. I myself have previously worked at a dispensary. I would say about 85% of the customers that.
Speaker 10: Come in are.
Speaker 7: Tourists. They're looking for somewhere to consume responsibly. And as the retail workers, we have to tell them we're sorry. You know, you just have to try to sneak it in your hotel room.
Speaker 8: Or take it to the.
Speaker 7: Park or, you know, wherever you think is the safest place to consume.
Speaker 10: Because currently there are not very many options.
Speaker 7: And when I was working.
Speaker 10: In the retail industry.
Speaker 7: There were none at all at that time.
Speaker 10: And I see it every day. And Cheesman Park in Congress.
Speaker 7: Park in Walsh Park, I walk my dog and there's people consuming all over the park.
Speaker 10: So we're just looking for somewhere.
Speaker 7: Safe to consume and we're asking you to please vote in favor.
Speaker 10: Of honoring the voters.
Speaker 7: To allow more possible locations to open. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Amanda Phillips.
Speaker 7: Good evening, everyone. My name is Amanda. I am the state director for minorities of Medical Marijuana. Thank you very much for your time. I do not live in Denver. I live in Aurora, so I do not have a someone to vote for here. But thank you very much for being here and representing Denver. So currently right now I am the president of minority medical marijuana. I'm currently on the board for Colorado Black Women of Political Action. I'm also on the board of Denver Normal. I represent people of color, women, disability people. Excuse me, I'm sorry, disability people as well as veterans and felons. And they would love to get involved in this industry. However, owning a dispensary has a high cost social equity, as well as owning a consumption space would be something where we can afford to get involved and we can afford to to have a business in this industry. Also to educate older the older community on hemp CBD as well as marijuana usage. They also would like to have some way to consume. They cannot do it in their retirement home. So they would like to have somewhere safe, somewhere, somewhere where someone can invite them so they can use it to help them as an alternative of off of opioid medication. I also look at this as something that minorities are this this operationally arrested and charged for our even fined for for using this is somewhere safe that it can be said they can somewhere safe they can use this so they don't be they won't be ticketed or citation for people of color and also lower income disenfranchized people also to being that this would if we do have social consumption if we can have it somewhere or allow public transportation. I have been to the coffee joint. I love them. They are a wonderful establishment. However, it is very hard via public transportation to access that, to engage and consume and medicate in a safe environment. So I'm just asking you on the behalf of people of color and your districts that would love to get into this industry, that is able to afford it and provide a safe place to consume for your constituents. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't. Did anyone say they were from a marijuana policy group, by any chance? Ashley, are you familiar with the employees? What study is it? Sorry. The Marijuana Demand and market study are from August of 2018. I. Okay.
Speaker 0: You could come up to the microphone to answer and introduce yourself for everybody watching on TV.
Speaker 7: Hi, I'm Ashley Kilroy, the director of Excise and Licenses.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so you're not familiar with that.
Speaker 7: And it was Marijuana Policy Project study.
Speaker 4: It is market size and demand for marijuana in Colorado. 2017 Market Update Prepared for the Colorado Department of Revenue by Marijuana Policy Group and the Lead School of Business at CU Boulder.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we might be that might be the one that. Adam Orenstein. Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 4: The reason I'm asking is. You know, I have something that was prepared for council. You know, it is a fake, you. Q And there was a lot of things here discussed tonight in the public comment that were are not touched in this f a q but are sort of reflected in this, in this, in this in this market study. And one of the things that I want to sort of confirm, do you have any sense about the size, the number of marijuana users, social users in in the city? There are non visitors, just actual residents.
Speaker 7: No, I don't know that off the top of my head unless Molly does. Okay. I mean, we were familiar with it when it came out, but I haven't looked at it lately.
Speaker 4: Because this is this is a statewide thing. But in their 189 metric tons are consumed by of marijuana, they're consumed by residents as opposed to 19 metric tons by visitors. But there are only are less than a million sort of marijuana users that are residents, while there are seven, six and a half million that are visitors. So there's you know, we have six times the amount of marijuana users that are actual visitors, but they're only consuming a 10th of the total marijuana that is being produced. So I'm trying to understand, should this policy address resident users of marijuana, you know, create acts, you know, improve access for resident users of marijuana? Or should the policy address the visiting use consumer of marijuana? Because what I hear is sort of two different things, right, which is we need to solve the problems in the neighborhood and that seems to cater to the resident. But the you know, where I think the market is, is catering to those people that don't have housing, even though it was very clear that people in subsidized housing, federally subsidized housing have no place to consume. But then again, if you're in a federally subsidized unit, do you have a lot of disposable income to now go to a high end facility that is there to cater to visitors? So, you know, is there where I'm going with this? Because I think there's mechanisms that we could use to address what I think is being asked for here in a way that could address both the rise, the low income resident user, and medicate her and and cultivate the market that is probably there with the visitor, but it's probably not with a sort of blanket. Let's just reduce the setback and let the market decide because the market will only cater to one and not the other. Or is there have you heard anything in your in your deliberations that says, oh, I'm a property owner and I very much would like to cater to the to the low the the the low income user because we heard a lot about alley use and other things.
Speaker 7: Yeah, great question. And I think we heard when we when we had our task force a little bit from everyone, I mean, including people who say they just want a place to go consume marijuana with like minded people. So more of just the social piece, but we didn't drill down far enough and to how could we meet the specific needs of those individuals?
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, you.
Speaker 4: Had one other question that might touch on that same thing. There were two gentleman, one by the name of John Valdez and the other one by Eric Marcus. One John says that he is on the acquisition side of, you know, properties. And our Eric says that he operates businesses. Do you have any sense about what it cost to transition an existing business over to what potentially something that would satisfy this are requirements if the property was viable?
Speaker 11: It's property to property. If you're going into a blank canvas, it's obviously going to be more expensive than going to something that's already established for like a nightclub or a restaurant or a bar or something.
Speaker 4: But is it a few hundred dollars? Is it tens of thousands of dollars? That a game that tells me a lot, right? Yeah. If you're asking the per square foot.
Speaker 11: Per square foot is what you're looking at. Yeah. You're between 25 and $50 per square foot on an average will cost more for certain types of businesses. It's hard to say if it's going to be a $500,000 build or if it's going to be hundred thousand dollars bill. It's per unit or per asset.
Speaker 4: Eric, do you have sense about what it would cost for you to go ground? I mean, you know, go into an existing space and make it viable for your operation? Well.
Speaker 0: Again, Councilman, it really does depend on the type of space, number one, and the square footage you're looking at and what the previous use was. My background is in traditional hospitality. I've been a chef for 28 years and counting, and if I were to go into an existing restaurant, I would have to buy out all the assets in place. I would be buying the license or going through a use review for a transfer of license, and there are any number of prohibitive hurdles to get past for our current model, because you cannot.
Speaker 13: Make and.
Speaker 0: Serve food that is produced in-house under the current regulations. Basically, we don't need a commercial kitchen anymore, but. We're looking at more core and shell spaces that we need to build out from the ground up, depending on the occupancy rates. And where we want to be is to be able to host groups or host to the public more than 100 people ideally, so that we can properly monetize the revenue stream and make it all worthwhile.
Speaker 11: It requires.
Speaker 3: Fire suppression.
Speaker 0: That in and of itself, if you're a landlord, can cost you upwards of $100,000, $150,000. So now we've.
Speaker 11: Created another hurdle for an entrepreneur to get past just to find a.
Speaker 0: Space where we can actually operate.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you. For for for for being candid about that, because there was a lot of stories about how, you know, businesses could just convert and be this for my neighborhood. But that's a serious investment to sort of make that launch. And what worries me is if you're in a community that doesn't that caters to a whole bunch of clientele, this industry can only exist in a 21 and older. So you're basically then saying, I'm going to only serve a very narrow market, not all people in a neighborhood. And so I want I wanted that and I wanted that clear answer because I need to make it very clear that, again, there was a lot of convert comments that seemed well intentioned but don't necessarily speak to actually how much how much investment has to go in to make a successful operation, consumption operation, because you've got to have your own product to sell because you're not selling the marijuana in the process, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Hey, John or Eric, I appreciate Councilman Espinosa for calling you up. I can either one of you, because you both are speaking along similar lines and you're looking for investments. And John, since you're standing there, I was trying to write down everything you're saying. You're as we're talking about these locations, you're saying they're industrial areas, not accessible. You said for these to be successful, you need areas with a lot of traffic, tourist areas, location.
Speaker 11: Location is good for for consumption.
Speaker 3: And I say this in jest. Are you familiar with Colfax?
Speaker 11: I'm very familiar with Colfax, which in your district that we spoke earlier would be a great location for it. But the key is having available properties. There is 9000 properties, commercial properties in the Green Zone are in the working area, but that doesn't mean they're all available. You may have something that is leased. You have a landlord or an owner of a building that has a federally regulated loan. He cannot put a cannabis consumption product in there. You may have something that is not for sale or it's an existing business. So, so.
Speaker 3: So for those not familiar with District eight, I've got Yosemite, which is the border all the way to Colorado. And I'm looking at my map right now and I can say conservatively, because I'll go on the conservative side, 70% of Colfax is green. As I as I look at this right now, 70%. And you can sit down. You're that the question is is accessible right now and unless so when I hear that there aren't properties available, I would love for somebody to walk me Colfax, because I, I support this model. And my apologies, Mr. President, because I'm bleeding over into the comments that if if someone can explain to me how I hear that they're not accessible, but I look at this map, I see tremendous opportunities along the Colfax corridor with the 15 is the most RTD busiest traffic route. That's a great location.
Speaker 11: Thank, Mr. President. Can I say something on that? I'm good enough. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Just returned. And Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 12: That's famous person. I was expecting your question in an answer. So let me ask, is honey lastly still here? And I don't know if anyone else in the audience or perhaps Councilwoman Black, who is our legislative liaison, can talk a little bit more about House Bill 1230 and how that might change the business model. Honey, what is your understanding of what changes the legislature may hand to us that might change the game here?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. My understanding is that 1230 will allow for both a bring your own model similar to what initiated ordinance 300, but also a sale model of product on site. It will also. That's the biggest thing is it will allow for also mobile marijuana businesses to operate.
Speaker 12: Mobile, you mean like tour busses or.
Speaker 7: Mobile things.
Speaker 12: Like that.
Speaker 7: The language in the bill says mobile. I'm assuming it means it's on wheels.
Speaker 12: I was having a lot of nods of. Yes.
Speaker 7: Ah, yeah. Thank you. And again, Denver will have local control on on on how far they care to take what the state will do. I never would want to underestimate the ability of this council to make the right decisions for Denver. But those are those are the the biggest differences is that it will lead to greater expansion. And and our point at Smart, again, is that there will be a whole another time to really look at thoughtful analysis around setbacks and that perhaps waiting until 1230, which all indications are will pass. Governor Polis has come out and said he will sign it, that there is another opportunity to have this discussion with really even more of a bigger ramifications.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Is there any anyone else who testified who's familiar with 1239 can add to that perspective? Thank you.
Speaker 13: Mr. President. Councilman. Thank you. I think Henney covered most of the logistics of the bill fairly clearly. I just want to just really hone in on this concept, right. Because the concept of all of the state bill is that all commercial cannabis activity should be clearly licensed. Right. So in other words, in this, in a separate bill from 1230, the sunset bill, the Department of Regulates, the Media Marijuana Enforcement Division is also going to be getting injunctive relief ability. So in other words, so what we have now, of course, is because and I think, frankly, in some ways because of the sit back issue , you have unlicensed, unpermitted cannabis activity going on across the city. It is in many instances, clearly commercial. And the remedy for the people in the neighborhood is to call the police and then the police chase that person from one house to the next one garage to the next. And and then that just goes on like Whac-A-Mole forever. What you have when you have state licensure and again, the Denver City Council will have to go through process to opt into that state program. But once opted into that state program, whether there was a change between sales or not, what certainly would be the case is that now when someone notices some unlawful, unlicensed, unpermitted activity going on in their neighborhood of the community, they can call the marijuana force and division. Who could then call the court. Right. And courts have a much better way of keeping track of people, making sure they're not doing that again. Then police officers running around, they have better things to do than go chasing.
Speaker 12: Let me ask you this and I'm sorry, your name is again.
Speaker 13: My name is Shawn Coleman, 36 Solutions.
Speaker 12: Thank you. And I have heard and maybe you can verify some of the other folks here that in within the marijuana industry sector that there is some contention over this, there's some support, but there's some opposition. Is that in fact, the case? I'm seeing people shake their heads now. Okay.
Speaker 13: So, yeah. So I mean, I think, Mr. President, what I mean, I remember as a council member, I think maybe what you're thinking about and considering is that this license program at the state level, very similar to Denver, is question. Denver's DCA model is not an industry bill. It is a creates a license that is generally available. So obviously some folks would say, well, I've you know, I've been in this country for a long time. Why do now more people get an opportunity to be in the space? And I think the answer to that is because more people should be able.
Speaker 12: To ask you this and let me maybe a show of hands. Generally speaking, does the marijuana industry support 1230? Thank you. Thank you. Joshua Kappel.
Speaker 0: Cabal.
Speaker 12: And you said you were part of writing the initiative.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Growth? Correct.
Speaker 12: Okay. You made a statement that everything that I've looked at and I'm on the marijuana committee and everything I've looked at has persuaded me that the distance requirement that was added by Excel is not really the obstacle here, but it's the business model that is fairly flawed. And so when you said I think you made the statement that it's obvious that we are frustrating the intent of the ordinance because only two businesses have opened, but two businesses have opened in the 20 square miles of the city that still are eligible, according to our G.I.s, people with even with the 1000 foot restrictions on the other properties. And I'm being told that up to 30 entrepreneurs are just chomping at the bit to find locations in the additional 2.2 square miles that this pullback would add to the eligible area. And I find that to be somewhat incredible. So could you explain how you arrived at your conclusion that the distancing requirements he accelerated are what's frustrating this and not a business model that frankly, is is impractical in my view?
Speaker 13: Yes, that definitely when we drafted the measure, we we put in a thousand foot setback requirement and we gave the city council the ability to add whatever regulations they wanted. And we gave excise licensing, the ability to implement regulations that were necessary to enforce it. And so the additional setback requirements weren't necessary to enforce that. And thus what they did is they actually made it. So there's locations that are otherwise would be approved that the neighborhood supports, that the neighborhood wants them to be there and they can't get a license permit to operate because of the distance requirements. So that's one reason how it frustrates it. But what's so fascinating, what people don't understand is we actually this business model isn't as as financially lucrative as selling cannabis. Right. And so what we did is we made the distance requirements the same as selling cannabis. So out of all the places that you can operate, they've actually been already picked over by people who can sell cannabis. And so there's no additional spaces. You can have one of these businesses where you can also get a cannabis dispensary license. And so it is it's a misnomer to say that, you know, there's all this square footage. It's actually there's not that much square footage because all of that square footage has already been sort of gone through by people with a more viable financial model, which is selling cannabis. Right.
Speaker 12: All right. Thank you. I have one more. I actually.
Speaker 0: Kilroy And could you come up.
Speaker 12: And maybe explain to everybody and the viewing audience, why did you add these? Why, when the ordinance said a thousand feet from schools and said a thousand feet from schools only under what authority in the ordinance and I don't know if you need to call up the attorney who's not still just not here anymore.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 7: But until.
Speaker 12: You have a new.
Speaker 7: Attorney.
Speaker 12: So why you why you chose to add pools, rec centers and whatever else?
Speaker 7: So when we looked at the ordinance and it gave us rulemaking authority with regard to area restrictions, we looked at the intent of the ordinance. We had a lot. There were a lot of issues related to what we did. The area restrictions were just one small part of it. So when we got to the area restrictions, we looked at the intent of the ordinance and we saw what we believe. One of the attempts was to keep these facilities away from kids because they were 1000 feet from schools. We also looked at it. Another part of the ordinance said something about making sure that these businesses weren't viewable from a place where children congregate. Right.
Speaker 12: So but is that actually in the ordinance?
Speaker 7: It is in the ordinance.
Speaker 12: Okay. But the thousand feet from schools. That was an inference you made. Not a specific direction.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 12: Because schools are where children congregate. You inferred from that that other places where children congregate might also be banned under consideration as. Okay. Prohibited.
Speaker 7: Okay. Yeah. And so with that group we went through, not just that, not just on area restrictions, but we sort of looked at, oh, well, what are they doing in Oregon on other things? And what about bringing butane in these businesses, and what are we going to do about disposal? And we took stuff from what you guys had in your ordinances about disposal and kind of came up with a bunch of stuff. We had tons of options out on the table. We had a varied work group. We had CDP, Colorado Department of Public Health. The Deputy Director of Public Health, Karen McGowan, was on it. We had DPS on it. We had a couple of other youth organizations and community organizations. And that group speaking as a whole, you know, with some people disagreeing, believed that we should add additional area restrictions that would protect children. Okay. We also had some other people arguing for even more like area restrictions from schools and a couple of different ones. But in the end, the compromise was.
Speaker 12: And some argued for less as well.
Speaker 7: And some argued for less.
Speaker 12: You wrote us an email a couple of weeks ago indicating that the mayor is is supportive of keeping the thousand foot restrictions that excel at it, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Ms.. President. I believe that's all I have.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you. Mr. President. Is the gentleman who made the reference of church in the city? 1600 Gaylord. Here. No. Okay. Well, I just. I have the map. You're not in the zone. So this is for your edification.
Speaker 0: That's it. That's it, right? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. I want to start with Ashley, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Molly. You can come forward as well.
Speaker 7: I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 6: So. I'm looking at this issue, trying to understand where the rules come in as it pertains to who's going to monitor the consumption. That would ensure that an operator doesn't become liable, very similar to, you know, our bars, where they're responsible for monitoring the consumption and not assuming that liability responsibility, if they allow someone to walk out the door stumbling and then get in a car and, you know, run somebody down or whatever the case may be. So help me understand how the rules address that particular issue with social consumption.
Speaker 7: Right. So what Josh and some of the other authors put in there that they should have some type of safe operations plan. And so then in our committee, we talked about what would that safe operations plan look like? And one of them was that we said in your safe operations plan, you have to provide some type of information that would tell us how you would monitor for overconsumption. We also talked about having universal carding, you know, and they would submit that that that that that operations plan telling us what they would do that goes through our process. And we would review that and say yes or no this is or is not a good plan for monitoring for overconsumption. But you're right, like the DRAM shop laws that apply to liquor don't apply in this case.
Speaker 6: But isn't this reliant on also the type of enforcement that we will have in place to ensure that that operation plan is going to be consistently applied?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I want to move on to concerns about the fact that people still can grow marijuana in their homes and how this potentially plays into the state law that's moving through the state legislature and what that might mean to either mobile consumption facilities or sales on premise. Can that sale? Come from marijuana grown anywhere or does it have to come from an existing facility that has had to follow all the rules and regulations? Can you speak to what your knowledge is of that and how how that sort of would apply here?
Speaker 7: Yeah, that is how you sort of interpreted it at the end is correct. Marijuana that you grow at home is for adult personal use. You can't sell it, you can't distribute it, you can't give it to someone for anything of value, but you can share it with your friends. So that type of marijuana would not get into the license system. What we were talking about, the hospitality bills that are at the state right now where smaller businesses like coffee shops or vape and play could start selling marijuana under one of these hospitality licenses. But they have to get the marijuana through a licensed business.
Speaker 6: And who monitors that?
Speaker 7: Pardon me?
Speaker 6: Who monitors where it's coming from?
Speaker 7: So just like what we do with everything that would be both the state and and our department, the media and our department, when we do inspections, if we see something along those lines, you know, that would be somewhere where we take action or if we get a tip that there's something going on illegally.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then just the issue of the concern that there are limited locations across the city. Is this something that you all have looked at very carefully? I know we've seen different maps sort of coming around. And I did look to see if any of the maps were on our largest star system and they're not. I know we had several of them, you know, in committee for discussion. I'm just curious, from the perspective of exercise in license about the availability of locations across the city that. Do not continue to saturate the same neighborhoods over and over.
Speaker 7: And Molly, can you speak to that a little bit more? Molly is much more familiar with the maps than I am.
Speaker 6: Okay. So, Molly, we do get you up here. Okay.
Speaker 7: So sorry. So can you just clarify the question?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm just trying to understand from your perspective the availability of locations across the city that would allow social consumption currently. I mean, what we're talking about is incorporating a place where people can go and really kind of folding it into existing businesses. I mean, that was my understanding of of what was originally proposed. But it doesn't mean that somebody couldn't like create their own type of business and then incorporate that into a new business. So it's not necessarily all existing types of right.
Speaker 7: And so and that is what we've seen the two businesses that are open are new businesses that were not in existence before. But we did do an analysis of existing businesses. And and we also looked at the type of businesses that were in the initiative. So places like yoga studios, coffee shops, salons, those types of things. And we found over 300 locations that are eligible of all businesses in the city. It was well in the over 10,000 businesses, but some of those, you know, might not be the type of business that would want this type of addition to their business. But in the type of business that would that was an initiative that was, you know, kind of advertised in the initiative. It was over 300 eligible locations.
Speaker 6: And it was up to those businesses to choose to incorporate.
Speaker 7: This.
Speaker 6: Marijuana model into their existing business. Right.
Speaker 7: So that they were eligible to come in and apply. Okay.
Speaker 6: So none of them have done that. We've only had two new applications that have created a business model that will allow people to come in.
Speaker 7: That's correct. Okay.
Speaker 6: I think that is the end of my questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman or Ortega? Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to go to councilman in first because when you.
Speaker 11: Actually go, go.
Speaker 0: We had a lot of discussion about what's happening to our kids in our parks now, about the consumption of marijuana in our parks and wherever else in the public where people are having to go to smoke now rather than having a consumption cloth, you know, or location. When you had your committee, did you address this issue or was this an issue about public health and the effect on children.
Speaker 11: About and in our parks, in our you, our.
Speaker 0: Areas or near the rec centers and near the locations that we've been talking about?
Speaker 7: Yes, it was. And I think I wasn't at the meeting. I think at the meeting in November, Commander Henning said that public consumption, outdoor public consumption is down, it's decreasing. They've been doing a lot of education with the kids, and we've been doing all of our all of our youth prevention staff. So at least that's what DPD has said, that they're seeing public consumption decreasing in the parks.
Speaker 0: And how are they enforcing that? How are and how do they determine that?
Speaker 7: Oh, well, when they're out there, they're look, you know, they're out there doing patrol. And if they see people consuming, they will ticket. It's a non civil it's a non criminal violation. But and oftentimes they'll do warnings. But I think the first couple of years when we first legalized, we were really focused on warnings, warning warnings, education , handing the kids and adults a know the law cards and then after a couple of years, they transitioned more into ticketing. But I think, Molly, you were there at Henning's last presentation. I think he said public consumption tickets have dropped significantly.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the police are enforcing it. It's not park rangers or anyone like that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think park rangers have authority to enforce, but I haven't seen their numbers lately.
Speaker 0: And if we if we pass the 500 foot business, you know, will the smoking in our parks and rec centers, will that be discontinued? Will everybody go to these.
Speaker 11: Locations to smoke?
Speaker 0: Are we are we we still have some degree of a problem, in effect, on kids?
Speaker 7: Well, I think that those are some of the questions we're all struggling with. We don't know what we don't know. We don't know. You know, first kind of in the world, starting with this, we don't really know if that will change behavior by opening more marijuana consumption shops. I know Bob McDonald, the director of did he sent Councilman Flynn his analysis, the public health analysis on it. And he's probably the better person than I am to speak to public health and impacts on kids and and behavioral change. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Sussman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Henny, could you come up again? I have a question for you. Thanks. You mentioned that the state deliberations down their law might give us a more options for social consumption. Is your group supporting the state legislation or opposed to it? Mark Colorado is opposed to the bill and if it passes and it came up and then it was up to Denver, whether we would implement it or not. Would your group support it or not? At at that point, I'm not sure really that the support or opposition is really relevant. The reason why Smart Colorado has always opposed is if I could step back just a moment now. The reason why we've always been opposed to these types of organizations or operations is because our interpretation of Amendment 64 was that the voters voted for personal consumption and it wasn't ever meant to be. And this is why the state has wrestled with this for six years, is there has not yet been a clear definition of what open and public consumption means. So that is why we have that's why we have maintained opposition to that bill. You had suggested that we perhaps delay until the seated whether the state legislature thing passes because it might give us more opportunities to have social consumption places. But you're saying that your group would oppose it no matter what, so that you would hope that there were wouldn't be no more social consumption places? Again, I don't know at this point without consulting with with our leadership team, if we would take an active role in lobbying you or asking you to to not do that. So I'm really not I'm really not able to to projections. Does it seem likely to you? Again, I think it depends on what the state model ends up looking like. Again, Denver has been the leader and we're just saying maybe this isn't the time to reconsider a setback. And as if the if the bill comes forward, then you'll have another opportunity as as a as the city to to make a good decision. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. A quick. Question, sir. Marijuana guru. Ashley. There you are. I didn't see you. I was like, Where did she go? I was, ah. Oh, yeah. Looks like there's quite a few marijuana girls and I'm risking asking that question in here. Ashley So I wanted to ask about the process with. Needs and desires are their needs and desires. Hearings and processes here and in place. And I know it's very similar as similar to dispensaries and things like that. Can you kind of walk us through that?
Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. Well, kind of on on social consumption first. Josh and his team put in something called that. They need evidence of community support before they even really file their application. So they have to talk to one neighborhood organization. It doesn't have to be unanimous, but just that there's someone out there that would agree to them, even just submitting their application. And then after they submit their application, we based. Did you know exactly on like what we do on liquor? Here's where the location is going to be. And we do just like with liquor, we go through and we vet and we make sure it meets all the distance restrictions and then if it does, well, set the neighborhood needs and desires hearing. I think we did it about the same. We sort of count blocks and do different things, but we might expand that here in there, we expanded one for Councilman Gilmore one time and then give the neighborhood notice and they come down and we have a hearing. City attorneys sort of represent the process and people like you will come and sort of represent the neighborhood and testify.
Speaker 0: Yeah. What about, like, what if council member doesn't show up? What if it's just community? Do they. Are they still parties of interest?
Speaker 7: Pardon me?
Speaker 0: Would they still be considered parties of interest?
Speaker 7: So the detailed rules about who are parties and interests, it always is an R.A. and then it depends on the different type of license types. And then like a business owner and one license type, it might be a commander of a district. But like what we'll do, and I think I've mentioned it to a lot of you guys and I know I have with you, Paul or Councilman Lopez, if you've got a community that doesn't know or is unsure of these rules, we are happy to kind of walk them through that. The city attorney's office has been gracious enough to help sort of train people if they're not sure what they need to do in a hearing.
Speaker 0: In the dispensary model, a party of interest is a councilmember.
Speaker 7: I think so. Is that we? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Does that carry into this one?
Speaker 7: Pardon me?
Speaker 0: Does that does that not apply to this particular license?
Speaker 7: Let me let Angel answer that. It's different.
Speaker 0: Did it change from. Does it change from those the dispensary licenses to this.
Speaker 3: Good morning. Members of Council Antrel Bagger. I work at the Denver City Attorney's Office. I was looking up your other question. Sorry, why you ask this question. So for your question about whether city council, a city council member would be a party of interest in these hearings, they would be we refer back to the same rules for all of the same reasons.
Speaker 0: That's what I wanted to ask. And, you know and I know I don't want to go into comments, Mr. President, but I just wanted to confirm that that was still the case here, despite what the you know, the reduction in the proposed reduction in.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Joshua, can I ask you a couple questions? So, first off, I think the initiated ordinance did a lot of good things to sort of make sure that it got community support. I think it was well intended and well written. I think it probably gave us a little too much latitude. But thank you for that as well. But in there, it said that there's designated conservation areas shall not require specific zoning permits and shall be permitted in any zone lot where underlying business or event is permitted. That one always sort of bothered me, right? Which is that, you know, wherever, you know, we're not going to put a zoning threshold, you know, to to this. But I'll be honest, I see that as a potential way forward. Are you familiar with the Denver, right? Yeah. Blueprint Denver. A planning update that's under consideration right now.
Speaker 13: I haven't read the 2041.
Speaker 4: Okay. There are six vision elements in that that sort of really shift the paradigm that we you know, the lens that we view land use decisions going forward and sort of trying to take a more equitable point of view on, on on our decision making. Hopefully, the reason why I'm bringing that up is I think I think a surgical placement of, of, of, of potential locations would benefit both the community and those businesses that pursue these opportunities, because they could they could make the case with the community, make the case with their bankers, and and then move forward in a way that doesn't create a whole area that ability granted on a sort of zone lot by zone lot basis. And so I think through zoning might be a way to to sort of so a way to to determine what of these industries that are out there are compatible by by you know, there's different business cases that they're throw out there that are already considered in that. They've already looked at that and said these are compatible businesses where we could actually work with exercise and license with our planning department and create a tool that would grant.
Speaker 0: Councilman, I just want make sure that we're still on questions about what on the hearing at hand.
Speaker 4: Since he's not familiar with Denver. Right. I feel like you have to go in a little bit more detail on on how we get here. But ultimately, would you relax this? Would you be okay with relaxing this prohibition in the original zoning? I mean, in the original initiative were so that this council could actually create it, you know, potentially use a different avenue whereby you could grant licensure to properties that are well below these thresholds if, if, if other zoning of other conditions are met.
Speaker 13: Yeah. The the intent of that section was actually to decrease the costs of opening the business. You know, so a yoga studio or a barber shop could just apply for a permit without going without having to update their building code and bring it to the the 2017 IBC or whatever it is in Denver is currently on. So it's actually a way to to make this more accessible. Now, if if, you know, if we could get accomplished through zoning the true intent of the initiative, which is to have places where people can consume cannabis and that are outside of, you know, outside of public finance. You know, we'd be very supportive of changing hours, you know, of creating some special seed up process or some other process for businesses within, you know, that are close to these sensitive use districts. How that actually works, I don't know.
Speaker 4: Well, I think I think I think you and others nailed it. And I wrote it when you spoke, actually. Um, and so the question is about there are always this concern that there's too much public consumption already going on in places where it's not legal. And this would create this avenue for us to sort of address that concern. So do you think that we could we could. We could. Do you think we could come up with a series of. Do you think we could come up with some sort of structure whereby we could ask that question and answer that question? How does this resolve how how does your business resolve public consumption concerns in this area that is being put it mean established? And if we could answer that question, we basically made the case for why this business should go there.
Speaker 13: I definitely that's possible. That's what we try to do by having these businesses work with the neighbor. You know, that was who we wanted the gatekeepers to be as these neighborhood organizations. And the problem that we have now is you have the neighborhood support and you still can't operate. And so there's another mechanism that's like more scalpel. Like, you know, we'd be very supportive of it, you know.
Speaker 4: Hit the nail on the head, right? Which is this is why when Cindy came and called and made her case, I was like, yes, we should have an exception for you. If you have that level of support, there should be a mechanism whereby we can grant that exception. We don't.
Speaker 13: And it was and that's why we didn't put in arbitrary set back requirements to start with. That's why we only had the 1000 foot from the school because that was federal law. You know, we didn't want to upset the federal government if we put that one arbitrary set back in. But all the other ones really made no sense to us because it was actually about working with the community. And if the community would rather have a place where people can consume cannabis, that's right next to the park, you know, as opposed at the park, then that's the community's choice. And that's what our intent was, was, was really have these businesses rooted deep in the community and that just can't be accomplished when there's these arbitrary setbacks.
Speaker 4: And so that's why I'm asking. I mean, I wanted to bring it back to where we're going with our zoning code because we had more arbitrary approach initially when we started doing grow operations and other things. And we got a lot of unintended outcomes in communities that we had to address subsequently. Here's our chance to sort of we're now on that concept. We go back in that direction and hope for the best, or do we actually look at what language we're putting forward and maybe figure out with you how we might actually sort of proactively engage the community and get that buy in and then make that a condition for and I know you don't want to do that because you make it sound like that's cost prohibitive. But I almost think that these business operators would welcome that because it's better than no option at all. But you don't want that option.
Speaker 13: And, you know, actually, I read the 2020 Denver vision, but I haven't read the 2040. So I think I'll just get back to you on the you know what I see.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, you back up?
Speaker 6: Yes. So along those lines, I like the fact that, you know, looking at this approach. That sort of gets away from looking at the same neighborhoods where we already have the growth facilities and many of the the retail stores for both medical and recreational marijuana. But I wanted to ask you a question, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. I should have had you stay there. I wanted to ask about the compliance with the Clean Air Act, because I understand the bill moving through. The Legislature is asking for an exemption for vaping from the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. So the bill, as it was written, would comply with the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act. Correct.
Speaker 13: Initiative 300. Correct. It complies with with the Colorado.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then I just wanted to ask about. So if, you know, we have a lot of people that that are involved in this process who may also have some of the stores that may want to look at a different model where they can for move their product into a different social consumption model, if you will. And and I just wanted to ask the question about if we lax the rules from what was created in in the regulations from 1000 feet to 500 feet, what that means for down the road wanting to use this move. If council moves to to change this, to then say, well, you did it for social consumption. We now would like to see that change made to stores to grow facilities. Is is that something that has been talked about? Is that something that would be a desire of some of the clients that you have worked with?
Speaker 13: It's not something that I've had discussions about, you know. You know, 500 feet. Now, I think we can change all of the regulations. You know, our intent is, you know, it's always has been like, you know, the the current set back requirements have created saturated neighborhoods with cannabis businesses. This loosens and, you know, so it provides more more spaces for a less lucrative model. Now, if the state passes their law. I think the city council has another chance to do it. We'll have we'll probably have another opportunity to look and see how they want businesses that sell cars that sell cannabis for on site consumption to be zoned and regulated.
Speaker 6: But would you see? This, opening the door for the same facilities to be able to sell. So if we create this particular model that allows people to bring in. I mean, it already exists. We're just talking about reducing the the the distancing that these operations would be expecting to also incorporate sales into the same locations.
Speaker 13: And I don't know. I don't think I'm in a position to sort of speculate about that. I think ultimately it's going to be a choice for the council, you know, in terms of if these you know, of how that of how state law interacts, you know, and if these businesses will be asking for on site sales.
Speaker 4: Okay, Councilwoman, I think we would have to increase the number of licensed establishments for that to occur.
Speaker 6: I don't know that that's that's the case, because we're talking about social consumption, because this bill is being brought forward under the social consumption model, which is different from our licensed facilities that are seed the sale. And I would ask our our folks for exercise and license if they could weigh in on that particular point, because I think that's an important clarification.
Speaker 13: And I'll just I don't think this measure and I'll just say allows for onsite consumption. You're not onto the consumption for onsite sales. So it's going to require an act of, you know, this body to, you know, create the rules around consumption with ons, with onsite sales.
Speaker 6: So, Ashley, would you mind coming forward so we can. Okay, Molly, we've been tracking this. I think it's important to have some clarification.
Speaker 7: So if the bill passed that the state we in Denver would have to we would take some would take a legislative action to create the license for both for hospitality and sales. So if one if we wanted to start allowing the hospitality and sales locations, we would have to create that license and it would come before you all. And then also along those lines to Councilman Espinosa's point, we would have to consider and do some analysis of what that would do to the cap and lease locations that allow for sale. So right now there is a cap on locations that allow for sales of marijuana. So we would have to consider if we want to make that one cap or separate caps for places that allow for sales and consumption. So those would all be things that would have to occur, conversations that would have to occur. And then my other just last comment is that if the bill passed, the state would still have some rulemaking that we would want to see how some of that plays out as well.
Speaker 6: So just a clarification. I have a copy of the bill right here, and it wasn't clear to me if this is isolated to the hospitality industry, does that mean hotels are B and B, restaurants? How how broad is that in terms of the definition of hospitality?
Speaker 7: I don't it's not defined in there right now. I don't I think and I think we would have some local authority to define it if we wanted to narrow it in some way. But it's not it's not narrowed in the bill, I don't believe.
Speaker 6: Okay. And just one last question. In in your opinion, in having followed this particular state, Bill, does what what do you see as the impact of us adopting this tonight in isolation of what happens with that state legislation?
Speaker 7: I mean, I think there's a there's a lot of moving factors here. So it's hard to say what you know, to speculate on what might happen. But I think I mean, well, the conference around one of the questions when we talk about local authority will have to and if it is decided that this is a license that we would have in Denver, one of those questions, as it was during the task force that we did in 2017, one of those questions is obviously setbacks.
Speaker 6: Okay. And just one last piece. So that all is focused around social consumption as well, correct. I mean, the sales, the the three things that it does, the mobile consumption facilities, the minimum sales that would define what the amounts are that could be available. And then the exemption for vaping.
Speaker 7: Their consumption licenses. Yeah. Okay. There are consumption models. Okay.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, you back up?
Speaker 12: Yes. Just a really quick question. Based on what I've been hearing, Molly, could you stay there and relieve Ashley from having to come up? I don't see anything in and maybe I'm just because I've missed it in any of our regulations that require setbacks of these facilities from one another. Can social consumption licensee licensed locations be within a thousand feet of each other?
Speaker 7: They can.
Speaker 12: Okay. Could they? They could be next door to each other.
Speaker 7: They can. There's no set back between consumption and consumption. And there's no set back between a consumption area and a store that sells.
Speaker 12: Have to spend it. Okay.
Speaker 7: And I may have gotten a fact wrong about the bill so that ultimately I want to clarify.
Speaker 12: And is there. Is that true for marijuana centers and dispensaries, or is that not true?
Speaker 7: Marijuana centers and stores cannot be within 1000 feet of another marijuana.
Speaker 12: Okay. Actually, we didn't. And we didn't import that. Prohibition into the Israel. Okay, now. Thank you. That that makes sense because opening up these additional areas would not be very fruitful if if one location could block out a bunch of others. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. But we have a legal clarification to get on the record.
Speaker 3: To Councilman Ortega's point. The question was how does the US or the council passing this restriction affect the state? There is a provision in the current state bill that says that anything in that draft state bill, if it does pass, it doesn't affect the enforcement of an ordinance that's already been passed by a municipality. So it would not affect the enforcement of either.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 19 0349 is closed. We are going to go into comments, but I will remind council members that this is just for publication. We will this will be back for final where we will need nine votes next week. So I will ask that everyone keep your comments if you're going to make them today concise, because I'm guessing that we will also deliberate this again in a week. Councilwoman Black, would you like to go first?
Speaker 6: Mike.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe we won't need to deliberate next week's spending so many hours talking about it tonight. Thank you all for being here. Very impressive and passionate public comment. I think you really made the point about what is the issue here. I did want to clarify on the state bill. Councilman Flynn, I already provided you with those answers. I know our attorney has. I did give everyone an FAA cue. And just to be certain, Kristen Crawford and Troy Bratton checked my answers. The state bill will leave us with the same proximity issues we have now. It just creates this same obsession. It has a public consumption option that is bring your own. And it has the tasting room option, which is if you had a dispensary, you could opt to get a license for that if the city decides to opt into that. But the bring your own model, which is what we're talking about here tonight, that is would be made illegal by the state, but we would still have to have these exact same discussions. So if you want to talk about it in six months or a year, we can sit here again for 5 hours and talk about it. But we're going to be talking about the very same thing. So I encourage you to read the answer on this. Q. And I'd like to say that a lot of us have spent a lot of time on this. This is a really, really modest compromise. We are respecting the work that excise and licenses did. We are not eliminating that. The requirements for those of you who who think the reason there aren't any is because it's a viable it's not a viable business model. I guess you think all these people aren't being truthful? I believe them when they say the five feet would help. I'm sure they would love it if we reduced them down to what the voters did approve. But if you think the business model is the problem, then you should vote for this because then the distance requirements don't make a bit of difference. I would also like to point out that we were talking about protecting kids. We heard a lot about the protections that do exist. Again, there's a list of them in this FAA queue, but it does protect neighborhoods. Eric, I can't remember your last name, but your first name is Eric. And if the neighborhood doesn't want it, they won't support it. And all of us council people can go to the public hearing and oppose it. There are so many protections in place and in the bill itself it says that the consumption cannot be viewable to kids. It does not say that the building cannot be viewable to kids, but it can't say on the outside what's going on inside. There are restrictions about signage and advertising. So. Again, it's a very, very modest compromise, and I hope that everyone will support it again. We need seven votes tonight. Next week it'll be on final reading. We have a very long night next week also. So I hope you'll support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman by Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. And I almost did utter the words that Councilman Black read into the record. Listen, when this first when we first started regulating this industry, I started out very nervously, very gingerly and and took some very, you know, very conservative stands on it. And a lot of us did. We didn't know how to regulate it. But over time and time is always good proof. You realize that this industry is not like alcohol. It's not like some of these other industries. And we had a problem with with with problematic liquor stores and predatory nature of them in our in our neighborhoods . Much like what L.A. went through, you know, over over overconcentration in poor communities of color. Right. And so I put these protections in place. These are my amendments. And I fought for them. I find myself in a very different situation because now I'm traveling with with with the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and presenting with Brownies and Cheetos, by the way, to other local governments and other local officials, saying you need to regulate this in a way that is fair, in a way that is responsible. A fair and responsible regulation. That's what's needed. And you have to involve stakeholders and community. And, you know, I understand. I understand. And I don't want to I don't want folks to feel, you know, I understand that that that folks still feel very nervous about this. And we do have to approach everything with caution. We do have to make sure that it's out of the hands of our young people. From what I hear, I think that's there's there's I don't hear any anything contrary to that. And I am going to support this. I am going to support this move forward, because I know that we even power the public in general, especially through community and through creating a public process, a needs and desires, hearing where community members can participate. Community leaders can participate. And elected officials like your council members can participate. I tell you, where where we still have trouble is with the alcohol industry, we're not parties of interest. So we're actually doing this the right way. But and my and my, my, my desire was, let's do this the right way. So that 80 years of of outdated laws that the liquor industry actually wrote themselves on the state level can learn. And this is one of those steps. So I you know, I know we're going to be considering this later and deliberating. And I just figured I'd just do it right now because you all are here in the chambers and we're here till 9:00. So having said that, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate everyone being here, and particularly for listening to our very long question and answer session, which included a lot of masked comments that were hidden as questions. So you all have been very patient. I am not passionate about marijuana. I don't think it's the most important issue facing the city. I don't believe it's totally healthy. I don't believe it's harmless, and I don't believe it's the cause of our amazing economy. I don't think it's the cure to all illnesses. I also don't think it's the end of the world and that it's destroying our city and that it's destroying our state. I simply want to take a practical approach to making the rules. That is my only goal. And, you know, I will tell you, I'm not happy sitting up here. This to me, we have so many huge challenges facing our city and the time we have spent on this with the level of homelessness and transportation crises in our city, frankly offends me. So I'm struggling. But I'm going to talk about two issues that influence my vote tonight. First, do I think that the rules adopted by excise and license are legal? I speak only for myself. I do not speak for the city. I'm not the city's attorney, but I do not believe they are legal. There were a few terms thrown out by our department head and what gave them the authority to make this rule ? They talked about the intent of the ordinance. Let's be very clear. Nothing in the ordinance gives the department any authority to clarify the intent. It gives them authority to do two things. To administer and enforce. That's it. The term that was thrown out about protecting where children congregate. Let me just read to you that language. It says The permit holder shall ensure that any outside smoking of cannabis occurring at the street level is not visible from a public right of way or a place where children congregate. Nothing in that sentence relates to defining that as a power of the department. Nothing in that sentence relates to indoor use. It's about outdoor.
Speaker 7: Use.
Speaker 5: So I guess the question is how do we end up with rules that are about interpreting the intent of the ordinance that go beyond administering and enforcing? I don't believe it's responsible. I mean, and I will just translate for you. We heard some testimony today talking about frustrating the intent of the ordinance. And that testimony was in part from several attorneys. That is code for we think we might sue you because we think you violated the terms of this ordinance. I don't think it's responsible to leave the city vulnerable to a lawsuit to litigate this. Right. I personally think that any distance requirement beyond what was in the ordinance is probably not legal. But if everyone has agreed not to sue, if we go to 500 feet, I'm going to support this tonight because I frankly want us to move on to the real issues in the city. So the other thing I would just want to clarify is in terms of whether we would just immediately have, you know, sales situations, there are these this ordinance added pools and recreation centers. There is no pool or recreation center reference anywhere else in the marijuana code. So we not only invented new distance requirements, we invented new locations. There are other places children congregate. They congregated ice cream shops, they congregated churches. They congregate in all different. My son congregates in trees along the right of way. So I just I really I think that the I am disappointed in the in in preciseness with which the authority of the department was described by this testimony tonight. It did not accurately refer to what the ordinance says about the authority of the department. So for me, that's a significant thing. But let's just imagine, let's imagine that there was no legal issue. Then what's the policy analysis? I am practical. If there is evidence that these distance requirements concretely impact youth marijuana usage. I want to know it and I want to legislate based on it. So I did my own research and I looked at what are the influencing factors on youth usage of marijuana? And it's tough news, folks, if it were as easy as distance requirements. Boy, my job as a parent would be a lot easier. The number one thing related to me is marijuana usage. Is parental time and parental persuasion. I have a ten year old kid and my least favorite thing in the world is talking to him about drugs. But I do it anyway, and I'm sure Bumpy and I still need lots of help in how to do it better because there's not a lot of curriculum about this in our schools or in our world and how to do this as a parent. Also, to talk to my son about suicide. And that may not seem like it's related, but it is because youth and our commission in the city have named their top three issues, and one of them is mental health. And if we don't think kids are turning to substances because they feel isolated and parents aren't talking to them about the risks of suicide, because we think if they don't see suicide and they don't talk about suicide, they won't commit suicide. Well, it's no cure for marijuana than it is if they don't see it. It doesn't mean we don't have to talk to them. And I don't want parents to think that we've protected their kids from marijuana by a thousand feet versus 500. The only thing that can protect kids from marijuana is having these conversations, and there are studies that document it. I'm not going to cite them all for you. But let me ask about alcohol availability. What do we know about that? Iceland did a pretty big transformation in youth alcohol usage, and it had nothing, nothing zip to do with reducing alcohol locations. It had to do with doubling the amount of time you spent with parents and doubling the amount of free activities that gave them natural highs. That's what they did. They didn't create distance requirements and eliminate alcohol. They did this much harder, much harder things. And if we're serious about it, that's what we need to do, too. What about young kids? For young kids, the number one risk factor for marijuana and drug use is parental risk factors, abuse, neglect, those things. That is hard work, folks. That's how we prevent use of substances among young kids. And what about all kids, older kids, peer use and attitude? Number one, influencing factor. I actually found one study that looked hard at whether reducing retail access of alcohol had any impact on youth drinking. Guess what? It did not. Enforcement and ticketing was was correlated, right? The more you ticketed youth for alcohol use. But reducing retail establishment access had no impact on youth usage. So we have to do the hard work. And I would have loved to spend 4 hours talking about any one of these topics. That to me is evidence based legislation. Evidence based legislation takes facts and it says, how do we translate those facts into protection for our kids? There is no evidence whatsoever that kids are at risk from an activity happening inside a building that they can't see at a thousand feet, at 500 feet or next door, which right now the sales locations are for rec centers and ice cream shops and pools. And this only came out because of these new regulations that, in my opinion, violate the ordinance. So with that, you can tell I will be voting yes on this compromise in the hopes of saving the city wasted resources, litigating, frankly, such a. Minuscule difference of distance. So thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleagues for I know what our sincere opinions on the other side. But hopefully we can base our decisions tonight on evidence. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. The fact that we have only two licensed businesses open now with 20 square miles of the city. tOe to toe. Square miles of the city. Eligible tells me that the distance and that's what the additional distances added by Excel tells me that that is not the reason that this isn't successful. I believe it's a flawed business model. I thought it was goofy when we voted on it and that was kind of odd. The reduction in 500 feet in my district, according to the maps that our guys people supplied to me, would open up eight additional business locations. They are. Subway. GNC Nutrition. Sally. Beauty Supply. T-Mobile. Sprint. Colorado Credit Union. Never Nails and King Soopers. None of which I venture to say. Even though the initiative supposedly was based on overlaying on existing businesses for some of the reasons we explored. That's the reason we only have two. Not because we took out 2.2 square miles that this will restore. What I think we're dealing with here is as a junk vehicle, a car that has a blown engine, and we're trying to fix it by washing a windshield and putting air in the tires. When the solution is, I believe, to waiting until 1230 passes and opens up new opportunities, which I think would be more successful to allow on site sales because BYOB into a hair salon really wasn't going to be a profitable venture for people. I think the legislature's about to hand as something that would would would be a little more have more chance at success. And yes, we'd have to deal with the same distance requirements. But again, 20 square miles of the city, we only have two. And I'm being told that 30 people are just waiting for those other 2.2 square miles to open up. It just doesn't it just doesn't sound reasonable. I think we're we're fixing the wrong thing with this this initiative passed by seven percentage points in the city. It passed citywide. And I'm committed to finding a way to make it work. But in my district, it failed by 14 percentage points. That was a swing of 21 percentage points. So I need to make sure that that my voters interests are represented and that it's fairly regulated. And so I would I'm going to vote no on this tonight. And I would even entertain if there's an appetite for it, entertain a postponement until the legislature gives us more tools that we could build into this and make it work the way the way everybody wants it to. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Councilman Flynn, if you make that motion, I'll second that. The. The. I will be supporting this going forward tonight, but I am very much on the fence. My district, northwest Denver, voted overwhelmingly in support of the Initiative 300. Probably put it over the line, to be honest with you. But, you know, I don't I won't make it easy if it was hard for you to read between the lines in my in my questioning. What I was suggesting is that we relax the distance requirements, but on the condition that they deliver improved environmental the improved environment process mean promised. Sorry, I'm going to say this all over again. So I want to be very clear. I was suggesting that we relax the distance requirements, but on the condition that they deliver the improved environment promise and serve all income levels. That's it. Plain and simple. You know, I think that's the right thing. And so relaxing them carte blanche does not do that. It will serve the market. And that market is not all income levels. But if we can build the tools that do that, I'm all there. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. So, first of all, I just want to share with you all that I have an amendment that I was planning to bring forward tonight. I'm going to wait and look to bring it forward on final. And what it would basically do is say that that's why nothing in the passage of this bill tonight or on final reading would in any way indicate the position of this council that we would lax the rules for stores or growth facilities from the thousand feet to the 500 feet. So I will look to bring that forward. I am planning to abstain tonight because I wanted to try to understand when the state is planning to take action on that bill. I think the fact that we're going to be doing this twice is is a little goofy. Rather than trying to do it all at once so that we would have the ability to deal with both sales as well as people being able to to bring their own to whatever business model makes sense. I think the the point of sale piece probably makes better sense as a business model than people bringing their own to an existing business model and sort of share some of the comments that were made by Councilman Flynn. And I've asked the question of some of the folks that I met with in the marijuana industry about why we haven't seen more applications than the two that have come forward. And and so without belaboring that point, I'm going to abstain tonight. I will look to bringing that amendment forward on final. I think postponing the bill would make sense, but I don't see that we have the votes here tonight for for that to move forward until we have the state legislation passed. But again, I think just being able to do this once is what makes the best sense rather than, you know, doing this now and then coming back as soon as the legislation passes and then doing it all over again. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Herndon. Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: This is on publication, so I'm going to vote yes for publication and I'll just reserve my comments for final consideration next week. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman, consider you back in.
Speaker 5: Yes, sir, I am. Mr. President, I have another comment.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Just two quick things. Several folks have stated tonight that there have only been two applications and that is not accurate. We didn't have testimony about it tonight, but we had extensive testimony at committee. There was a third application that was denied based on distance. So I just want to make sure that the record is clear that there in fact was a denial based on distance, that they were not they had community approval, they had the site and they were less than a thousand feet, but more than 500 feet. So there is at least one applicant who would be directly impacted. So that counters the claim that this would not help any businesses. Secondly, I just want to remind folks of the testimony we had from the city attorney's office that stated that any regulations that we pass are protected and grandfathered under the state statute that's being proposed . And that secondly, if indeed we needed to add a piece, we could simply add any pieces we would not need to re debate these pieces. And I see the city attorney, the legislative counsel, nodding her head. So with that, I just wanted to clarify the record before folks vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can you seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call uncountable 19 dash 0349.
Speaker 8: Black.
Speaker 2: Brooks.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn no Gilmore.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman Carnage I.
Speaker 0: Lopez, I knew no Ortega.
Speaker 2: Abstain assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, I'm Secretary. Please close the voting and notes results.
Speaker 2: Tonight, two nays, one abstention.
Speaker 0: Tonight, two nays, one abstention. Council Bill 19 0349 has been ordered published as amended on Monday, April 22nd. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 302, approving and accepting comprehensive Plan 2040 as the city's comprehensive plan for the city and county of Denver and a required public hearing on towns Bill 303 Approving and Accepting
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance concerning designated consumption area setback requirements.
Designated consumption areas will be permitted to operate at least 1000 feet from of a school, 500 feet of a Child Care Establishment, 500 feet of a alcohol or drug treatment facility; 500 feet of a city-owned recreation center or city-owned outdoor pool. Council member Black approved direct filing this item on 4-11-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04082019_19-0246
|
Speaker 0: 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 about 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you'll see your time county 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 put Council Bill 246 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, President Clark, I move that council bill 19 dash 0 to 4 six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 19 0246 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance here to talk to you about a amendment to an amended service plan for Denver International Business District number one. The district was organized in 1994 after city approval of a service plan and August 29th of 1994. The service plan was subsequently amended by the city on December 16, 2022, and most recently just last October. In October 2018, we amended and restated the whole service plan. Which brings us to why we're here tonight. The Denver International Business Center Metropolitan District is located west of Tower Road, between 64th and 72nd Avenues. The district is mostly is most easily recognizable for the various office and hotels on the west side of Tower Road. The district district contains only commercial property, and as the new airport noise contour prohibits residential development, the metropolitan district currently has about 11.3 million in bonds outstanding and an assessed value of 11.30 $1.7 million. The purpose of the recent amended and restated service plan in October 2018 was to update update the service plan language and certainly the new language in section SB four of the service plan was too restrictive and did not meet the circumstances of a growing metropolitan district. The district current bonds were issued with an unlimited meal levy pledge as allowed because the debt was 50% of the assessed value. This is not uncommon in districts where infrastructure is complete. However, Denver International Business Center is still constructing public infrastructure and for the next phases of development, the ratio of debt to assessed value will exceed 50%. The existing language actually in the service plan actually prohibits the issuance of any debt where the debt is to where the debt to assessed value is greater than 50%. The correction before you tonight is to allow the debt to be issued when the assessed value is greater than 50%. So long as the mill levy pledge for repayment is less than the maximum aggregate mill levy of 50 of 60 mills. Approval of the amendment clarifies the service plan and will permit the district to enter into financing arrangements allowing construction of future phases. This amendment only modifies Section XP for the district. Activities shall continue to be subject to review by the city as provided in the current and amended and stated service plan, state or local law, intergovernmental agreements , or where the district activities deviate in a material manner from the amended and restated service plan. The primary purpose of this district will be to financing strike public improvements and to operate and maintain the public improvements that are not accepted for ownership or maintenance by the city or any other public entity. The district's public improvements will be for the use and profit of anticipated taxpayers in the district and staff recommends approval of the amended Section XP four of the service plan. The applicant and their representatives are here to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We do have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'll ask if you signed up to speak on this, please come up to the front bench. And first up is Marianne Mcgeady.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Maryanne Mcgeady. Address four or five 454 50/17 Avenue, Suite 400 and Denver. I here on behalf of the applicant to address any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 13: It's just the. Represent for Denver homeless sell low black star some woman for self defense and positive as a commitment for social change. And I'm an at large candidate for the May 2019 election. I'm on top of the ballot. I was neither for or against this amendment. I wanted to know more details on what this all encompassed, how it was going to affect the workers at the CIA since we just passed a $15 minimum wage increase for the CIA workers. And there's this whole section of tower roll. Going to be an industrial district. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega?
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. And I apologize. I did not get a chance to check in with you guys on a couple of these questions. So the fact that it is unlimited but capped at 60 miles with the amendment. So first of all, what changed from the original creation that is warranting the amendment? And then when the improvements that are done that are turned over to the city and typically that's what roads and parks, what else would that include? So and when that's done, does the mill that's being charged or the amount of mills to the the property owners that come in, does any of that go down when those assets, if you will, are turned over to the city? So can one of you address those questions?
Speaker 6: This is Marianne Magee. I'll try to address the questions as I understand them. The first question had to do with the total overall mill levy and how does that mill levy adjust as improvements are constructed, completed, and then to the extent conveyed to the city and county for assumption for operation maintenance. What we understand at the district level is we forecast over 30, 40, 50 years what the improvements will be, what the maintenance burden will be with the eye towards trying to keep the mill levy as level as possible. And so we anticipate that there will be transition in the ownership and operation.
Speaker 8: And maintenance to the city. And so the mill should stay pretty constant. It shouldn't drop.
Speaker 11: So even though.
Speaker 10: The.
Speaker 11: Where the mills are set and the calculation factors in all of the maintenance, those assets that get transferred over to the city, the maintenance of the the mill, the the amount of money that's being charged to to the property owners still remains constant.
Speaker 6: Well, it's there is a growth projection. And so what's happening is the mill levy staying the same, the amount of dollars being used to pay debt versus operating is changing year to year. But we do build into that forecast the assumption that there's transition once we get to the end of the warranty period on certain of those operating items for the items that the district continues to be responsible for, we have to continue to have a reserve.
Speaker 4: Depreciation.
Speaker 6: Budget repair, replacement budgets. And so that's why we try to keep it constant over time, even though what we're spending the money on varies. I think your other question had to do with the mill levies and under the.
Speaker 11: So what what changed that warranted this amendment?
Speaker 6: Okay. Under the model plan that's being proposed and under discussion, which we used as the template to start preparing the amended and restated plan that was most recently approved by Council. There was a section there that refers to unlimited mill levy, which occurs once you have exceeded 50% debt to assessed valuation. So at that point you're financially stable. You can get a better interest rate if you can remove that mill levy cap. However, the way the wording is in that template plan is that once you have done that, you you can't issue any cap mill levy debt because it's assuming that all the debt you're going to issue is going to be beyond that 2 to 1 debt to assessed ratio calculation. If you have a single phase of financing that works, if you're doing future phases of financing, you can't get that next phase done. And because the ABC since 1994 is one large district and doesn't have multiple districts within its service area, it needs to be able to issue those next phases of debt to complete the project. So in discussion with the Finance Department, we brought forward the concept that you'd keep the unlimited mill levy pledge on the debt that mathematically is below the 2 to 1 debt to assess calculation for any debt issued. Beyond that, you would have the mill levy cap in place, that mill levy that's needed to serve the unlimited debt. If it takes up all of the cap, then there would be no money to pay on this on those cap debt.
Speaker 8: So mathematically, you're not pushing the mill levy cap beyond what was in the original plan.
Speaker 11: And under what circumstances might we see an additional, excuse me, metro district being created under this district? I know with I think it was the football stadium district, it had more than one metro district created.
Speaker 6: Well, for DBC, the way it has set its boundaries and it has an inclusion area and it brings in property as it's developing it, there shouldn't be a need to organize any future districts.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Constable 246 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? All right. No seeing, no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Gainesville, 246.
Speaker 6: Black eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I can. I can use Lopez.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 6: New Ortega, I. Assessment, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary. Because the voting in the results. 12 hours, 12 hours council bill 19 0246 has passed. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 127 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Service Plan for Denver International Business Center Metropolitan District No. 1.
Approves the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Service Plan for Denver International Business Center Metropolitan District No. 1, located near Tower Road between 64th and 72nd Avenues in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-19-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04082019_19-0127
|
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary. Because the voting in the results. 12 hours, 12 hours council bill 19 0246 has passed. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 127 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, President. Clerk, I move that council bill 127 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Collinsville 19 20127 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you and good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. This Map Amendment application request is to rezone a single property located at 2535 East 40th Avenue, located in Council District nine in the south portion of the Elyria Swansea statistical neighborhood at the northwest corner of East 40th and Clinton Street. The site is approximately 14 acres in size and has an existing 235,000 square foot warehouse style building, which is currently occupied by a nonprofit dance studio. It was previously home to the AT&T Network Control Center. The applicant is proposing to rezone from the existing IAU vote to an AI zoning two IMX three to allow for adaptive reuse of the existing building and the site enabling for a mixed use redevelopment. The site is currently zoned IAU two and with a portion of that on the eastern portion. AIA is an industrial light industrial zone district that allows for variety uses except for new residential uses. The U. OH to which is the Billboard use overlay is currently applied to the site, however, is proposed to be removed with the rezoning. There is no billboards currently on site to the north is zoned IAU oh two. To the east we have single unit residential with the ECB to the southeast, IAU two. That's where Bruce Randolph High School is. And then to the south and west we have Ivy Yota, which is industrial. So the subject property was previously in industrial use. That's actually the AT&T Network Control Center, but it's now home to the nonprofit dance studio, and their associated administrative offices to the north and south are primarily industrial uses to the east as single unit residential Randolph High schools to the southeast, to the south and west, there's a mix of vacant utilities and industrial uses. So here are some photos of the subject site at the bottom. Photos taken from East 40th Avenue. Looking north, the photo on the left was taken of the subject property looking north in the photo on the right was taken looking east towards the adjacent residential. Additional photos of the site with that residential to the east and then to the second photo on the bottom is the industrial use to the south. So register neighborhood organizations. This is a list of the applicable registered neighborhood organizations that were noticed, according to the Denver zoning code requirements. And then this is an overview of the public process related to this a map amendment postcards were related to this map amendment in both English and Spanish were sent to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. And that was for the informational notice noticing folks that application was sent. And then also of the planning board hearing. We also have sign postings for the planning board hearing and then this council public hearing and then written here written notification was sent at those different touch points. There are five review criterias in the Denver zoning code that were required to review rezoning against a briefly summarize each of them. There's additional detail to be found in the staff report. First it must be sound that rezonings are consistent with adopted plans. There are three adopted plans that apply to this rezoning the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Elyria Swansea Plan. First Comprehensive Plan 2000, which sets a citywide vision. There are a number of strategies that from the Comprehensive Plan 2000 that we found this application is consistent with. It would enable mixed use infill development where infrastructure is already in place and increase density and accommodate new uses near transit. Next is Blueprint Denver. This is Blueprint Denver 2002 and the site is showing to have a concept land use of industrial and within is within an area of change. Blueprint 2010 notes that the need for industrial areas may be decreasing and buildings are suitable for conversion to office and residential. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with blueprint recommendations, as allows for industrial uses as well as some complementary office commercial and residential. And also it's in an area change blueprint provides guidance for area of the change saying to channel growth where it will be beneficial and best improve access to jobs, housing services with fewer and shorter auto trips. This proposed rezoning is consistent with the areas of change, intent and blueprint Denver as it will allow for reinvestment, reuse and industrial mixed use zoning creating access to jobs within a mile of a transit station. It's also located on the northeast corner of East 40th Avenue and Clinton Street. Blueprint designates East 40th Avenue as a mixed use arterial and enhanced transit corridor, while Clayton is on designated local street. Blueprint notes that mixed use arterials like East 40th provide a high degree of mobility, whereas local streets like Clayton are tailored more for local access. That said, the overall street network serving this site is appropriate for the proposed IMAX three zone district and is consistent with plan recommendations. Next, we'll move on to the Elyria Swansea A Plan. That plan was recently adopted in 2015 and identifies the site as industrial mixed use, noting that these light industrial uses are such as light manufacturing and smaller warehouses are compatible with a variety of housing uses and housing types. The proposed Annex Street District is consistent with the plan's development vision for the area that allows for compatible mix, including residential and light industrial. The plan also has a height map and shows the recommended height for this area at three stories and IMAX three has a max height of three stories. So it is consistent with the recommendations of that plan related to that. Next, move on to the next two criteria. Staff finds that the requested zoning meet the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare through its implementation of adopted plans, enabling adaptive reuse and infill redevelopment and a mix of uses within a mile of transit. So the fourth criterion is related to justifying circumstances. And in this case, a neighborhood plan was recently adopted in 2015, and there have been many changes in the area as the 40th, the Colorado and the 30th and Blake stations with the opening of the University of Colorado align. The application also notes that there's been some new investment in the area, such as the nearby Eastside Human Services Center. These changing conditions, along with the recently adopted neighborhood plan, justify the rezoning that's in the public interest. And finally, in order to prove or approve a rezoning, it must be found consistent with the context, district purpose and intent statements found in the Denver zoning code. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the industrial context exist in the surrounding area and is consistent with the purpose and intent statements as it accommodates a variety of uses, including industrial, and it can serve as a transition from that residential to having industrial uses. And the intent of the I am sorry district is to be applied in the industrial areas where there is a maximum of three stories to be desired. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have 31 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to call up five at a time. When I call your name, if you can come to this front bench and be ready to step right up to the microphone when your name is called, and then we'll kind of go through five at a time. So the first five, if you can come up, Bruce O'Donnell. Griselda Calderon, Angelina Torres, Andrew Miele and Raimunda carry on. And normally you have 3 minutes. But if we are doing translation during yours, then we automatically give you 6 minutes. So first up, President.
Speaker 14: Good evening, Mr. President and members of council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell. I reside at 386 Emerson and I'm the owner's representative for this rezoning application. There's been a lot of discussion about the community outreach process, and I wanted to remind everybody here that the applicant email Lorenzo's requesting to meet and engage with them on July 22nd, October 16th and February 4th. And we received positive feedback from Clayton United and the Elyria, Swansea, Globeville Business Association. We met with Clayton United on December 11th. We had a meeting with the GSE Coalition on March 6th. We hosted a community house on March 18th. Approximately 40 attendees were there, resulting in nine letters of support that you have in your file from immediate neighbors on Clayton Street and Fillmore. We had a meeting and presented to United North Denver on April 25th, and we met with immediate neighbors on April 1st. As you're aware, this rezoning meets the rezoning criteria established in the CLO, in the code in particular plan support. This is an a blueprint Denver area of change in the 2015 and Elyria Swansea neighborhood plan has the most important criteria that designating this as industrial mixed use on page 28 and with a three story height limit on page 31. This explicit plan support identifies IMX three is the exact and only zoned district appropriate for the property because the applicant meets the zoning criteria established in the code. There is staff recommending approval and a unanimous recommendation of approval from the Denver Planning Board. These alone are sufficient reasons to warrant rezoning and for city council to approve the rezoning. In addition, the applicant has executed an agreement to build affordable units with the City of Denver's Office of Economic Development. We're contractually obligated to build a 70 units at 60% AMI or below. We estimate that this was five times the build alternative that would be required under the linkage fee ordinates, the five times the number of units we started out at 80% AMI. But after discussions with the neighborhood moved a 60% to make it more affordable, the applicant is committed to providing significant, publicly accessible open space and has already leased land at Denver Urban Gardens for a community garden. You'll learn more about our arrangement with Wonder down to the nonprofit community ballet in a moment. It is important to state that the applicant is interested in an ongoing dialog with the community, as is evidenced by our commitments to affordability, open space and cultural benefits. Our interests are aligned with the community. An example of this is in motion. Today the GSS Coalition introduced the applicant two brothers redevelopment in the US Community Land Trust. We are exploring opportunities with these entities. I am x three. Zoning opens the door to innovation, ongoing engagement, cooperation and mutually beneficial dialog which we are committed to. For all these reasons, I formally request the Denver City Council vote to approve Council Bill 19 Dash 0127 Rezoning 2535 East 40th Avenue from IEEE to Annex three. And I apologize for my speed reading.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Griselda Calderon.
Speaker 6: Good evening. So how many of you like to be ignored and pushed aside? We don't either. But we have constantly been ignored and pushed aside. My name is CRISELDA Calderon, and I have been a resident of swans here for over 25 years. I attended Swansea Elementary School when it only went up to second grade. And then we we were bused to Whitman Elementary after that. I have seen the changes in our community. However, not as many changes that I have seen since coming back home. After serving my country. Sorry. After being injured and returning to my beloved city of Denver. Gosh, I return to the beginning of a mess in the making. Our mayor, forgetting his past and hungry for more money, allowed and encouraged the destruction of our beautiful city. Instead of helping those suffering in five points, the mayor and the city of Denver allow gentrification to overtake five points. Now we are next. I have seen more and more of my neighbors being forced out of their homes. However, according to what we understand, is that we do not matter and that we are to suffer more and more. If you do not know Illyria songs here were the developer is trying to build their immense complex has already suffered plenty. First, our community is already marginalized and high risk for displacement. Some of the suffering is I-70. We are trapped like rats. Pollution. Dust. Construction of such great project has impacted us greatly. Not to mention the noise. And we still have more than four years left and summer is coming. We are to open our windows now because we do not have air conditioning. So who will rise up for us? Who will fight?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, we have Angelina Torres. Angelina Torres.
Speaker 15: When I start, etc.. Selena Torres played Party de la Coliseum.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone. My name is Angelina Taurus. I am part of the coalition.
Speaker 15: They want to answer.
Speaker 2: I live in Swansea, you know.
Speaker 15: Solamente academic beneficios para individuals. Comparado a lugar. Nosotros queremos get competition scenarios. I look at pura for their material. This place ambiental in this unfamiliar and most conservative cultura liberal vecinos it's landless are familias necesitan alien Brasil that is.
Speaker 2: We don't just want benefits for those individuals that bought the place. We would like them to share with our neighborhood something that could help us deal with the displacement that our families and we have suffered. We would like to conserve our cultures and our neighbors and our community.
Speaker 15: Hoover did not done this as his address, but I lost my school near Aviles Como para la familia. The letter said that if familias Ingresos feels English knows it as yes.
Speaker 2: We need to cover the needs for the most vulnerable. For example, the families that have elderly families on fixed income and the rest of our neighbors. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andrew Mele Gill. Say in your field? It could be, says me on my system, but if that's you, then you can correct it on the record. Thank you.
Speaker 13: Hello. My name is Andrew Keele. I own and live at 4052 Clayton Street directly across.
Speaker 14: The street from the Quest property in.
Speaker 13: Question. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of myself and my neighbors, including Marcio Juan de la Rose, Joey Anthony and Cecil Levi and Jamie Ramirez and my wife, all who live within a few blocks of the proposed rezoning. Some of them are. We are excited about the industrial zoning going away and having a mixed use neighborhood development that complements with and integrates into the neighborhood rezoning to I am x three assures. Lower building at three stories eliminates industrial use that are that are incapable incompatible with a neighborhood and brings in a chance for new housing stock, including affordable housing . In addition, we are excited about opportunities for more public open space and community serving retail as well as the culture promise, as well as the cultural promise of wonder bound. The ballet going in IMAX three is a better fit for the neighborhood, and we embrace the zoning change. The neighborhood plan. The neighborhood plan addresses this. Please vote to approve KB 19 0127 Rezoning 2535 East 40th Avenue from IEA to IMAX three. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And apologies for getting your name in there wrong. Raimunda, carry on and I'll call the next five up if you want to make your way up to the front bench. Rosa maria or to Rick or to Brie, Mercedes Gonzalez, Caitlin Lucas, Maria de Luna Jimenez and Laird Horrigan. And I apologize if I got your name wrong. Go ahead.
Speaker 15: My mother lets me know that Korean is simply casualness, but a lot of pleasure than been some more important this week.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Raymond. The Korean. The implications the long term implications are also very important.
Speaker 15: And this is a promotional solution. I order eagle for Toronto therapy then el mismo la maison my solution them oscar the animals this arroyos easily one gives them a couple samples This place I'm in.
Speaker 0: And I apologize when you're doing the translation if you could just. There we go. Make sure to speak right in the microphone. Thank you.
Speaker 2: We need a solution right now and so that in the future we don't see the same situation. We know that there's more developing development coming at the same as these. They're going to cause more displacement.
Speaker 15: You're revealing a lot in this one. Separate Mazda maintainers. Yeah. With this place out there and you see every crisis, are those in control travesty in the Peru tampoco there's thumbs them as thumbs overalls contemptuous. Bless our mental ill plan the devil's in Dario Necesita save Travis. I sense they will not resume para evitar them to this place. I mean.
Speaker 2: I live in swans here, and I've lived in Swanson for more than 20 years. I was displaced in December, but thank God I was able to find housing. But we are still not safe. With all of the displacement happening, the neighborhood plan needs to be revised to prevent all of this displacement crisis. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rosa maria. But.
Speaker 15: When I started this evening, the most incredible opportunity that my parents and my mother seem to have me and those images that all my children will now. But most important, you'll see when I'm persona, I think this will equal inappropriate testosterone ification where you mix up a little girl and I mean it in a total enrollment number with regard to this, you know, the larger this one case result is.
Speaker 2: We need to have the opportunity to have improvements in our community without displacement. We have waited for these services in the community for a long time. I'm a person on fixed income and I do not want that with this new zoning that I would be losing my house due to the high taxes that will come with it in the future. This will harm all of us and all of the neighbors surrounding the area.
Speaker 0: And could you just state your name for the record?
Speaker 2: Is the Monday. So let's he some more money.
Speaker 15: In order to stop. Maria.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Maria.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mercedes Gonzalez.
Speaker 15: When I started this number as mentioned is Gonzalez the sorry party the LA quality Angus la elizabeth as sodium g la connection introduce plus Sarmiento e la salud.
Speaker 6: Cee lo i.
Speaker 15: Cee lo are you in this place? Sarmiento in voluntarily exterminate Sandow La Salud Publica Eleazar Syria e la calidad deby. The then was to accompany the.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Hussein Mercedes and I am part of the Jazz Coalition. There is a connection between displacement and health. Yes, there is. And the displacement, the involuntary displacement has been harassing the health of the public health of our people and the safety and quality of life of our community.
Speaker 15: El Impacto is good RB accounts are the lost ground is this arroyo's last year? The better scenario is La mesa picked up? Joe is there maybe in single those boring Decatur wines. If we this bluster we just plaza that you meet the more annoying country meet a more middle America. You got to on the at the end you got to climb into gear but can no longer estoy cerca they set into phone I stress to really pardon me, but I'm in particular estava. Yeah, this has been quadrennial. You start yelling Cinco Puntos is me. Comunidad Estaba Agosto.
Speaker 2: The impact is very severe due to the all of these large developments and it's across the city. But our neighborhood is the most affected. I used to live. I lived in in five points for 24 years and I was displaced from there. And unfortunately I was able to find housing where now we have the I-70 project and this has been a huge stress, but that was the only place that I have found that was able to find.
Speaker 15: Is I got a really porky outcome. So this is this place. SARMIENTO Nosotros is was as mutually narrow as mutually narrow. But the policy, Tony por la Renta accounts are there. So it's high stress. It's a lot to really postpone the stress to really you crisis ideas go retire Estonian poquito make Corporal Georges circle setanta. But I mean, I got a really personal message into Atropos the atropos the symbol earlier, this salutary blip. But a move will go to replace the can do.
Speaker 2: And this was terrible. Getting displaced put a crazy amount of stress because it's so expensive to get displaced. You have all of deposits, you have the rent. And now, unfortunately, I have the other stress of being trapped right there by I 70. I really feel trapped and it's really terrible all of this stress and how it's affecting my health.
Speaker 15: See Wednesday's cameos Galaxy survivor Bonita Garoppolo is a cameo battle with let me set up around those other onset apparel. I can take the wearer. All I can to go must be Nero La Quinta gunman Thomas Dinero lac into the record records us almost as gluey those this dos cambios.
Speaker 2: Yeah and it's going to be pretty once you make all of this development it's going to be beautiful, but it's not going to be for us. It's going to be for for the people that come in from the outside, people that make more money, but all of us that are low income are forgotten. We're completely excluded from this choice.
Speaker 15: Be the journalist, be the one to stay this by Wednesday. This was a source. This plan is it this arroyo you Dominic to La Comunidad the la comunidad the recursos la comunidad mas vulnerably ghetto meaning quinta ghetto meaning went up told us this has why Emilia's not when you went to También better than Ecuador and this was like where those who stayed as they went to this como Ciudad Como concert colors European status lost born them that in Paris without a bit of that Paraguayan estar they tanto they hinted that he nero tanto como la quinta must vulnerability look into poverty.
Speaker 2: So I would just like to ask you when you think about all of this development, please consider the neighbors to please consider the people of low income. Because I believe that you are city council. You guys are here to be worried about the people that make a lot of money, but also the people that are most vulnerable , the people that are low income and the ones that are most affected. And I include myself and hold them.
Speaker 15: As parochial auto meaning Guinta he in which has great support poor you to me.
Speaker 2: I hope that you would consider this and thank you very much for listening to me.
Speaker 15: A plan Betsy Nadia Necesita Honorary CEO for care plan not to be and neither is keep the table but to here he has established our Los Vecinos DeLorean Motor Company that your character Toto then begins to affect other portals as those cameos battle the crookedness that are coming out of this. You know, they they this one's here. Yes. LA must affect the other and not just on greed. Those are some cause they don't. They use the toilet baby in the name. I got a moment I took a moment to choke it ball in traffic coagulate maravilla construction circuit as entered into Damascus.
Speaker 2: The neighborhood plan needs to be revised because in the plan there is no and there's no there's not an equitable development plan for the neighborhood to protect and stabilize all of the neighbors in the area. And all of Denver is suffering from this. But right here we are the most impacted. I am now a part of the community and swans here. And by right by where I live, there's always car accidents due to all the traffic that's going on. On top of all the noise and I live on BASKAS.
Speaker 4: We talk a lot.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Next up, caitlin lucas.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Caitlin Lucas. I live at 4126 Clinton Street, directly across from the property in question. I support the rezoning to Annex three.
Speaker 10: Contingent upon continued community engagement and a negotiated community benefit agreement that engages registered neighborhood organizations in Olivia's Swansea. I'm generally supportive.
Speaker 4: Of the rezoning because I realize that the use by right of the property as it currently.
Speaker 10: Is zoned, as potential to lead to development that is not compatible.
Speaker 4: With the surrounding.
Speaker 10: Residential neighborhood. The mixed use.
Speaker 4: Zoning, on the other hand, has the potential.
Speaker 10: To act effectively as a transition zone between industrial zoning and the residential zoning.
Speaker 4: Thoughtful and deliver deliberate.
Speaker 10: Development of this site could provide a great benefit to the area. However, I'm disappointed in the city and the developer's lack of engagement with the community during the rezoning process.
Speaker 4: The rezoning of this property without proper.
Speaker 10: Community engagement sets a precedent that community feedback is not required.
Speaker 4: Or considered for similar projects in the future. It needs to fall in this city.
Speaker 10: To require and implement and lead a much more robust community community engagement process, especially in locations that have been noted as areas of change. I believe there's a path to rezoning that can be agreed upon by the community, the developer and the city, but that there needs to be an additional community engagement and buy in before the rezoning can be responsibly approved without conditions. I support the rezoning contingent upon a negotiated community benefit or development agreement that considers affordability, open space and transportation impacts.
Speaker 4: Prior to the approval of the project site development plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Maria de Luna, M.A..
Speaker 15: When I start this, I mean. Maria Elena Jimenez, EEOC Bartonella Coalition, the G.S. Entonces Nosotros Como coalition noise. Thomas Encontrado Lozano just goes on. Leave us in the will start giving unmask Sinestro.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Maria the Luna Jiménez and I am part of the coalition. And we are not against this development. We are all for the new development because we like nice things in our neighborhood.
Speaker 15: Little Carioca. And this is it almost will not revision their plan, their scenario. But in a planetary scenario we poco they under we poco. That is the biggest of which one of those Milkins and those Milkins say son cuatro and son cuatro. Daniel's and Samuel's son Cuatro Daniel's the K and also Estado Para and the muchos familias.
Speaker 2: And what I think is that we need to revise the neighborhood plan because it doesn't talk about housing and doesn't talk about displacement. This was done in 2015 and that's been fought. That was four years ago. And since then we have lost so many families, so many neighbors due to all of the displacement.
Speaker 15: And also Fidel al-Saadi, Puestos and also Fredo Alexandre renters not Apostolos Cambios Ekrem okay on positive was better también get it most sad incluidos como comunidad como la Comunidad Karamazov Hasta pasando Isabella tiempo no cuando yai standards cosas encima.
Speaker 2: We have suffered increases in taxes, we have suffered increases in rent and we would like to be included. We want to know what's to come because we want the new development that's coming. We just ask to be aware and informed not just before. Right? It's about to happen when they.
Speaker 12: Tell us.
Speaker 15: Queremos. Okay, I got a bit of I do not. It will not cause I get that that viva todos caramel beneficio para total no solamente para owners, group personas, personas or origin. Get the animals email.
Speaker 2: And we want there to be an equitable opportunity for everybody, not just for a certain amount of people, maybe some people that have money. We want it to be equitable for everybody.
Speaker 15: Not all, says Kokomo Siempre Kay, the Colorado Sun. Bienvenidos. Nosotros is a community that knows will start a civil action Then those will start a civil person and nuevas non will start a civil cosign Leave us Pedro Tambien State dinner party their lunch table either la bueno no Solamente or Malo no solamente that is our local no solamente they outside their rent us simple there I said another year. Okay, so nice to see that they've got a company that they're very corporate.
Speaker 2: You know, we always we always hear people say that everyone is welcome in Colorado and we do. We welcome people in our community. We accept them. We encourage people to come in and into our community. And now with all of the developments, we want the benefits of that, too. We don't just want the consequences because all we get is an increase in our rent and an increase in displacement. So we don't want just that side of of things. We want the benefits as well.
Speaker 15: So I must get a cumbia sonification. So I said historian experiment and their como law and the commandments. You'll know those. But I must admit I look with Amazon La Isla McWherter, no rule non-negotiable, no solid common one enclosure paradigm in nosotros as they are then throw them those SRO you'll never get in most cases of Caribbean presented by Dallas Proximas this are all your skate sorry almost given away nil mas.
Speaker 2: And we know that the zoning is going to happen. We just asked to be included. We would like to continue talking and maybe negotiating a little bit and we want to establish this so that in future developments, once they come, because we know they are, that we are included in all of this.
Speaker 15: Gracias.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Laird, Corrigan and McCall. The next five up to the front bench Dawn Fey, Ashton Dennard, Kathryn ARD, Dawn Gilmore and Robin Reichert. Good.
Speaker 2: Good evening, City Council. My name is Laird Horrigan and I live at 4126 Clayton Street, which is directly across from the proposed development. I stand with the GSE Coalition in their position to accept the rezoning contingent upon three conditions. One condition that's particularly meaningful as of late is that a is that the developer conduct a traffic and construction impact analysis and provide the results of the analysis, including mitigations and recommendations to the neighborhood. The reason this is so meaningful is the magnitude and the scale of several construction projects that have impacted the neighborhood and many of the residents here tonight, including the drainage projects in City Park, Park Hill, the 39th Street Greenway, the continued struggles with the RTD line. And the I-70 project. It's a daily adventure trying to get to and from the places we live. And this project would be no different in that it would impact us directly and at the same time as all these other projects are occurring. So I.
Speaker 0: Just would like to.
Speaker 2: Support this rezoning, but with the conditions and consideration for the people that it would impact directly today and for the next four years. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Don Faye.
Speaker 8: Good evening, everyone, and thank you for hearing me out. My name is Dawn Fey. I am the president of Wonder around a501c3 nonprofit professional dance company. We have been in the building now for six and a half months and I will go into that relocation in just a moment. We are in Councilman Brooks's district at 80205 and we do extensive work with the community aside.
Speaker 4: From being a professional dance company.
Speaker 8: We do a lot of work in Title One schools, a lot of which are in Elyria, Swansea. We've also implemented a program for the homeless, which is called Pari Paso. I could go on and on about Wonder Brown, but I'd actually like to speak a little bit to the conversations that have been taking place tonight, as well as some of the previous conversations, if I may reference. Councilman Lopez mentioned earlier in an agenda item about creating a place for community and establishing relevance. This was echoed by Councilwoman Ortega. This was also talked about by Councilman Espinosa in terms of creating a place for community. And that's what we've done at Wonder Ground in our past. We were located at 1075 Park Avenue West, literally next door to Saint Francis Center across from Denver, Rescue Mission. And just up the street from Catholic Charities, we implemented a program for our community and our largest daily audience, which was the homeless at that point. And we put this in place in 2015. I have been having conversations with a lot of the people that I see here tonight who have come to our space and been introduced to who we are. And part of our responsibility as a nonprofit is to serve our community, is to create a place where everyone can feel welcome , and that is what we plan to do. The arts are not just for the elite and the wealthy. The arts are for everyone and should be shared by everyone. And what we will do in our new home is create this place for community to gather, for children, for the elderly, for all peoples, regardless of any kind of status in this community. That is our our our guarantee that we will do that with our new home. And as an organization that was displaced previously due to our wonderful booming economy, we understand the relevance of being able to create a place that serves its community, and we want to do so for the long term. And with that, I would ask the council to I respectfully ask the council to approve the rezoning. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ashton Kennard.
Speaker 13: Good evening. My name is Ashton Kennard. I speak on behalf of myself as well as young activists in the black, Hispanic and Native American community of the Denver metro area. I am neither for nor against this rezoning because there's positives and negatives to each judgment. I instead am going to take this time to address you find men and women of the Council as well as my community, to say that this is a learning lesson. We need to understand that if we unify and come together to buy our neighborhoods, we can not be displaced and taken advantage of. If we took the time to unify and come together. We will be able to leverage our faculty, our assets and our voice to get wonder bound and the developer to allow us space in order to bring in black and Hispanic contractors so we can bring in money into our community, as well as bring in black and Hispanic entrepreneurs to better facilitate small business, as well as providing afterschool programs for our our children, black and Hispanic children in that space. We need to take this time to realize united we stand, divided. We are gentrified. Our best interests are among ourselves. But these fine and wise people who sit on the council, our elected officials and our public servants. That means if we take our voice and come together on one accord, they are willing to provide us anything that we need. But it all begins at home. If we do not buy our neighborhoods, if we're not taking advantage of the space that we already have. We are going to continue to be dispersed and pushed out. But again, the people who sit before us who are elected by us in order to serve us. So let us continue forward. Whether it's for rezoning to do residential and we can take a part in contracting and building up the space, bringing money into our community, or if it's left as an industrial zone. Because we all know the Swansea area is a food desert. There's no there's no supermarkets in that area. So if it's left industrial, we can still bring in supermarkets, supermarkets in order to facilitate growth in our community. But if we do not unify, if we do not stand together as black, Hispanic, indigenous people, we will be taken advantage of. This is a lesson. Same with the I-70 project. Let's not get angry, not get mad. But whatever happens from this point forward, let's be wise in our decision making and stand together. Unification. Thank you. Awesome.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Catherine are doing.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Catherine Arden. And tonight I am here speaking as a resident representative of both the Grow House, a nonprofit in Elyria, Swansea, a really rooted in food access in this neighborhood, and also acting as a.
Speaker 6: Platform to.
Speaker 4: Amplify the voices of the folks of this community that often do get overlooked. So both as a representative of the Grow House, but also a resident of the 80205 ZIP code and a resident in walking distance of this this location. And as it stands now, I am opposed to the rezoning, and that is because of the approach that's been taking. That leaves out engagement and consideration of this neighborhood, which has a history of being left out and underserved. I would be willing to change my position if certain conditions were met.
Speaker 6: And those conditions include.
Speaker 4: Including a community benefits agreement that is signed with the GSA coalition and at least one Elyria, Swansea, a registered.
Speaker 6: Neighborhood neighborhood organization. The second piece that I would need to be included would be a complete.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 6: Full traffic construction impact analysis report on the neighborhood. As we know, there are significant construction and traffic developments.
Speaker 4: I, again, as somebody who lives right there, I also feel limited in my mobility. And the third piece would be to.
Speaker 6: Complete a.
Speaker 4: Transformative project process that includes the anti Displacement Displacement Action.
Speaker 6: Plan in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: If these conditions were met, I would be really interested in seeing how this project could move forward. But at this point, I don't believe.
Speaker 6: That the the best interests of this historic neighborhood have been met nor considered. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Bill Moore.
Speaker 13: My name is Bill Moore, the architect for the project. And I think I'm supposed to answer some questions on some dry technical issues. But first, before I field any of those, I just want to let you know I'm actually very excited about the project. Buildings in general aren't so popular these days in Denver, but this is an exciting project. I'm excited to reuse the existing building. I'm excited to design an authentic performing arts space. And I'm also exciting. If this were to pass, to incorporate residential uses into this plan, I think it makes for more vibrant plan and it would be contributing factor a little bit more in the design. The owners are huge supporters of the arts and other nonprofits in Denver. They're also very interested in having Wonder Brown be the heart of this development. It's really the public heart of the development adjacent to it. In the plan would be plaza, a public park, playground, gallery space as well as the Urban Garden. So I really do hope that you approve this and allow residential uses and I'll field some questions if you have any.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Robin Reichert and I'll call the next five up, Mauricio Moreno, Noemi go Alma Urbano, Rosa Maria Turvey and Jackie Carranza, if you want to come up to the bench. Good.
Speaker 14: Good evening. My name is Robin Reichert. I've lived in Swansea.
Speaker 13: Here for about six years.
Speaker 14: My family, I've got.
Speaker 13: Two young boys, love this neighborhood. We're part of the jazz, I'm part of the Jazz Coalition. And we want to see this. We want to see development. We want to see where there hasn't been something come.
Speaker 14: We want to see improvements.
Speaker 13: But to the reference some points here that have been previously made, if if you can't afford to stay in the neighborhood, that dance studio means nothing. It's an empty dream. And I think the missing piece in this conversation is the city has lots of data and studies about how investment, private and public investment causes displacement.
Speaker 14: It's linked in hundreds of.
Speaker 13: Study across the country, including some of Denver's own studies that private and public investments are directly linked to it, to mass displacement of low income neighbors. And that's what's been happening. That's already happening. We've been up here too many times already talking about this. And so for me, it's I'm just baffled how this process went through for nine however many months. And we didn't find out about it until a month before today's date. And I'm baffled that this that the city ignored their own process, that the general development plan was waived despite that this if you've been on 40th Avenue in New York and you've been stuck between the lighter rail, the the commuter rail and the Union Pacific line, why is there not a traffic plan here? It's astounding. And even more so, it's so frustrating that in the neighborhood plan, the Larry Swanson plan, it explicitly says, I have it here on pages two, 18, 21, 46 and page 126, the critical importance of reaching the neighborhood that has been historically excluded from this process. And so to send out a couple of emails to our no is not good enough. In no world is that good enough. There is ample nonprofits, ample community groups, ample ways to get the.
Speaker 14: Community involved, and none of that was.
Speaker 13: Done. So I just got to say, I'm so disappointed. I'm so disappointed with this process. I'm so disappointed with the planning department and what can we do? What are we doing here? If if every one of our pieces of civic engagement has been cut off and I'll tell you, the first public open meeting that the developer had was three weeks ago in the neighborhood, an open house. And I told the city, I told Tim Sanders and Irene Aguilar at that meeting how disappointed that I am. And they apologized and they said, we're sorry. They said the city dropped the ball in, not connecting between CPD, between OED. There was no communication between they told us they found out about this project from the same Denver article that we did. How is that possible? How is it that after years of advocacy, years of study, that it feels like negligence and honestly to the neighborhood, it makes this whole process feel like a joke because we want to be a part of this. We want to see these changes. But if we're not taken, if we're not included before that happens, then we won't be here to enjoy these amenities.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Mauricio Moreno.
Speaker 13: What they mean. My name is Mauricio Marino. I'm a resident of Swansea. I lived there for the last two years and I'm supporting the signing change in. I just want to point that if it's not because the developer came out with this idea and have a meeting three weeks ago, like my fellows here say. We know we don't know anything about the group that is here opposing the project because they talking about including the community. But I think the community need to work for the community. And this is the first time in two years that I see members of the community talking about the community, caring for the community until this developer and this project come out. That's the first time that they hear from them. So my name is Mauricio Moreno and I support the project.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. No, go.
Speaker 10: Hi. Good evening. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm with the Globally Responsive Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. Nice to see everyone tonight. As Maria said, we're not anti-development. We're for development without displacement. What this really has felt like and all the things that have been said about the last minute notification, all that is that it's really set us up against this developer. And that's not.
Speaker 8: What we wanted out of.
Speaker 10: This or want in the future. But as you can see from all the neighbors that are here, Swansea neighbors are interested in this. So just saying that oh well nobody responded to an email that said I to IMAX three and maybe people didn't understand what that was or the the the hugeness of this project, 700 units, 14 acres that we are interested. There's lots of people in Swansea that love their neighborhood, that care about their neighborhood and want to be.
Speaker 4: Involved in a.
Speaker 8: Critical.
Speaker 4: Project.
Speaker 10: That equals half of the existing units in Swansea. We want to be part of making that project successful and think that we have a lot to offer the level of this. Massaro saying globally. Swansea there's a lot that's going on in global response here that could offer to a project and benefit a project. I think one thing that's very clear from the amount of affordability that we were able to get out of this is that the linkage fee in the affordable housing fund is not enough. 15 units out of 700.
Speaker 8: That's insane. In the lowest income.
Speaker 10: Neighborhood that doesn't have restricted housing in it, like Sun Valley, Swansea, it doesn't have restricted housing. Every almost every single household except the county homes and the habitat homes are are vulnerable to displacement. So this happening in this context, something needs to be tweaked with how that's working. We need those affordable requirements to be higher. This, as Robin said, this at some point should have been flagged before we found out about it in Denver. Right. This should have been flagged. How did we not know about this?
Speaker 8: Did anyone put in lovely.
Speaker 10: Response and housing.
Speaker 8: Because they would have found the gas.
Speaker 10: Coalition if that had been the case. Or actually reach out and call any of the Arnaud's in the neighborhood, try to build a relationship, talk to some of the neighbors. That's process oriented. But if we want equitable outcomes, we have to have.
Speaker 4: Equitable.
Speaker 10: Process. I wanted to get in. You heard what our position is. We're asking for these conditions. You saw the evidence, hopefully in our letter. That evidence in each of the criteria that you are evaluating is backing up those conditions that we need a community benefits agreement, that we need traffic and construction analysis around this. This is adjacent to the train and the property in the concept plans. The housing goes all the way up to the train and I'm really concerned about that as well.
Speaker 13: Other stuff, but thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Alma Urbano.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is.
Speaker 6: Elmer Buono and I am here as myself, but also as a resident of the Swansea neighborhood. I'm also an employee of Project Voice, a youth advocacy and civic training organization that provides afterschool youth development opportunities for first round of school students right across the street from 2535 E 40th Avenue. My experiences growing up, living and now working in Swansea have provided me with a judgment to request our city council representatives to make sure that if the rezoning goes through, the safety, well-being and welfare of our community members is protected and treated with the highest level of dignity. So far, the community engagement process has been a total failure. The developer has refused to create a community benefits agreement with community organizations, and our city officials have come forward to argue in favor of the legality of such project. The developer has in fact done the minimum or just above the minimum. But in times of displacement, rampant homelessness in large investment schemes and previously forgotten neighborhoods like Swansea to the minimum is not only straight up disrespectful and negligent, but also deadly. The project proposal does not address the context of the neighborhood a predominantly brown and black neighborhood with mostly single family homes. It does not address first round of school families and students, 98% of whom are people of color. 98% of students also qualify for free and reduced lunch. Many of these students already travel 40 minutes out because their families have been kicked out of the neighborhood due to rising cost costs of housing. It is hard, I can tell you from my own experience, to concentrate on PSAT and SAT exams when your family cannot afford to pay a monthly rent. It is hard to focus when most of our income goes to pay for housing and there is simply not enough food at the table. I live on the other side of Central so I do not own a car. I have to walk from first round of school where I work along 40th and Clinton every day Monday to Friday. I deal with I-70, construction, traffic, congestion and fear. I encourage city official members, council members to answer the following. Would you allow a 700 unit rezoning plan to go through in your own neighborhood with only 10% affordable units for your own neighbors? Do you accept the terrible community engagement that has happened here? I ask the Council to please create the conditions for community members and developers to work together to develop and implement a community benefits agreement that supports and protects the health and wellbeing of one of our most targeted communities. Valeria Swansea. Thank you. Also Wonder Brown is not part of our community until they stand in favor of participate in the Community Benefits Agreement and leverage their connections to the developer to truly fit into the new space while also connected to the community . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Rosa maria Torres, Jackie Carranza. And I'm going to call the next five up to the front bench, Jim Garcia, Kathy Patchell, Yadira Sanchez, Ruben Sanchez and Carol Briggs. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon. I'm Jackie Collins. I am one of the residents on 4065 Milwaukee Street. I'm not for or against it. I think gentrification is great, but there is also a limit to where gentrification can be. I'm a single mother of one, so my only concern is to be displaced and I have nowhere to go if taxes am property or property taxes go up. So that is my only concern. So I hope that we can come together and I don't know. Make a great exception. Have more of a realistic ideas for this building to come up for. So I'm sorry for not having anything prepared, but this is kind of what I'm here for because I was kind of lost of what was happening until our first meeting on April 1st. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jim Garcia. Good evening. My name is Jim Garcia here representing clinical orthopedic clinic. Orthopedic is a community health center that has been located in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood for the past 15 years. And we provide primary health care, mental health services and oral health services to the residents of the Yes community and the surrounding communities . For the past three years or so ago, we started the process of when we realized that we would no longer had capacity at our current facility in the Globeville neighborhood. We made the conscious decision to explore a new site at 48th and raise in the Swansea neighborhood. And when we did so we were very intentional about partnering with the Urban Land Conservancy to work in partnership with the neighborhood, because we know that community health is much more than what happens in the exam room. It's what happens out in the community when we talk about the social determinants of health. One of those being housing. And so it was a very easy decision for our board and our and our team to pursue the project at 48th and raise. And as part of that process, it started I said it, like I said, about three years ago, over the past year, we were able to engage in authentic community engagement with with the residents of Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, and to enter into a partnership for the development of our project that at 40th and raised and when it was brought to our attention to my attention about the proposed project, it seemed to me knowing what we initiated and participated in with the community to do to engage in authentic community engagement, we felt like this is something that's indeed possible and and in fact should be expected of of the community in our in our community leaders. So I would just say that we would like to see a similar process involved involving this project where the community does feel engaged and included in this process. So and that entails a community benefits agreement similar to what we have in place. Thank you. Cathy Patchell.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Kathy Patchell. I'm a member of the community. And I am neither for or against the rezoning of our neighborhood or the property in question. However, I agree with my community members that it's very important that the rezoning excuse me, is aligned with the community properly. From what I heard at the beginning, the statements coming from the developers sound like they're interested in doing the minimum. They have a certain percentage of housing that they have to accomplish and a minimum amount of space they have to give up. And that's not aligning with our community, is properly that's getting by and then completing your own goal. What we need is a proper comprehensive plan that benefits the community, not just gets by and you know, further communication needs to be had because we haven't had it in the past and the properties already been purchased. And so before deciding on rezoning, I think that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Yadira Sanchez.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening. My name is Yadira Sanchez. I am part of Swansea, a neighborhood. I've been living there for about six years. I am also part of the Jazz Coalition, so I have a lot of things to say, but I'm going to try to say them as fast as I can with making as many points as I can, because there's a lot of things that need to be said. We did meet with the developer, like they said, probably the 1st of April, and then we tried to talk to them. They did say that they had an agreement with considering one of our plans, which they did not. We also had the city there who said that they do agree that there is a lot of wrongdoing in their part for allowing a lot of this construction to happen all at the same time, and for not giving this notification in a proper way. However, giving your apologies doesn't fix the problem or being non aware or being there to service your community is also not okay either because that's what you're there for. We are here together united as a group to try to speak to you guys about what is being done, which I don't feel. I don't feel like is right. Wander around is great. However, you're not a school you're you're already a steady dance group and our community needs more more proactive. If you would be a school, that would be wonderful to allow everybody to join. But having this are inviting us to come and visit you guys, seeing you already do all your things well, that's great, but that doesn't help us from saving our community. There are a lot of things happening or going wrong with the zoning. If we allow this to happen, more displacement is going to continue to grow. They are offering units at 60%, but in this neighborhood we need more like 30% to 20% because there is a lot of need. And the city needs to focus, too, on getting together with all of the construction. When they are allowing all of this zoning situations to happen is that we do live there and we are under a lot of stress and it is quite a joke when you wake up one morning and you're going on one side of the road and the following night you're not. Sometimes you end up running into sidewalks and posts because you just don't know where you're going anymore. It's hard to get to our home where we have our lives in allowing this to continue. It's just opening doors for more developments to come in and feel that they could do and destruct and take away what is already there . And they're allowing this to continue and saying that they're here for the community by opening their gardens, but closing their streets or, you know, having a stressed out through all of these situations that are happening. And I don't think they're right. I think that the city needs to take into consideration and working together with the benefits agreement plan and the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ruben Sanchez. Ruben Sanchez. All right. Next up, Carol Briggs. And I'm going to call the next five up, Bree Ice, Elijah Buford, Virginia Calderon and Jesse Pierce. Go ahead.
Speaker 16: Hi. My name's Carol Briggs, and I live at 4027 Fillmore, which backs up to Clyde Clayton. And I understand that it's unrealistic to think that no rezoning or construction is going to occur in the Swansea neighborhood. I do believe that I and all my neighbors deserve a voice in this process. The current project will significantly increase the population of my neighborhood, so I would approve a rezoning if a community benefit agreement is developed and signed by by the Clu, Globeville. Elyria, Syria Coalition. A minimum of one other registered neighborhood organization and the developer. The Gas Coalition has been the organization that has ensured that the information has gotten to my door. It has not been the city. They've also provided me the opportunity for me to hear the views of others in the community and the surrounding areas on this project. It is beyond my understanding that a traffic impact report was waived with the already existing traffic challenges in the I-70, I-70, construction, the drainage project, and what is required by this. This construction project will significantly impact traffic. The increase in property value often precedes significant displacement in a neighborhood. It is important that the process include the city led completion of the transformation project, an anti displacement and an anti displacement plan. No site development plan should be approved until these two plans are completed. It is very difficult to separate the rezoning from the project itself. I think as you've heard from my neighbors, the rezoning isn't really our issue. Rezoning is actually a good thing for us because industrial really isn't what the neighborhood needs. But I also know with the process that the city uses that when I say yes to rezoning, I'm almost saying yes to the project. And I'm not saying yes to the project. I, I can't say yes to 700 units that my neighborhood for three of us probably to get together and live together could afford to freakin live in. I can't say that. Would you do it? Would you do it to your neighbor? This neighborhood has been displaced and displaced and displaced, and it has been our lack of care, lack of concern for those who sit in this room that don't look like me. And I know that. And I know I'm privileged to be in this neighborhood and my neighbors need to be heard, just like I need to be heard.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry that your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. This.
Speaker 4: Good evening, everyone. My name is Bria Zizi and I am neither for nor against this bill. But I am here to say that we need an equitable development plan. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all. And I work for Project Voice and we've worked with the GSE community for the past 13 years. We train, employ and organize youth and we specifically work with Bruce Randolph High School and middle school students. And this is situated just a block away from this proposed development. And given this proximity to our students school, we need to address the issues of equity in the design, the planning and the process to ensure the well-being of our youth and their families in the GSA community. And that is why we're asking for you to consider the following conditions. One A Community Benefits Agreement developed and signed by the GSA Coalition and Delirious wants your R.A. to complete a full traffic construction impact analysis report and report this back to the neighborhood. I think this is an imperative because we've already seen that mobility in the neighborhood has diminished because of other infrastructure projects that are happening like I-70. And three, completing a transformation project process that includes Anti Displacement Action Plan. Currently, right now, as you've heard from other folks tonight, there is 60 units at 60% AMI. And that does not fit the needs of the community and specifically for youth. Involuntary displacement destabilizes their social networks routines and has directly been linked to decline in school performance. So I would ask that we consider an equitable development plan and that we prioritize the well-being of girls, youth and their families. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Next up, Elijah Beaufort.
Speaker 2: That's me. How you guys doing? So my name's Elijah. I'm a youth leader in social activism community, also known as Young Activists. And I'm neither for nor against the re the rezoning project. And the reason is because, you know, first and foremost, I believe that we are doing the minimum to actually help out these communities of color . I believe that we can actually be doing more as a community to be doing that. And no matter which way you go, if you're for a project against the project or in between with the rezoning, it's not owned by us. It's not owned by people of color. It's based off of a Caucasian mind, you know, just saying the elephant in the room. And it's true. So no matter which way you go, you have to understand that the key element to life is experience. You know, experience is the best education you can have, right? Everybody knows that here. And with this gentrification going on, pushing communities of color and the outskirts of Denver and moving a lot of white people in the middle, we understand that we have to improve our communities, you know, before that happens, because you have to understand your history before you know, the future repeats itself. So we have to understand how to improve communities. And honestly, I challenge all you guys who are not of color in here. If you truly want to see improvement in these type of communities, if you truly want to see change in these type of communities, you have to put your money where your mouth is. You actually have to put your foot down and say, I'm going to help out these communities of color as well. The question is how, if you're going to do these rezoning projects, make it affordable for people like these beautiful individuals to actually be able to live there comfortably, not survive, but live there . Make make sure that their educations there as well. For example, if people want to be doctors, lawyers and be able to actually rebuild their communities, have that as an opportunity, have that as a access point in that area. Also, we have to really understand the only people really fighting for their communities in their areas is people of color, minorities. You're not going to Chinatown is doing the same thing. You're not going to places in the Jewish community doing the same things are not going to the suburbs. It's always a problem in the black and Hispanic communities. And of course, you know why? Because we have no financial freedom. We have no financial literacy. We don't know what we're doing. So if you care as well, also finances and economic classes there. So we could be able to understand how to improve our own communities because you have to love yourself before you love anybody else. So support improvement of us in order for us to actually create economic change in those communities. Because at the end of the day, it's not going to be owned by us. So we have to be able to understand and learn from these experiences in these oppressive systems, how to build within our own. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Next up, Virginia courtroom.
Speaker 15: We want to start with you, Michael Barone Precedenti the L.A. Sun support up your show and yours.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Bettina Calderon. I have been a resident of the Lake Area Swansea neighborhood for 2028 years.
Speaker 15: For 28 years, ESTELLA, we've been fortunate. I mean, in a state here either so fortunate I mean for two entities operating on Lou and we are saving the Oshawa animals for the animals we need to maintain our aura this are fortunate I mean to them Podemos we rely Espinosa's done incremental on the west Tantalus cost of living and.
Speaker 2: I've been fortunate to live there for 28 years because 28 years ago we could live there comfortably. And now unfortunately we are facing increases in our rent and unfortunately we are being displaced.
Speaker 15: Escuchar la palabra ignorant A.The main thing.
Speaker 2: I've heard the word ignore recently.
Speaker 15: You know that a lady Tomika Griselda Calderon. Yeah. We be laboring for being disinclined use. Yeah, ahora. No kidding me. Is that in firma e también Potomac? A la construction dragon, though, that I can do la tierra aura Millsap where we really yona see if of Korean mosaic or even that famous proportion and Bebe and as close to slow system will say.
Speaker 2: And ignored has been said by my daughter Griselda Calderon, who has lived there for 25 years. She is sick and she continues to live. There's we can all continue to live there. And here we swallow this pollution, we swallow this dirt. And now, even besides all of that, we are willing to stay there. We just ask for affordable housing and an opportunity to stay in our neighborhood.
Speaker 15: So center for Santo the I am it e now is sufficient para nosotros nosotros no analysis. I can tell you that necesitamos must reduce sickness and loss Median.
Speaker 2: 60% asthma is not good for us We do not make that much money. We need a lower cost of this so that we can afford to live there.
Speaker 15: Jentleson is telling me Randall story for those sequitur. At the end of that I put the hair in on the photos. Como comunita?
Speaker 2: You guys have been looking at us for the past two years. For the past two years we have been trying to figure out how to protect ourselves as a community.
Speaker 15: As soon to be more another neocon condor to Sarajevo. It is on Miembros LSU that.
Speaker 2: A month ago we had a meeting with the developer and some city council folks.
Speaker 15: You can respond, they'll ask you a question. Committee Member Reuters If their sorcerer is a stand up at the end.
Speaker 2: What does the city say? That they're making mistakes and through those mistakes are learning.
Speaker 15: You know, so.
Speaker 2: What about us?
Speaker 15: I saw those customers up at Indian Motel. Also seen alarmism.
Speaker 2: What are we learning from all of this? Just that we're going to keep following the same thing.
Speaker 15: Kellogg has done up in the industry, this time being Kellogg in the proportion that will stay the same or sort of.
Speaker 2: What are you guys learning from all of this? What are you guys going to provide for us?
Speaker 15: If some Australian dollar is royalties in LA Comunidad, even in my supposedly mountainous area, Ms.. Burton made caramel supper and there there is a caramel formerly sorry caramel to plan, but apparently strangely.
Speaker 2: And there are already a lot of developers in our in our neighborhood and there's more to come probably. And what we want is a way to be able to communicate and to be involved with all of this development themselves.
Speaker 15: Those who think cancel them or también or cancel them. A stress reduction.
Speaker 2: If you guys are tired of us, but we are also tired of our situation.
Speaker 15: And the stress situation. Espinoza Recitation of the power meal or samples. Dolores Almas Photo narrator.
Speaker 2: In our situations, awful. It's embarrassing. It's our situation is paying 1800 dollars a month just for rent.
Speaker 15: You're not a common lady. Show Anteriormente that mythical amicable status put empanadas in, you know, sort of seeping in afterwards. I can tell you that.
Speaker 2: I've said it before. Maybe you guys can't even afford to pay this and we're supposed to be able to pay that somehow.
Speaker 15: So center por ciento is the machado para nosotros not freedom of the two. We are in consideration. Capulet run by her was 24. Lamine wasn't quite in town trying to persuade simply I am a.
Speaker 2: And 60% is way too much for us. Maybe you guys could please consider to lower it that maybe at least a 40 or 30%.
Speaker 15: Amy and I trust family have made assembly. We do not know that there are no strong family left medicine. They do not come. You don't even lugard on their lives.
Speaker 2: Our families deserve a home. Our families deserve a bed in a place in which to live.
Speaker 15: But implementable, to commit their lives.
Speaker 2: To simply to be able to eat, simply to be able to live them.
Speaker 15: Because some of lucky.
Speaker 2: As any of us that are present here.
Speaker 15: Which are with us.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chelsea Paris. Mm.
Speaker 13: Jesse Pierce represent for Denver, home of South Low. Positive action. Commitment for social change. And Black Stars more for self-defense. And I'm also an at large candidate for the At-Large position. I'm on top of the ballot for the May 2019 election. We are against this rezoning for all of the reasons that have been stated tonight. As usual, this current council is going through with rapid gentrification measures that are violating U.N. resolutions. The U.N. was here two months ago. This current council, when mayor is in violation of all kinds of U.N. resolutions and you guys continue to turn a blind eye to it. But the members of the community and those that are running for office are not turning a blind eye to it. And we see it loud and clear for what it is. This is not gentrification. This is communist side. This is ethnic cleansing. We are being ethnically cleansed out of our neighborhoods and our communities. And this current council was not doing anything to mitigate or stop this from happening. So I say as a city council representative, candidates hit candidate at this time. We need to sweep the council like this with the homeless every night. We need to elect new members of council and mayor that actually can empathize.
Speaker 0: And Mr. Pierce, please talk.
Speaker 13: To those that are suffering in this town. We need new, bold leadership. We need people that are actually going to have these discussions with the community, not wait for the last minute to have these discussions with the community, not put these things on a community at the very last moment in seconds. This is ridiculous. This council should be ashamed of itself. Sweep the council like they sweep the homeless every night. Vote May 7th. Your ballots drop. Mr. Barrett.
Speaker 0: Do you have anything to add on the topic of this public hearing? Thank you very much. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Can we get CPD? I just have a couple of questions. There are a couple of questions regarding the general development plan and that CPD did not require in our development plan. Can we can we talk about that a little bit? And a traffic study, I believe one of the speakers talked about didn't require a traffic study.
Speaker 10: I can start with the traffic study, then I'll hand it off to Sara Showalter. What? I understand that a traffic study will be required at time of site development plan. I spoke with public works and they were pretty clear about that requirement.
Speaker 9: Okay. So the developer will be doing a traffic study? That's correct. Thank you. Sir.
Speaker 10: Good evening, everyone. Sarah Showalter from Community Plan Development. So to address the question about a general development plan, the Denver Zoning Code says that CPD will make the determination whether a general development plan should be required or not. It gives some guidance on things to consider and includes the size of the site. It includes whether there would likely be phase development with multiple owners. It includes whether the site is within 100 feet of a river corridor, whether a neighborhood plan calls for GDP. Those are just examples of the things it says to consider. So CPD at the time that the PRE-APPLICATION happened for this rezoning very early on, considered all of those different factors, things that led to the determination to not require GDP include the fact that there is the neighborhood plan does not call for GDP here. And what the proposed rezoning is is in alignment with what the neighborhood plan does call for an industrial mixed use three storey building the or zone district. The neighborhood plan does not call for any major street connections through the site. If we have a neighborhood plan that calls for street connections will often use the general development plan as a way to make sure that that will happen. But there that wasn't part of the neighborhood plan. And there aren't really there could certainly be street extensions into the site for sure. I don't mean to imply that there isn't any need for connectivity into the site, but there wouldn't be any major connections because of the railroad tracks and lack of connectivity of anything to connect you to the West Side. So through the site development plan process, we are able to ask for those things. And one of the big things that the code says about whether to do a DDP or not is to also consider if there are other regulatory processes available, such as site development plan review, to be able to get what seems adequate for the site, given the fact that the rezoning is actually decreasing the intensity that is allowed on the site. The current zoning idea allows for a lot of heavy uses that the new zoning would not allow. It also has no height limit. It has kind of the older model of zoning we had in the city for a long time called a far floor area ratio with no height limit. The new zoning will limit the entire site to three stories in height. So it's actually another reason we'll think, oh, we might really need a GDP is if there's going to be a significant increase in intensity indicating we might need significant infrastructure improvements. Again, not to imply there will be no infrastructure improvements, but they are could be accomplished through the site development plan review such as the traffic study that was already mentioned. That's a common procedure that would be part of the site development plan review process.
Speaker 9: You touched on something that was one of my questions and it was the intensity of height that the current zoning idea requires. This is a bit of a, you know, effort. The zoning is depending on what you're trying to do. So can you give in layman's terms to folks who are watching who who are here, what could be built?
Speaker 10: Under the current zoning with the idea. Yeah, sure. So the way the floor area ratio works is it's basically a multiplier of your how large your property is. And in this case, it allows for up to a maximum of two times the site. So that could be two. Just to keep it simple, there would be some required setbacks, but basically that means you could just build like a two storey building across the entire site ish. This is very, you know, rudimentary description of how a fireworks or you could squeeze it all into a much smaller building because there's no height limit, however, however tall you could get until you'd run out of floor area. So there's a lot of options with a huge site like this because it's 14 acres, obviously would probably be multiple buildings, but collectively, all that floor area could be up to two times the square footage of the site.
Speaker 9: Okay, great. Thank you for that. Laura Brzezinski question for you regarding this housing we've been talking about this development and regarding some sort of housing requirement. Right now it's 70, 70 units at 60%. Am I do we have a recorded contract that that's deeded with? And also which hasn't been brought up is the developer has agreed, I believe, that if they cannot do this development within two years, that they will give the land to a nonprofit to develop it is that deeded in in the contract.
Speaker 4: So Laura brzezinski with the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Office there is a an agreement to provide affordable housing at this site. It is 70 units and that would be affordable at 60% AMI or below. What was it mentioned earlier is there's also a requirement to build at least 30% of those units with two or more bedrooms . So there are some family sized units. What the agreement states is that the developer would be required to build the affordable units within the first phase of development so they can build up to half of the acreage and then they must provide the affordable housing. So we recognize that there are some external factors in terms of development and timing of development. So we wanted to provide some flexibility given market conditions to phase the development of the affordable units in alongside the market without having the specific time constraints of a two year time period.
Speaker 9: And and if the developer cannot, this is a little bit of complexity on tax credit. There's another tax credit deal at 40th and raise a lot of folks who have been doing developments and geese don't feel like they've been competitive and not been able to get tax credits if they do not get the tax credits, is there another mechanism that's in there that this is what I was told? So I'm seeing if they can't do the development well, they did it to another nonprofit to do that development.
Speaker 4: So the agreement does not require that they did it to another developer. It's flexible in who develops the affordable units, whether it's this developer or a partner developer. But because the agreement states that there must be 70 units produced at 60% AMI, it doesn't also require that they are developed through tax credits. So those 60% of units could be developed with or without tax credits.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. I see a lot of folks in the queue, so I'm going to let my colleagues yield my time to my colleagues.
Speaker 1: And Brooks. We've got Councilman Ortega up next.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. Let me first start with Bill Moore, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So I'm just thinking about some of the infrastructure that is going to be needed on this site. This is a big site and typically a GDP is required on anything that is ten acres or more. This is 14. Talk to me about storm drainage, what street extensions might look like. How how much open space is expected in terms of acres or size of the the open space?
Speaker 13: Well, currently there is a storm drainage program on the site. It was a little bit. It appears like it may have been cut off by RTD because they they brought their line around. And so they've had to redo it. So that is going to be changed to accommodate the whole site with her.
Speaker 11: Explain what that.
Speaker 13: Means. Well, I maybe I almost don't know enough to explain that. What I do realize that the storm drainage was had been recently updated because it was altered when the RTD line cut off what I believe was the historic extents of this parcel, if that makes sense.
Speaker 11: So in other words, you would tap into the existing storm drainage that was built as part of the RTD line coming in. But does that not require you to have to do more to deal with onsite storm drainage for a property of this size?
Speaker 13: We will be doing we will be doing a new plan that incorporates what exist and then also new drain, a new addition to that drainage system. Okay. And with regards to the streets 41st and 42nd would cross Clayton. So we're just aligning our access points with 41st and 42nd as well. We're not. And the other along 40th, those access points are staying as they are currently.
Speaker 11: Okay. And do you anticipate that this would be done in phases?
Speaker 13: You know, it's it is large. So it's really hard to say at this time.
Speaker 11: And I guess I'm just trying to understand if just hearing what Mr. Brzezinski said in terms of the phasing and when the affordable units would need to be done. And am I correct in assuming to do this at 60%, the expectation is to access the tax credits.
Speaker 13: That's one of the avenues that the developer is going to pursue. But there may be others.
Speaker 11: So is there any chance that if other avenues could be pursued that to secure tax credits could actually achieve a lower emission rate? And is that something the developer is actually considering?
Speaker 13: That's possible. It's been a fire drill to develop the agreement. And so, you know, I can't speak beyond the way it's worded, but yes, I mean, that is possible.
Speaker 11: So the agreement right now that exists is just on the affordable housing, and that's with our housing office. Is that correct?
Speaker 13: I believe that's the sign portion. Okay. And but you made an earlier question about open space, so I didn't speak to that. But go ahead. Currently, we we have a commitment to provide 20% open space. The code requires ten.
Speaker 11: Okay. And. That's expected to be internal to the project.
Speaker 13: It will be internal to the project, but a large component of it will be public space. So there is going to be a park. There's a plaza that's adjacent to the underground performance space. So it's the intent is that it is public space.
Speaker 11: Okay. So, Sarah, would you mind coming up for a moment? Thank you, Bill. If I have any others, I'll call you back. Hi. So, Sara, I'm just looking at the criteria for GDPs. So it talks about large scale. Typically, it's ten acres anticipated to be developed in phases or maybe owned by more than one person or entity, which, you know, may or may not be the case on this project. I know it's not unusual. We saw that with the St Anthony's project. We've seen that with many other properties that were, you know, either similar or smaller in size. I guess I'm trying to understand, looking at the criteria, anticipated infrastructure. I mean, clearly, drainage is one of those the parks that would need to be built, that open space would be considered infrastructure. So why is it that the city made a decision to not require a general development plan as as opposed to. Let me just stop at that. Why did the the city planning staff decide this site, which far exceeds ten acres and has some phasing and has some of the things spelled out in the criteria, but yet did not call for that?
Speaker 10: Yeah, sure. So size is definitely one of the things it does consider, but we've had other sites that are larger. We have not done a GDP. There's a rezoning recently in front of you for a site well over ten acres, the old city headquarters. There's no general development plan there either. So size is is an important consideration, but it's not the deciding thing. We also look at a lot of other factors. So you brought up the infrastructure needs, which are really important. We worked. We don't just make the decision alone and CPD, we talk to other departments, including public works and parks. And the the input that we got was the likely infrastructure needs for this site, especially given the fact that this is an up zoning and in some ways is even a down zoning would be easy to get through the typical site development plan process that we didn't need a larger planning effort. GDPs. This gets a little bit too the phasing and ownership question as well. GDPs are often really helpful when particularly about the time or there's a definite plan in place. There's multiple owners. GDP is a great way to make sure there's a plan in place for all the infrastructure to get built as needed and potentially even identify phasing. In this case, we had one consistent owner across the entire site and when we talked to the engineers in that area, whether it was about traffic and street connections , whether it's about stormwater, the feedback we got is, although those are important things and they'll definitely be addressed, the requirements and process through site development plan will be adequate to get what's needed. There wasn't a separate need for a bigger framework, Plan B or GDP.
Speaker 11: And can you just explain what the community input is in the site development plan review process?
Speaker 10: There's no required community input. If a applicant voluntarily shares information with the community, they can definitely do that, but there's no required process for public input.
Speaker 11: Okay, I have some other questions, but I know we have people in queue. If you could just put me back in, I'll come back with my others.
Speaker 0: Sounds good, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for coming out tonight and for your passion for your community. I heard you loud and clear. Your concern is gentrification and displacement. And someone mentioned the Neighborhood Equity Stabilization Team. Is anyone here from that office tonight? Of course. So I'm just very curious why they aren't part of this conversation. That office was started last year and I this is seems like this is what that office was made for was to help deal with situations like this. So. Kevin, I would request that the mayor's office. Get the Neighborhood Equity Stabilization Team involved with this project.
Speaker 6: I then have a few minor questions. Nola, can you please tell me what you. Would like to see in a.
Speaker 4: Community benefit agreement.
Speaker 10: So and it should be in the evidence that we we sent. There's one example that's just kind of a general ask of equitable development. And in in that goes through the affordability, including the ranges of affordability. So it doesn't you know, it doesn't just say 60% AMI and below it says, you know, half of the 70 units , for instance, would be 30 to 50%. And so those types of details around affordability, there would be a creation of a body that has.
Speaker 8: Ongoing and meaningful participation.
Speaker 10: Throughout the different stages of the project. So that, for instance, if you had that site plan and you had the traffic report, that.
Speaker 8: There could be a committee.
Speaker 10: Made up of community members that would get to hear what that traffic report is and give feedback on it or respond to it, those types of things that would give an ongoing interaction between the development and the neighbors. We also in the 40th and race project, we worked on the creation of a community defense fund where the developer actually donated to a defense fund to support the legal needs of neighbors that are facing displacement in the area. Because that's a big gap is the legal support for neighbors that are facing now trying to remember what else is in there. I don't have it with me. The equitable. That's my forgetting. Oh, neighborhood preference. So that isn't we know it's not a policy yet, but the actually the affirmative marketing plan that says that they would offer those units first to neighbors that have that need and and we would help to promote within the neighborhood accessibility to those neighbors or to those units. So those types of things, local preference for local businesses or at least conversations with local businesses see that as this one, the platform for actual development. Yeah. And then the last ones are a preference for local business facing displacement pressures and also a non-compete clause for existing local businesses so that you're not bringing in businesses that are competing with existing businesses, the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: 9.25%.
Speaker 10: And then work the local hiring, too.
Speaker 4: If there's jobs that are created, that's it. And did you talk to the developer about this when we.
Speaker 10: The the one meeting that we had with them, not the open house, but we had a meeting just with the GSA coalition. We gave them this.
Speaker 8: And they were.
Speaker 10: Interested in it. But we just haven't had time to negotiate anything and. I don't know if you're interested now or not.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Just a few short questions. Courtney. A lot of people said they weren't aware of it. And aren't everyone who lives within a certain distance, 200 feet, supposed to receive notification of what's going on inside? Posted. Did all of that happen? Right.
Speaker 10: So there was the public process that includes the posting signs on the property, the written notification, Arnaud's, but then also the postcards that are sent out in English and Spanish to all property owners within 200 feet of the subject pre zoning. We always encourage the applicant to do additional outreach to the community and we that's no different than today, you know, and maybe the applicant can speak of their efforts and what they did above and beyond those code requirements. But we did outline in the staff report those code required outreach things that are required.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And Bruce, when you started, you did speak really quickly, but you mentioned a number of meetings.
Speaker 6: Can you go over?
Speaker 14: Sure, I'd be happy to.
Speaker 4: This was from your perspective.
Speaker 14: So we filed the application in October of last year. And prior to that, in July, we contacted some of the RINO's in the neighborhood requesting a chance to get together and brief them and get their input and engage with them. And the only two that responded were Clayton United Neighbors and the Business Association. And in fact, we got positive feedback from them, including, I think in your packets is a support from members of the Clayton United. Clayton pardon me. Um, when the application was turned in. We sent a detailed summary of the, what the rezoning entailed to the RINO's and we also sent them the application itself in a PDF format in the the summary that was kind of like a cover memo to the application addressed the difference between I and I and I. And that's three. It addressed the size of the site. It addressed changes of uses, the introduction of residential. It was quite a lot of detail, again, inviting dialog and participation. And there was no response. We then again followed up a third time in February with these same groups attempting to engage them. And again, no response. And so it wasn't then until after, Ludie, that that things really got going. And so, as I've described earlier, we had a community open house at the site in the wonder bound space. We sent, I think, about 90 invitations to immediate neighbors to that, and I would estimate there were more than 40 people there. But by my count, there were about 40 people that were neighbors that came in response to the invitations. We had, as NOLA described, a meeting with the coalition itself. We've had a meeting with North was a build the United North R.A. and and then we also have sat down in individual home and met with immediate neighbors . And and so we've been out there trying, getting notice out of I personally put up all the signs, that type of thing. So I think that we've made every attempt to get engagement. And regretfully, it was late that the Coalition surfaced on this and has been very clear about what their topics are.
Speaker 4: And did you send notification to the GSA coalition? Are you an R.A. now? Okay.
Speaker 14: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Bruce Instagram.
Speaker 14: Yes, sir.
Speaker 12: What was the application fee to the city for the rezoning?
Speaker 14: Well, it was. I'm trying to do math in my head. Probably about $7,000.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then how did the city get involved? Because this is all private development or did the city have some stake in the land at some point?
Speaker 14: What do you mean by city? Get involved.
Speaker 12: Got in. There's machinations about an agreement. I'm still confused by it, but, you know, why would you. What was what was the impetus for that?
Speaker 14: So about a week after the ludy meeting, we got an email from CPD suggesting that entering into a development agreement would be a desired outcome of all this. And so we started discussions and dialog on that and arrived at the agreement to build affordable units. It's been described tonight with the 70 units.
Speaker 12: To meet units, which is, you know, I've heard people talk about 700 units, so that would be 10% of a proposed project or is that.
Speaker 14: That's an accurate estimate?
Speaker 12: Okay. Yeah. So and then just a question for Greg Moore. I mean, sorry, Mr. Moore, can you direct me to where you're getting the 10% open space request, or is that part of the agreement?
Speaker 13: It's not part of the agreement. It's it's just a component in the code.
Speaker 12: Which form standard are you using?
Speaker 13: You know, I don't I don't know. I'm looking at I mean, it's in the IMAX code and it's a.
Speaker 12: Maybe staff could could tell me where that is.
Speaker 14: You know, I could go ahead.
Speaker 10: So the next three, they will be allowed to build under the townhouse general and industrial building forms. So the residential will probably be under the townhouse building for.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then this is just sort of a question for both Sarah and yourself because sir, in the response to the GDB question, you said a lot of things that sort of justified, you know, recap the whole justification. And so I'm really perplexed. Yes. It doesn't say anything about GDP being required here, but in the Illyria plan, this sort of small area plan for this area, there is a tab in in this I'm going to call it up so I can have it as a reference called industrial areas, which this is clearly mapped in that plan. Correct.
Speaker 10: Yes. I mean, it's in the area. It's, in fact, doing exactly what the plan calls, which is to try to phase out the heavy industrial areas and replace them with more mixed use and residential.
Speaker 12: That's actually not what the plan calls for. If I direct you to pages 94 and 94.
Speaker 10: Let me grab my copy of the plan.
Speaker 12: There is absolutely zero reference to housing or residential as a replacement says encourage infill development to improve the quality of built environment, encourage industrial properties lying further away from the station areas and residential areas to develop into higher valley value. Employment and manufacturing facilities encourage industrial properties used for outdoor product stores to invest in vertical racking systems. And it goes on and on and on about these are job centers and industrial and near-zero reference to housing being the the appropriate re-use of these industrial areas that are mapped in this plan.
Speaker 10: Well, I just want to point out the land use map for this is industrial mixed use in the plan.
Speaker 12: But this is character area strategies, which is how this area is mapped.
Speaker 10: Sure. And if you look at the map, do you remember what page the. Here it is, page 28. If you look at the site under question, you see that map, correct? It says the future. The vision for this site is industrial mixed use. And then if you read the strategy for industrial, the description of industrial mixed use, it is exactly aligned with the I am x zone district that they're calling for. So you're right, it still allows for plenty of employment opportunities. It's not saying it only has to be residential. I Emacs is a very diverse zone category has all kinds of permitted uses. It's not saying it has to exclusively be residential, it's just adding that option.
Speaker 12: You will agree with me, will you? Won't you, that the the 2010 zone districts, which I am x three is one has had a lot of impact in I mean, it has has had a lot to do with the gentrification and displacement that has occurred in other parts of the city. Correct?
Speaker 10: I don't know enough about where we've mapped I am zoning recently.
Speaker 12: And I said 2010 zones.
Speaker 10: I don't know enough about where it was mapped in 2010 to. I'd want to overlay that with our vulnerability to displacement map. To answer that question, I don't have the data in front of me to answer that.
Speaker 12: Where I'm going, what I'm why I'm asking this question this way about the 2010 zone districts is, as you know, you could build slot homes in an IMX three zone district and that's why it has the townhouse form. Now that we addressed, you could have done it under the general building form previously. And so I'm not talking about IMX in particular, I'm actually talking about the form standards that would have allowed essentially the same things that happened in, say, Jackson Park or West Colfax could be built in an IMX three zone district prior to the Slide Home Text Amendment, correct.
Speaker 10: Yes, I'm I'm having.
Speaker 12: I have one right there at 41st and Inga. Right. There's a 26 unit development at 40 at 30/40, an anchor right next to a. Using the IMX three standard. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, it's doable. All right. No further questions. I'll come back. I do want to get back in the queue.
Speaker 0: Major Espinosa, Councilman Bruce, I've got a couple questions. I just want to go over the the configuration of the project. You know, how many how many total units of 700.
Speaker 14: And that's the estimate right now is about 700. As you can imagine, we're in a very conceptual planning stage because we don't even have the zoning yet.
Speaker 0: And so the affordable units are going to be 10% of the 70 units. So yes. And so the rest will be market unit and market rate.
Speaker 14: Not necessarily. The developer has a goal of doing some below market rate units, mixed income units, artists, live work units. And and so there's a whole some ideas about a whole variety of, of types of units and mixed income.
Speaker 0: So those types of of units are your number. Is that affordable? Is that in addition to the affordable?
Speaker 14: That would be in addition to the 70 affordable. Correct.
Speaker 0: So it would be 60%, Amma?
Speaker 14: No, it would be a potentially a whole mix of EMI, but there's some a goal of the applicant to not do, to do more than just the 70 units at 60 and then the rest at all market rate.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Is it rental or ownership? There's a mixture or.
Speaker 14: Mixture.
Speaker 0: Likely? Likely.
Speaker 14: Probably, I would imagine more rental at this time. But the some of the units are an idea is to have the me townhomes, pardon me, townhome townhouse type units. And so it's conceivable that some of those could be for sale or sale.
Speaker 0: And are you considering the pricing of your rental units versus your for sale?
Speaker 14: Not yet, no.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's coming more toward market rate?
Speaker 14: Well, I think some will be market and some will be less than market.
Speaker 0: Okay. Community service and retail, are you going to have any?
Speaker 14: Yes. Right now, we estimate about 25,000 square feet of retail. And it's a community serving in the sense that it's small spaces scattered in various spots around the site and no no big footprints of retail type. And so it will definitely serve the broader community as well as the new development here.
Speaker 0: What kind of stores you're thinking about?
Speaker 14: Probably food service a fair amount in the store.
Speaker 0: Is that a restaurant or.
Speaker 14: Probably not a grocery store just because the footprints aren't big enough? Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Okay. But it's more like a restaurant or.
Speaker 14: I would think some restaurants. And. But beyond that, again, we just. It's too early to know, Councilman.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So the community benefits agreement, what would you say? It sounds like a good neighbor agreement to some degree or maybe it's a little bit more than that. Are y'all receptive to that or what?
Speaker 14: Well, as I said earlier, when I gave the my presentation that we are absolutely open to ongoing discussions and engagement with the community. And a lot of what we heard tonight from the community I think makes good sense in our the right types of goals for all of us to be striving for. What shape that might take tonight. I don't know.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just don't know yet. Can you get the rezoning tonight? Is that was it going to require me to do this type of agreement?
Speaker 14: The reasoning itself would not know. It would be voluntary.
Speaker 0: But. But you're committed to do that?
Speaker 14: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: And the traffic study. That has to be done. Who would pay for that traffic study? The applicant. Applicant? Okay, then how would you share the results of that study with the community?
Speaker 14: Well, that would be determined through our continued dialog.
Speaker 0: And she would be sharing it to possibly.
Speaker 14: Yes.
Speaker 0: US with. Why would you not share?
Speaker 14: I can't think of a reason why not right now. But I just again, I'm I'm not going to negotiate anything this evening.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Courtney, let me ask you a question on the on the notification to residence and guess it's to the property owners. And I don't know how many ladies here are the property owners, you know, all property owners or do you rent or how do you how do you handle rental notifications in areas , you know, where you may not have as many property owners as normal? How do we make sure that all those folks are knowing what's going on?
Speaker 8: Right. So the code.
Speaker 10: Requirement of the postcards, that information is pulled from the assessor's data. And so we send them to owners of record. So that's who they address essentially that people, you know, who own the property, if the property owner doesn't live at that address and they rented out, then it would be their responsibility to inform their renters.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Sound like we're probably in a low income area. We may have a problem with that notification for sound like we need to change that maybe then development agreement. You know, we all are supporting that. I mean, you said nobody was suggesting that CPD get involved with that at all. Yeah. Are you're you're supporting that agreement?
Speaker 10: Yes. We worked together with OED and the applicant for that affordable housing agreement.
Speaker 0: What about the community benefits agreement? You're in support of it.
Speaker 10: Yes, there isn't one currently executed that we know of between the applicant and the the community.
Speaker 0: One gets developed. You can help with that. One guess developing could help with that or support that or.
Speaker 10: I mean typically that's between the community and the the the applicant that enforcement.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Courtney first let me pick up where Councilman New left off with the development agreement that was suggested by CPD to the applicant after the committee meetings. Is that what I hear that correctly?
Speaker 10: I believe that we have record of of talking and saying, you know, of, you know, suggesting entering into a voluntary agreement. And we stressed the entire time that this is a voluntary agreement. I think around the beginning of February suggesting that that might be something that they might want to consider.
Speaker 0: Mr. O'DONNELL Did did I hear you say that you got a call from CPD after the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee to come in and work on a development agreement?
Speaker 14: It was an email, but it was it was after that.
Speaker 0: It was after the. Okay, so that was about the end of February.
Speaker 14: I'll look up the exact date. Real quick. I have it.
Speaker 0: Okay. Courtney then you answered. Councilman knew by saying that the development agreement was worked out and it's signed. It's done.
Speaker 10: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Where is it? Do we have it?
Speaker 10: I have it.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, we don't. Do we.
Speaker 10: Have. Would you like a copy? Yes. It's signed and it's going through our system. Alfresco.
Speaker 0: That's not. That's what I'm saying. It's not in our record here.
Speaker 8: As an attachment.
Speaker 2: But it's not. Okay.
Speaker 10: I wasn't.
Speaker 0: There, but that was negotiated with OED.
Speaker 10: That's correct. Yep. If you want to check in, Laura, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: It's Dito now. It's not.
Speaker 4: Dito now.
Speaker 0: So I still say Denver General Hospital. So that tells you something.
Speaker 4: It's an affordable housing agreement that's been signed by the applicant and is working its way through the city signature process. So it has been approved by the office and is still working through the final stages.
Speaker 0: So the development agreement addresses only the provision of affordable housing, how many units, at what level and nothing else.
Speaker 4: It is just an affordable housing. Okay.
Speaker 0: So it doesn't address community concerns or or issues at all.
Speaker 4: Only the affordable housing agreement is there. So any anything above affordable housing commitment is not contained in the agreement.
Speaker 0: Okay. Have we done development agreements that also address concerns and issues in the neighborhoods? Fair.
Speaker 10: So I would say we we typically development agreements are between the city and the applicant. Right. So we include things that are within we feel a fair realm for the city to be asking for in negotiating. Sometimes those overlap with what the community is looking for. Sometimes they don't. Oftentimes where there's an agreement in place, there will also be a private agreement or good neighbor agreement, whatever you want to call it, that will address go well beyond what was in the development agreement to address concerns from the community.
Speaker 0: Yet you saved us three more questions then, because what I was getting at was why? Why do we have this bifurcated process where we have the development agreement with the applicant and the city, and then we ask the applicant to voluntarily talk to the community to do a demo, you or or some kind of a community benefits agreement separately from that. Have we ever done anything that just combines it all into one process? Node would then be ready for us here at the final.
Speaker 10: Not to my knowledge. The agreements that the city's city enters into are four things within our purview directly with the applicant and then the commute. There's no requirement for us to be involved or do something that would be a bigger negotiation with the community.
Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. O'Donnell, then and my screen is going haywire here, but you sent an email out after the community had asked for a delay in the in the public hearing, you sent an email out saying that there shouldn't be a need for a delay. And I don't have the direct quote here because like I said, my my screen is going weird that a delay wouldn't be necessary because by April 8th, which is today, there would have been substantial progress on not just the the agreement with the city, the development agreement, but also on a community benefits agreement or an M.O.. You with the neighborhood. So what is the status of that second item? Has there been you told us that there would be substantial progress by tonight. That doesn't sound like there was.
Speaker 14: So we contemplated an M or you with the city and that process kind of stalled out because of a preference for making certain that the agreement to build affordable units got completed. Okay. And then there had also been some discussion with the Coalition about some sort of an an M.O. you or an agreement of some type. And we pulled back from that when they started exploring a protest petition. And we just felt that it would be very difficult to negotiate in good faith and have, you know, honest discussion and dialog when faced with a protest petition, obviously trying to get the rezoning killed.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. A few more questions. Would you prefer I get back in line or move on to other for why don't we get to. Some people have asked first and maybe they'll ask some more questions for you. I doubt that. But they're welcome to try walking. To try councilman. Love it. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: Just three three questions I have. First is our our city attorney's office. There's a lot of talk of the of a CBA community benefits agreement. There's even conversation about good neighbor agreement. Is this something that lives within the zoning process or is it something that the city can be a signatory to? Where does it start and where does it end? In terms of what our authority is? I wanted to follow up with Councilman Flynn's question on whether it can be bundled in a deal like this or not. Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney. Most community backed community benefits agreements and good neighbor agreements are negotiated between the the applicants and the neighborhoods. And most of the purpose is, you know, to to garner support for whatever approval is being sought in exchange for, you know, a variety of of issues. But community benefits agreements, good neighbor agreements, do not live in the zoning code. Now, does the city or city council play a role or have a role in that process? Can they be? Signatory to community benefits agreement. It really would depend on what is in the agreement. Let's say, like you said, housing. Use of square footage, breakdown of units, affordability, things like that. So just taking this, this instance, for example, the the agreement that was agreed to by both parties dealt with affordable housing. And that's something that the city does regulate and can enforce. So oftentimes, good neighbor agreements, community benefit agreements have provisions that the city really can't enforce, doesn't have regulatory authority over. And so those things are more applicable to the negotiations that she's. You know, like I think something mentioned today was a preference for local residents to have access to the affordable housing. That's not something that's in our city codes and city regulations. I think there's more good faith marketing requirements. I'd look to Laura just to make sure I'm speaking on that. Could could a community benefits agreement on that know, Adam? Could that community benefits agreement have a provision that would give preference, local preference to residents who are in that area? It, it could, but that specific example possibly could run afoul of what is that an act of through our rules and regs for our affordable housing program? Again, I'm drawing a blank on some specific examples, but I think of things that the city really wouldn't be enforcing or have regular regulatory authority over. Okay. Thank you, Adam. Carol Costello, in your assessment as a nominee and a friend, the mercedes's better than most anticipated when you're on microphone. If you can come to the microphone. So the las cosas masa important piece and so pinion so arrested this arroyo. Baraka left Construir deposit beneficios appointed across the border on Proyecto is that people so and this kind of what this kind of development and what are the what are the priorities what are the priorities that you would see is important for you to actually support something like this. One of the things that are missing, so to speak.
Speaker 15: Bebe and us as siblings. But a lack of money that this is really the.
Speaker 7: Affordable element of the community.
Speaker 0: That would be my priority.
Speaker 15: Solamente sexy racy fondle liver bananas throw. But the most to me in this the person that stands for free. And though Bautista what I will sustain their interest in which is personal not the end in itself in their opera, but as a process, whatever.
Speaker 2: I would also ask for legal aid funds. We have a lot of people in our community who are currently struggling and are being abused by landlords and they don't have funds to be able to take care of that legally.
Speaker 7: Okay. Conor Bezos, Dennis already sent us over the border when officials announced the project. When did you guys start organizing around a community benefits agreement with this and with this or with these kind of aspects of this project?
Speaker 15: The an eco mode is the besoin in this arroyo then set into a seasonal almost to the UK lack of money. That is the installation though in this place. Other customers see this blazer was.
Speaker 0: I would say it.
Speaker 2: Has been since the beginning of the I-70 development. We had a study about how people showing how people were being displaced involuntarily.
Speaker 7: The north coast, optical states. And, you know, and obviously that battle is today. But again, as a specific, I meant that there's that there's the them.
Speaker 15: Or there's the proyecto a dinner poquito tiempo that can nosotros no center. I'm just.
Speaker 7: Wondering, based on.
Speaker 15: The American mom starts come. My son was single. Mom is working.
Speaker 2: With this project specifically.
Speaker 0: It's recent because we just found out about it.
Speaker 2: So it's been about a month.
Speaker 15: Como Mr. Smith has always seemed to be primarily on their continues.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So maybe like a month, maybe two ago that we had the meeting with them. CONAN The convalescence, not a recurrence of that, the less on infection. What we made of is what prevent? When did they notify you at this rezoning?
Speaker 15: Was I still missed the phenomenon.
Speaker 7: I've been see a month ago when they had the open house. Excuse to.
Speaker 15: Those.
Speaker 7: Guys were not.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 7: And we all participated during that time. Thank you. We're going to Bruce, can you come to the Guzman-Lopez?
Speaker 0: Do you mind? You've been a little bit over reserve. Some people have.
Speaker 7: I mean, the translation kind of counted towards that, but I think.
Speaker 0: That's you mind. We just had a lot of other people went over to one.
Speaker 7: I've been quiet this whole time. I just have one question for me, but that's fine. Come back to me, please.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. We're still there. You're hiding back behind there. Thank you. The development agreement. So it only addresses the housing piece? That's correct. Compared to what God put together for she died. That's pretty bare bones. I mean, she that talked about a single point of reference on construction. It talked about public meetings when site plans were submitted and drainage plans and so on. I'm wondering why this is just so then.
Speaker 10: I'd prefer for the applicant answer that question. I mean, on our end we wanted it to include things like open space and there was a very short amount of time and this is what they put on the table. And in a very short period of time for us to commit to, it sounds like they're open to maybe pursuing future conversations. But. Right.
Speaker 0: But first, let's talk more about what we're looking at now is a development agreement that only addresses the housing piece. So as far as Mr. Moore talked, about 20% open space. Is that part of any?
Speaker 10: Like I said, we would love to have open space to be part of a development agreement, but it's.
Speaker 0: Not.
Speaker 10: The applicant proposal that would be part of an MOU. You at the city and emoji is not enforceable. We never to my knowledge ever done and I'm on your piece. It doesn't really mean anything it's just and what they felt like they could commit to at this time and a voluntary agreement was the 70 units. And so that's what we move forward on. Right. We would love to see an agreement that included open space.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. Let's see. So just I don't know who would answer this. My understanding is that the dance company is moving it or is now in the existing building. Is there anything that requires that to stay indefinitely or that I'm not?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. We have actually been given a permanent home by Brooke and Tom Gordon in that building. Right. To be there hopefully is in perpetuity to create a performing arts center and a place for the community to be as well as wander bounds.
Speaker 0: Permanent home. Right. But that that's just a verb. Some sort of agreement between you and the developer. I'm just trying to. This might not even be appropriate for you. I guess city staff might know better. I mean, can that building go away at some point?
Speaker 8: The agreement that we have, which is verbal and but there is a lease that is a long term lease. It's 30 years and then is renewed in ten year increments.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. The community benefits they're talking about is. That's not been resolved. Bruce. To be sure I'm clear. You didn't notify GSC in your original sending out to R and O's and so on. Is that correct?
Speaker 14: That's correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then that was about a month ago where here and right. That they came into the conversation. Right. Okay. Thank you. And I guess the last thing whomever wants to answer this, the 70 units of affordable housing. So, as I understand it, 60%. 60% or less. And I think Laura might have said there's some requirement for two bedrooms. Refresh me on that, please.
Speaker 4: Sure. The agreement does state 70 units at 60% AMI or below with no less than 30% of them that are two bedrooms are larger. And those are the minimum requirements. Under the agreement, certainly the applicant can produce more affordable at deeper affordability levels, more than that as far as bedrooms. But the agreement is what is committed to without the assumption of any city subsidies.
Speaker 0: Okay. And I think that's all my. Oh, the the 10% open space is a code requirement, correct?
Speaker 10: That would be a GDP code requirement.
Speaker 0: So there's no code requirement at this point?
Speaker 10: No, there is no GDP.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clarke. Mr. Moore.
Speaker 0: I thought I was going to slip away.
Speaker 1: You had referenced earlier that you're voluntarily, since it's not in the general development plan, committing to 20% open, open space. Is that open space and a park space?
Speaker 13: No, it's not a it's not our park space. It's actually our plan right now has 35 are just being conservative, calling it 20. It's just it's a big site. Things are still moving around. So I'm reluctant to specify exactly how that's allocated. But of the 35. The intent is that we're using the nomenclature and the definitions that are in the zoning code. And so we're because it's an existing building, we're just really has creates a lot of physical constraints. And so it it it presents a lot of open space. And so we're using that in any number of ways.
Speaker 1: So you had said earlier 20%, but now you're saying 35%. What is your.
Speaker 13: I'm just I'm just illustrating because I know these I mean, this is this zoning is the beginning of the design in a lot of ways. So we really can't move forward. There's just still some things moving around. Our actual plan that we're working on right now are working. Plan has 35% of open space. So what? But as a commitment to the community, we're kind of tempering that by by calling it 20%. And I could say a large part of that is public space. There's a park, there's a plaza outside of Wonder Brown. I mean, there's a lot of different uses for that space.
Speaker 1: What is this? So if you're using 20%, if you're using 35%, I'm sure that that does not make the community feel any better, knowing that there's vagueness around how much open space they might get. What is your percentage split between park space versus detention and drainage?
Speaker 13: I don't know. The detention drainage is has only been done at conceptual level.
Speaker 1: I mean, so are you committing to you said that you are going to double the amount of open space required. It would be 1.4 acres if you're doing the 10%. You said you were going to double that. So that's 2.8 acres of open space. But you can't tell us how much is going to be park land versus how much is going to be detention or drainage.
Speaker 13: I can't delineate between those right now. I mean, I could do that math if I had the plan. And we just haven't we haven't delineated it like that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Sarah. I have some questions for you, please. You had said something earlier that, you know, in the far northeast, we're right now in the middle of our neighborhood planning initiative. And you had said something that when Councilman Espinosa was asking you questions, you said, well, the a GDP was not required as part of that neighborhood plan. Could you explain what you were meaning?
Speaker 10: Sure. If I said required, that would have been the wrong verb. It's one of the things the code says to consider when we're determining whether to acquire a GDP or not. It's not whether a neighborhood plan requires it. I don't think it's the right word. But just does the neighborhood plan call for a recommend that a GDP happen for a particular site? So if a neighborhood plan does say that, then the code says, you know, that's an important consideration.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's very helpful to know because even going through this process, that is very helpful going forward. You had also said that significant intensity would be one of the variables that would require a general development plan. I'm struggling to understand how 700 new units. Doesn't qualify as significant intensity.
Speaker 10: Yeah, no, it's a great point. I think it's change in intensity as we were thinking about it. So it's compared to what the zoning allows today versus what the requested zoning would allow. Not to imply that that's not a change or not intensity, but that it's to the extent that it's going to require significant new public infrastructure . And that's where we like I said earlier, CPD doesn't make that call on our own. We talk to the engineers, you know, given that this and to be clear, they're evaluating the zoning request, not a particular project. So the what's in front of them is the proposed IMAX three zoning and anything that could be allowed under that , including significant residential development. And is there need to have a coordinated, larger picture conversation about public infrastructure based on the rezoning request or in this case, what was determined, even though there'll be significant development, and that will probably require improvements to the site to serve the residential as well as potential traffic improvements. Those things are commonly addressed through the site development planning process and they didn't see the need, especially because there's one owner in control of the entire parcel. There wasn't concerns about not being able to get the improvements that they need.
Speaker 1: So I want to understand it. Earlier, it sounded like you were, you know, pushing it off to the applicant that that they chose not to do a general development plan.
Speaker 10: No, not to do development agreement.
Speaker 1: Or development.
Speaker 10: That included open space.
Speaker 1: So I guess where where is your staff in this equation? I guess pushing back and asking the applicant to show what they're going to do around parks and open space. You know, we've only got an agreement now that only speaks to affordable housing. It doesn't speak to the significant intensity that this development is potentially going to bring. And so I just I'm I'm confused as to why staff didn't, I guess, ask more questions or get more information, especially now, because the only requirement that we have if we approve this rezoning is around the affordable housing. We don't have anything else that we're going to be able to ask this developer to potentially do.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Yeah. So your point, we we did ask a lot of questions. We encouraged doing an agreement that would address, at a minimum, affordable housing and open space, try and address some of the community surgeons that have been coming up. We are also need to stay within the legal framework of the rezoning process and what we're what we can require an applicant to do versus what we can encourage an applicant to do. So we encourage them to consider taking longer and build time in for a more robust agreement. We were asking those questions. We were trying, but ultimately, particularly under advisement of the attorneys office, we we couldn't require anything more. So we are we were doing what we could within our legally defined role. And I think it's a great example of some of the you're pointing us to improvements that we can be looking to make this this whole rezoning. Like one of the things I wanted to note that came up earlier, I think there is a question about Nest Irene, the director of Nest, is aware of this rezoning and has been very involved responding to community concerns in particular. But an example of one of the things that's come up is that really important community groups like the majority of people are here tonight from the Jazz Coalition just because they're not a registered neighbor or an organization. They were not on the list of required bodies to be notified. And so one of the things that Irene's working on is, you know, long term blueprint Denver and some of the plans that we'll be bringing to you soon for adoption call for we need to make some changes in our process so it is more equitable in terms of how outreach happens and what the requirements are, which requires a little more work. But in the short term, Irene's looking at ways to just at least develop lists and communities, especially those that are her focus that are vulnerable to displacement, to give applicants, even though you aren't required by the code, to notify. These are those. These are other community groups that you should know about in this area and do outreach to them as well. So it's that's an example the the regulatory tools available to us right now when you have. A large rezoning like this, and some of their limitations are also an example of things they want to improve. So then that would get to some of the questions you were asking about, you know, why weren't we requiring or asking for more? There are already underway. Also coming to you soon are the whole GDP process is going to completely change? So large development review or LDR. We are hoping part of what that process does is create a better, more coordinated process at the beginning for all departments to be at the table and be clear on what what is required of a large development. And then Dido and CPD was kicking off an effort to create a more clear triggers and a regulatory way to create and enforce those triggers for large developments to provide affordable housing. So we did get the agreement for the 70 units here. I'm kind of at the last minute, but what we'd like to do in the future through that process is identify where we have large sites. Other triggers might include sites that are receiving TIFF funding, for example. Be a little clearer for everybody involved what are the triggers and what would be requirements? So do want to acknowledge that we see room for improvement and we already have ideas about what some of those improvements could be so we could see better outcomes. But for this particular process, we kind of worked within the regulatory tools available to us, which didn't give us a lot of ability to require things, but we tried to encourage and push where we could go.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Sara. I'll defer. I've got a couple other questions, but thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman each.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to begin with a couple of questions. Well. Let me clarify with Laura. I think let me start with Laura and then I'll follow up the first, if that's okay. Are the affordable housing requirements in an AHP and affordable housing plan or are they in a development agreement, which are two different tools? One is a regulatory thing that has exclusive authority to approve. The other is an agreement with the city that I'm guessing has a different set of signatures on it. So which do we have here? Because we've called it both and I'm not clear.
Speaker 4: Yeah, good question. And I will take a stab at the first answer. Adam, if you need to step in, please feel free. So an affordable housing plan is an agreement that was negotiated under the historic inclusionary housing ordinance. So we no longer create that exact same plan. This is an affordable housing agreement, which looks more like a development agreement which is signed by all of the city parties, in addition to just the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Office. So it is signed by those other agencies that would typically execute an agreement like this rather than an affordable housing plan.
Speaker 8: So is the proper term to use as you have in an affordable housing agreement, you do not have a development agreement that's covering the entire scope of the deal.
Speaker 4: We would typically have affordable housing requirements in a development agreement if there were other components to the development agreement. But it functions in the same way.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. So can you clarify what the length of affordability is in there? And I it is I just will say it's very disappointing because several of your memos referenced that it was attached and it was not in the record. So we're all flying blind without actually being able to see the agreement. I understand why you couldn't provide it, but it was referenced in in your memos. Mr. O'Donnell is an attachment. And it was it was indeed not attached to any of the memos that you sent her that you submitted to the record. So we're all making, you know, trying to catch up here 40 years. 40 years is the minimum. Okay. And when was that agreed to before or after the ordinance change going to 60 years.
Speaker 4: That was agreed to in the last several weeks as we were negotiating this. The affordable housing ordinance that changed the minimum afforded affordability period to six years was adopted in the fall. But there's no city subsidies being utilized for these units required under this agreement. If there were any city subsidies used, any applicable city requirements would also be applicable here.
Speaker 8: Did you ask for the 60 years? We did and they were refused.
Speaker 4: The 40 years. What was that was what was negotiated.
Speaker 8: Okay. And then I want to ask what the agreement says about the ability to layer subsidies. So we talked a little bit before. So if they were to pay a linkage fee, they'd be on the hook for the fee. They're going to get credit for building on site. So there's a certain period, there's a certain amount of money this developer should just be using to pay for this housing. So does the agreement contemplate how much they are just plain on the hook for regardless versus how much they're allowed to seek subsidize city, for example, and competes , frankly, with other projects that are also competing for those resources.
Speaker 4: So what the agreement states is that the provision of the 70 affordable units below 60% AMI in accordance with the agreement, waives the linkage fee on residential construction. Within this site there is still a commercial linkage fee being collected and any commercial development within the site. Certainly there's an option to build additional units instead of pay that commercial fee. But it is optional, not required as it is on the residential side. And the agreement also requires the 70 units at 60% AMI without the provision of city subsidies, it doesn't prohibit the use of city subsidies or contemplate their use.
Speaker 8: Say that last part again. I'm sorry I didn't catch it.
Speaker 4: That the agreement doesn't prohibit their ability to compete for city subsidies, but it does state that if they were to compete for city subsidies, it would be beyond what is required by the 70 units at 60%.
Speaker 8: Let me say back to you in a different way. They are not eligible for any subsidy from the city to get these 70 units at 60% of. They'd either have to go to a lower AMI, but they can seek state subsidies for them. They could take six states tax credits.
Speaker 4: It doesn't contemplate any prohibition on other financial tools to build the units other than city subsidies. Okay.
Speaker 8: And then can I just ask, was OED present at the community meetings that were held?
Speaker 4: We were. Was Melissa there? Yes. Melissa was there. Or one of our staff members was present. And where were you.
Speaker 8: When how much negotiation was occurring before versus after the community meetings? Primarily after oak and oak. This is really hard not to go into comments. I'll hold. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilwoman Sussman. Well, she had. Sorry your husband hasn't gotten in line yet, so.
Speaker 9: Excuse me, Doctor. Certainly.
Speaker 6: That's perfectly all right. Thank you all for being here. This has been a just an amazing conversation. Nola, I'd like I'd like to ask you a question if you could go. And I'm I'm going to ask you, because you had sent us a very good email about.
Speaker 4: Some of the things that the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Wanted to have in in.
Speaker 4: An agreement.
Speaker 6: And tonight, it's almost as if we can't we don't get a chance to decide what might be.
Speaker 4: In an agreement.
Speaker 6: Tonight, we are going to have to decide whether this.
Speaker 4: Stays as an industrial.
Speaker 6: Area.
Speaker 4: Or whether it becomes an industrial mixed.
Speaker 8: Use.
Speaker 6: Area. And I. I would. I'd like to know, do you think the community would like it to stay as an industrial area, or do you think the community would like it to become a mixed use area? Because if the zoning fails, they can't come back for a year to ask for the mixed use.
Speaker 8: Three storey one. They would have the.
Speaker 4: Zoning as industrial with, you know, 30 foot heights and industrial things. What what would you say that?
Speaker 6: After hearing all of.
Speaker 4: The concerns that the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Would very much like?
Speaker 10: Well, I can speak both to the recent conversations that we have and also the conversations that we had in the neighborhood planning process, because I was a part of that as well. Yes.
Speaker 4: That's why I asked you.
Speaker 8: I thought you'd be a good representative.
Speaker 10: During the neighborhood planning process. And I appreciated Councilman Espinoza's question because we really didn't talk about I am x three in the context of housing. And it's also because it was kind of a different time then.
Speaker 8: In 2014 when we weren't talking.
Speaker 10: About housing as much generally what the desire from the neighbors was to get rid of industrial uses that people don't want, in particular marijuana growing in their backyard. We since then have fought for a cap on the marijuana licenses for Larry Swanson neighborhood. So we don't have that risk anymore to have new locations of marijuana licenses at the site, for instance. But sure, most neighbors don't want heavy industrial uses right next to them. AT&T hasn't been a heavy industrial user. You know, there's cars in the parking lot, but it's not necessarily use. That was upsetting to the neighborhood. We never talked about this site in the neighborhood planning process back in 2014. Specifically as far as the AT&T site, I would say more recently, that's what's made this path so hard for us to decide.
Speaker 8: Do do we oppose this, though? We don't really want to oppose it.
Speaker 10: Because we don't necessarily want industrial uses, but we had no good pathway forward and that's why we really struggled with what do we support? You know, this supporting it with conditions was kind of the makeshift solution that we had because we didn't have another way to move forward. And we didn't we need we we would like some sort of accountability measure for the developer to say, you know, that's why we're saying, you know, before the site development plan is completed and done, if the city could require a community benefits agreement or something like that, so that we at least we know we we have more than just a word that says we're going to engage in this community benefits agreement or have some sort of accountability to that. So I don't know if I answered your question, but.
Speaker 6: Well, we we don't we don't get those choices. We are either going to pass this zoning or we are not.
Speaker 4: Which would the neighborhood prefer?
Speaker 10: Well, let me say one other thing we did when we talked in depth in the neighborhood about the 40th and race site. We did. You know, the zoning that we went for was a35, eight zoning. It wasn't just three stories. And that was because of the compromise with the added.
Speaker 8: Affordability commitment.
Speaker 10: By the Urban Land Conservancy. And so I do think that if we had time to have an in-depth conversation around what that zoning could be, we could come up with something that could be better for everyone all around in the long term. But we haven't had the time. And, you know, we asked for the postponement of the hearing to try and work some of these things out and just didn't get that time to do that.
Speaker 8: So, you know, we're looking to you.
Speaker 10: For those types of tools. Is there anything that that that.
Speaker 8: We can do in the circumstances?
Speaker 10: Because we were like, I wish I had the right answer, but we're stuck. We don't we don't know how to move forward at this point unless there are I mean, if there are conditions that you can put in. But I don't totally understand the answers to that either or what how that would change the process or.
Speaker 4: So you don't know.
Speaker 8: Which. Okay. That's all right. You did. You did a good job. Thank you very.
Speaker 4: Much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sussman. All right. We're going to start going back for a second round here. Councilman Brooks. Oh, okay.
Speaker 9: Rapid Fire, real quick. I just heard something that was different than. My original understanding, Bruce, for the the term of affordability on these units, what I understood was that the team was okay with them being. For a long time. I didn't understand that it was 40 years. So can someone. Clarify that. And the other thing I want to clarify is it seems as if the conversations that we've had before is you would exceed 70 units of affordability. You would have a range of incomes. This is in concept, and I think a lot of folks don't understand that coming to zoning, like you still have months of detail to work out. There's still a lot of things and we get that. But. It seems like the development agreement that was signed. Is what you're talking about, but you're not talking about your aspirations of what you want to do. And I'm not clear on that because I'm here in two different things. So.
Speaker 14: Yes, sir. Give me 1/2. All right. I'm going to look something up here.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 14: Okay. So it's correct that the agreement to build affordable units that we've executed is for 40 years. And and that's where we got in working with CPD and Dito.
Speaker 9: Okay. Is that the are you just doing that as the limit? Limited agreement. Do you do you have a desire to have a longer term of affordability? Do you have desire to have a rate or more affordable housing than 70 units?
Speaker 14: Yes. So I was trying to explain this earlier. I think when Councilman Nu asked a couple of questions, I must not have done a very good job. We aspire to have many more than these 70 units be at various levels of affordability. These 7070s are locked in contract. This 70 pardon me is locked in contractually. Yeah. And as I was explaining earlier, we were looking at live work studios for artists. We've had discussions about below market rate units that could be marketed to teachers at the Bruce Randolph School and librarians and all that type of kind of workforce housing at below market.
Speaker 9: So could.
Speaker 0: Could.
Speaker 9: Potentially could this reach 20% of affordability.
Speaker 14: I don't know today.
Speaker 9: Okay. So let's I think it's important to cut to the chase. There's nothing, you know, obviously, because we're under a quasi judicial state here and there are legal issues. We can't force you to sign an agreement. We can't force you to postpone. Right. But obviously, there's a there's a gap and there's some issues that council is trying to address with the neighborhood. My question is it it seems like and I've been writing the issues that have been with the community. I've been writing what I've heard from you all for the last month. And it seems like you're not far apart on issues, on targeting neighbors who have been displaced and marketing to them to be to have a first refusal on on folks at Bruce Randolph school and teachers to allow them to have the first right refusal, making sure that there are businesses that the community desires that are in the location, you know, making sure that there are a range of incomes that even dip down to 50% or whatever, you know, that kind of conversation making sure and we've done this with other developments, making sure that there's a community group that has a say in the development process or is informed about traffic studies. Can you agree to those ideas conceptually? So that I think council can really feel like the public safety and welfare of our criteria is met?
Speaker 14: Yes, absolutely. And so I think what we can agree to is to engage with the community, the gas coalition and others that may be appropriate in enter into some sort of a community benefits agreement or an M.O. you and that addresses the tonight's entire discussion, really. And I think that what we would look to in an agreement like this would be procedural things that or sections or topics that are in allow the community to encourage their participation in all of these types of solutions in their ongoing involvement.
Speaker 9: Okay. Okay. I'll come back. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I appreciate all the questions that have been asked and the input that we've received from everyone. So let me just look at what has not yet been asked. So was there ever any mediation that was done between the developer and the community? This is very common when we have sort of this conflict or where things have not yet been worked out. Is that something that occurred and is that a role that our Nest office played in this process? Because typically we wouldn't have something coming forward that was still sort of at odds between the community and the developer. So I don't know who could answer that question. Maybe somebody from the plant.
Speaker 10: Maybe I can start with the first part and you can add on if you'd like. Mediation was offered to the applicant and the community. The applicant declined the mediation in favor of other forms of engagement. If you'd like to speak more, Bruce, about how your engagement and mediation went.
Speaker 11: So, Bruce, come on up for a second. So when was mediation offered and why was it declined?
Speaker 14: So like much of everything we're discussing tonight, it came up very late and it was primarily not appealing to us because as I said earlier tonight and has come up a few times, our interests are actually very aligned, we think, with much of the community's view of this. And we're agreeing to the 70 units of affordable that we've now signed the contract for. The other things have come up, the open space, the wonder about all those kind of things and that that that in effect was our offer and that.
Speaker 11: So but but let me let me make sure I understand this correctly, because what I was hearing was there was really one meeting with the neighborhood. And that one meeting happened after the bill request went to the zoning committee, the land use committee, is that correct?
Speaker 14: Well, I'm not sure, Councilman, which meeting you were referring to. We had a large community open house. We met with the GSS coalition. We met with Clinton United. We met with United North. And so well.
Speaker 11: I guess is the Swansea a neighborhood is it's within their statistical boundaries of their neighborhood and and typically you know. It's it's important that the notices go out. But when you are dealing with communities that have language barriers and where. There is a requirement to sit down and walk through the details of what is going on. It's it's not incumbent upon you to do a phone call and to to request a separate meeting, but. I think these are some of the kinds of things that we should be talking about with the planning department, about changes that need to be made to the process so that there is a far more robust kind of effort and engagement so that we don't find ourselves here in this kind of situation because those steps didn't take place. And and I hear that you reached out. You did meet with some people, but you met with some of the neighborhoods who are adjacent, but not the geese, the Swansea community. And and I think that's why you have so many people here tonight and why that concern is, is being expressed about just trying to work through some of these details. And I hear you loud and clear about the commitments that have been made, but the only thing we have in writing will be in the development agreement, which we don't to have.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, I just wanna make sure this is restrained a little bit into comments which we'll get to. You want to make sure that we're sticking to questions I.
Speaker 11: Want to get to. So I asked about the mediation. The Sarah talked a little bit about an overlay with vulnerability displacement map. And I want to know. Specifically. What that is. Is that something that's done by our Environmental Health Office? And was that something that was looked at? Is part of this process? I mean, the whole reason we now have a nest office is to look at situations like this in neighborhoods that are being impacted by various types of issues. And this neighborhood out of all neighborhoods in our entire city and I just pulled up a map a few minutes ago that has at least seven. And let me see if I could just find it real quick. Streets that are closed, so access points getting in and out of the neighborhood. The building may have been posted, but I just drove through the area today and literally had to go all the way around from Colorado Boulevard because you can't go through on 40th Avenue. So I'm not sure how many people are actually even seeing the notification being posted on the property. So help me understand what the overlay with vulnerability displacement map is and how something like that could have, should have, would have been used in this kind of situation.
Speaker 10: Sure. Well, the map I was referring to is actually originally created by the president, say economic development, Dito. It's in Blueprint Denver. You've seen it several times now and we've done briefings with you. It's a yellow map and it shows the neighborhoods in Denver most vulnerable to displacement. And as you very correctly noted, this neighborhood is one of the most vulnerable. I was referring to that map because Councilman Espinosa asked me, would I confirm that I am zoning has contributed to displacement and gentrification. And I was saying, oh, that's an interesting question. I don't have the data in front of me. One of the things I'd want to look at to answer that question is where is there an intersection or overlay between I am zoning and areas vulnerable to displacement? I don't know. That's why I was referring to that map in the future after we adopt the proposed blueprint. Denver The plan does call for looking for ways, particularly through large rezonings, to use all three equity maps. So one is vulnerability to displacement, but there's also one about housing and jobs diversity and one about access to opportunity, which is the Public Health Department's equity index to consider those maps as we look at large rezonings. So I think in the future, there's a possibility that we might be able to use efforts like this to talk about how to get better tools in place as part of rezonings or other efforts to address concerns in areas vulnerable to displacement. But that was not part of the the process now, because it's not part of our criteria now.
Speaker 11: So I guess you can't answer this, but then. If we're not. Addressing these as part of zoning, which is a huge part of what impacts neighborhoods. I'm not clear then what Nest is actually doing in in terms of its role in these various neighborhoods across the city. Are vulnerable communities across the city that are being affected by gentrification and displacement. So that's that's not for you to have to answer. I think that's something that we can try to clarify with the administration and the office of Nest. Bruce, one last question for you. So I may be prejudicing my vote here tonight. But when I learned about sort of the disconnect, I reached out to you and said, Will you please meet with GM so you guys can work this out? I wasn't advocating for anything in particular other than to say, I think you guys need to sit down and work through the issues that still need to be talked through. It sounds like the the breakdown happened when you all learned there was an inquiry about the the legal protest process. So it's my understanding a legal protest was never filed. Otherwise we would have that here tonight in front of us. But I am concerned that we're still sort of at this this disconnect between trying to ensure, as we would do in any neighborhood across this city where we have not seen, you know, some of these issues worked out, we would ask that mediation absolutely be incorporated into the process. So I just want to ask about the issue of postponement and. You know, as. Councilwoman Sussman said. We could either, you know, vote this up or vote it down, or we could postpone it in attempts to try to work through and be able to put in writing some of the things that you've talked about, and I don't know what else the neighborhood is asking for, but I think at a minimum, again, the only thing we have is the development agreement on the housing, and that was negotiated between you and the city. You meaning the developer and the city. So I just want to ask about and I don't know how much time would be needed if we looked at a postponement to try to work through some of these issues. It sounds like there's, you know, some consensus on what some of these issues are. But I just wanted to ask what what would be a reasonable amount of time to address these issues between you all and the community?
Speaker 14: So we cannot postpone and therefore request an up or down vote tonight.
Speaker 11: And so you would be willing to take the chance that you'd have to wait a whole year or you would just walk away from the project altogether?
Speaker 14: Well, there's there's no walking away from it because it's owned by the applicant. And who would proceed with development under a zoning.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 11: That that clarifies kind of where you're at. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Councilman Ortega sort of took the. The wind out of my sails. That's essentially the question I was going to ask, because it seems pretty clear to me if I read the let me just read it recommendation one in the global meaning the lyrics sponsorship plan plan item B five is improve transition between industrial and residential uses to improve compatibility between residential and more intensive industrial areas. Development between these uses shall be should be consistent with the industrial mixed use land use designation. This is on page 29. So just page after I was in, it's a.
Speaker 1: C, E, three.
Speaker 12: E8 and E 22. And that is where you find the language that is consistent with Nola's portrayal, which is that housing was only tangentially referenced here. So my question I'm going to ask the question still again, even though you were really clear, so I'm very confused by everything that has been said tonight by your design team in particular, right? Because the current zoning has a 22.0 IFR. Sara just explained it correctly, which is you can build nearly the entire lot two stores. If you want to build a three storey house structure, then it's going to be 66% of the total site, meaning 33% of the site would be open space or parking or whatever. You're now telling me that you're you're contemplating up to 35% of the site being open space, you know, but you're only going to agree to 20%, but you're not going to put that in writing. So what it seems fairly clear to me then is if you're if your form is, for all intents and purposes, consistent with the EIA. F.A. The whole reason for this rezoning is to build 630 market rate housing units where there's very little plan support. And so I think probably I'm putting words in the CPD's mouth that probably why they encourage you to have this conversation with the community is to address this discrepancy and to figure out a way to actually help you guys get to the outcome you're wanting. But by working with the community so you're not the client, but is your client at all amenable with working with this neighborhood for, say, 60 or 90 days so that we can see if this outcome can be achieved?
Speaker 14: So the a couple of things in response, Councilman. The are conceptual designs so that switching from idea to IMX is about a 300,000 square foot loss in development potential building failure. And so it's a down zoning in effect by limiting the site to the three stories. And we I agree that some of the discussion tonight was confusing on the open space. Right now, our development program conceptual 35% open space. But we're confident that 20 of that would meet the city's requirements for publicly accessible open space. And so that's why the two numbers are floating around. The as I stated earlier, yes, we are absolutely willing to and will commit tonight to continue to engage and work with the community on all these variety of issues. But that would have to be post rezoning if in fact, the rezoning is approved tonight, and if not, we'll live with it.
Speaker 12: So I just want to correct the record because what Sarah was describing was AIA zoning, which only allows those industrial uses and use table it. So I'm going to compare apples and apples IMX 3ia has a 20 foot primary street set back and a ten foot side street setback. IMX three has a zero setback and you can cover that entire site to 32 to 3 stories. So so if you're using your townhouse form, I get how you could end up with an open space requirement. But if you're using industrial, if you do the industrial uses, which this plan supports and encourages for jobs, you can actually develop more intensely than what you're describing. Is that true?
Speaker 14: So I'm I'm sure that may be true. Our plan yields what I've described to you as.
Speaker 12: Doing a rezoning. That's true. A rezoning that allows this sort of intensity of development.
Speaker 14: So you're right, we're we're caught up in a plan when the only criteria for the rezoning are the five, including compliance with the plan. And it says I am x three.
Speaker 12: And so what I'm actually saying is it says industrial makes you use and then it describes what they mean by industrial mixed use, which was exactly as as NOLA had conveyed to Councilwoman Sussman. I'm telling you right now that I don't know how you got this far, because the plan does not seem to support 700 housing units on this property.
Speaker 0: Councilman, you might receive some of that for comments. Yes. You have some more questions. Councilman? Yeah. Thanks a lot. Just a couple questions. In several rezonings we've had. Boy, you're a tough negotiator, and it seems like we're negotiating more, a lot more than 10% affordable units. Wow. How do we settle on 10% when we probably could have gotten more?
Speaker 4: So this site has 70 units, which we have some agreements that have between ten and 15%. But these are all below 60% AMI and have no city subsidies being used for them.
Speaker 0: Was there any negotiation about trying to do less than 60%? You know, the a separate building on the side or some of the things we've been talking about with flexibility.
Speaker 4: There was an attempt to negotiate a lower affordability level. That is a minimum. Certainly there's more that could be done above that minimum. And I think there's a commitment tonight to continue the conversation about what additional affordable housing may be at the site.
Speaker 0: Okay. What about displacement tools we've seen like we've talked about displacement tools. Were any of those talked about and discussed with the community or or do we have any displacement tools?
Speaker 4: So I think it might have been Sarah, who addressed earlier that the development agreement has to contain what we can enforce as a requirement of the developer. So we do have other tools related to displacement where other partner organizations may be involved, but that's not something that we can enforce with the applicant.
Speaker 0: Nothing that would apply to this situation.
Speaker 4: I think there are some ideas that there's.
Speaker 0: Rezoning.
Speaker 4: There. There are some ideas that have been proposed tonight and as part of the discussions that we would continue to support the dialog around. But the Affordable Housing Agreement just addresses the specific unit requirements.
Speaker 0: GREGORY Thank you. Bruce, one one last quick question. I know we're going along here. We had a rezoning a year or so back on Colorado Boulevard, where we had a lot of community unrest, you know, and that that rezoning was a nine. They came back with a really good project because it reached agreement with the neighborhood. And I just want to say, I hope you will consider a postponement to reach some kind of agreement and not, you know, risk a denial of a rezoning. But here's something I think what I've heard tonight, it would be great to have that kind of conversation, and I hope you'll consider it. Thank you.
Speaker 14: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I think Councilman new councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Courtney, I had a couple questions on the criteria and the staff's analysis of it justifying circumstances. I understand since since the date of the approval of the Zone District 2010, there's been a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest. Can you explain to me how the staff analyzed the opening of the East Side Human Services Center like seven or eight blocks away as something that justifies this rezoning? And then also the opening of the aligned stations, which this this particular site happens to be exactly, I think midpoint between 38th and Blake and 40th and Colorado stations , both of which are just slightly over one mile away. Mm hmm. So how does that. Justify this reasoning.
Speaker 10: So that fourth criterion justifying circumstances has sub criterion, a change or changing conditions in a particular area or the city generally or so a particular area or city in general. We're looking at area things in the area change and there's investment and that may, you know, because the there's so much change in the area that may necessitate a different zone district that would better reflect the change in that area because of the different things that we talked about. So the 40th and Colorado station 38th and Blake, these are all things that we look at for justifying circumstances is very standard practice with rezonings in terms of like justifying circumstances and that being a suitable criteria
Speaker 0: . Okay. That particularly when you say changing conditions in the city generally, that that's that's sort of so murky that you can almost justify any any request.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then and I understand adoption of the early response to a neighborhood plan that is obviously a a changed condition. And then on criteria three, further public health, safety and welfare. The analysis that's described here seems to be just a repetition of criteria, one which is consistency with adopted plans. And I'm wondering if we're getting we're killing two birds with one stone here. This application furthers the public health, safety and welfare because it implements adopted plans and encourages adaptive reuse. That's exactly the same analysis that was in criteria one, are we not, you know? Killing two birds with one stone.
Speaker 10: Here it does. So it's a little bit different. We go on to say, too, that not only through the implementation of adopted plans that would further the public health, safety and welfare, also it through encouraging adaptive reuse and infill redevelopment of an underutilized site, can help encourage the public health, safety and welfare in encouraging a mix of uses.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think we've heard some testimony from the community that they're concerned that this actually imperils the their safety, health and welfare. Was that taken into account in any way? By staff.
Speaker 10: By. I think we definitely did hear, you know, that there were many concerns related to this rezoning in terms of the the criteria, in evaluating the criteria. There are things looked at and we did find that encouraging the adaptive reuse and infill and the implementation of adaptive plans didn't meet the review criteria for that third one with the public health, safety and welfare.
Speaker 0: All right. Mr. O'Donnell, just one more question. And Councilman Espinosa was asking something that I wanted to get to after you had said that you would prefer an up or down vote you would develop under AIA if if you didn't get the rezoning, i.e. doesn't allow residential. And so what would you have in mind?
Speaker 14: So that's correct. I.e. does not allow residential, right. And what I'm about to explain to you is I the first to admit is anecdotal, but since our client is on this property, the industrial brokers and developers have been beating the door down to get to this site in order to do industrial warehouse distribution manufacturing type uses. The client would rather have a 30 year rent free lease with one bound commit to affordable housing. We actually think that the introduction of residential uses here and the commitment to affordable helps mitigate displacement. And all of these things are valuable to the client. But the industrial is economically actually more appealing. If you if all you looked at was financial returns. And so I would be a green light tomorrow.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. That's Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman McKinney.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to start with asking Kirsten Crawford, our Legislative Council, a question. There seems to be a discussion about whether the applicant is going to consent to a postponement, but it is within the authority of this council to motion for a postponement and vote on it, regardless of the wishes of the applicant . Yes. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel And that's correct. You guys could postpone to a date certain, and if we did so, it would be we should be basing it on something in the rec. We should be leaving the record open. Talk to me about the criteria by which we should be considering why we would be doing that if there was, for example, a criteria that was missing or incomplete or. Well, that's right.
Speaker 10: I mean.
Speaker 8: If council moves to postpone the hearing, the hearing would remain open. But the criteria is still going to be the same as it is presented today by staff. Right. But for example, would it be a legally permissible reason to move for a postponement if you felt the record was incomplete or unclear and you wanted to give folks time to submit additional material related to a criteria, it, might that be a legally appropriate reason to move for a postponement? Yes, I think that's appropriate. Okay. So I'd like to check in because I've been cross-referencing some of the plans we have and I want to focus on the criteria about plan conformance. So I've stated the fact that I have no. One of the key plan components is that expanding access to affordable housing and I have no written record submitted for this hearing related to the affordable housing agreement. I've, you know, happy to hear updates from folks. But you notice each time we ask a question, we learn something different. For example, I don't have any information about what happens if they build fewer units than expected, or maybe they build 900 units than does the number of housing units go up. So I just can can anyone clarify for me? Just to make sure that I'm not mistaken, that there's nowhere in this record that I have a written record of this affordable housing commitment that has been described. I've looked through every page I can open on granicus and I see not that it that I do not see that it was submitted. So I want to clarify that if you do not believe you submitted something to Granicus that didn't get uploaded, for example.
Speaker 14: Until I. Apologize that if you don't have this file, I would be happy to submit. For the record this evening my copy of the agreement to build affordable units that has been signed by our client and Notarized.
Speaker 8: Well, we're, you know, 1015 here. So I want to ask the staff, maybe, Courtney, if you can answer. There's there are numerous mentions to displacement. There's also mentions to implementing health impact assessments in the plan. The plan calls for that. It says when there's development, we should be impact in implementing health impact assessments and we should be looking to anti displacement. Are you aware of anywhere in the record where those items are addressed for plan conformance? So as I look to see whether this proposal conforms to the plan, whether there's anything in there related to those two pieces specifically that you're aware of that you submitted or reviewed in your staff analysis?
Speaker 10: No, there is not. We just talk about the land use recommendations of the plan and how this is meeting the specific land use recommendations of IMAX three.
Speaker 8: But if I was a decision maker, we're looking for conformance with all aspects of the plan and not just that one map. There's no nothing that you know of in the in the record. So the record is is absent. It doesn't mean it doesn't meet it, but there's nothing in the record that demonstrates how it meets it. No. Okay. To either the developer's representative or any of the tenants in the room. Is there any planned or current request that has been made, whether it is informal or has formally been submitted for any subsidies for this site whereby this project might be coming through this Council again in the future?
Speaker 14: No.
Speaker 8: So no, no request for subsidies has been discussed with you or any tenant and the city and county of Denver at this time for any aspect of this project.
Speaker 14: No, not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 8: Okay. And does any tenant want to discuss anything differently? Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Mm hmm. Excuse me. I still have a few questions. One of them talked about. So in. In the plan. And maybe this is for you, sir. But in the plan, it talked about any kind of development that kind of takes in that surrounding kind of diverse city reflects it. And any kind of new development, have there been any any renderings, anything that anything visual has been produced through all this process? In terms of like height, what buildings look like, some of the things that are required in the zoning and I've seen a lot of rezoning has come here and we've asked those kind of questions we can't consider. But yeah, been out there.
Speaker 10: Since it's not technically part of the consideration criteria we haven't asked for that required it, but I, I don't know if the applicant. I know. Do you have any 3D renderings or anything.
Speaker 7: So I'm very curious about that. And then the other to you know, there's regarding the train safety and.
Speaker 14: Yes, so I've we do have some conceptual renderings and I've shared them in emails with counsel. One of them shows the extensions and the connections of it's a it's a concept site plan and it shows about 30 what we think we would classify as a 35% open space. It shows the 41st and 42nd Avenues where they enter the site. It shows how the buildings on the west half of the site are adaptively, reused and repurposed to accommodate redevelopment and in a home for wander around all those kind of things.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 14: You know.
Speaker 7: Let me ask about train safety. Still a train track? Yeah, there's still train tracks running through there with heavy rail. What's being done to buffer that? Are you taking that into consideration with that box in terms of any kind of buffers or even noise reduction and things like that from what some of the proposed development.
Speaker 14: Bill might be able to answer this better than I can. I think there's in the building designs, there's things like windows and special siding and insulation and so forth for sound. There is a at grade crossing obviously at Clayton. Yeah, this site is almost exactly a third of a mile from the two stations for forties in Colorado and and also 38 in Blake. But that's the extent of my what I could speak to this evening on anything to do with regard to the train.
Speaker 7: At any point in the property, maybe you sir, if I could ask you, is there any what's the closest point of the property to the nearest. Train track.
Speaker 11: Let's.
Speaker 13: I'm not sure the exact distance, but it it estimate it curves around the track and it's light rail is the closest to the property and it's probably 30 or 40 feet to the property line. But I, I'm totally guessing based on the surveys.
Speaker 7: Let me ask one of the. Sara, somebody from CPD. How close can we get legally to a train tracks of that magnitude? For development. Oh, can you. Can you hear me? I'm sorry.
Speaker 10: Did you ask how close?
Speaker 7: How close can you legally?
Speaker 10: Oh, my daughter.
Speaker 7: Well, I.
Speaker 10: Mean, so in the zoning, there aren't there aren't additional requirements that relate to the proximity to the rail. So it be whatever the required setback is right there, you.
Speaker 6: Know what the setback is to look it up.
Speaker 10: So we can look and see what the zoning requirement is. But there's when they go through site development review, thanks in part to Councilman Ortega, there's now a process for any properties that are close to a rail line to go through extra review. It may not often, I don't think it results in necessarily a larger setback than the rezoning or though it might can also include other things that get at safety and noise. So the proper windows and things like that.
Speaker 7: The reason I ask is. Because I mean, it's a it's a it's a potential hazard. It's it's an emergency. It's an emergency management question. And it's definitely not the EL and Chicago. I mean, yeah, I think who's around it rattles everything around it. But you live next to the ah. You chose to live there. Right. So it's a little different. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 11: Who's your mike? We can't hear you.
Speaker 4: I had actually withdrawn my request, but since it didn't go away, I'm just really curious about Councilwoman Sussman question, too, you know, about what the community would prefer, because this is a very difficult decision we're making tonight and. I feel like the applicant is. Going to build something that the community might like that includes affordable housing, or they might have an industrial warehouse there. So.
Speaker 0: Hey.
Speaker 6: Do you have any more thoughts on that?
Speaker 10: If they know.
Speaker 0: You're going to have to come up to the microphone.
Speaker 10: They're asking if if, if they don't do IMAX 3D. And we did we came up with a different zoning code together. Could that. But they can can they and at the same they can't apply for a different. Proposal. It was a different proposal. Could they apply for.
Speaker 4: You mean could they if you if they didn't if this didn't pass tonight, could the applicant come back and apply for a difference? Yeah, I believe that happens.
Speaker 10: Within before the year.
Speaker 6: But there's.
Speaker 9: Can I?
Speaker 4: Can I? There would have to be plans for.
Speaker 0: Councilman or councilman. Councilman Brooks, did you have something to add to this?
Speaker 9: You just call me Espinosa.
Speaker 0: He was standing up. I apologize that the hours late.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 9: Bruce. First you want to come up to the what if what if we. You know it it again. We can't force you to do anything. But if there was a group of these folks in the DC Coalition with some of the neighbors who are here who testified to do a month delay. And to agree on these kind of components that we conceptually agree on, but to get them down and to come up with a benefits agreement that everybody could feel like conceptually was the right direction.
Speaker 14: We we could probably do up to one month. Okay. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Yep. And, Nola, can you can you come to the micro quick? Nola, would you be open to. Obviously, we've worked together. You have great leaders in your group and also some of the folks who live adjacent to the property that it sound like there. I'm forgetting your name, sir. In the back. Yeah. No. In that. Yes. At this gym. Yeah. He has some some folks, some neighbors. And maybe that could be a group that comes together to conceptually come up with an agreement.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 10: A real assigned agreement. A real agreement.
Speaker 9: A community benefits agreement that everybody can be like, yes, this is this is this is meeting halfway or.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, a month is rough, but. That's all we can get.
Speaker 9: Okay. Can can I. Bruce, one of the things you didn't talk about is why you all have not done a delay. And I think. I think it's important. You know, to talk about finances is I mean, that's what you told me as to one of the reasons. And so is there a financial issue?
Speaker 14: Well, I think that, yes, there's this property is very expensive to hold vacant, largely vacant, while also spending a lot of money on pre-development and planning and design and zoning and those types of things. And it it's.
Speaker 9: Can you give us an idea of how much architectural plans, things like that, a mortgage on 14 acres would cost?
Speaker 14: So right now, the what we would kind of call the monthly nut or the monthly burn is about $150,000 a month on the the mortgage and in consultant fees and that type of thing.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black. You started that line of questioning. Are you good? Yeah. Okay. And Councilman Espinosa, you're still on screen. Do you still need in or are you good?
Speaker 12: Yeah, it's just sort of elaboration on the question here. So I looked at the plan that you said you sent to us. So is this that document?
Speaker 14: Yes, it looks familiar.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Okay. This is interesting to me, right? Because. This is one of those situations where, again, and we've been down this road sort of both in our personal lives prior to our time in council, which is this depicts something that I think could largely be supported by people. But we agree. But the zoning allows this and a whole lot of other things. Do you agree on that? Yes. And so this is but I do see a lot of things here that could, in fact, be codified if you've talked about the plaza. The community might say, well, we want to make sure that a portion or all of that plaza and I can see it here, is publicly accessible because right now it's very introverted and it's not clear in this plan if it would be or not. And so that could be codified. You know, there has been talk about the wonder ban people, and it sounds like it's going to be a real community asset. You could ascribe a minimum percentage of square footage that would be dedicated to that sort of function and codify that as well. And so there's a lot that you've already done that I think could get to the point where there's some sort of there's something written and documented that would would would give us some assurance that the things that you're talking about that address many of the concerns that I have with regard to plans could be captured. So but you've already made it very clear that you're not interested. You want an up or down vote. And yeah, it would cost $150,000 a month. But if this council.
Speaker 0: Chose to have a question and we're still in questions.
Speaker 12: Yeah. If this council chose to make a motion of a defined amount of time, would you utilize that time to maybe try to to do the things that I'm talking about, which is to give us some certainty that the outcome that you're depicting would. Yes. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. So, Councilman Brooks, before we close this hearing, it sounds like we may have, you know, an applicant who is willing to delay and a community that is eager for a delay. Would you like to make a motion before I close the hearing?
Speaker 9: Yes. I want to add one more thing to this, is that we get a neutral mediator to put together a community benefits agreement. And, you know, being someone who's worked with the GSA coalition many times just past the rezoning, worked with the applicant, this is much closer than. Kind of this hearing alluded to. I believe we're really close to an agreement. And so. I got to ask my lawyer what cursor, what motion. I move that we move this hearing to postpone this hearing to May 6th time. And I'm looking at the secretary I'm looking at the president to make sure that May six we have a public hearing available.
Speaker 6: I mean, that's that's fine. You want to postpone final consideration with its public hearing?
Speaker 9: Yeah, we want to postpone final consideration with this public hearing to May 6th of counsel Bill 127.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, does that pass muster?
Speaker 6: Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: All right. We have the motion in there. Can I get a second? All right. Question Time. Oh. Councilman Ortega, do you have a question about the motion on the floor? Yes, I do. Sorry. Kirsten, do you have clarification about the motion on the floor and then you go first?
Speaker 8: So. Kirsten covered Legislative Council just to make clear the motion will postpone the final vote to a date certain, but it will continue the hearing as well. So the hearing will remain open.
Speaker 0: Yes, correct. I haven't closed the hearing yet. So. Okay. That is what's on the floor. Councilman Ortega, do you have a question about the motion?
Speaker 11: I just wanted to make a request that we include the NEST office in that conversation.
Speaker 0: All right. Noted. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Councilman Espinosa, do you have a question about the motion on the floor?
Speaker 12: I just want to confirm what I believe we already know, but let's just get it on the record that since we're extending this public hearing, if the council adopts a new blueprint, Denver and Cobb plan that we are doing it under these current zone, you know, adopted plans.
Speaker 9: We have.
Speaker 7: Confirmed with our.
Speaker 9: Legal team.
Speaker 0: Somebody should play the Jeopardy! Music while we wait.
Speaker 8: So, Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council, the the applicant has voluntarily agreed to the delay. And so the terms and conditions would and the criteria are going to be the same. So it's under the same set of plans.
Speaker 0: All right. Okay. We've got all the questions answered. We have a motion on the floor. It has been seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on the motion on the floor.
Speaker 6: Hmm. Black. Hi. Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 6: Gilmore. Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 hours 12 IES Council Bill 19 20127. And it's still open. Public hearing will be postponed till.
Speaker 6: May.
Speaker 0: Six. Till May six. Thank you all for all of your time staying here so late in those super comfortable seats. Quick announcement on Monday, April 15, 2019. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 19 0349.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 E. 40th Avenue in Elyria Swansea.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 and I-A to I-MX-3 (light industrial to industrial, mixed-use), located at 2535 E. 40th Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-26-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03262019_19-0263
|
Speaker 0: , right on the corner on the district seven side of federal. And it was really cool to see this finally moving forward. So thank you for that. All right. So no other announcements. We're going to move on to presentations. There are no presentations. There are also no communications. But we do have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Sussman, will you please read Proclamation 263?
Speaker 5: I will, Mr. President. Thank you. It is my great honor to read proclamation number 0263 honoring Denver Police Detective Gail Radel for Women's History Month. Whereas the Denver Police Department is celebrating the 160th anniversary of its founding in 1859. And. Whereas, women have played a very important role throughout the history of the department first serving as matrons, managing and running the jail in the 1920s as inspectors of theaters, leading law enforcement efforts against sex trafficking. And in the late 1960s, joining their male counterparts on the streets of Denver fighting crime. And. Whereas, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter, through executive order, declared March of each year as Women's History Month. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum have chosen March 2019 to honor the life and service of late Detective Gayle Riddell. And. Whereas, Gayle was born in 1946 to Mary Margaret in Salem, Oregon, and later adopted by Robert Riddell. And. WHEREAS, Patrolman Riddell joined the Denver Police Department in 1969, at the age of 23, after getting into a fiery debate with a male friend who insisted that women could not succeed as police officers. What did he know? And. Whereas, Officer Adele brought her full dedication to work every day and persevered in a role without precedence serving in the Patrol Division Communications Bureau. Burglary. Theft. Shoplifting. Units of criminal investigation. And. Whereas, in 1976, she was promoted to detective due to her strong work ethic, immense attention to detail, and her uncanny ability to engage people inside and outside policing. Stating that a police officer must be a composite professional, including social worker, humanitarian and teacher. And. WHEREAS, in 1990, Detective Riddell was named Colorado Policeman of the Place Woman of the Year. Whereas Gayle, in her personal life adopted her daughter Molly, serving as a single mother, community leader and Denver police officer, all with distinction. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Section one, the Council hereby recognizes and honors the life and surface of the late detective Gail Riddell and her service to the citizens of the city and county of Denver. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affects the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be delivered to the family of Detective Riddell and the Denver Police Department.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move that we adopt proclamation number 20263.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Are there comments by members of council? Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: I am so honored to be able to do this. I got to got been able to do this for several years in a row now and especially doing it on Women's History Month, honoring our one of our wonderful policewomen. Of course, all of our police department are people that we treasure and thank for keeping us safe. There's a lot of you here. How about all of those who are representing the police department? Please take a stand so we can see you and cheer for you. I'm always so heartened by how many folks come today, including our chief, Paul Payson. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to honor this special woman in the way that we have. And I urge my fellow council persons to vote for this proclamation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, and thank you so much for bringing this forward. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Baby Sussman.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 2: Black. I. Espinosa. I Gilmore.
Speaker 6: I Herndon. I.
Speaker 2: Cashmere. I can each i. Lopez.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 7: New Ortega. Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1111 are proclamation to 63 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes allotted for proclamation acceptance. Councilwoman Susman, is there someone you'd like to call up to accept?
Speaker 5: Yes. I'd like to call up Molly Rydell, the daughter of the woman that we are honoring. And I think Deputy Chief Barbara Archer was also going to come up. So please come up to the microphone.
Speaker 2: I know my mom would be really honored if she were here, even though she wasn't a big attention person. So I'm really glad that you wanted to do this and really honored. So I'm excited to accept this.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I'd also just want to say thank you again for the opportunity to recognize Women's History Month and the impact women have had on the Denver Police Department, and specifically the life and service of Detective Gail Riddell. She was a trailblazer for other women in the department. She paved the path for future generations that included opportunities for myself. There's a lot of retired police women here tonight who I'm proud to call friends and family. So as you heard that Gayle joined the police department in 1969 on a kind of a dare or a bet that women couldn't succeed in police work. And, well, he was clearly wrong. I've got a lot of colleagues here to prove that she continued to prove him wrong throughout her 30 year career with the police department when she made detective. Her area specialty became shoplifting, and she was really known for her strong work ethic. And like you heard, she could bring people together and talk to people from any walk of life and make them kind of find common ground. So with that, she took the initiative to create a network of retailers to address the increasing problem of shoplifting. And this was back in the mid eighties when it was really a new emerging problem. And she brought retailers together, combining information from law enforcement and from businesses, this information sharing. We were successful in identifying serial shoplifters and establishing prevention models that are still in existence today. So I just want to say thank you for taking the time to honor the service of Detective Gail Riddell. Thank you very much.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring the life and service of the late Denver Police Detective Gail S. Riddell.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03262019_19-0137
|
Speaker 0: Did I miss anything? All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item up on our screens, which is 137. So this is a bill to repeal the sales tax on feminine hygiene products in the city and county of Denver. And it's not called up for a vote today because it's going to be a unanimous repeal of that tax. So I just wanted to call it out real quick to make a few comments to thank a few people. First of all, my co-sponsors, Councilwoman Black and Councilwoman Sussman, looking very dapper with your pins on tonight. Thanks for that. Also want to give a shout out to Representative Susan Latina of the state House who tried to repeal this on our state taxes last session for her giving some guidance and background on this. And then Jeff, Ashley and Melissa from period kits who were very supportive and came and testified in committee. For anyone who doesn't know, period Kits is a local nonprofit working to end period poverty. And you can learn more at period kits, dawg. Our treasurer, Steve Ellington for helping guide me through the financial impacts of the bill. Emily Lapel from our legislative team and Troy from our legal team, helping with the drafting and the presentations, getting this through council. And to Maggie Thompson, who works in my office and who brought this to my attention and helped champion this along the way. So thank you, Maggie. We talked about this before, so I'm not going to go deep into it, other than there was recently a study that showed that in the United States, one out of five girls is kept out of school every month because they lack access to these feminine, feminine hygiene products in this country. And I think that that's something that not a lot of people know and that that is not widely talked about. And certainly repealing the, you know, the city part of the sales tax in Denver is not going to solve that. But I think that this is an issue that we have to continue to work on. And I was glad to see that there's also some stuff happening at the state level and hopefully other communities will follow suit with repealing their local and state taxes. So that is my comment for that one. And that concludes the items to be called up. So 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'll need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call an item 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 3: Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. All series of 2019 222 to 20 3 to 24 155 to 18 112 113 to 10 to 13 to 14 to 15 to 16 to 27. 118 171 181 137 195 198.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye. Espinosa, i. Gilmer i.
Speaker 3: Herndon, i.
Speaker 0: Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Carnage I. Lopez I knew. Ortega, I. Assessment, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: You have a nice 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no hearings. And if there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance exempting feminine hygiene products from the collection of sales and use tax in the City and County of Denver.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-5-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03182019_19-0159
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out today. Miss anything? All right. Now, Secretary, please put the first item on our screens and counsel menu. Go ahead with your question and comment. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Adrina, you want to come up? This is a very important bill is coming through tonight. I just wanted to give some highlights of what's happening with the dispo in this bill, please. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening, President. Council members. My name is Adrina Gibson and I'd like to first introduce myself. I am the new director of the Division of Small Business Opportunity. I am esteemed to have this privilege to work with the team at with the city, as well as with Dito and with you all as council members, I come to you all from our team working 12 years there with compliance, certification and implementing quite a bit of robust small business programs to maximize opportunities here in the city of Denver. I look forward to and have already begun in these long four weeks marrying a lot of the initiatives that I brought over from RTD, as well as bringing the men to the city and county of Denver under the Division of Small Business Opportunity. We appreciate your support of this bill on the second reading, just to give you a recap on what's going on within Dispo whom and I've been a part of over the last four weeks, we have regularly evaluated our success and measured our marketplace disparity typically at the five year mark. And so with this being the 2019, this is our year 2012. The 2016 disparity study was delivered in late 2018. As most of you know, there were some successes to note, but overall, there is still a disparity in the marketplace on public contracts for women and minority owned firms. And that reiterates the purpose of small business programs is specifically the one within the city and county of Denver. Under their division, DISPO has had some rigorous process of evaluations, both internally and externally, with our McKinsey reviews peak performance. And we've also adjusted quite a few processes, including but not limited to our certification period, our renewal period, going from every year to every three years, as well as eliminating our goal setting committee within the community. We have had an unprecedented level of public input on our ordinance and potential revisions from the Council as well as the Construction Empowerment Initiative Committee. This subcommittee worked very hard to prepare a roster of recommendations of which Dispo has reviewed thoroughly and has begun implementing to date. More recently, our business equity leadership team has also developed for dispo and all of the city agencies to engage on an enterprise wide with all of the programs that touch small businesses to maximize small business utilization and discuss important matters that relate to small businesses. Lastly, we determined our annual Mwb aspirational goals with substantial data analysis, methodology and performance history to bring together our 2018 aspirational goals. Again, thank you. Fourth quarter for the ordinance is set. Set the stage within the next five years and our ordinance revisions will be coming soon. Right.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Adrina. I can't speak more highly of the leadership of EDI or Caraga and having Adrina come on board and leadership that she's providing for dispo and and Jason Moore to the attorney that's really helping with the bill and helping guide that through. So it's a real pleasure. We you know, this is so important, this bill is because that prompt and accurate payment for all the minority women owned and small business subcontractor sorry the city construction contract so we're we were so pleased to have you you know, when we were going through this council with Cashman and we're telling you that we said, well, we always have a question. We always call Adrina over at RTD. What's the best practice on making this happen? And so we're so glad to have your leadership here. And and Susan's involvement as well is with the leadership of dispo. So thank you so much for all you're doing. And and please thank your staff to thank you.
Speaker 4: It's my honor. We're working hard for you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. County Menu. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration counsels 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. Councilman Brooks, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: All right. Mr. President, I certainly would love to do that for you tonight. I move that the resolutions be adopted and the bills on final consideration be placed and placed upon final consideration do pass in a block on the following orders. All series of 2019 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 one 8182 one 8196 one 9766 126 one 9188 189 159.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Anytime, anytime.
Speaker 0: As far as the stand moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call black.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Flynn. I Gilmore. I Herndon.
Speaker 1: I Cashman.
Speaker 4: Hi Commit. Hi, Lopez.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: New Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please, because the voting announced results.
Speaker 4: From.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. 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 19.0055 changing the zoning classification for 4519 Pearl Street in Globeville and a required public hearing on Council Bill 19 0079 Changing the zoning classification for 901 Irving Street in Ville
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending portions of Chapter 28, Article III, Article V and Article VII to extend sunset dates; and Approve Annual Aspirational Goals.
Amends Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to extend the Division of Small Business Opportunity (DSBO) program for an additional eight months to allow for more time to discuss community recommendations to the program and to identify needed changes to the Ordinance, Rules and Regulations and internal policies and procedures. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-27-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03182019_19-0055
|
Speaker 0: Everybody could get settled. We're going to get started. 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, 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. Stretch your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 55 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, President Clark, I move.
Speaker 5: That council bill 19.
Speaker 4: 0055 be.
Speaker 5: Placed upon final consideration.
Speaker 1: And do pass.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 55 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Chandler Van Scott with Community Planning and Development. So this is for an official map amendment application number 2017 i00155 for rezoning 4519 Pearl Street from ESU B to UCB one. So the site is located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. It's just north of 45th Avenue. The lot size is approximately 600 or 6250 square feet or 0.14 acres. It currently contains a single unit residential use. Again, the proposal is to rezone from SB to USC to be one to allow for the addition of an 82 or accessory dwelling unit. So just a bit about the requested zoned district use stands for urban neighborhood context, such as single unit and B-1 refers to the minimum lot size. So the minimum zone lot area is 4500 square feet. Blocks typically have a pattern of 37 and a half foot wide lots and setbacks and lot coverage standards common eight front and side yard similar to UCB, but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard. So that's what the one is. I'd go over the existing contest context quickly. So the existing zoning on the site is SUV, that's urban edge context. Single Unit B, the surrounding properties to the north and west are also sub to the south. You have IMX too, which is a mixed use zone district. And to the east you mix three with overlays and some industrial zoning further to the east. As I mentioned before, the existing land use on the site is single unit residential to the north and west. The neighborhood is primarily single unit residential as well on a variety of lot sizes, generally ranging from 3 to 6000 square feet to the south and east. You have a mix of commercial uses. Vehicle related uses on 45th and pearl and then some duplexes and multi-unit. Just taking a look at the existing building form and scale. The yellow dotted line is highlighting the subject property. That is the middle picture on the right there, the existing single unit home. And as you can see, just to the north of the site, there are more small scale one, two, one and a half storey single unit homes across the street to the east is a storage facility, which I believe is now actually completed. That's a slightly older picture. And then to the south, you have a liquor store and some other commercial uses. So in terms of process, the Pre-Application review for this application began in October of 2017. The applicant then conducted informal public outreach to Ana's and the council member. The application was submitted on February 8th, 2018. A planning board heard this item on January 9th, 2018 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. I'm sorry that I should say January 9th, 2019, as you mentioned, and literally apologies. They voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard this item on January 28, 2019 and also voted to pass the item along to council. First reading was in February and we are now at the public hearing. So far there have not been any public comments received during the review. So to jump into the review criteria found in the Denver zoning code, there are five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, Globeville Neighborhood Plan, and the 38 template stationary height amendments all apply to this property. In terms of comprehensive plan strategies, staffs found there are several with which the proposal is consistent, including environmental sustainability strategy two F land use Strategy three B and Denver Legacy Strategy three A. All of these refer generally to increasing density and encouraging infill in sites where there is already existing infrastructure. In terms of the blueprint Denver 2000 to consistency. So the land use designation in Blueprint Denver is single unit residential that generally anticipates densities fewer than ten units per acre and an employment base significantly smaller than the housing base. And it anticipates single family homes being the predominant residential type. It is located within an area of stability which the goal of which is to maintain character while accommodating some new development and the future street classifications. Pearl is a local street and 45th is a collector street. So the Globeville neighborhood plan goes into a little bit more detail about this area. This highlights the area where the zone is located as residential neighborhood core. The vision for this is to maintain the single family residential character of the neighborhood while improving internal circulation and enhancing 45th Avenue as a neighborhood serving Main Street. The land use designation found in the global neighborhood plan is single family with accessory dwelling units. So this land use designation essentially anticipates the addition of 80 youths to the single family neighborhood to enable aging in place, multi-generational housing and additional income through rentals. Some additional strategies included in the Global Neighborhood Plan that are unique to the residential core strategy. B One mentions allowing accessory dwelling units for those benefits that I just mentioned. Strategy E1 talks about specifically updating the neighborhood context from the existing urban edge context to urban context, which this rezoning is also accomplishing. And then it refers or mentions tailoring minimum zone lot sizes, and specifically calls out maintaining the 4500 square foot zone lot minimum, which the request of zone district also does. In terms of the anticipated height in the global plan, you have two and a half storeys which this requested zone is well within and then the 38th and Blake stationary height amendments also anticipate two stories here. The zoning does allow two and a half storeys, but there is not really a two storey zone district. So we found it to be consistent. So in general, CPD finds a rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan and 30 and Blake stationary Hyde Amendment in terms of uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning to U.S. would be one would result in the uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, as there are no waivers or conditions requested and staff finds that the requested rezoning would further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted plans, as well as by adding to the diversity of the housing stock and your transit. So the fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. In this case, there is a city adopted plan that was adopted since the zoning was put in place. That's the Global Neighborhood Plan 2014. And this plan sets out a specific vision for the area that includes changing the neighborhood context from edge to urban and also allowing accessory dwelling units. And there's also significant development in Globeville and nearby Reno. And then finally, the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. So the urban neighborhood context is primarily characterized by single and two unit residential uses. Small scale multi-unit, residential and some commercial areas are typically embedded in residential areas and single in two unit residential units are primarily located along local and residential arterial streets. The requested zone district for the site is consistent with that context as well as the U.S. use on district purpose, which is to allow a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units maintains a minimum zone lot area of 4500 square feet, 37 and a half foot wide. Lots and setbacks and coverage standards very similar to U.S. Hub. So in closing, CPD recommends approval of application number 2017 II 00155 based on finding that all the review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. So when I call your name, come on up to the podium and your time will start to elapse. Our first speaker just signed up as a he. Am I right in guessing that that is an Elizabeth?
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: And Elizabeth, you're up.
Speaker 6: Here I am without focus. Let's see what happens. I appreciate any opportunity to address the Council as a whole regarding what's going on in Globeville, because many things will be coming before the council. This is an important property and I fully support the granting of this zoning change because it is owned by a gentleman, Phil Falco, who really cares about the neighborhood, lives there and likes the ideas of accessory dwelling units creating more, more housing. And I would like to just kind of sensitize the council to this corner and why this is so important to be specific. There are single family dwelling homes all along the west side of Pearl from East 46th to East 44th. Even though there are businesses, perhaps the rest of the city will benefit from the restrictions of the self-storage around Tod. There's one right there, smack dab in front, one block to the south, and across the street is the angst banks driven conversation about the tiny home village that is being discussed in Globeville. It's that intersection of great stress and this exemplifies the hope to me. I was involved in the neighborhood planning process back yo many years ago when the conversations had to do with diversifying the income on single family properties, which increases the likelihood people can stay in place along with cottage industries and things like this. This is a gesture of hope. I wish there was a way to accelerate the the the and use more across the city and prioritizing. I hope that we will see more of this. I do want to encourage different language and I talked to the property owner to about in the in the when we say that it's the right no neighborhood is encroaching in the second to last page right now is not a neighborhood it is a very vital art district. The neighborhood historic boundaries remain beneath the art district. I would ask the city council to look at the beautiful neighborhood map that's up at Denver gov talk and memorize those boundaries. I support the right to art district, but we really need to embrace the organism of the neighborhoods block by block by block. I would love that self-storage to be removed at some date so that the views from this new beautiful adu etc. could be home to the reconstructed multi-use Washington Street that is the corner of the historic Main Street. East 45th Avenue is the historic Main Street. So I really want to thank Mr. Falco for hanging in there with these visions. He said that property for a long time and I really think this is a really excellent step. And I bet it's going to be beautiful, too.
Speaker 1: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Would you would you mind introducing yourself for the record?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. I'm an Elizabeth and right near East 50th Avenue in Washington, in Globeville.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Sorry about that. All right. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm represented for Denver. Homeless out loud, black star action, movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm also an at large candidate for May 2019 Denver election. And I'm on the top of the ballot. We are actually in favor of this rezoning for once as a reasoning that I'm in favor of. Wow. Yes. So this neighborhood is under rampant gentrification. So to hear that there's a rezoning that's going to be actual affordable, that is great news. I wish more people were like Mr. Falcon and seen the need for affordable housing in the city because we are in a housing crisis. So. Mr. Falcon, my hat goes off to you as well. Thank you for this. And I hope that members of the council approve this. And just keep in mind that there could also potentially be a tiny home village right across the street. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? All right. Seeing, no question, the public hearing for Huntsville, 19 0055 is closed. Are there comments by members of council? All right. Seeing no comments, I'll just say thank you to a staffer for putting this word and for the robust staff report. I think it clearly meets the criteria and I'll be voting to support because of that tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks I.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Sorry. Flynn I. Gilmer, I.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I agree. Cashman I.
Speaker 4: Can i.
Speaker 1: Lopez I.
Speaker 4: Knew. Ortega I. Assessment I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1212 I Council will 19 US 0055 has passed. Desmond Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 79 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4519 Pearl Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (urban edge, to urban context), located at 4519 Pearl Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0142
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore and I have a quick announcement. Councilwoman Black's birthday was this past Friday, March 8th, and Councilman Brooke's birthday was yesterday, March 10th. So happy belated birthday to you both. See no other announcements. We are going to move on. There are no presentations and there are no communications. But we do have three proclamations this evening. One is going through on consent and the other two will be read out. So, Councilman Brooks, will you please read Proclamation 142?
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I am happy to read Proclamation 142. But first, before I read this, can we have a little. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks for playing. It's always feels like somebody should be marching in here. I want to play that. So I'm rereading Proclamation 142 congratulating Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee on this occasion, the 57th Annual Parade on March 16, 2019. Whereas Denver has the largest cultural parades in the United States and the largest Saint Patrick's Day parade this side of the Mississippi. And. WHEREAS, this year's theme, Share the Luck, honors the 57th annual of the parade. Whereas, Denver St Patrick's Day Parade exemplifies a peaceful celebration, along with a community of diverse citizens who gathered together with a glance of the Celtic past and look towards the future. Enjoying Irish culture fanfare. Pipe drum bands like we just heard Irish step dancing, honoring all the divisions of the military of the delight of 300,000 spectators. Last year we had 400,000 spectators and over 10,000 entries in the parade. We're asked congratulations and thanks to all our volunteers for Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee, including many who have passed on but are still remembered for their endless hours of never ending commitment, which makes this celebration possible. And we're, as we hope, the Colorado Sun, everybody hopes the Colorado Sun comes out on that Saturday and the mile high air lifts the spirits of all them all who march or attend the 57th Annual Parade on Saturday, March 16th, 2019. And we hope that the warm wind at our backs to celebrate the Irish culture in the great state of Colorado. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby congratulate the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee, a volunteer organization, a well-organized, peaceful, spirited gathering at the 57th Annual Event in Section two. The Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest in a to the seal of the city and county of Denver, and to proclaim to this proclamation that a copy be transmitted to the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade Committee. President Teresa muller Agnew.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Yes I move the proclamation 140 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks yeah.
Speaker 3: So this is exciting to once again have the St Patrick's Day parade. This is, you know, in my district is one of the most important events that we have. And what I love about our district is that we get a chance to host all of these different type of parades, the the MLK parade, the LBGT parade that we have, and also this St Patrick's Day parade. And as I said before, over 400,000 folks came to this incredibly peaceful event last year and we had 10,000 entries. And I just hope that if you have kids, you come down and have a good time. I would invite you to ride a bike or walk or carpool on down because there's going to be a lot of people. But we want to make sure that this event is open for everyone, that it's inclusive of all of Denver and that you come down and have a great time. I also say I'll be I'll be marching in the parade as well. So the fine District nine will be represented. And we we ask that folks from all parts of Denver and even outside of Denver come and have a good time. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I made note that during the medley that the the musicians played was the rising of the moon. My wife and I had the pleasure of spending a couple of weeks in Ireland last year, and we were in a pub down in Killarney in County, Kerry in the far southwest, in Free Ireland, and I requested the musicians to play the rising of the Moon and was told that under no circumstances would they perform that since 1998 and the Good Friday Accords that brought peace to the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. So as a gesture in in the Republic, they no longer play that call to arms for the liberation of of Ireland . I was always told that the Irish invented the bagpipes, Mr. President, and we gave them to the Scots as a joke, and they never caught on. So. But is that is that true? I got a club, got a thumbs up on that. So let me let me just leave you with this traditional Irish blessing. Bless your little Irish heart and every other Irish part. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn and Councilman Brooks, thank you so much for bringing this word. Certainly know how to make an entrance with your proclamations here. Madam Secretary, roll call. Oh.
Speaker 2: Brooks.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Espinosa.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, i. Herndon, I. Cashman.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez.
Speaker 1: I knew.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Proclamation 142 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes for a proclamation acceptance. Councilman Brooks, go ahead and call up whoever you'd like and then we'll start the timer.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I like the little timer thing. Let me just say this real quick. I want to tell everyone to add a little green. On council members. I don't want you be embarrassed and not having green on in front of an hour St Patrick's Day. But you have a little thing in your little, little lapel here. So we're going to bring up Theresa milano. I don't know if I said that room. So sorry. Okay. Okay. Who is just doing an incredible job organizing this event. And so thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Council President Clark and all the council members, thank you very much for your support of the Denver St Patrick's Day Parade and for your amazing work for the city of Denver. We have very special guests coming. Actually, the government of Ireland has selected Denver as the city of choice to celebrate St Patrick's Day. The Department of Foreign Affairs is sending four dignitaries that we will host. We will have a foreign minister, Mary Mitchell O'Connor, Adrian Farrell, counsel General Allen. Wallace Really? WALLACE Linda McQuade from the Department of Education and Skills. So we're thrilled that they will be joining us today in our council chambers. We have with us Queen Coleen, Brigid Sylvie. And we also have the very Irish, Mr. Shamrock CAIDEN Vaughan. I would like to recognize and thank Belco credit union. They have been our sponsor for 14 years. They presented the parade with such a love of the community of Denver and the opportunity to give back. Thank you. Belco Credit Union. Well, the very first Denver St Patrick's Day parade was organized by Mr. Jim Eakins, and he gathered floats and bands and clowns and pipe bands, and he wanted to have a local hero as a grand marshal. Well, this year is no different. Our local hero is Mr. James Arsenault, the CEO of the Seattle Fish Company. He has his benefactors and you can see his benefactor and all over the city. He gives back and his charity of choice is cooking matters. One in six children go to bed hungry in Colorado, and we are putting the pride of the Irish behind that. And we are going to gather and we are going to help and we have donation text to donate already set up. You can text cooking to 91999 and make a donation to cooking matters. Again, we want to say thank you for your support and we hope that you will join us on Saturday. We have a special ticket for you, for all of our councilmen to say thank you to join us in the Dublin house on Saturday. Thank you again for this proclamation. We appreciate you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Before we move on to our second proclamation, unfortunately, due to fire code, we can't have anyone standing in the back there. That back aisle is ingress and egress. So if everybody could scoot together and make room so that we can make room for all these folks, there's also overflow right next door. And for 32, if you're here for one of the public hearings, that won't happen till after recess. And you can go watch on TV and 432 and come on back in when when that is there. Thank you very much.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation congratulating the Denver St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee on the occasion of the 57th Annual Parade on March 16, 2019.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0233
|
Speaker 0: And for 32, if you're here for one of the public hearings, that won't happen till after recess. And you can go watch on TV and 432 and come on back in when when that is there. Thank you very much. All right. That brings up our next proclamation. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 233?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 233 series of 2019 commemorating the 50th anniversary of the National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver and the West. High blow out. Whereas, led by two young Chicanos, Ginny Perez and Priscilla Martinez, students at West High School walked out of class on March 20th, 1969, in protest of discrimination and institutional racism by faculty and administrators. And. Whereas, the students, supported by their families, community members and the Crusade for Justice demonstrated and were met with police batons and tear gas canisters. And. WHEREAS, The Crusade for Justice, founded in 1965 and led by Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez, was a community based organization focused on providing employment, legal defense, education, civil rights, political action , immigration, cultural and recreational services. And. WHEREAS, weeks later, the first National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference was held here in Denver on March 27th through the 30th, that the Crusade for Justice, where students and leaders from across the country gathered to create and plan a spiritual. Aslan and a plan to Santa Barbara, a Chicano plan for higher education, both of which gave rise to the Chicano movement here and throughout the country. And. Whereas, these events helped create a National Movimiento that inspired and gave rise to today's Mexican-American leaders in the arts, business, community, education, government, law, literature and medicine. And. Whereas, nearly one in three persons in Denver and one out of every four children in Colorado is a mexican of Mexican-American descent, still faces discrimination in the classroom, workplace and in public life, resulting in high poverty rates and growing disparities of access in education, health care, income, justice and political representation. And. WHEREAS, the week of March 19 through the 30th, 2019 will mark the 50th anniversary of the West High Blowouts and the National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one. At the Council of the City and County of Denver Honors Colorado, Colorado's Mexican roots Chicano history and recognizes the values and rich contributions to science, philosophy, arts and culture to the history of our state. Our city, our state, and our country. Section two that the Council of the City and County of Denver continue to promote equality and justice for all people and opposes discrimination in our city. Section three. At the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city of County of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the Denver Agency for Human Rights. And Community Partnerships, the Denver logo for Corky Gonzalez Branch Library. Denver West High School. And the Colorado History Museum.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation to 33 series of 2019 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. It gives me quite a feeling of pride to say this in our in our council chambers. And I'm sorry. I don't know why I'm all emotional here, man. Uh huh. My voice cracks because you know how far it's taken us and how long it's getting it's gotten for us, and how long this path has been to come into these chambers with these words and in this with this proclamation. It means so much to me. And there's a lot of folks here in the chambers and in our community and folks who are at home and watching this because for so long. In a land that that that we hope the name. And found. And so the. The the. And for so long that we have not been welcome. And now, especially now in this era, it means it means so much to be able to read these words and talk about this proclamation, especially in this area. Right. There are two events and there are a lot of them. We have a lot of different things that have happened in our history that have helped steer the course of our history in Denver. But there are two young women, Priscilla Martinez and Jeannie Perez, who at West High School were ridiculed. Were all this her or her students? The rest of the students, the rest of the Chicano students at West High School ridiculed for speaking Spanish. They were told it was an inferior language. They mispronounce their names and when they corrected their names to the teacher in this one, Mr. Schafer. He would reiterate. And they would deal with this every single day in class. That's institutional racism. And. With the help of the folks in the community. Now with the crusade for justice and the different movements that were happening throughout our city. They walked out. You were trained through the Freedom School. They protested. Community met them outside. Welcome. Even in the face of batons and gas masks. And being chased down the street away from their school for peacefully demonstrating. I only learned about this. Sadly when I was already in college. Through an organization called Matcha, which I belong to the Chicano Student Movement. Up until then. I had the same kind of experience when I was in first grade. A lot of folks don't realize I had to go through first grade twice. My teacher would put me up in class after I would correct her about a Spanish word Konerko She would call it Conejo. And I said, Don't miss. I think this this name is I think the Rabbit's name in the Southwest. The book that you're reading to us is Conejo. And I was proud to actually know that she got me up in front of the class and told me, Mr. Lopez, only clowns speak Spanish. And you're not a clown, are you? In front of my whole class. That broke my spirit. I did not want to be Mexican. And it wasn't until I started learning about the Chicano movement and learning about who we were and the history in this state and the celebration of one's own culture. And it doesn't require the contempt of another. Right. So which is what Cesar Chavez would say, though? That walkout meant a lot and that walkout was a starting point. The National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference was also another starting point is when our community started becoming organized by students. The L.A. Line really the this the spiritual set of goals and cultural goals for us as a community to start feeling pride in a land that we we are usually not the the of Santa Barbara which talked about Chicanos and higher ed and how we got to go to college and graduate and not be the only ones . And to this day, there are a lot of firsts in our community, and some of us aspire to be the first in a lot of different things. But what these documents with this proclamation really reiterates for us as a community. Is that while it's important to be the first sometimes. It's much more important never to be the last in. And that's what this is about. I know that there are so many distinguished guests here tonight in the council chambers. What I have here to my left is the original Chicano students demands at West High School that I was able to get a hold of through an FBI file that had been released and made public. The other thing that was very interesting to me is that right after the walkouts, I discovered, you know, somebody had alluded to a proclamation that the council took a proclamation. The council took a resolution at that time about the walkouts. And so I started looking and I asked the clerk in recorder's office, as I can, you find these documents and this is the beautiful thing about, about, about that office is that our history is written in our history, saved in that office. Right. This is a proclamation, a resolution in 12 of 1969, recognizing and commending the Denver police and the fire departments and members thereof. Whereas in the past week, civil disorders, disturbances and demons demonstrations have been occurring in the city and basically praising for using the tear gas and the baton and handling the use of force. My how times have changed because when there's a demonstration, when we had all these kids walk out recently, they did not respond that way. So I do this. I thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the time. Colleagues. This was just this is a very excuse. My my my lengthy discussion here. But it's just it means so much to me in this council chambers and to us as a community to do this. And we'll bring some folks up in a second. But, uh, with that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I just want to I want to say this because this is happening in our community right now and just stand in solidarity with my brother, Councilman Lopez. And and I say this is happened in our community is there is and has been black and brown violence. But the reality is we stand in solidarity as the as we used to always talk about this Councilman Lopez, the African Aztec Alliance, because we've gone through the same struggle as African-Americans in northeast Denver. And so I just want to say that I want to say that publicly and through issues that are happening in our community today , we still and leaders should say this at every outset that we still stand in solidarity and we're we're bigger than the issues that are that we're facing today. So. Thank you, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Rebeca, I forgot to mention. So, Mr. President, we do have somebody in our in our chambers that may not be up here earlier. But I wanted to also recognize state representative said and Gonzalez Gutierrez said enough. You want a state representative you can stand up represent northwest and. I meant to thing you earlier, but she, in fact, is not just our wonderful state representative, my state representative, but also the granddaughter of Adolfo Corky Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, and welcome, Councilman Lopez, thank you for bringing this forward and thank you for sharing your story and your words. And I think with that, we're ready to take a vote on this. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez.
Speaker 5: Si, se puede. Hi.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, i.
Speaker 5: Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: Hi, New.
Speaker 2: Testament. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes proclamation to 33 has been adopted. We do have 5 minutes allocated for proclamation acceptance. Councilman Lopez, who would you like to bring up?
Speaker 5: There are two individuals that I wanted to bring of three. I'm sorry. So first. The incomparable Jerry Garcia Gonzalez, the wife of Corky Gonzalez. Dr. Antonio Esquivel. And then in on Gonzalez Gutierrez, our state representative, the honorable.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Dr. Antonio Scoville. I'm an emeritus professor and former member of the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan State University. I'm also the former chair of La Scala Theater, also the Crusade for Justice, Good of the Service by Gonzalez. I'm also a long time associate and friend of the Gonzalez family at the request of Jerry Gonzalez. I have been asked to say a few words and elected. Just make five real quick points. I want to talk about the crusade for justice. Second, I want to talk briefly about the West High School blowout. I want to talk about the first National Chicano Youth Conference. I want to talk about the influences of those three events. And then I want to talk about the event that you're honoring today, the 50 year tribute to the crusade for justice. You know, Chicano movement of the 1960s and eighties arose in an era when Mexican-Americans vowed to create a better world. They called themselves Chicanos and Chicanos. Terms that reflect the history of conquest and that deprive people of their Mexican and indigenous roots. And characterize Mexicans as inferior. My first topic, The Concern for Justice was founded in Denver in 1965. It was the most active, best known, most controversial of all Chicano organizations, and it garnered the most media attention. Its leader would also Coco Gonzalez was a boxer, poet, playwright, lecturer, politician, activist, community organizer and publisher. The Crusades, a militant activism, generated not only strong support, but strong opposition, especially from law enforcement. The Crusade for Justice is a full blown, comprehensive civil rights and human rights organization. It provided a full array of community services, community services and employment, legal defense, education. Civil rights, political action. Immigration and recreation. The Crusade for Justice Building on 1610 Downing had a bookstore, curio shop, a large lunch room, a boxing gym, a 500 seat auditorium, 24 classrooms, several offices, a lounge, an art studio and a print shop. It housed Bartlett, Chicano, the Athlon and the theater group, and throughout the Pachuco it housed as Collateral, which starred students from preschool to graduate to undergraduate school. It also housed the La Raza Junior Party. My second topic is the worst high school blowout of 1969 and 1969. A social studies teacher at West High School made anti-Mexican remarks in class and this incident that West High School walkout. The teacher reportedly said All Mexicans are stupid because their parents are stupid and their parents before them are stupid. And he said, if you eat Mexican food, you're going to look like a mexican. That's what caused the walkout. You know, this walkout, another walkouts by Chicano students. A number demanded curriculum reforms in schools, primarily the inclusion of history, culture and a key contribution of Chicanos. They also demand an end, mostly for the students who walked out. You know, I guess a lot of people like to a lot of people and it looked like us Mexicans because they eat a lot of Mexican food.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 6: You know, my third topic is the crusade for Justice is housing those three national Chicano youth conferences in 1969, 1970 and 1971, from their very first conference of one year honor. Today we and which were celebrated this Saturday, was held on March 27th through 30th of 1969, 50 years ago. Out of that came that plan the spiritual the Aslan which set the goals for the Chicano movement. Over 1500 participants participated in the conference. They came from all over the country. So that conference and the West High School walkout, as we call it, the West High School blow out, put the Chicano in Denver and a crusade for justice on the national map. This conference created a renaissance, a revival of Chicano literature, art, music, dance, poetry and theater. It inspired and motivated generation to write, to get themselves involved in improving the condition of us in this country. It inspired and inspired Chicano studies programs on college campuses and student groups. My first topic is this influence that these events had on our community. They inspired today's Chicano and Chicano writers, poets, artists, musicians, dancers, actors, politicians, lawyers and educators. Colorado influential leaders who were influenced by this by these events include Ken Salazar, the former secretary of interior. Federico Pena, the former mayor of Denver. And the lieutenant governor who's now the president of the community college system, Dr. Joe Garcia. The activists of the 1960s and seventies set the stage for the social justice activities of today. Corky Gonzalez influenced a generation of Chicanos and Chicanos to get involved politically, including today's young politicians like Lisa Calderon, who is running for mayor and Cristante Cristante that run the former speaker of the House who is now running for U.S. Congress . So in spite of these events, Chicanos and Latinos of today, Latinos and Chicanos and Latinos of the day are addressing the issues of voter rights, access, criminal justice, economic development, housing, education, energy, environment, human and health services, immigration, and the LGBTQ issues not only with our community, but outside of our community. My fifth topic and I'll end here is that we'd like to invite you to help us celebrate the 50 year tribute to the Crusade for Justice being held this Saturday at 530 at South Rialto on seventh in Santa Fe. There will be food, more presentations and discussions on the topics that I've just barely touched on this this evening. So we hope to see you there.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, again, for bringing that forward this evening. That concludes our proclamations that are called out. We will have one more going through and consent. But that brings us to the bills for introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver and the West High Blowouts.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0163
|
Speaker 0: President. Thank you very much. I'm going to do a quick recap on the resolutions and items being called out under bills for introduction. No items have been called out, but under bills for final consideration. Councilman Cashman, you'd like to call 163. Under pending, no items have been called out. And so that is our only item. Madam Secretary, if you could put 160 up on the screen and Councilwoman Gilmore, if you could put 163 on the floor for a final passage.
Speaker 1: Happy to. Mr. President, I would like to place Council Bill 0163 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I very much appreciate your letting me shift gears and get this on the agenda. As I mentioned in my announcement and my reading the statement from Councilwoman Kennedy, this bill had had not been scheduled to be called out. But I'm sitting here on this dais looking out at a room filled with working men and women of Denver. I see the familiar T-shirts of Unite Here, the purple sweatshirts of SEIU 105 and who have made the fight for $15 an hour minimum wage, a rallying cry and a mission for a good number of years. And while my colleagues made wonderful comments last week that I don't need to repeat along with a councilman, can each his remarks in view of the hard work that these folks have put forth over the years and in light of the importance of this bill, which will change lives of Denver families, I thought they deserved to hear us place our vote and give them the opportunity to express whatever satisfaction they may have. So with that, that's my comment.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. So last week we sent this through on concert to send a statement. And today, though, we're going to give you an actual vote that's not in the Bloc so that there can be some celebrating, I think. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I'm actually just chimed in so I could filibuster for a little bit, because if we're going to take a vote, this is one that Paul Lopez definitely needs to be on the dais for. Anthony, could you grab Paul and let him know that we're going to take a vote on the minimum wage? So I apologize to both my colleagues and everyone in the pews here, but I thank you all. If you've been paying attention, at least on my time on council, you know how important this issue is to Councilman Lopez. So thank you all for your deference in this matter. Anybody else want to chime in?
Speaker 0: I will admit, Councilman Espinosa, I expected you to be better at filibuster than that. But, yeah.
Speaker 6: I'll left back in the chamber as the councilman breaks.
Speaker 0: Anything you say before we vote.
Speaker 3: You know, all I have to say, if if that's filibustering from Espinosa, he can filibuster all day long on this dais. But I just I'll seriousness aside, I just want to say to those folks who who work so hard and bring this forward, there's a lot of things on the on the executive side and those of us who are on the legislative side. But but those of you in the pews got this done. And so I want to thank you for all your hard work. And if you're watching this today, this is a proud moment because it's government working for those folks who are pushing hard and calling us out. So I appreciate you guys work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clark. I just want to say a huge thank you again. This is all of your work. It's your community organizing. It's you continuing to push this forward. And just had the opportunity to meet this morning with another group of SEIU folks to share concerns. And I know there's much more that we need to work on together, but tonight is a night for celebration. Congratulations again and looking forward to our work ahead. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Yes. I'm so sorry. Oh, thank you for making sure I was a part.
Speaker 0: You missed one heck of a filibuster.
Speaker 5: Heck of a filibuster. I wanted to congratulate all of you who worked so hard organizing. Organizing each other, taking risks. I know what it's like. I know how organizing goes. I know how it works. And I know how hard it is to get something. Like, I mean, just to get a union contract as is is hard in and of itself, but to fight and for your workplace and for your colleagues. Right. But to fight for everybody is something that is next level. And you all have achieved next level. And you all have not just proved that the labor movement and that you and workers organize together. They don't just organize to support each other, but you organize and you change an entire city. And I think this is this is something that attest to this. So I just wanted to thank you for your work. I I'm absolutely ecstatically supportive of this as it moves forward. So.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. We have everybody in the room. We've got this called out. Let's vote. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Freshman High.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Brooks.
Speaker 3: Imam.
Speaker 2: Espinosa Flynn, i Gilmore I Herndon I Lopez t.
Speaker 5: Whether I.
Speaker 2: Knew.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 1: Assessment.
Speaker 2: I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, please call the voting announced results.
Speaker 2: 1111.
Speaker 0: I is 163. Hey. All right. Thank you all for being here. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for calling that out. That does conclude the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published and we are now ready for the black vote on resolutions, proclamations and bills on final consideration.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adding a new Division 3.75 of Article IV, Minimum Wage Protections for Workers Associated with City Contracts.
Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code to add a new Division 3.75 of Article IV requiring minimum wage protections for workers associated with city contracts. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-26-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0042
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvening. We have two public hearings this evening. Speaker should begin the 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 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 structure comments the Council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Gilmore Will you please put Council Bill 19 0042 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 dash 004 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council will 19 0042 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 805 West 38th Avenue from I.B. oh two to see Annex 22 property is located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood in the 41st and Fox station area. It's just north of 38th Avenue, although it does not have direct access to 38th Avenue. It's about two and a half acres, and it's currently used as rental and storage of heavy equipment. As I said, the request is to go from I.B. to which is heavy industrial with the Billboard Use overlay to see an x 2002, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use with a 20 storey maximum height and it would retain that billboard use overlay that you go to. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to position the property for redevelopment. The property is surrounded on two sides by the same Ibey you go to the south and the west to the north is see an x 20 of the same as being requested and to the east is seems 12. The current use on the property is industrial and the surrounding area has a mix of industrial, commercial, mixed use and residential. You can see the. Don't have it up on the screen. The this. Thanks. Thank you. So you can see the subject property in the bottom right photo there and then some of the other surrounding properties in the surrounding photos. This went to planning board on January 9th, 2019, received a recommendation of approval by an 8 to 1 vote. There was no public comment and meeting went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on January 29th of this year, and there's been no other public comment on this application. 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 adopted plans that apply to this property. First is Comprehensive Plan 2000. As described in the staff report, staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with these six strategies from comprehensive thousand, mostly relating to infill development and mixed use development, especially near transit stations. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the concept land use for this property. In Blueprint, Denver's transit oriented development, which calls for a balanced mix of uses at mid to high densities. And it's in an area of change, which is an area where the city wants to direct additional growth. 38th Avenue is a mixed use arterial, which calls for higher intensity and mix of uses. Although, as I mentioned, the property does not have direct access to 30th Avenue. So even though there's no access there, access is provided by 39th Avenue, which is a non-designated local meant to connect the property to the larger streets, including Fox Street , which is also a mixed use arterial which connects down to 38th Avenue, Park Avenue and IE 25, which is all consistent with the proposed Sea Annex 20 zoning. The third plan is the 41st and Fox stationary plan from 29. The land use designation in that plan for this property is mixed use office residential 3 to 20 storeys, which calls for housing and employment base a significant amount of development and pedestrian friendly development, all of which is consistent with the proposed C Annex 20 zoning. The fourth plan is the Globeville Neighborhood Plan from 2014. It mostly just reiterates the recommendations of the 41st and Fox stationary plan in this area, again calling for 20 storeys, a diverse, transit supportive neighborhood with a mix of jobs and residential. Consistent with the proposed SIMEX 20 zoning system finds, the first criterion is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Steph finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the C annexed 20 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 facilitating the redevelopment of the property in a pedestrian friendly and transit oriented manner appropriate for the area. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by change in changing conditions, including the Globeville Neighborhood Plan adopted in 2014 and the recent investments in the area. The construction of the 41st and Fox Station. Even though the G line is not operating yet, and there has been some new redevelopment, including just a block to the east along Foch Street, there's some new commercial development changing the area and making the proposed rezoning justified. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the description of the urban center neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the C Annex 20 zone district, which is intended to apply to areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets where buildings scale 3 to 20 storeys is desired. As pointed out in the plans, this area is intended for 3 to 20 storeys, and while it does not have direct access to a major arterial, it is one block away from Fox Street, which is a arterial and then a block south to 38th Avenue, Park Avenue and I-25 , which are major arterials. So staff finds the area served by those major arterials. And the fifth criterion that of that staff finds all five criteria are 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 Jean Schaefer.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Jeannie Schaefer. I'm with Groundwork Entitlement Services. I am the owner's representative for this application, and I don't have a presentation prepared tonight, but I am here to answer any questions that you might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 7: My name is Chairman Suku.
Speaker 0: Founder, organizer of Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense.
Speaker 7: Also the next mayor city of Denver, 2019.
Speaker 11: On the surface.
Speaker 7: This zoning for this particular area, we've had several zoning this year appears to be a good thing. It's going to provide economic activity, is going to provide housing and is on an arterial where we're talking about density and 20 storeys going up. And yet as you peel the layers of the onion is crying time. Because now we've got to get to the nitty gritty of the details, like how many units are going to go to folks who can afford it.
Speaker 10: Not affordable.
Speaker 7: That who can actually pay.
Speaker 11: 30% or less.
Speaker 7: But their medium income for the state. Now, anybody who's paying more than 30% for housing. Is it an abomination? You can't get no mortgage loan on that. Unless you're making megabucks. So where is the 30% or less units in this thing for people who can afford it, whether they are low income or middle income? Where is that? And how many units.
Speaker 10: Is in that? Or is this another.
Speaker 7: Scheme to provide housing made and pushed by developers who are paying the political bills? Politicians. So I can't go for this. After coming down here for a decade or more and seeing more and more and more of this is the law. But so was slavery, the law. But we do obey that law today because it's the law, or you stand up.
Speaker 11: For what's right.
Speaker 7: It was human. And as you paint yourself in this corner. Martin Luther King once said, and I'll close with this. You showed me a man and woman who's not committed. To the advancement of human life other than themselves, they're not fit to live. 1957 City Park. On that statue, Montgomery Bus Boycott. That's the history. And that's the man who we celebrate every year. And we desecrate his legacy by not doing the right thing. As soon as the day is over. That's like going to church on Sunday and the busses starts.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Jesse Pierce, who represented for Denver, home of Salo Black, starts a moment for self defense and positive commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for the 2019 May election. We are against this.
Speaker 11: As this is just business as usual. This neighborhood is already being ran to rapidly gentrified like all parts of the city, and there seems to be no stop, no end in sight. You guys keep. Passing these rezonings in a community is telling you they do not want these things. They're being forced to accept these things. I have several questions.
Speaker 8: I want to know exactly what is the RMR.
Speaker 11: Level.
Speaker 8: For this rezoning. I want to know exactly who is going to be occupying these spaces. And I want to know.
Speaker 11: How long it's going to take for this construction to happen. And also. Why? You just keep pushing through these rezonings with no care in sight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council on this item? All right. Seeing. No question. Oh, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have one question. Can I can have you come to the microphone really quick? I wanted to ask about the rail and how close this is to the Union Pacific rail yards.
Speaker 6: The rail track is directly to the east. So the property abuts the the rail. It's the RTD tracks first and then RTD tracks first. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Then I'm not Union Pacific. Sorry. BNSF. Are there any buffers? I mean, I know that this question always comes up, and especially when it comes to to emergency management. Whenever we have rail, anything like that, what are the are there any were there any kind of conversations in terms of protocol, noise, spill, things like that? What are some of the conditions that that have been satisfied this to continue?
Speaker 6: Yeah, not as part of the rezoning. Those items were all addressed as part of the site development plan. So when this property does come in for redevelopment, they will look at it and address all those concerns about its proximity to the rail.
Speaker 5: I appreciate that. And I know that my colleague, Councilman Ortega, would probably ask that question as well to I've been to the same kind of program to the emergency management. I think it's it's always important. I mean, whenever we have heavy rail with a lot I mean, literally all you got to do is sit there and just watch it go by. You put a time lapse camera, you see airplane fuselages, you see coal, you see liquid, you see so much coming through there with a lot of population as we're building up, I just hope that in the development plan we address that in as any kind of mitigation should something God forbid it doesn't happen so.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Mr. President. SCOTT This is the Wagner rents building. And I recall some discussion a few years ago not related to this rezoning, but in another context, something I was working on, in fact actually the Gold Line commuter rail that there might be that that building might be eligible for historic landmark designation. Was there? Maybe. I'm sorry, I forgot your name. The owner representative could speak to whether we you have applied for demolition or what the future of that building is.
Speaker 1: Ginny Schaefer We did apply for a certificate of non historic status and were granted that for all of the buildings on site. But currently we have no plans for demolition or re-use of those buildings.
Speaker 7: Okay. But you do have the certificate? Yes. Good. For five years. Correct. Okay. There was the property posted.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: That's all I'm asking.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 19, just zero zero for two is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? All right. Seeing none. I just think staff for the comprehensive staff report, I think that this one clearly meets the criteria and we'll be supporting tonight. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I Herndon.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Cashmere.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez. All right, new. Assessment. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please call the voting and announce the results. 11 nice Lebanese country on 19 20042 has passed. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 19.0058 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 805 West 38th Avenue in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-B UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial in the former zoning code to urban center, mixed-use), located at 805 West 38th Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-29-19. Amended 2-11-19 to clarify the boundary of the proposed rezoning on Galapago Street.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03112019_19-0058
|
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please call the voting and announce the results. 11 nice Lebanese country on 19 20042 has passed. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 19.0058 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill council vote 58 series of 2019 be placed upon final consideration, do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded before we go into the public hearing. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. Mr. President, I want to notify the public that I will be abstaining for this vote. We have the opportunity, as city council members, to do a council initiated rezoning that's much different than a legislative rezoning, where there's multiple properties on council initiated rezonings. We've been advised from our legal counsel to abstain. Full disclosure, I live in this neighborhood. I have been a part of this area for over 20 years, and we've been advocating for community serving businesses like grocery stores, affordable grocery stores and things like that. And so I've gone. Councilman Espinosa initiated an ordinance where we send it to to send notifications to residents that live within 200 feet of this location. I've gone door to door and talk to residents about this rezoning. I've done personal meetings with residents. I've attended community meetings around this. And so I wanted to let my colleagues know that I'm available for questions, but I will not be voting on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And with that, the public hearing for council will 19 005 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Thank you. Jeff Hurt with media planning and development. So this is the rezoning request for all of one block and a portion of another block. And it's there's a lot going on in the site. So bear with me as a as I go through it, I'll try to be as concise as possible. So the site is in Council District nine. In the cold neighborhood. And so the request area is about 2.6 acres. And the purpose is to accommodate redevelopment of a mixed use project in a transit oriented development area. And the applicant, as Councilman Brooks said, is Councilman Brooks. And so the request is, I think, best shown visually, even though it's still complicated in this map. But essentially, the request is to rezone. Now, I try to get my laser pointer here. And it doesn't work. Oh, it does. So the request is you look at the the the yellow the orange font here, that's the existing zoning. So the request is to go from before with waivers. You are one and you oh two and I'll explain what that means. And that's for this portion of the site. And so the existing zoning is you assume a one for this portion of the site. And then south of 36th Avenue is Cemex three. You are one, you have two. And the request is to go to see a five year 102i01 deal seven I'll explain all that means that's for the western half of this block and then the same sort of overlay districts and design incentive overlay district with CMC's three on the eastern half of this block. And I'll explain the funkiness here in terms of billboard overlays, I don't use overlays, but the request south of 36th Avenue would be to go to CMC five. So, so Urban Center, Main Street, five stories. And so the existing context is varied, but looking really in all directions. But to the east and the south you have mostly nonresidential zoning with a variety of building heights allowed. Along Downing Street, you see mostly five stories on the east side of Downing where the subject site is, and then west of Downing and transitions to higher, higher heights, in some cases up to eight storeys. And they're looking straight east and south of the site. It does transition to US-EU, A-1. So that's a single unit zone district and there's overlays all over the place here. And we'll talk a little bit about those. So the existing zoning is.
Speaker 3: Before.
Speaker 13: With waivers and conditions, and that's for most of the 3600 block that has the zoning. And that's an old former Chapter 59 zone district that is a business mixed use zone district, the maximum building height. So the maximum building height in the area currently with the zoning is actually regulated by a floor area ratio of 2 to 1. And so that's an important point to note that they could conceivably get actually more than five storeys under the current zoning without building height allowance. The waivers and conditions that's the the custom zoning component of the zone district for the B4 area does have some land use restriction, so certainly and uses are prohibited. This includes liquor stores, gun shops, tattoo shop, some light industrial uses are prohibited and of note as well in the waivers and conditions, there are affordable housing requirements built into the waiver, both for rent and for sale, and that does require an affordable housing plan for any residential development. So commercial development, we don't have to meet any of these standards. And this is something that was common before the city adopted the the inclusionary housing ordinance in 2002. And then largely that was supplanted by a citywide policy with the 2016 Affordable Housing Fund. You'll see in a minute here there's an even greater layer of affordable housing regulation on the site through the incentive overlay. So while that provision was in place and staffs from south perspective, it's largely been replaced through multiple iterations of both citywide and localized affordable housing policy. And there's a formal housing component of the developer's proposal I know, on the site. So the existing zoning so that's but that was before waivers and conditions so the portions that have usou a one year you a one and so that is this area, the southeast corner of the site. And I'll talk a little bit about what that area is, but it's essentially remnant C dot right away that's serving currently as a median with green space. That's USDA one. That's a single unit zoned district that does allow for accessory dwelling units, the U. Oh one zone district. And so that includes all of this area to the west of the Lawrence House, Laurent Street, as it traverses the site, as the adult use overlay zone district you go to has the same boundaries. That's the Billboard Use Overlay district and there are three existing billboards on the site. The applicant is looking to carry forward all of those designations, I would say primarily due to legal reasons, but happy to talk about that as well. So existing zoning. This is the area south of 36. This is the Cmax three. We already talked about where you are one and you have two mean C-Max three is commercial as a mixed use on district allows up to three stories and 45 feet in height. There are build to and transparency requirements for primary streets for those in district. Okay. So a couple of slides here on what's happening with Lawrence Street as it traverses the site. This is important context. So this map on the screen is an image from the 30th and flake stationary plan. So that's from 2000 sorry, 2016, I believe. And so the recommendation out of that plan was to actually eliminate Lawrence Street as it traverses the site. So if you look at the map, the red dotted area is Lawrence Street and that was explicitly recommended to vacate or eliminate that area and essentially square off these two blocks. And that's kind of where the applicant in development or the developer team is headed toward. So a little bit of the history in terms of how we got to that point. So the plan recommended the vacation of the Lawrence swoop, as we call it, but some of the history is that actually originally it was out right of and an old state highway and that was put up for sale or put on the market for purchase. And the development team has purchased that right of way. And so that includes Lawrence Street as it traverses the site and it includes the adjacent median areas that are part of the of the right of way that currently serve as greenspace. And so this is a bit unusual in that the development team is actually that's part of the rezoning is actually working with the city to fund and implement these changes as opposed to waiting on the city to do it, to implement the plan. And I will say just last slide on this, that, you know, we see a lot of recommendations like this in plans that need to be further vetted and studied. This is one in particular where public works looked at Lawrence Street as it traverses the site and concluded from a technical traffic sort of functionality standpoint that it would be beneficial to the overall system to eliminate Lawrence Street as it traverses the site and again, square off these blocks and set those new boundaries, reflect those on district request. So the existing context in terms of land use is varied. You see mostly nonresidential along the Downing Street corridor and then transitioning east to more residential. This is an image we've already seen, but just highlighting the proximity to the commuter rail station that is about two blocks to the subject's site. So a very walkable distance wise from the subject's site. And so images are the subject property. This is from Downing Street, looking east at some of the existing buildings. Downing Street is an old streetcar corridor. So this is also the subject property. A Most of the structures on the site are late 1800s, early 1900s. This is the late 1800s single family structure on some kind of the northeast portion of the site. And so this is looking at one of those median slash greenspace areas, one of two that are part of the subject zoning request subject site. And this is the other one. So this is looking North Downing Street on the left hand side of the screen and one of those median greenspace areas. And again, looking at the subject site, you see just some of the existing buildings in use as a wide range. Several buildings have been demolished, but some of it is vacant as well. So this is looking at surrounding properties. This is looking west across downing, west, northwest and sort of the or industrial nature of the area. Looking toward the rail tracks and this is looking northwest from the subject site across Downing Street. Again, you see just kind of a mix of land uses and a very much a transitional area. And so this is looking south. So this is the start, I believe, of the Lawrence swoop. But you can see an existing gas station and some commercial along Downing here as well. And so this is looking east across Marion Street. And also a mix of uses, even though it's zoned single unit residential. There is an existing church here. And then on this corner, the southeast corner of 36. And Marion is actually some office uses, some nonresidential uses as well. And this is looking north of the subject property, looking at some more commercial uses, long downing and looking north as well. East side of the block. You see, it's certainly transitional in this area. Okay. So on to the requested zone districts and a little bit about what that means. So C-Max five and three, the three and five denotes the number of stories allowed. So again, the requests will be to go to CMC's five on the western half of this block, C-Max three on the eastern half of this block, with all the overlays that does allow 45 feet and 70 feet in height, three and five stories accordingly. And the build two requirements are they're essentially stating that 70% of the buildings must be pushed to the street. So pushed along Downing within zero and 15 feet. There are transparency requirements for streets, meaning some visual interest along the street level. And there are also street level active use requirements. So see and S5. So that was CMC's mixed use and that's the area north of 36 area south of 36 is proposed to be CMC five, so it's Main Street five and that's essentially to match the existing CMS five that this would line up with if re zoned. And CMS is very similar to C index in terms of land uses, but it does carry with it a higher built to requirement and higher levels of transparency, more of that Main Street feel. So the Iowans own district districts. This is part of the rezoning request for areas north of 36 on the subject say. So this is the 38th and Blake incentive overlay. And so this is essentially a requirement for affordable housing and other community benefits if development exceeds a base height. So you'll see on this map, I know it's kind of hard to see north of 36, the site is included in that overlay and this is in the code and does establish a maximum height of five stories. And I'll hone in on the specific height guidance. And what that means for this site. But they are asking again for C-Max, five on the eastern western half, six three in the eastern half. Oh, and I should also mention that this in a subsequent slide, there are there is a requirement in the code that you can't ever exceed three stories along Merrion Street. So there's a built in transition along Mary Ann Street of 35 feet from that street where you can never go above three stories. But I'll hit that in a subsequent slide. Okay. So the d07. And so this would also apply to properties north of 36. That's the river north design overlay. And so the incentive overlay and the design overlay are intended to work in tandem with each other in terms of the boundaries and the applicability of them. But essentially what this overlay does is provide enhanced design, mandated enhanced design above and beyond CMCs and CMS. So there's things like a minimum first floor height to kind of promote adaptability of buildings over time and of higher transparency requirements and other standards relating to parking lot, location setbacks, maximum residential things like that. So you see a higher level of design when you bring sites under the deal of seven. So this is the process to date. Follow the normal rezoning process leading to tonight. I will note that Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning unanimously on January 9th. So the public outreach has been extensive and there's numerous registered neighborhood organizations. And so there has been letters of support from three registered neighborhood organizations, from Cole, Curtis Park and the Reno Arts District for the rezoning. Additionally, there's a total of 130 Non-nano comments with 120 128 of those supporting the rezoning. And there's also two comments within that, representing four properties in the area that support the rezoning, but only for the existing commercially zoned areas and in opposition to rezoning the median greenspace areas. These are the criteria that staff use to evaluate rezonings or go through them. So there's a number of plans applicable here. You have the citywide plans and 30th and Blake is really what provides the most specific neighborhood planning guidance. So I'll go through each one of these. So in terms of what the comprehensive plan says. Staff cited a number of comprehensive plan policies that support the rezoning, mostly related to conserving land by promoting infill development at sites where services and infrastructure already exist. This being in a transit oriented development area and well connected to the city's mobility network. That is the case in a number of other policies to support redevelopment and transit oriented development sites. So staff does find the request consistent with the Conference of Plan 2000, which I know is about to change, but that's what's on the books today. So in terms of Blueprint Denver, the site is in an area of change. And so those are areas that the city believes that new growth can best be accommodated, areas new transit. This certainly is the case. And in terms of the future land use concept, it is shown as transit oriented development, just being two blocks from the light rail, from the commuter rail station, that is certainly the case. So staff does find it consistent with these designations. And overall, does staff does find the request consistent blueprint in Denver, mostly because of the location of the site being in a transit orient development area. Also that the rezoning would eliminate a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district, which is also related to blueprint policies. Okay, so 38 and Blake Plan was originally actually adopted in 2009. In 2016, the 30th and Blake Station area height amendments were adopted. This is the most focused, neighborhood specific plan guidance. So we'll focus on this the most. So the subject site in terms of the future land use concepts, this is future land use concept has it split between mixed company street and urban residential. And so both of which support the idea of a mix of land uses and to activate the public realm. And then in terms of the stationary height amendments, this is really specific height guidance for the subject site and surrounding sites. And I'll explain this really quickly. But and this this explicitly in that document does supersede all height guidance and other plans. So this is really the rule that is on the books for the site. So and it does only apply to portions of the site north of 36th, south of 36 is not mapped. But essentially what this map says is that what the numbers say is the maximum base height that would be supported by the plan. So again, that is what is being matched by the applicant's request. CMA x three cm x five. The green is the maximum incentive heights. That's the maximum height you could go if you provide affordable housing or other community benefits. And so that's only actually applicable to areas on the eastern half of the subject block because they've already with five storeys, there's no incentive height on the western half of the block. So you would be able to go from 3 to 5 if you meet the affordable housing requirements. This blue strip on the map is indicating what I mentioned before, which is the transition that's required, where you can never go above three stories within 35 feet of Marion Street and intended to transition to the to the surrounding neighborhood . So staff does find the request consistent with things like stationery plan and Hyde Amendment policies for a variety of reasons. One that the based on District Heights precisely match those in the Hyde amendments, but also that CMCs and CNS both allow a mix of land uses, which is supported by both the transitory development, mixed use and urban residential future land use designations. And then moreover, by bringing in the design overlay idea of seven, that will require enhanced design mostly, you know, related to the public realm and the sites interface with the commuter rail station. And the rezoning would also support redevelopment along Downing Street, which is identified as a main street to support investment in the 30th and Blake plan. So I won't go into the other plans in much detail because three of them. Blake And sort of supersedes those. But the Elyria, Swansea Neighborhood Plan and the Northeast Downtowns Plan also apply to this site. So kind of grouped them together for this presentation at least. And so both plans in terms of plan consistency. Santos find the rezoning request consistent with both plans in terms of policies related to supporting development in transit aurion development areas and infill in these areas. And the building height recommendations are kind of moot in these documents because they're replaced by 38 and Blake. So again, the rezoning request is consistent with these plans because the requested zoning does allow a mix of land uses supported by both of these plans and the future land use concept and both of those plans for the subject site. And all of these layers combined support many plan recommendations related to promoting development in this area, being close to the commuter rail station. So the second criteria uniform, your district regulation staff does find the request consistent with that criteria. Happy to talk about that. Staff does find the request consistent with the third criteria, which is to further public health, safety and welfare, primarily through implementing adopted plans that we just went through related to land use design and building height from a variety of plans really that support redevelopment on the site. In terms of justifying circumstances. And this is basically saying that the rezoning is justified because of changed or changing conditions in the area. There's multiple things that staff cites in the staff report. One being that there's been multiple adopted plans since 2010, which is the site's original zoning and then certainly the 30th and Blake commuter rail station openings or changed conditions that support a rezoning from spouse staff's perspective. Last criteria consistency with the description of the neighborhood context and the zone district being proposed. Staff does find the request consistent with that criteria because it promotes mixed use development, where an adopted plan supports transit oriented development with excellent multimodal access. And then when you bring in the Doe seven in the Il1 zone districts, those are explicitly mapped to the site. So it's consistent with that in that sense. So that concludes my presentation. Happy answer questions. We also have some other staff, city staff here as well, depending on the questioners.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It looks like we have 16 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So in order for us to get through this in a timely manner, I'm going to call the first five up at five at a time, up to the front bench. And then when I call your name, please step right up to the podium as your time will start. So the first five Keith Pryor, chairman, say COO Ty Baldock, Jessie Parris and John Young. Keith Pryor, you are first up.
Speaker 5: Hi, my name is Keith Pryor. I am at 2418 Champ Street, but I have a property that's at 3361 Lawrence, which is just literally two blocks away from this project. I'm in huge support of, as Andrew has done a great job. This is clearly stated in the Northeast Area plan of what was to be done with this property. The reconfigurations that the streets and putting the grid back is crucial to implementing the plan and executing that. And we worked very hard on getting that plan done and adopted and then just that, you know, having the retail, having a mixed use, having the affordability, this checks every box that you want to be as a part of your community. It's walkable, it has bike, it's bikeable. We're working on putting the bike lanes back on Marion and making that a community neighborhood street from what it is today. It's one of the most dangerous in the city with that curve and we're putting back in the tree line. So that one spot you're having that is going away as a median, we're actually adding significantly more trees, we're adding significantly more open space and greenspace. And also the developer is working. I am the chair of the Curtis Park Design Design Committee and they're working with us on making sure that it's going to have a really nice design, have some really interesting kind of like a signature element where it comes in there at Larimer Street and 36th Street so that you can see it from the station and really draw you in to that project. So, you know, I'm in huge support. I think that this rezoning is appropriate. It actually does everything that it needs. The current zoning, they could do a lot more. And so I think that they've really worked well with the community at Curtis Park and the other neighbors call and also Whittier and you should support this. It's just really well thought out and executed. So I hope you do support this tonight. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 7: Chairman Seiko.
Speaker 10: Founder, Chairman Blackstar. It's a movement of self-defense advocates for poor.
Speaker 7: Working, poor homeless students. Elderly folks. The voiceless. The want to have no power. Especially sitting in this body here, you have no poor people representing nothing up there. And I am going to be the next mayor. The first poor person who is currently at the poverty level that's going to be elected. And that doesn't exist nowhere in this country.
Speaker 10: For 400.
Speaker 7: Years. This. Project. On every level. Does not qualify to be approved. Council has got to see the results of their work when they do these zoning changes. As soon as you approve zoning building starts happening. But you go around those sites and you'll find not one black person working on the site. Brown and white? No black. That is against federal law to systematically exclude a group because of race. And when you look at the developers who do this, they have no diversity inside their organization. It's all quite box. So then who is this for? Who is it for? The resegregation of our neighborhood. Where they come inside our neighborhood. And they get the political support and they get the zoning changes. And now it's only popcorn because now we are not. Being considered at all. And then in those rooms, we have a few folks.
Speaker 11: Like flowers and.
Speaker 7: Buttermilk. Who feel intimidated. By the majority of the people there because they see their voice and their vote don't mean squat. Because it's already decided. So therefore, we're just. Window covering like a mannequin in a department store and the window with nobody in there working. But the mannequin is.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Next up, tie builder.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Take this down here. Good evening, council members. My name is Taobao Waldock, and I've worked in rhinos since 1999, and I've lived in Whittier since 2008. Large construction crews have become the norm in our ever evolving corner of the city. I personally welcome the change as well, as well as recognize the growing pains associated with this progress. We have an opportunity to address an imperative need brought about by this growth. I support and welcome the addition of a healthy, affordable and convenient grocery option to our backyard. As a kid growing up in Ohio, I remember bagging groceries at Lee Williams meets. This experience taught me the value of hard work. The satisfaction of making my own money. And the responsibility of contributing to an organization whose sum is greater than its parts. All things that I still hold sacred in my family business today. I believe this new grocer will allow our community to pass along the same work ethic to our youth, who are our next generation of community leaders and entrepreneurs. Our current grocery options include Downing Super, a place that has limited, unfortunately oftentimes expired inventory or masks, a locally owned option that has superior meats but isn't always accessible for many middle class Tamil families. And finally, my go to Safeway on 20th Avenue. Recently, though, the Safeway was remodeled and a large portion of its floor plan was given to Starbucks. Now, don't get me wrong, I have to have my morning coffee too, because I can't function without it. But this remodel has resulted in a smaller produce section and an entire aisle devoted to sugary soft drinks. It's no wonder that lower income neighborhoods are at a higher risk for diseases such as obesity and diabetes. This new grocery will bring us an improved option that other neighborhoods in the city have benefited from for years, such as the salad bar, a homeopathic supplement section, and a cheaper bulk grain option. Our neighborhood deserves this just as much as the residents of Cherry Creek, who benefit daily from the beautiful Whole Foods on First Avenue. In addition, there are limited, healthy, affordable, grab and go options for lunch in the working district of Reno. My coworkers would relish the opportunity to jump on a scooter and go to the new grocer for lunch. My business Erica Motorsports is surrounded by hundreds of new residents from the new Madeira Project on Blake to the Hartley Flat Building on Walnut, with other residential projects breaking ground daily. These new residents have already been given grocery options to include the new new King Soopers and Whole Foods near Union Station. Yet our neighborhood, which have been the backbone of downtown Denver for years, are still left.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. And I apologize for mispronouncing your name. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 5: Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Represented for Denver Home, a sellout Black Star action moment for self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for May 2019 election. We are against.
Speaker 11: This.
Speaker 8: I attended numerous of these meetings with the community.
Speaker 11: The community voiced their concerns. Their concerns were parking traffic.
Speaker 8: The fact that I-70 is going to be shut down and there's nowhere for this traffic to go except to their neighborhoods. You want to change a one.
Speaker 11: Way street into a two way street? All of this.
Speaker 8: Change is happening while our neighborhoods are being gentrified.
Speaker 11: Where we are being rapidly displaced.
Speaker 8: From these neighborhoods.
Speaker 11: I grew up in the whole neighborhood.
Speaker 8: I've been here longer than congress out.
Speaker 0: Councilman Alvin Beasley for your comments to the body.
Speaker 11: I. Am against this.
Speaker 8: You need to vote no.
Speaker 11: On this seriously. And you really take into consideration what the community wants, not what these transplants want. And these people have just been here 5 minutes ago. We need to listen to the concerns of the people that have.
Speaker 5: Been here for 20, 30, 40, 50.
Speaker 8: Plus years, for generations. This is why we need a new council.
Speaker 11: Because you do not listen to the concerns of the people in these neighborhoods. You only listen.
Speaker 0: To them on the topic of thank you. Thank you. Next up, John Young and I'm going to call in the next five up to the front row, Dara Watson, Andrew Feinstein, John Haydon, Eric Clancey and Glenn Sibley. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 8: My name is John Young. I live at 3639 Ray Street. I've been in the whole neighborhood for almost 11 years and I'm going to speak in support of the project. I think it's going to provide the neighborhood with a few key positive benefits. The biggest is the two way street. If you're standing on 37th trying to cross Miriam's Street, the Warren Street is a has a bend in it and you can't see around the corner and cars just fly because it's a one way street. They come around that corner, they're going really fast. So straightening out the grid, reproducing the street grid, having two way traffic will greatly improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. The next is it's going to provide detached walks and shade trees.
Speaker 11: There is one.
Speaker 8: Tree in this whole block and all of the walkways are attached and right up against the curb, or you're just right up against all the cars. And last, it's going to provide a full service grocery store that's actually walkable. When I first bought the house 11 years ago, I this is the one thing I hoped we would finally get. And with this project, we're going to actually get something that's walkable that you can actually get to. It's affordable and quality. And then the last thing is density. It's two blocks from the light rail stop. And this area is mainly a surface parking lot. With no residents in providing that much density is going to really improve that whole light rail area and station area. That's it. Thanks for letting me speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Darryl Watson.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of council. My name is Darryl Watson. I'm a deep, dark chocolate brother, 30 year resident of.
Speaker 0: City Council District nine.
Speaker 8: And a 23 year resident of the great Whittier Neighborhood.
Speaker 5: Association. And I stand.
Speaker 8: Here tonight in favor of this rezoning and in favor of this development. I have three points I wanted to share. First. Affordable housing as well as having an affordable grocer. I remember 1998.
Speaker 7: When the Whittier Neighborhood Association, we did our neighborhood plan.
Speaker 8: And it was one of the first plans, neighborhood plans that was attached to the comprehensive plan for the city county of Denver. And one of our.
Speaker 6: First priorities was to have an affordable.
Speaker 8: Grocer.
Speaker 5: In.
Speaker 7: The Whittier neighborhood or adjacent to the Whittier neighborhood.
Speaker 8: And that was in 1998. We support all of the current grocery stores that currently are around and in Cole and Whittier. But having this as an addition doesn't take away from those. It just provides different opportunities for folks. As far as the affordable housing piece, that's a plus.
Speaker 7: Knowing that within District nine.
Speaker 8: We have some of the largest communities of low income.
Speaker 5: Section eight.
Speaker 8: And affordable housing.
Speaker 7: I am for all of the above.
Speaker 8: The more affordable housing, the more low and low income housing, the more section that we can have, the more folks we can support. I know my mother lives in Curtis Park. I won't share her.
Speaker 5: Business, but she lives in a rent an apartment based on her income.
Speaker 8: She loves it. She's been there for almost 15 years. She can possibly walk to this grocery.
Speaker 5: Store.
Speaker 8: From her residence that she lives right now. I think the other things that I think is important are the jobs. I think we're going to have a mixed used.
Speaker 5: Grocery store that's going to allow for folks in the neighborhood. And I can tell you, I've known Andy Feinstein for a good clip. Him and his team have done a remarkable job in reaching out to all of the neighborhoods that surround this grocery store. But I also know every business, as Andy has in our neighborhood, in our community. He hires folks from.
Speaker 8: Within the communities that they serve. That's one of his priorities and that's one of the reasons why I support him and the work that his team does. So thank you very much, members of council. My name is Darryl Watson and I.
Speaker 5: Support this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andrew Feinstein.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Council President. These mikes are never high enough. You're tall. You should make them taller for all of us. Tall guys. Good evening. Council President Clark, members of city council. My name is Andrew Feinstein. Thank you, Daryl, for the very kind words. I'm a fifth generation Denver aide and I'm located at 3535 Larimer Street. You might know me more familiar lately as the owner of the Tracks nightclub and the next event center, which does hire locally immediately catty corner to this site in question. I'm also the lead developer on this project and our group has owned this property, the bulk of this property since 2005, except for the seed portion which we were able to acquire last year. Jeff did a great job. Jeff from a CPD staff did a great job of walking you guys through all of the neighborhood plans, and I believe he made a good case for why this is consistent with those plans. As someone who's been in this neighborhood now for ten years, I've been in all of those public meetings. So whether it was the 2008, 2009, 30th in Blake Station area plan, the 2011 next step study the northeast downtown neighborhood plan the 30th and Blake design and height overlay that we passed last year. I went to all of these meetings, every single one of these meetings, and the one thing we kept hearing in all these meetings was four needs from the community. Number one, you know, we live in a food desert and we need an affordable grocery store that we can walk to. Number two, we need more affordable housing. Number three, we need local jobs in the neighborhood. And number four, I don't feel safe when I bike or walk around these one way streets and these dangerous intersections. So we're really here tonight because we have an opportunity with this rezoning to not only comply with all of those neighborhood plans that have been adopted by council going back ten years now. But we can finally meet the needs, the felt needs of our neighbors and fulfill the vision that we all set forth as a city and as a community. When we went through these planning processes, going back again ten years, unfortunately, our sites, including the Lawrence Street swoop that Steph mentioned and the medians we required from Seedat to complete the block while they were included in the 30th and Blake design overlay, they were not included in the ordinance. So in order for us to meet those community needs again, eliminate a food desert, provide affordable housing, which, as you'll see in the booklets we've given you, we are committing to making 10% of all the units we build to be affordable at 60%. Am I? Even though the ordinance only may require one or two units at 80%, am I provide local jobs and create a safer pedestrian experience? It's all covered. If we get this rezoning done. So we have three letters of support from Curtis Park, from Cole and from Rhino, and we have over 150 individual support letters from our neighbors. So I would encourage you all to consider passing this this evening, and I'm available throughout the evening if you have any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Hayden.
Speaker 3: Good evening, counsel. And I like the short term. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 3: John Hayden.
Speaker 1: I live at 2418 Champ Street for 24 years.
Speaker 3: And I was President Kerr's park neighbors when Andy and.
Speaker 14: His team brought this before our.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood for asking for our support. It was at our November regular meeting, and there were 48 neighbors present for that meeting. So there were a lot of people who came out and Curtis Park neighbors did vote to support this rezoning. Our community expressed several concerns having to do with having to do with the design of the building and having to do with making sure that the property, the grocery store was accessible by bike and pedestrian access. And we were happy to say that the developer worked very well with the neighborhood on that and addressing those concerns. We feel very comfortable with Andy and his team because they've been in our community for so long. I think in fact their family started the synagogue at 24th and Curtis over 100 years ago. So it's this really does feel like a a development that's happening from within our community by someone that we trust and that. And so that is why you see support here and not a ton of people here angry about it.
Speaker 10: So I.
Speaker 3: Am.
Speaker 1: Particularly excited about.
Speaker 3: This because of the taking the Lawrence Street swoop out and restoring our street grid. There were a number of places. Many of you know that I'm a big advocate for pedestrians and bikes in our city, and this is to me, riding.
Speaker 1: A wrong that was.
Speaker 3: Done to the five points in Cole neighborhoods many years ago.
Speaker 1: When they thought.
Speaker 3: We should be paved over and become an expressway into downtown. This is a rare.
Speaker 1: Opportunity.
Speaker 3: To take one of those pavement scars and reintegrate it back into our neighborhood. And so I hope you will support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Eric Clancy.
Speaker 11: Good evening, everyone. My name is Eric Clancy. Excuse me. And I live in the neighborhood that this project is proposed for. And I actually also own a business in the neighborhood. It's a gym. So my primary reason for being here is speaking up in favor of it is safety for my gym members. A lot of the workouts that we do require us to run in and around the neighborhood and the one way streets that a lot of the previous speakers have mentioned are unsafe for my members, just due to the fact that the cars travel really quickly on those roads. So I think that by the rezoning and moving some of the roads into the two ways will be a lot safer for my gym members, which is the primary reason that I'm here speaking in favor of the project. And also we desperately need a grocery store in the neighborhood. I have to travel far too far to go get food and it would be great to have something in the neighborhood where I can just walk to take my bags and then walk back home, too. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Glen Sibley and I will invite the last six people. So if you haven't been up yet, but you signed up this evening to please come up to the front bench. Good.
Speaker 6: Good evening, President Park. My name is Glenn Sibley. I live in 14 a live in Wayne Koop. I've lived in Denver since 1946, off and on. They call in five points. They would have long been a food desert, dating back to the time when my father used to drive me downtown and turn towards downtown three or five points just to bloggers on this side. There's more and more bougie retail in the Rhino cool neighborhood. You only need to go to consumers and 20 that just have to be convinced of that. It's packed their night. The development of a full service grocery store between 36 and 37. Downing of benefits going 5.7. Curtis Park. Globeville. Elyria. Swans. Here they were to the north, none of which enjoy a food full service grocery store today. It's a much needed amenity with community benefits. If it goes, you sort of provide a valuable social and neutral meeting place for all ages and genders, social services, etc. Those are obvious place for kids to get jobs. Learn the work ethic that we need in this community. The office workers that are occupied, they soon open or plan projects that are on 38th and like 30 of 3500 bike projects would benefit from easy pedestrian access for their needs and the work day and on the way home from work. Lastly, the developers proposing ten times the affordable units normally required. Verizon, if I understand correctly, and further supposing those at 60% rather than 80% as regarding the zoning. This choice has real economic concerns for the president, Obama has added, although the team is taking this approach to the project. We support it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I apologize for mispronouncing your name. Isaac Dominguez.
Speaker 11: Hi. My name is Isaac Domingue. I live at 1113 33rd Street. I live and work in the district and am in full support of the grocery store development. About a month ago, I sold my car and I have never understood the need to have a store so close to me. Then over the last couple of months, walking to work, walking to a grocery store is something that is very it's very important to me being able to go somewhere in the neighborhood that I live and work in as well. Not having to Uber or take a bike to get healthy groceries is is something that's extremely needed in the area that we're in. And then lastly, just as I ride a bike or as I scoot. This street is very dangerous, especially the area that is under this.
Speaker 13: Particular zoning.
Speaker 11: Would be very, very.
Speaker 13: Beneficial to have it with a bike lane or something that.
Speaker 11: Adds the two way street so that we can get to places safely. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'm striking out on names. I apologize. The next couple, I am going to apologize ahead of time. Noah Mouse.
Speaker 8: Manos. Hmm. Good evening. My name is Noah Mannose. I own a property adjacent to the proposed redevelopment site at 3700 Marion Street, which is on the northeast corner of 37th. And Marion. I've lived in the Whittier and City Park neighborhood for almost 15.
Speaker 3: Years.
Speaker 8: And I currently live at 2228 Ray Street. I wanted to come and speak today on behalf of those who are pursuing the zoning amendment, because I believe this initiative is a legacy, a legacy to mine minded development that will have a great and lasting benefit to the neighborhood, which I believe is evidenced by the support of Councilman Brooks. I am the co-founder and principal of a design build company in Denver called Paper Airplane. The mission paper airplane is to produce sustainable and high performance buildings using passive house design, philosophy and building methodology. We're focused on producing projects with significantly reduce carbon footprint through the use of low embodied, mature energy materials. We're dedicated to creating buildings that don't rely on fossil fuel consumption and buildings that are up to 90% more efficient than what is required by the current building code. Our mindset is to create an enduring benefit for Denver residents through our projects and to create a positive trajectory and for the general health of the neighborhood. I have completed one project nearby at in five points at 2256 Washington Street, which was acknowledged by the Denver Post and 50 to 80 magazine for its unique approach to sustainability. I met Andrew in 2016 and learned about the proposal of the coal market redevelopment. I was immediately excited by the idea and how it could cultivate a meaningful, positive change in the neighborhood. Previous to meeting him, I was aware of Andy's involvement in the community through Trax and XTO. As a neighborhood resident, I've observed how his entrepreneurship was making a positive impact on the neighborhood. And there are several ways that I believe this project is legacy minded. First, the proposed redevelopment will provide a fundamental service that will improve the lives of families and community members that live in coal and rhino. This is a new this new resource will have also have a positive effect on outlying neighborhoods like Swansea, Skyline, San Rafael and City Park West. I believe there is a simple underlying formula at work in this redevelopment, which is access to healthy food equals a healthy community. The neighbor neighborhoods of northeast Denver have been historically underserved through limited access to quality food, and the coal market redevelopment project will change that. The second way I believe this project is legacy minded is through its focus on affordable housing. Affordable housing is critical as a critical issue in Denver and addressing it as essential to the health and long term viability of the neighborhood and for our city at large. We need affordable housing to encourage diversity, to support working families, to support a young, creative class that will continue to make Denver an interesting and exciting place to live. In 2005.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Thank you very much. And next up, I'm going to go to Jennifer and I'm going to let you say your own last name. I'm going to cut my losses before I even start.
Speaker 1: You did a really great job with the first name. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Kubert, and I'm a homeowner in the whole neighborhood. I've been a homeowner in call neighborhood for eight years. And I've watched it grow, expand, improve and gain a new life. The rebirth of Larimer Street and all of its restaurants has helped Cool Neighborhood. You also have the Railway Railway running to Union Station and then out to the airport, which has also improved our neighborhood. And now I see this project as another breath of life for the neighborhood, one we desperately need. We have restaurant shops and some parks, but that this will help us come closer to a goal of becoming self-sufficient within our own community. I would welcome a grocery store two blocks from my own house, one that my husband and I can easily walk to and shop for groceries, for dinners, or our barbecues or our evenings with friends and neighbors. Driving to Safeway, which is 18 blocks from my house or over to Union Station for a Whole Foods, is a waste of my time, and it's usually just adds to more traffic on the streets. Along with self-sufficiency, this project will provide affordable housing that will allow our community to grow and continue on a positive and diverse direction. And it can provide jobs for people who actually live in the area. But most importantly, it will improve the roads and the intersections along Marion and Downing. These are dangerous roads and in eight years I have never felt comfortable crossing the street. The cars speed through during the day and on the weekends. But at Rush. Our the congestion is overwhelming and you have cars zooming in and out constantly. With this rezoning, we can make the roads safer and hopefully with a little less congestion and we will gain safe crosswalks and bike lanes to those who commute by bike scooter . So as a long time resident of the neighborhood, I welcome this rezoning and positive change to our neighborhood. And I thank you very much for your time. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Stephen Sampson.
Speaker 5: Hey, my name is Steve Samson and I live across the street and work across the street from the proposed development. I think the case has been pretty well made. So I will say that the streets are indeed dangerous and the food is definitely scarce. So I think those are both good things. I've been to many of the community meetings for all of the all of the proposed developments for the.
Speaker 3: Whole neighborhood.
Speaker 5: And specifically this. And I think that some of the concerns are valid. But given that I have not seen anyone propose an alternative plan that offers anything of any real benefit. I am in support of this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tracy, while.
Speaker 11: Good evening. How's everybody tonight? Thank you so much, city council, for hearing us out. My name is Tracy while and I've been a resident of the Five Points neighborhood for 18 years. I'm also the president and co-founder of the Rhino Art District. This particular project was brought to our board and gained full support, as you'll see in your letter. I live in a food desert. When I first moved to the area, my closest food source was the gas station. Over the years, there has been more access to restaurants in this walkable area. But it wasn't until recently that there was a natural grocer built off of Brighton Boulevard. This has been an amazing addition and now it's so much easier to buy healthy food and produce in it an addition of another market. Within walking distance would be another great addition. With another store, I will now be able to shop and compare prices and find the food that I really want. We deserve access to fresh, healthy food. I was also thrilled to hear that as part of this project that 10% of the units being created will be affordable at 60% AMI. While this won't solve our affordable housing crisis, it is at least a step in the right direction. The developer has deep roots in our community and generally cares about our neighborhoods. This is a model I wish more developers were doing in our community. I encourage City Council to support this much needed projects project as it will create over 100 jobs for our community, provide needed healthy food access and will provide much needed affordable housing in the area. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And last up, Jonathan Kaplan.
Speaker 14: Hi. Good evening and thank you for taking the time to listen to us this evening. My name is Jonathan Kaplan and I've lived and worked in this area for the past 12 years. I'm a property owner as well as a business owner, and I have seen these neighborhoods grown exponentially since I've been here. The neighborhoods of Cole River, north five points, Elyria, Swansea and Globeville. It's a food wasteland. It's a food desert. We need an affordable grocery store. And the proposed zoning change will move this project forward. And not only will it help create a grocery store, but it will include over 100 jobs, a 10% affordable housing counterpart. And finally, the realignment of streets to provide a safer vehicle and pedestrian experience. I have an incredible amount of confidence in Andrew Feinstein and his team. They are neighborhood centric, they're community oriented. And I urge city council to approve this change of zoning. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Brooks, I see you up. Good.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I just have a question real quick. First of all, Bell Dog didn't get a chance to finish. You didn't get a chance to finish your speech. Did you want to finish that or.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of your grocery store.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 3: Okay. I have my questions for Jeff. Jeff, can you come on up and just clarify this? Because this has been a point of questioning for a lot of folks in the neighborhood and and even folks. Yeah. And it's the the 35 foot buffer from the protected district. Yes. You said it's a 35 foot buffer that can go up to three stories. Can you just explain that maybe you want to put the slide on and work in the five story start.
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So just give us a little step up.
Speaker 13: Okay, so the. The code allows just looking at the eastern half of this block. So it would allow a base height of three stories and an incentive height up to five stories. So if you provide affordable housing or other community benefits, you could get up to five, however, within 35 feet of Marion Street. You can't use that incentive. It would only be three stories or 45 feet. I believe in height would be the maximum. So there's essentially a no go area. That is the the buffer intended to transition to the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: So I just want to make that clear because it sounded as if you said you can't go to three stories within the 35 feet. But the reality is you can go because they will be doing the incentive, the affordable housing. They will start their five stories in the three.
Speaker 13: That they could. They could if they meet all the requirements.
Speaker 3: Okay. I just I just want to be very clear in making that clear to the folks who are here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynt.
Speaker 7: Thanks for president. Jeff, maybe you can help me understand, as I looked at the staff report and I looked at the 30th employee stationery plan, when Lawrence is taking when the diagonal, the swoop is taken out, will 36th Avenue cuts through there right now in the middle of the block, basically, doesn't it, between Marion and Downing?
Speaker 13: Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. Will 36th Avenue be maintained as a right of way?
Speaker 13: Yes, that's my understanding. It would be squared off and 36th Avenue would maintain. It's easy to go.
Speaker 7: Continue to go through. So the triangular parcel at the bottom of that will be separated from the main block to the north. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood that correctly. At the committee, there was some talk when this was a committee a while back about open space and the fact that those triangles, even though they're in the middle of traffic nightmare, provided some green space. And we had heard some we had some input that there was concern about loss of green space. Can you tell us how this rezoning, how it handles the open space and green space?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean, it's a challenge because those two areas are one, they're in private ownership now and they were previously set right away. So the city has never really own them or controlled them.
Speaker 7: I didn't mean to imply that it's that it should be green of. It just happens to be open because there's nothing else you can do with them.
Speaker 13: Right. Right. So so absent any zoning guidance or any plan guidance, saying it should be open space or a green space or a park or anything, and the fact that it's in private property ownership and was put on the market and went through that process, we have really limited options in terms of what zoning can do. But I know the applicant and if they want to submit it could speak to it has been looking at ways to mitigate that.
Speaker 7: Okay, Andrew, could you come up and address that? And also, while he's coming up, does the triangular parcel when we take out the Lawrence swoop, does do the parcel boundaries abut the other private property to the south of that does?
Speaker 8: I think you have to ask me about the tollbooth we were going to put up on the road. So no, so jokes aside, this this property, if you look at the map that just provided here. Yes. And you take this right now, this this this city block exclusive of that median has zero greenspace and very few trees . Yes. When we square off this entire block and we remove the Lawrence streets, where we are going to dress or adorn is the right word. But we're going to address the entire perimeter of this site with a brand new tree line on the Marian side. Our intention, if public works will allow it, is to make that a localized street. And we're going to have a 15 to 17 foot tree line all the way along Marion, which it does not have today. So we're actually going to double the amount of total green space and triple the amount of trees as far as the triangle to the south of 36. That is adjacent to our neighbor to the south, which is a gas station. And we play nice, we get along great, and we're going to own our triangle and they're going to own their gas station. And and we've had some preliminary discussions about reserving that as open space, but it remains to be seen what we're going to do with it specifically.
Speaker 7: Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I'm looking at the the 99 plan for a mid 2000 plan, really, for Whittier, which is not referenced in the in among the plans. Is there a reason for that?
Speaker 13: Uh, if it is in the plan area boundary, um, which I'm not sure that it is.
Speaker 3: After the site. Definitely is, yeah. Okay. The northwest, the northeast corner and the triangle parcels.
Speaker 13: Okay. Well, that may be an oversight by staff's part, but we certainly have more recent guidance with the 30th in place.
Speaker 3: And this is going to be more related to my comments. But does anyone know the demographics of the neighborhood of Whittier now? Because back then it was 75, while 76% African-American and 15% Latino. So. So over 90% or over? Yeah, a lot. And I can do math again. Over 90% minority. Do you know what that is?
Speaker 13: I don't know. Um. Okay.
Speaker 3: Okay. I was gonna look at it. Slide 42.
Speaker 11: Please.
Speaker 3: Uh oh. You're already there. Awesome. So that blue band of three story is. How do you begin?
Speaker 13: 35 feet from Marianne Green.
Speaker 3: And then slide 50 as well.
Speaker 13: Uh. Uh, I only have 49.
Speaker 3: Okay. How about 38? 30? Yeah. I'm looking for.
Speaker 13: A movie off.
Speaker 3: Yeah. It's different than what's on here because it's 50 slides on here. I'm looking for the slide with the euro two boundary.
Speaker 13: That the billboard is so. Oh, yeah. There is a hidden slide. Sorry, there is a hidden slide. Which is. Yeah, I apologize. I'll get that unhidden. I see that comes up. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So there is language in the plan that contemplates this idea that one day the economic forces would redevelop this area and maybe, you know, put less emphasis on revenue generation through billboards. It is interesting to me with the reconfiguration of the street that the Marion Parcels would be more of the residential fabric that the rest of the neighborhood to the east is and less in certainly with fewer car trips than what Lawrence configurations supports today. Was there any discussion about altering the boundary of the euro, too, so that it actually didn't go all the way into the to the single family, sort of, you know, adjacent and maybe subdivided? I mean, split it among the zone lot.
Speaker 13: Yeah. I mean, we we had discussions about that. And it's one of those things where both with the euro one and the euro two, we were advised to keep it exactly how it is, basically. And I could have the city attorneys come up here and speak more to that, but especially with having existing billboards on the site and creating issues with that. So it is a little funky, but we we did land the living in exactly the way it is.
Speaker 3: I'm not too worried about it because I did scour all the plans and there's very, very minimal discussion. And it's only in Arapahoe Square, actually in the downtown neighborhoods plans where they even talk about existing billboards. So so as far as I'm concerned, the plans don't recommend anything. Yeah, the but the plans do talk about travel said study has a travel said study prior to the reconfiguration. Is the travel study been done?
Speaker 13: I am not sure if I know that there is extensive a next step study to look at squaring off this block. And I don't know if a travel shared study was a component of that analysis. I don't.
Speaker 3: Know if you could if there is one, could you just looks.
Speaker 13: Like.
Speaker 3: Oh, great.
Speaker 13: Good, get Luke up here from public works to copy.
Speaker 12: Hi. I'm Luke Korpi with Public Works. No travel said study wasn't done, but public works that examined when we began to work with the applicant on this project, the actual traffic volumes of the adjacent surrounding streets and worked on these street improvements and operational improvements to accommodate the traffic associated with the removal of the worn swoop.
Speaker 3: I'm sort of not worried. I'm just going to sort of welcome this neighborhood into the problems of Northwest Denver because it's already really congested at times over there. I can't imagine with the reconfiguration how that necessarily is going to work other than to put more traffic in neighborhood streets. You know.
Speaker 12: It's not particularly designed to accommodate more traffic than is currently using the streets, but it is designed to accommodate the traffic throughput that is currently contained on the lawns swoop and average it out to the surrounding streets 36 Marion Downing 37th, while at the same time improving bicycle and pedestrian conditions.
Speaker 3: As public works. So one of the things is, is in my choose, my two statistical neighborhoods that are closest to the urban core and closest to transient has the most connectivity to downtown, also has the greatest increase in population and single occupant drivers. This public works have a plan because there's so much transit infrastructure over here to basically really make sure that this is this is an area that actually, you know, readily accepts and adopts the alternative means of transportation because there's probably no area in the city that is more primed for it.
Speaker 12: I think some of that is is delving into policy issues that I'm at a staff level not quite able to address. But certainly, you know, we're cognizant of the density, is supportive of the increased density around the stations and in this transit rich area. So we're certainly wanting to encourage high density but less vehicular oriented development, the idea being that we're really not in a position to be able to redesign or reconfigure the streets in any kind of substantial way to carry more traffic volume. But what we're interested in working toward is mode shifts to transit, bicycles, pedestrians and certainly, you know, we're supportive of the higher densities in this neighborhood because of their adjacency to the transit opportunities.
Speaker 3: Do you think that that is something that we should introduce in this? So, you know, we did land use decisions with the incentive overlay and other sort of creating the conditions for density and minimal parking. Do you think we should have established some requirements in the site development plan process so that actually public works wasn't just looking at access, ingress and egress, but actually sort of compelling multi-modal use?
Speaker 12: I think that's a very good question. I think I think it's a it's a policy discussion that should potentially be pursued and encouraged in my position. I'm not really able to speak on how we may want to proceed with implementing those goals. But I can certainly say that in my role primarily as a development review engineer, that examining everything and putting everything on the table to accommodate the transportation needs of development and the community is a good thing.
Speaker 11: You know, great.
Speaker 3: Those are really lead up to I have questions for the ownership as well. But I can skip if you if there is any that is lined up, I'd probably.
Speaker 0: Put just you.
Speaker 3: Right now. So is it Andy or just you alone or. Okay, so the community spoke about a conversation that you had with respect to them on design and amenity in the project. You know, I'm big on codifying these things, even though they're not a requirement of your zoning. You know, when you have these conversations with community, they start to establish certain expectations, but the zoning doesn't actually compel any of that. So what are you what mechanism are you pursuing to actually compel the outcomes that you're having that you're sort of pitching to the neighborhood?
Speaker 8: I'm concerned that you're questioning my taste, Councilman. Well, first things first. You know, when we when we and I helped, I was on the steering committee and I attended all 34 meetings that helped draft the 38th and Blake design and height overlay. We debated this extensively. If we want to have formalized design review yes or no, we ended up saying no. That said that the design overlay itself does have a lot of good. In it, including active ground floor use a certain height for the first floor setback requirements. Setback requirements. A lot of you know, we did have a what do you call hydro parking lot provisions where you can't just have a parking lot that's exposed to the street. So I think there's a lot of good tenants in there. You know, as Keith Prior from Curtis Park mentioned earlier, we've already engaged with him, with our architect, to talk about what what might work from a design standpoint, from the opinion of Curtis Park and the perspective of Curtis Park. Certainly as we get our massing going and we get our design going, should we be fortunate enough to have our zoning approved? We'll be meeting with the rhino team as well, rhinos in the process of reconfiguring its design review team and there will be meeting with them as well. So we will engage with the neighbors. But I'm very confident in our team. We've done other projects in this area before. I think we do great work. We're not out of town speculators. We're here for multi-generation, not just myself, but my partners as well. And I think that this will be a project that the whole community can be proud of because we're intending on owning it forever, so we better be proud of it.
Speaker 3: So at ludy committee discussion about pocket parks and the possibility of a pocket park sort of as a replacement for the the lost open space, I, I commented that it's a quarter of an acre of open space land in those two triangles, about 11,000 square feet. And it wasn't your commitment, I understand, but the commitment was made to capture open space. Has open space been a part of that discussion with the community?
Speaker 8: It has, especially with the whole neighborhood. I think, again, as I mentioned in my in my my answer to Councilman Flynn, we believe that by addressing the east side of city, west side of Marion, east side of our project with potentially a 17 foot tree line and turning Marin into a local ice street, we can actually double the amount of green space that is currently open, space that is currently there, and triple the amount of trees on the site. You know, those to call those pocket parks are of colors. Open space is. I just respectfully disagree with the description. I've been located right across the street for a decade now. I have never stood in either of those pocket parks and had a picnic or done anything whatsoever. They're medians and just because they happen to have grass on their medians. And so I think that, you know, there's going to be some cost benefit here. There's some things we've got to do in order for us to square up this block and improve and improve both a pedestrian and cycling, but also vehicular safety around there, you kind of can't have it all. So we're trying to explore maintaining that southern triangle as a pocket park. But we engaged with parks and they weren't interested in taking it on. And I don't want to be in the parks business and I don't think you want me in the parks business. So that's something we're working on, but we'll see how it goes. Yeah, I'm.
Speaker 3: Under no illusion that those are pocket parks, but what was contemplated was actually something more of a true pocket park as part of the development. But those are just those are spare parcels, you know, as you know, as you acquire them. Then the last question is on the 17 feet along, Marion, do you is that where your your property line is? If not, are you going to seek a variance to further your build to requirement? Or do you need us to already put an encumbrance on that?
Speaker 8: And I'm kind of speaking out of turn there. I can't answer that intelligently. But again, my understanding is we're going to work with Luc's team in public works. Maybe maybe staff can help answer that question. But again, we're trying to make Marin a local street, and that's important for two reasons not just to have an extended tree line, but also to have no commercial activity on Marion. As you know, this site is a bridge between the residential side of the neighborhood and the commercial side of the neighborhood. The residential side is on the east, which is coal, and the commercial side is on the west, which is right now. And so that's where we have all of our commercial facing West and all of our residential facing East, which is why we believe that's the best opportunity to have an extended tree line. Yeah.
Speaker 3: The reason I ask is I've seen other developers basically not want to battle with the city to do sort of what you're talking about, which is the right thing when you can just do what you're allowed to do.
Speaker 8: Well, too, I think that we all the of the boats are going in the same direction here, meaning we have alignment with Curtis Park, Rhino and coal. I think we're a pretty feisty bunch. And I think we have a we have a terrific councilman who has helped move this project forward. And I think that we have a good team, and I think that we'll have good conversations with the city. And I look forward to having those to figure out how we can produce as much open space as possible.
Speaker 3: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council 19 0058 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President, as I look at this. This plan and this rezoning, it brings to mind sort of an urban disaster that could have been the the Lawrence Swope the providence of that stems from the original Hyde Park subdivision in 1918 81, when the state put state Highway 33 through from 40th Avenue Smith Road and 40th Avenue on down into downtown Denver. It came in on Lawrence and Larimer, so they needed to acquire that mid-block between Downing and Marion and sort of destroyed the neighborhood and could have destroyed it much further because I believe that State Highway 33 was designated because of the the city's construction of the Lawrence Street Viaduct in 1957, when they paired it with Lawrence and made a one way couplet. This was during the time in the fifties when the city was was doing one way couplets all through all through town. However, in the mid-sixties, the voters of Denver approved the Skyline Urban Renewal Project, which included plans for a freeway. Believe it or not, this block that we're rezoning today would have been the eastern end of a freeway from what's now the Urrea Parkway, or formerly the Lawrence Larimer Viaduct, straight through lower downtown, which would have been obliterated and up through the Upper Larimer area and connecting onto Smith Road. And I when I see rezonings like this, Mr. President, which I support because I believe it meets all of the criteria. It just reminds me of many bullets that we've dodged in the past. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kels. Councilman Flynn. Councilman.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Andrew, I just want to.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. You can't believe we've been for the last three years. We've been talking about grocery.
Speaker 6: Stores.
Speaker 0: And affordable housing. And you're putting that whole plan together. Is is is very admirable. And so really appreciate you and your partners and all of us to bringing this whole project together. It's going to be great and thank.
Speaker 6: You for all the leadership with Rondo as well.
Speaker 0: So thank you for everything you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just I would just make comments. I think I think if you guys get the outcomes that you guys are talking about, it'll be great for this community. And so with that, I'll be supporting the rezoning because it's, you know, it's what's needed to sort of get these two even going close or take a whiff at these outcomes. That said, I'm going to call on you all. That spoke about the need for grocery over here to to be vigilant in getting that outcome on this development or others opportunities in the area. But don't ignore the fact that this problem has been persistent in this neighborhood for a really, really long time. And with this gentrification that is in fact happening and with affluence coming to the area that, you know, these food deserts are more attractive for grocers to move into because there's some disposable income that they can tap. And but it is a problem and is a problem that the city voted to start to address to the tune of $8 million a year. And this this city could budget and have helped address this problem sooner rather than now. I hope and I assume that OPD or somebody may partner with you to sort of help you make sure that this outcome is is is received or. But and so but there are other communities that don't have your resources that are in a dearth of a food desert. And so when you hear that, please, because this section of this binder is the comments, individual comments of people supporting this this rezoning. And almost I mean, the vast majority talk about the grocery aspect of this development. And so that is a genuine need for you all. It will benefit everybody here and a whole bunch of other people in the surrounding areas that are there and will be there as part of the other developments of the 30th and Blake Station . But there are other parts of this city that are just as in dire need. And let's not lose focus of that. And I hope you champion that whenever you get a chance. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to congratulate the.
Speaker 1: Neighborhood and the developer.
Speaker 2: For thinking through what is going to be, I suspect, a wonderful microcosm of tackling the complexity of the issues that we are.
Speaker 1: Facing in Denver.
Speaker 2: You are you're tackling the affordable housing that a place.
Speaker 1: More places for people to live in really.
Speaker 2: Terrific neighborhoods. You're tackling the the traffic calming issues that we need to have you're tackling that need to have people maybe not.
Speaker 1: Have to be in their cars all of the.
Speaker 2: Time. You're you're tackling the.
Speaker 1: Walkability of.
Speaker 2: The neighborhood. You like doing both the transit, the traffic and the housing situation all in one place. And you're providing a density of experience, not just density of people, but a density of experience, a way to be able to enjoy greenery.
Speaker 1: Enjoy trees.
Speaker 2: Enjoyed, go shopping, have some other things that you.
Speaker 1: Can do where you live and where you work. And I think this is a really good example of of meeting this problem from all kinds of different angles. And I appreciate that the work that you did and with the work that the neighborhood did to bring.
Speaker 2: Something like this forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Brooks abstained.
Speaker 2: Black. Espinosa by Flynn I. Gilmore. I turned in. I Cashman. Lopez I knew. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: By I'm secretary. Please cause voting in those results.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes, one abstention.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for the 3600 Block of Downing, bounded by Downing Street, 37th Avenue, Marion Street, and 36th Avenue, and including vacated portions of Lawrence Street south of 36th Avenue in Cole.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone the 3600 block of Downing Street from B-4 with waivers and conditions, UO-1, UO-2; U-SU-A1; and C-MX-3, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5, UO-1, UO-2, IO-1, DO-7; C-MX-3, UO-1, UO-2, IO-1, DO-7; and C-MS-5, UO-1, UO-2 (business zoning in the former zoning code to downtown, urban, and urban center with overlays), located in an area bounded by Downing Street, 37th Avenue, Marion Street, and 36th Avenue, and including vacated portions of Lawrence Street near 36th Avenue, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-29-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0166
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Councilman Lopez, thank you for bringing this forward. All right. We're going to move on to our second proclamation of the evening. Councilman Brooks, will you read Proclamation 166?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to read Proclamation 166 honoring Dr. Charles Chuck Brannigan as he retires as chair of the Health District Design Forum. Whereas Dr. Charles Brannigan has recently announced that he is retiring as the chair of the Uptown Health Care District Design Forum after more than 27 years of volunteer service, of working tirelessly and selflessly on behalf of residents, businesses and health care institutions of the Uptown Neighborhood. And. Whereas, he and other neighborhood leaders branded, banded together and collaborated with several Uptown hospitals and other health care institutions in 1993 to persuade City Council to establish a specific hospital zone district and to prevent hospitals from creeping into the destabilizing, destabilizing residential neighborhoods. Under Dr. Branigan's leadership for 27 years, the forum has fostered friendly communications between registered neighborhood organizations and health care organizations. In Uptown worked with Denver Planning Office to develop an Uptown Health Care Design District and helped shape the expansion of the Presbyterian St Luke's Hospital, the redevelopment of the former St Luke's Hospital into a mixed use area, the acquisition of the Saint Joseph's Hospital and the Children's Hospital campus, and the construction of the new Saint Joseph's Hospital. He's met with many developers to comment on the improve various new projects in the neighborhood and and fought crime and other problems within the neighborhood. Whereas Chuck has conducted a successful medical practice from the La Langley Restored Gilbert mansion, he has also affiliated with many Denver hospitals and gone to Egypt. Yes, he's been in Egypt for two weeks for the past 17 years to train Egyptian military surgeons. He served as the chief of surgery at Presbyterian St Luke's Medical Center and is currently serving in a volunteer capacity at the University of Colorado Medical Center, Department of Vascular Surgery. And. Whereas, he and his wife Kathy have restored several Victorian homes and worked to have their block designated as the Lafayette Street Historic District in the Find District nine. Their current historic passion is the restoration of the narrow gouge roundhouse in Carmel, Colorado, to a working roundhouse and a museum complete with historic steam engine restored the railcars from the original South Park and Pacific Line. Chuck has received numerous awards for his efforts and historic preservation. He also founded the William Lang Society and has done much research and education about Denver's premier early architects. And. Whereas, Checking Kathy are also the founders of one of Denver's finest cultural organizations, the Denver brass, a 14 member. Brass musical ensemble that performs many concerts every year. And. Whereas, in all of his service to the Uptown community, Denver, Dr. Branigan has earned the respect and loyalty and admiration of those who have worked with those he's worked with, including residents and neighborhood organizations, health care institutions, developers and city council members. We all appreciate and celebrate his past and continuing services to the Uptown neighborhood and to all of Denver. Now therefore be a proclaim that the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, the Council of the City County Denver, hereby expresses its sincere appreciation to Dr. Charles, who we call Chuck Brannigan for his dedicated work and tireless efforts on behalf of the residents, businesses and health care institutions of the Uptown neighborhood. And that the city and the Council for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, hereby officially proclaims February 25th, 2019 be known as Chuck Branigan Day. Section two that the Clerk of the county, the city and county of Denver shall attest and fix a seal of the city in County Denver and this proclamation be transmitted to Dr. Branigan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that proclamation. 166 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: So this is I mean, this proclamation said it all. But this dear leader in our community who I've never called Chuck. By the way, Dr. Branigan is he's an institution for northeast Denver. Many folks do not remember the days, and I don't remember the days because I wasn't here. But when the hospitals were running wild in the neighborhoods of City Park West and Uptown, there was a leader. There was someone who, you know, who who said, you know, I'm a I'm going to go outside of my normal duties as the doctor of this area and start to be a caring neighborhood leader and see if I can start to coalesce and bring some collaborations to make sure that these hospitals understand that they are in a neighborhood and they're in our neighborhood. And so Dr. Brennan gets a lot of credit for that. But as you see, he's one of the most talented individuals you've ever met before. Not only is he fixing hearts, which would be enough in life, he's playing instruments. He's saving historic buildings. He's leading in communities. And he's been doing it for many, many years. And I just got to say, as a young city councilperson, newly elected, who didn't know a lot about the history of Dr. Branigan in 2011, he really took me under his wing and said, this is how we do neighborhood revitalization. This is what historic preservation looks like. Here's our history. And. I invite you to be a part of this? He wasn't judgmental, which he could have been like. You know, young city council person. I won't tell you a thing or two about what this neighborhood is all about. He was loving. He was kind, but always educating. And so it is an art is what a great honor and privilege that we get a chance to recognize Dr. Brannigan today. And there are many just to show you his influence. You know, when I tell people all the time, first of all, we got a packed house because there's a couple of issues going on neighborhoods. But I tell people all the time, if you pay for parking, come through security and sit in these benches, it's because you really love the city and it means something. So if you are here for Dr. Brennan, I just want you to stand up right now. You mean something, Dr. Brannigan, to all these people. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, knock. Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second.
Speaker 1: We saw that Duvall is going to be reading facts.
Speaker 0: Hold on. Hold on just a second. We still have a few things to get through, including voting. Real quick. So if you just hang tight for just a second.
Speaker 4: You can just you can have a seat right there.
Speaker 0: There you go. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add some accolades as well to Dr. Branigan's years of service to not only the neighborhood community, but to the health care community for your many years of service, the work you have done, not just in Denver, Colorado, but across the globe. One of the titles I would give you is an R.A. activist title, because you really did play that role. I can remember many meetings and many times when you would meet with members of city council to talk about so many of the changes that were happening in the uptown neighborhood. And you were that catalyst that would pull the community together and and help make sure that we as a body city council were listening to the voice of community as those changes were coming forward. So I just want to thank you and your wife Cathy, for your years of service to the Denver community and for making the Uptown community a better place for everybody, including the hospital complexes that still exist there. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Let's make this official, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: BROOKS Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2: Black All right. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. All right. Cashman. I can eat. I. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I just knew. Right. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Proclamation 166 has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there anyone you would like to call up to accept this proclamation?
Speaker 4: Well, I tell you what, we're just excited to talk about Dr. Brannigan tonight. So we have two people tonight. We have Mr. Jim Wiseman, who's been in the neighborhood for a long time. And then we also have Dr. Branigan. So if you guys can make your way up, Mr. Weisman, you can go first.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You'll have to excuse me. I'm. I have a profound hearing loss, and they all over here poked me, and I thought, oh, that's my cue. So. And I've got a terrible head cold. So I'm really profoundly hard of hearing tonight, but I'm gonna have a few notes here I'm going to read from primarily because I'm so emotionally invested in this whole thing that I don't trust myself to do otherwise. But ladies and gentlemen of the Council, I'd like to thank you. Councilman Burke, thank you very much for this opportunity. I'd like to thank community members, particularly Mike Henry and Marty Jones, who were instrumental in helping move this event forward. I'd like to bring special attention to Kathy Brannigan, Chuck's wife, who has been his most important coconspirator and supporting cast member in so many of these things. Kathy raised her hand there, and most importantly, the man we are all here to honor tonight, which is Dr. Charles Brannigan. He's back here. So where are you, Charlie? Oh, hey. Snuck up on me anyway. My name's Tim Weissmann, and having had the pleasure of working with Chuck for many, many years, I am honored and humbled to be able to have this opportunity to speak tonight. There are too many things to address here tonight in terms of this man's contributions, the co-founding of the Denver Browns with Cathy restoring the Roundhouse and rail facility at the historic Como, Colorado, and other historic work volunteer surgical training in Egypt. And much more than that, the profound event that precipitated this recognition tonight with Chuck's retirement, as we all know at this point from the AMP Town Design Forum, a little historic context I'd like to pass on. About 30 years ago, there were 44 residential property owners in an area we we came to call the island, which was a group of homes that were sandwiched between a number of the hospitals in the uptown area over here. They were being negatively and unjustly impacted by the hospital encroachment with no legal options. This was two blocks from the Branigan's historic home and the historic district that they had established with his empathy and compassion for these neighbors and his position in the health care community. He was uniquely positioned to help. Chuck jumped in with all four feet and was involved and instrumental in working with all the parties to create a process and the resulting redress an equitable buyout for all of the properties in the island area. It was huge for any of you that we might remember a great councilman named Hiawatha Davis. He was also intensely involved with us in that process, in developing that policy out of this two year process. We did come up with that new and all important hospital zoning, H one and H two, which present which we have today , which is instituted through city wide. I'll just be another 30, 40 seconds here. But at any rate, at that point, the Uptown Hospital District Urban Design Forum was established with Dr. Branigan being considered the founder, and that was a carryover from what we had developed over that two year period. And it was so successful and Chuck did such a great job with it. We're going, Chuck, you got to keep this thing rolling. So he raised his hand and he he volunteered to chair and he's been there for 27 years. That's crazy. His unique skill set and on the balance, moderating has kept all of the parties, the hospital community, the city and the affected neighborhood groups willingly participating and highly effective for almost three decades. And one of the reasons this is so crazy is because in in any normal situation, these people would all be adversaries. But here they've all come together over all this time to be so effective. So, Chuck, I just want to thank you from the bottom of all of our hearts for the selfless and dedicated work you have done for our community all of these years. Thank you so much.
Speaker 8: I don't know what to say. It sounds like my head's getting bigger and bigger. The more I hear people talk about me here. City council. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate the honor that you've bestowed on me. I'd like to mention a couple of things that are I think are important. Of all of the things that I've done, the Hospital District Urban Design Forum, I think has been the most important. That was created as an inspiration of two city planners, Leslie Lipp. Stein And. That's the trouble. I just lost my thought. I can see his face. In any case, they're the ones that inspired. Inspired us and had the vision to create an urban design plan. City Council then joined in and approved it, and that gave us some official standing for the Urban Design Forum, which has persisted to the present. It's true that when we started, it required some real skill to keep the meeting together. We had hospitals that were in mortal competition with each other. We had hospitals that were in competition with neighborhoods. We had people, real estate developers, who were in conflict with everybody else. And we got to the final point where. It was clear that everybody really wanted the same thing. The hospitals wanted a safe, stable neighborhood for their customers. The people who lived here wanted a safe, comfortable space to live in. And once we got everybody on the same page, it was possible to begin to bring all these diverse organizations together. And the remarkable thing is that over the years, we've seldom had to vote on any issue. We've managed to build the consensus between the people that have conflicting interests. Sometimes we've been in favor of people and sometimes through organizations of have met our disapproval. But overall, the group has functioned by consensus, and that's been the key. I'm. I have mixed feelings about stepping down as the chairman of the forum. It seems like that's been part of my life for most of it. I'm not going to disappear by any means, but it's time for me to turn the gavel over to somebody else. So, again, thank you very much for the honor that you've bestowed on on me. And there's this other city planner that I mentioned was Dennis Swain, Dennis Swain and Leslie Lipski and had the idea of putting together an urban design plan which would be passed by city council. And that's been what's been the glue that held the organization together and the support from the various issues we've brought before. City Council has been great and the support that Albert Brooks has provided us has been wonderful as well. So I will begin by saying that if you wish to live in the inner city, you must be proactive. And that's the way I began my career in downtown Denver and in inner city Denver. And I believe that piece of wisdom to those who follow. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That concludes our proclamations for this evening. That brings us to the bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for Introduction.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Dr. Charles “Chuck” Brantigan as he retires as Chair of the Healthcare District Design Forum.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0024
|
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Madam Secretary. We do have one item for separate consideration this evening, so we will now vote on final consideration of Council Bill $19 002 for repealing the sunset date of the cannabis consumption pilot program. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 19 Dash 0024 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Certainly. Mr. President, I move that council bill 19, dash 24 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions or comments by members of Council or Councilman Flynn?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I was absent last week when this was on first reading and the public hearing was held. And I but I did go back and watch it. I missed last week's meeting just after I, my youngest son, got married and happened to choose that Tuesday for his wedding. But I did go back and watch the the testimony. And as I said in the marijuana committee, I don't believe that simply repealing the sunset, which the voters had approved, in which the authors of the initiative are included, is going to make any difference in the context of all the other changes that would have to be looked at before this program can actually take off and have an attempt to be successful. I believe at this point now we will have only one such business open and I don't see that removing the sunset would. Result in any new businesses suddenly coming forward with all the other restrictions that I believe are truly the reason that more of these licenses have not been sought by other businesses. I think we should solve all the problems together and move them forward as a package. I don't oppose repealing the sunset when it's part of a larger package that addresses all the other reasons that that that would need to be addressed before we could see more businesses come forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other questions or comments. Council members. This is just a reminder that any reform ordinance adopted by a vote of the people may be amended or repealed by city council only by a two thirds vote or nine affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill this evening. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye. Brooks Flynn.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment. I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: Tonight in one night.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes one accountable 19 0024 has passed. All right, councilmembers, this is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilman Flynn, you've already begun, but will continue with you for the motions this evening. Unless you object. I'll do a quick any objections?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance repealing the sunset date of the cannabis consumption pilot program.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-28-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0120
|
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Sussman has called out Council Bill 19 0055 for a postponement. Miss, anything? All right, now, Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 19 0120 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. Move the council bill 19, dash one to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council or Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me switch back to the other screen. First of all, I want to make it really clear that I respect the the consideration that every member gives to this every four years. The city charter literally requires us to vote on this one way or the other, to set the salaries for the next term of office for all elected officials. That's the 13 council members. The mayor, the auditor and the clerk and recorder voters gave us a very good roadmap about 16 years ago, I believe, for taking the politics out of it or minimizing the politics of setting the pay raises. And it sets two measurements. And one is the cumulative four year increase in the average is the average or the median wage of the career service employees. It doesn't matter because that's not the one we're using or the cumulative increase in the consumer price index for the Denver metro area. And we cannot exceed the lower of those two. And for this four years, as is true in most four years, it is the CPI that we're using as the index. And that's a very good road map because I remember a lot of how political it could have. It always was prior to 2003. And in fact, we lag even four years behind because for this coming term of office, we are using the benchmark of consumer price index for the prior four years going back to 2015. So it could be argued that we're even four years behind in approving this. Nevertheless, I'm voting no on this and I would ask my colleagues to take these points into consideration, even though it's it's entirely reasonable to follow the voters instruction in the charter. I'm asking my colleagues to take these points into consideration and join me in taking a four year timeout from pay raises for the elected officials. Our positions are just fundamentally different from city employees in the career service. If a traffic engineer over in public works believes that he or she is underpaid in the market, they look to other jurisdictions or the private sector for their advancement, and they may they may find employment elsewhere. A manager in the building department may look outside the city for a better salary. That's why our H.R. department spends so much time doing pay surveys and adjusting adjusting the wage scales that the city uses to make sure that the city not only attracts but can keep the best talent for our agencies. This reasoning, though, does not apply to us and our positions. These positions are not on a career path for advancement. We are temporary placeholders. We act as a body. We are 13 individuals, but we only act as a. Audie. And we hold these jobs temporarily for eight or 12 years. So I don't have to take a test to be promoted to council member first class. Right. It just doesn't work the same way. If I felt the page is not sufficient here. It's not like I would start to look around and maybe I'll look at the L.A. or New York City Council. I'm going to move up to other city councils. This is just a fundamentally different citizen legislative position, and it's not like the current salary is not attracting people to run for office. Right now. There are currently on the street 61 individuals who are circulating petitions to earn one of these elected positions. That's more than four years ago when we actually had six open seats on this body. And in fact, right now we are earning more than the governor of Colorado. Our salaries are higher than than the governors. In 1991, this council salary first surpassed the $30,000 a year mark. I was sitting right over there where Andy and David are sitting, and I was thinking, Wow, they just passed $30,000 and I was covered by a Union Guild contract and I was actually earning more than the council members. I think I don't think Andy or David can can say that they're earning $90,000 now. In fact, council salaries have tripled since then, whereas the Social Security Administration data shows you the average American wage earner over that same time frame has gone up in annual wages only 130% in the same time period. The median income for a single person household in Denver is about $63,000. Tomorrow in the Finance and Governance Committee, as Councilwoman Cannick noted, we will hear a bill that would raise the minimum wage for workers on city, on city projects and in city buildings to $15 an hour. Against this background in data, even though the voters have given us permission to follow the formula that's in the charter to set our salaries in the fashion proposed in this ordinance, I believe it's appropriate that we consider for the 20 1923 term of office that we take a pass on elected official pay increases and I will vote no on it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Flynn No.
Speaker 2: Black Brooks High. Hernan Cashmere.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 2: Can each. Lopez I knew.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Ortega Hi. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes. Three names.
Speaker 0: Eight Eyes. Three names. Constable. 19 0120 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And Councilman Flynn, will you please vote? Council will 19 Dutch 0055 on the floor.
Speaker 6: I just.
Speaker 1: Moved move that followed.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 18-81, D.R.M.C., setting the salaries of elected officers for terms beginning July 15, 2019.
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 18-81, D.R.M.C., setting the salaries of elected officers for terms beginning July 15, 2019. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-12-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0055
|
Speaker 0: I think your microphone.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1955 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, March 18, 2019.
Speaker 0: I think that was I think you got a little bit ahead of it. You're just putting it taken out of order. And then Councilman Sussman was come up. So can you. You want to move that?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I withdraw that motion. Maybe you should have replaced me when you had the chance. Mr. President, I move that council bill 19, dash 55, be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: All right. That has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. All right, Brooks.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Flynn. Hi, Herndon. Hi, Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 1111 Eyes Council will 19 0055 has been taken out of order. Now, Councilwoman Sussman, would you like to make a motion to postpone?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr..
Speaker 5: President. I move that final consideration.
Speaker 2: Of Council Bill 19 0055.
Speaker 5: With its public hearing be postponed to Monday, March 18th, 2019.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions or comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman?
Speaker 5: Yes, it's a.
Speaker 2: Matter of posting time and time to post. We need to push it out a little bit farther.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. See no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. All right. Brooks.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Flinn i.
Speaker 0: Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Can each. Right. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11.
Speaker 0: 11. Eyes Final Consideration of comfortable 19 0055 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, March 18th, 2019. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Other bills for introduction are ordered published and we are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4519 Pearl Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (urban edge, to urban context), located at 4519 Pearl Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-22-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02252019_18-1484
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech structure comments to the Council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 18, Dash 1484 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18, dash 1484 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 18 1484 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President, and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to read Zone 4201 Delaware Street from IAU oh two to see our x eight property is located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood in the 41st and Fox Stationary. It's at the northwest corner of 42nd Avenue and Delaware Street, and that's 7000 square feet. Currently has a house on it. Request is to rezone from IAU road to which is light industrial with the billboard use overlay to see our eight, which is urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use with an eight storey maximum height and the billboard use overlay would be removed. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to redevelop the property. You can see the property is surrounded by the same IAU oh two zoning immediately, but there is a mix of CMC R, X and CMC in the 41st and Fox stationary as well. As I mentioned, the site is currently residential with a mix of industrial residential office, multi-unit, residential and mixed use surrounding it. The subject property is in the bottom right photo and then you can see some of the surrounding properties in the other photos there. This application went to Planning Board on November 7th, 2018, received the unanimous recommendation of approval. There was no public comment at that meeting, went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on January 15th. This year, we received no other public comment on this application. 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 adopted plans that apply to this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2000. As described in your staff report, staff has found the first rezoning is consistent with these six strategies from comp plan 2000, mostly relating to infill development, mixed use and mixed use development around transit stations. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2002. The concept land used for this property is urban residential, which calls for primarily residential, but with complementary mixed uses at a higher density. It's also in an area of change, which is an area where the city wants to direct additional growth in the city. And both 42nd Avenue and Delaware Street are designated locales intended to provide connections from the property to larger streets. Fox Street, BLOCK and a half to the West is a collector and then turns into an arterial two blocks further south and connects down to 38th Avenue, Park Avenue and the I-25 interchange. The 41st and Fox Station area plan from 2009 designates this area urban residential to date stories, which is intended for moderate density residential with a range of housing types that support the commercial in the area, which is again consistent with the proposed see our exit zone district. And then the fourth plan is the Globeville Neighborhood Plan from 2014, which mostly just reinforces the recommendations of the 29/41 and Fox stationary plan, calling for a diverse, transit supportive neighborhood in the area with a broad base of jobs and housing. So staff finds the first criterion that the second criterion is the uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the C r zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Stefan's proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and facilitating the redevelopment of this property in a pedestrian friendly and appropriate manner. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning justified by the changes, change and changing conditions in the area. There's been the recently adopted plan in 2014 and there's also been a fair amount of investment in the area with the new transit station that's been constructed but is not yet open. And there has been some new development, new apartment buildings just to the east of this and some other new development in the 41st and Fox station area, making this proposed rezoning appropriate. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Stefan's proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the description of the urban center neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the See Our Zone District, which is intended to apply to residential areas served primarily by collector or arterial streets where building scale to date stories is desired. As mentioned, the plans call for to date stories consistent with the district purpose and intent. And while the site is not directly on a collector or arterial, it is a block and a half from a collector in an area that is served by collectors and arterials. So staff finds the fifth criterion is met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you signed up to speak on this item, I'd ask that you come to the front row. First up, we have Isaiah Salazar. Good evening, council members.
Speaker 1: I'm here on behalf of the ownership group of 42 A1, one Delaware Street here to answer any questions. We are very.
Speaker 0: Excited about this.
Speaker 1: Smaller property we have in the area that we are looking to redevelop. We're looking at building small seven townhomes, hoping to break ground later this summer and very excited for the future of what hold in this neighborhood. This will be one of the first newer townhome projects in this area of the Fox Street neighborhood. We're very excited to see how the light rail continues to change the neighborhood once it does open up. There's been a tremendous amount of rezoning efforts going on, on multiple properties in the area with not a lot of action going on yet, but a lot of a lot of people starting for future development. And we're hoping to be a great townhome addition to the neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Would you mind stating your name for the record?
Speaker 1: Isaiah Salazar.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Jesse Pierce represented for Denver Homicide, a low black star action moment for self-defense and positive action commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019 May election. We are against this, as has been stated numerous times. And involved in this area, this property, this area, this this area. Globeville is under a rapid gentrification. And this is just another rezoning that reinforces that this property is not going to be for those that live in the neighborhood, is not going to be affordable. There is no Amaro level listed on any of these properties. Seven townhomes in the already gentrifying neighborhood. Yeah, we're definitely against this. When you sweep the council, like they sweep the homeless every night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council on this item? Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just a quick question, Mr. Salazar. You guys owned the Regency as well with student housing?
Speaker 1: That is correct, yes.
Speaker 4: And how many students are currently in there?
Speaker 1: Over 900 students live in the neighborhood or in our complex.
Speaker 4: Okay. And can you just tell you know, I know you and your family do a lot of work in the community as far as real estate in your own life. Can you just share a little bit about that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So my family.
Speaker 1: Purchased the Regency Hotel in 2000 for under the impression of not knowing exactly what we wanted to develop in the neighborhood yet. And we found that there was a large need at the time for a very a campus to have some sort of housing on site. Unfortunately, we're not on site, but we own and operate a shuttle service that takes kids to and from campus Monday through Friday. And we have developed we were able to renovate the entire inside of the former hotel into a college dormitory. So now gives the three schools honorary a campus, a dorm style of living. In 2014, we developed the north parking lot. That was a vacant parking lot that this property we're looking to resell and kind of overlooks, which was just an empty parking lot. We reasoned that we the actually reason that and we developed that into more traditional apartments three bedroom, three baths, conventional apartment style living. But it's all part of the Regency campus. And that is kind of a continuum of student housing that we have seen. And it's been very successful, very great for the neighborhood. It's really cleaned up the neighborhood from from what the hotel was initially. And we've also developed a lot of other. Parcels in the neighborhood. My my sister actually runs the doggie daycare service at 42nd and a lady that has over 50 employees there. It's a great doggie day care complement to the Sunnyside in the Highlands neighborhood. Uh, extremely busy. And we've also developed the the Fox Street shops is what we call it in house, but it's got the crafty fox, it's a restaurant, there's a yoga studio, a physical therapist, as well as a small liquor boutique liquor store.
Speaker 4: Okay. I'm just curious, on the Regency, is there any plans? I'm concerned about the 900 students. Any plans to redevelop that or you guys want to continue to preserve that?
Speaker 1: No, as of right now, we are our goal is to continue to preserve the student housing in that neighborhood. Unfortunately, the Regency.
Speaker 0: Property is currently under the old.
Speaker 1: Zoning, which we are looking at to rezone that this upcoming year here soon just to make it a conforming use as well as to help out with the parking requirement. Okay. But our full intention is to continue student housing in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And on this particular project, what have you calculated your linkage fee that a go to affordable housing.
Speaker 1: For the townhome project? No, we have not. I think it falls under that requirement, but I have to look into that.
Speaker 4: No. If it's if it's a new build. So if you could just. I'll confirm that. Yeah. Ortega is probably going to. Councilman Ortega ask a question, but just figure out the amount of square footage off of about 50 foot.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. My question is for Scott Robinson from planning. So my question is about. Have we, as a city taken a look at this area in terms of how much more new development we can get? I know that there is the next step study that is going on in this area that's part of some of the the bigger parcels, particularly the Denver Post site. Where we're basically needing to look at that intersection at 38th and Fox High 25 Park Avenue. Can you just kind of give us an update of where things are at with that whole process? And does it include anything related to drainage?
Speaker 9: So I don't know where we are on drainage. I don't know what we're looking at for that. But as far as the next substudy, that's looking at the infrastructure needs based on the projected build out. In the meantime, we're working on rules and regulations to sort of set a cap on the development based on what the current infrastructure can handle. You mentioned the intersection, so based on what things can handle right now so that once we hit that cap, we'll hold off on development until we get the new infrastructure in place to handle additional development. We're also looking at a an overlay to limit the amount of parking in the area that we're working on right now.
Speaker 3: Any idea on when that next step study would be available?
Speaker 9: I don't know. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Okay. So in the meantime, we're continuing to take applications from the area that is basically increasing the density in every one of the applications that we've seen. This one seems to be much smaller in scale than all the rest of them that we have seen come through. But I'm just curious kind of where we're at with the bigger picture, because we've got one road into this site. And I did see on the application, I believe it was for the other one, that it did include looking at the the little two, two lane road, the two lane unimproved road that goes over I-25 and connects to Globeville, which should not be included as one of the access points into this area. And so I think, you know, as a city, we just keep bringing applications forward without really looking at, you know, how we're addressing whether or not the infrastructure can handle the volume of what is going to be there ultimately. And at some point, we as a body should be concerned about that, because if we're putting more development in there than what the roadway can handle and, you know, the assumption is the next step study identifies perhaps what some of the solutions are and parking to some degree addresses part of that. But, you know, one of my concerns is if if I'm somebody developing in the area and I'm not the first project in and you're capping how much parking can go in and I'm the last project to develop. No banker is going to finance my project if I have no parking and it's already been utilized by all the other projects. So I think looking at that big picture of who's who's managing all of that is really important for us to be paying attention to, even though it's not the level of detail that we as a body get to see. So I'm a little concerned about that. So I appreciate the fact that you all are working on the next step study and look forward to getting some information on when that will in fact, be available. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, maybe could you address for me just briefly the the district that's being applied for allows update stories. This is just one small lot where there's only a single family house right now. Correct. The way I see that from according to the map. And so I'm just concerned that this too dense of a zone, did we look at other zones that would accomplish the same purpose of redevelopment? Because as we develop this under the allowable density that this district allows, as change continues to occur on Delaware and on Aladdin, that whole Fox Island, once once we get the train running and stopping at 41st and Fox Station, it would seem that that block would justify a greater density. And if a project is built and already in place and under utilizes the entitlements. I'm just concerned about the future development here. So how did we arrive at the eight story classification and did we look at any others?
Speaker 9: Yeah. So the the eight stories was the request of the applicant. Okay. So they can perhaps speak to why they chose its story as the plan, as I mentioned, recommended to date stories. Mm hmm. So we evaluated the request for eight stories, found it consistent with the plan and the other four criteria. And so that's why we're recommending approval. But, you know, as far as whether you can develop eight stories on the lot or whether it's underdeveloped, you know, it's something for the applicant to to worry about.
Speaker 6: Okay. So we we didn't look at any alternatives.
Speaker 9: Again, they they requested eight stories. We found it consistent. So, yeah, we didn't try to steer them than anything else.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks, you back up for. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to respond to. Councilman Flynn. But specifically, Councilwoman Ortega, I got to tell you that, you know, I think the concern is right. Looking at the rezonings, but actually, you know, working with CPD, specifically our former colleague Chris Nevitt, and working with the building department, the power is actually in their control and now they are because of the studies that they have done and because now that they they know a number of cars are coming into the area, they're putting certain requirements on building developers and owners. And so one of them was the max maximum parking requirement. We had the community push really hard against that, and we're giving them a a year to get things under control. And we're probably going to have parking maximum and other requirements in this area because of that density that you talked about. And so I'm not sure the answer is in zoning. I think the answer is in and building requirements and the number of units and parking requirements in the area. And so, you know, that conversation is hard, but I encourage you guys to reach out to almost say Councilman Nevitt, Chris Nevitt and our Field Artillery office. And they have done an incredible amount of work on making sure they know exactly how much is coming in, per permits being poured. And they're not letting people just build whatever they want to. There are a lot of requirements things.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other question. The public hearing for Constable eight dash 1484 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? Seeing none. I will just think staff are putting together a comprehensive staff report. I think it's clear that this meets the criteria for rezoning and I will be supportive. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 1: A.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Brooks.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: By.
Speaker 2: Herndon Cashman.
Speaker 0: By.
Speaker 2: Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega by Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201 Delaware Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center, residential mixed-use), located at 4201 Delaware Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-15-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02252019_18-1541
|
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1111 eyes constable 18 dash 1540 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please put council bill 18 does 1541 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 dash 1541 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. It's a public hearing for Council Bill 18. Dash 1541 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with the Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone a single property at three four 3411 Albion Street from ESU D X to IMX to x. The property is located in Council District eight in the Northeast Park Hill statistical neighborhood. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Bruce Randolph and Albion Street. One half block east of Colorado Boulevard. The site is approximately 31,000 square feet in size and has an existing 7100 square foot brick building on site, which was previously occupied by a church. The rezoning to AirMax two X has been requested to allow redevelopment for the property as the congregation is relocated. The site is currently zoned Eastside Tax, which is a single unit residential district that allows both the urban and suburban building forms. Earmarks two X can be found to the east, east three X zoning and APD is found to the west. In the south is ESU DCS. The subject property was used as a church and the surrounding properties to the south and east are also places of worship. The property directly to the north was once a restaurant and is now vacant. Generally, there's a mix of commercial uses you'll find along Colorado Boulevard, and then there's various types of residential densities and residential uses found interspersed throughout the neighborhood to the east. So these are photos, this site and the existing building. And then here are some photos of the immediate surrounding context with the multi-unit residential to the northeast of the site, a converted single unit Victorian home that was converted to the resident restaurant use that's now vacant. We also have the places of worship found directly to the east and to the south on site, and then you have the gas station to the west there. So this application was noticed according to code requirements. In December, the planning board voted 6 to 1, recommending approval of the rezoning. Representative of the Northeast Park Hill Coalition spoke at the Planning Board hearing in opposition to the rezoning with concerns related to the provision of affordable housing and the development paying a linkage fee rather than to providing affordable units at that time. The applicant, Northeast Park Hill Coalition and the Denver Islamic Center voluntarily entered into mediation after the planning board hearing. Discussions at the mediation focused around the provision of affordable housing. Additional details about the mediation can be found in the staff report and attached to the staff report. In terms of public comments received by CPD prior to today, there were eight letters of support for the rezoning. There are 29 form letters opposing rezoning, 104 signatures on a petition letter in opposition, as well as 200 signatures on a Change.org petition in opposition of the rezoning. There was a protest petition submitted last week related to this rezoning. We reviewed the protest petition and found that the signatures were not the valid signatures were not obtain, and it did not constitute a valid legal protest. So to approve a rezoning council must find that the proposed change meets five criteria from the Denver zoning code. I'll step through each one. How? Each one? So first, with consistency with adopted plans, we have comprehensive Denver 2000 blueprint Denver 2002 and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000. In terms of the comprehensive plan, the proposed amendment will enable walkable mixed use development encourages quality infill development through its design standards that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed district is proposed zoned district is consistent with the comprehensive plan 2000 strategies. So in Blueprint Denver 2002, the site has a concept land use of single family residential and these areas single family homes are the predominant residential type. Although the proposed Imac's two zone district will allow for more than just residential uses, its limited application will still maintain the character of the low scale district. It's also identified as a area stability blueprint. Denver notes that the area's stability is to maintain the character of the area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. The application asserts that this area should be considered as a reinvestment area and these areas have opportunities for reinvestment through modest infill. Blueprint also notes that in areas of stability, the appropriate transitions should be used as a tool for ensuring compatibility of development. The IMX Chest X District includes building form, skills, setback and use limitations that ensure compatibility. The proposed rezoning would support limited redevelopment as inconsistent with the blueprint Denver Areas of Stability Recommendations. So in Blueprint Denver, Bruce Randolph is shown as a residential collector and Albion Street is an designated local. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan's recommendations of support for limited redevelopment on a corner of a collector and a local street embedded in a preexisting neighborhood corridor. So then we have the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000. It was adopted by council in 2000. Implies this subject property goals generally discuss maintaining character mix of housing types and densities, minimizing visual impacts and maintaining enhancing the viability of the residential and commercial uses along Colorado Boulevard. The rezoning will allow for low skill multi-unit dwellings, limited commercial, which would support the viability of Colorado Boulevard and provide a compatible mix of housing types. The proposed rezoning of IMAX to EX is consistent with the goals of the plan because the allowed building forms, the design standards and the use limitations of that zoned district ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also finds that the proposed rezoning meets next to criteria that the rezoning will result in a uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare through its implementation of adopted plans. And it will also allow for the compatible redevelopment that allows more opportunities to live, work and play within the Park Hill neighborhood . The application meets the justifying circumstance criteria by identifying change or changing conditions. The application calls out the recent development in the neighborhood of those townhomes across the street. Additionally, the commuter rail station at 40th in Colorado is less than a mile away, and it came online in 2016. And finally, the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the urban edge description because of its low scale multi-unit commercial areas embedded in residential areas. The rezoning is consistent with the general purpose, as is an existing neighborhood site, and promote a pedestrian, skilled, walkable area. Finally, there is consistency with the intent of the mix to district as it's located on the corner. It's limited in nature to just one parcel and with low scale and low intensity uses within an existing neighborhood. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if we can make room in this front bench, I'm going to call the first five up Matthew Kingsbury, Glenn Goldberg, Dr. Robert Davis, Jessie Pearce and Abdul Rahim Ali. If you want to come up to the front, Matthew Kingsburg, you are up first.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, for council members, my name is Matthew Kingsbury and the pastor of Parkhill Presbyterian Church at 3411 Albion St Grace Church in Pearce from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. Our congregation came to the difficult decision to sell our property about two years ago. The this property at 3411 Albion Street has been owned by the congregation since the early 1950s when we moved there from. 26 and Downing Street. I've been the pastor there since 1999 and help the congregation work through this process. One of the reasons that we determined to make the move is that over the last 30 years, we've had no new members come from within the immediate community. Our last member from the Park Hill neighborhood moved out into an assisted living facility about 15 years ago. Since that time, we've seen growth from outside the neighborhood. And so we don't we've not been able to bring in anybody from the neighborhood, haven't had influence from people in the neighborhood and worshiping with us. We think that selling the property and so that it can be developed into residential housing would benefit the neighborhood. Right now, there's an awful lot of drug dealing, vandalism, vagrancy going on on our corner, things that you don't want your kids finding in our church parking lot, drugs and human waste products, for example. So we think that having residents there can help clean up that a little bit just by having more people in the area. We also want to point out that or I'd like to point out that as we've been negotiating with the with the neighborhood and through the mediation process, hearing their concerns that the congregation made the decision to lower the cost of what rather price what we would receive for selling our property in order to provide affordable housing. The congregation, many of the members of the congregation at that meeting, one we agreed to do so, stated that they wanted to be able to give up some funds that we would be able to use to further our mission in a new location in order to help those who are underprivileged in the Denver community, which we will now be leaving so that we can move to a places closer to where our members currently live. We want to point out that the planning board and the planning was a planning staff, so I can't keep track of all the meetings I've been to and who everybody is over the last number of months. They're all in support of this. And so for these reasons, and I could keep on going, I'm a preacher, I want to recommend that the council does approve this change in zoning. And I will be here if you have any other questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Len Goldberg.
Speaker 6: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Len Goldberg. I'm the developer and I'm here just to answer any questions you might have during the process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Dr. Robert Davis.
Speaker 1: The Evening City Council. I stand in support of this rezoning for a couple of reasons. The first is that we were able to come to a an agreement to put four affordable units in the development. And the second one being that we are going to promote the units in community publications so that we can attract a a larger swath of the community, both economically and racially. And I hope that this becomes a model for future development projects that we will build upon this to make sure that as we are developing in the city, that we're doing so with an eye towards being more inclusion based. But I do have a few concerns that I want to speak about, even though I stand in support of this and hope that it will be voted tonight. The first concern is I feel that the process that the city has currently is very favorable toward the developer and does not encourage community input. And so I'm asking the city council that as you look toward the future, that you become more conscientious about the needs and the desires of the individuals who currently live there. Currently, Minister, they're currently working to build up. It's nice to have people come from the outside, but we need to hear more of the voice of the individuals who are actually living in the community. We need to be intentional about seeking out those voices and hearing them as the second thing that I'm concerned about is that we're not really addressing the larger issue of affordable housing in Denver. Putting four units in the park community does not really address the larger problem. We're kind of trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon and we're not getting in the way. So I'm hoping that this body will will take that into consideration. The last thing is this process did not lateral naturally lend itself to promoting racial diversity. And we put a little Band-Aid on it by asking that the sale of these units be publicized in community newspapers such as Fivepoint News and the Body of Christ and the Denver Weekly, etc. But this that was not a natural part of this process, and nor can that be the end of this process. So I'm really admonishing and asking that this body will be more intentional about a including the community intentional be about making sure that as we're doing these developments, as we voted to previous ones tonight, that we are attracting people from various economic and racial groups. And with that, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 8: Jessie Paris represented for Denver Homicide, Low Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm also an At-Large candidate for the May 2019 May election, and I reside in Council Brooks District. I was against this. But after hearing the words of the community that I was born and raised in, I grew up in this neighborhood. I went to Smith and Hallett. I resonate with the residents of this neighborhood, predominately the black and brown neighbors that feel that they do not. Are included.
Speaker 1: In the city.
Speaker 8: Planning and development that is rapidly happening throughout this whole town. There's rapid gentrification going on and the community's input is not being heard. And the community has come out today and let you know that. So I'm not just speaking, but the whole community is speaking. And I hope that you hear us loud and clear. So with that being said, we are for this. But as the previous speaker stated, you need to take it to full consideration the input of the community. And think about the decisions that you make before you make them. Because we don't need any more unintended consequences. The city has a housing crisis. This is the least that could be done. These are affordable units. I want to know exactly what the ammo level is going to be for these, and I won't know exactly how many units. Who is going to be residing in this property and.
Speaker 0: When the.
Speaker 8: Groundwork for this is going to begin.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Abdul Rahim Ali.
Speaker 1: Good evening. City Council. This has been a arduous task over the last over the last month. And we we were happy that we came to a resolution. We've been able to speak with the mediator and and go through mediations. And we've had personal conversations with Mr. Goldberg. And we feel that this resolution that we are coming to now is fair and we support it. But we we would be remiss if we didn't mention the fact that affordable housing is an issue in city of Denver, not just park here, but in the city of the entire city of Denver. This is the issue. But this particular process has brought consequences, good consequences, where we have actually Christians, Muslims and Jews working together. And that's historic in itself. We hope that you consider this resolution that. We go forward in support of this housing and that this is just the beginning and this is just the first step . And we think that there will be many opportunities in the future for the city of Denver and particularly Park Hill and diversifying the community and park here.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call the last three up so if we can make a room for them in that front bench. Patrick Key David more of it's and Bruce O'Donnell if you want to come up to the front and Patrick here up next. A tricky. All right, David. More of its.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for your time. And if David more of its own property directly across from the the church lot definitely in favor of the the zone change we think that the the project fits the scale of the neighborhood. We think that the the price point though some may think that it is high for the neighborhood. It actually does fit in with the proximity of the neighborhood and some other projects down Martin Luther that are that are currently being developed and being finished. So we think it fits the scale as well. I was able to talk to a few of the neighbors, the letters that you guys actually have in your packets. I was able to talk with them to get them to to kind of discuss the project. And they're not just in favor but actually kind of excited about it having a new development across the street. And we think that it all fits in. So with that said, I hope that you guys all vote in favor for the project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President, a members of council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell again at 386 North Emerson in Denver. And I'm the owners representative on this rezoning request. As you know from the testimony this evening, there is a staff recommendation of approval and also planning board recommending approval. There is good plan support and justifying circumstances for this rezoning request. This is a mostly vacant and largely underutilized site bordering Colorado Boulevard. It's zoned for single unit. Across the alley is a car wash and a gas station and fast food on the other side of the street on the east side of Alby. And this entire block is already zoned m x to ex the exact zone designation that we're requesting. And it supports townhomes exactly like we are proposing to build here. And so those entitlements have been in place and been successful for some time. You mentioned or you heard earlier in the staff report that there had been significant opposition to this rezoning request, and that was true until we sat down with immediate neighbors and the registered neighborhood organizations. And so today we have letters of support from nine immediate neighbors. We also have a letter that's in your file from the Northeast Park Hill Coalition, the R.A., recommending that you vote in favor of this rezoning and supporting the rezoning. And then tonight, I was able to hand the end to the council secretary. And there are officially in your the records of this meeting, letters of support from the Northeast Denver Islamic Mosque and the Denver Park Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church. And you've just heard the representatives of those religious institutions speak in favor of and requesting that you approve this rezoning. So with that, I'm going to sum up by also requesting that you vote to approve Council Bill 18 1541 rezoning 3411 Albion Street to M x to x. This support largely came through work we did over the past couple of weeks with CPD and OED to come up with an agreement we're working on to build affordable units . And the plan is to build for deed restricted affordable units consistent with Ovid's formulas and calculations. And we're available to answer any questions. Should you have any. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Bruce. I'm not sure if you're the one to answer this question, but what will the project require for tax credits in order to meet the affordability on the units it.
Speaker 1: No, it will not.
Speaker 3: And then lastly, how how will the agreement be enforced?
Speaker 1: So right now we have a memorandum of understanding with the Northeast Park Hill Coalition and the mosque in the Seventh Day Adventist Church are in and the applicants are all parties to this memo you and there's an exhibit to the memo U is an OED document called agreement to build affordable units. And we ran out of time today to get that actually executed. But it will be recorded against the property. And I'm not sure if there's a representative from OED here tonight or not. But if not, Courtney has been very familiar with it from KPD who gave the staff report. And so it would all it will all be enforceable through Lloyd's regulatory toolkit.
Speaker 3: And that's because of the requirement for the.
Speaker 1: What's the the the build alternative?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. So we're we're going to do the build alternative instead of the linkage fee.
Speaker 5: Great.
Speaker 3: Thank you so.
Speaker 1: Much. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just a couple quick questions. There was another I was actually at this planning board, but I didn't see the entire deal. There was another no vote for planning boards, according to you. Is there?
Speaker 5: Yeah. At that December hearing, there was one no vote. Interestingly, there wasn't a ton of testimony and conversation that led us to understand fully why the no vote was voted on that way. There wasn't a ton of testimony.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And then, Dr. Davis, quick question for you. So, you know, been on the diet for about eight years looking at these rezonings and looking at other cities the way they do rezonings and outreach. And and by far don't have a perfect process. But you said some pointed comments around. There needs to be more community process. And this this process we have is an advantage to the developer. Can you give us some specific examples that you would request for us to change around the process?
Speaker 1: So one of the things that I think would be beneficial is, of course, that it would be mandated that developers have to meet with the various community organizations to get a better understanding. Because one of the things that was discussed in of the proposal was that it's going to be very similar to the units that are across the street. So right there on Albion, but on the other side of the street, those units are really what we considered, what I considered to be the problem or one of the symptom of the problems. Let me say that what I mean by that is we did a I had my administrative assistant to do a search on the owners of the property. It's not ethnically diverse so that, you know, so if that's the model that we're using, I was not here when those units were built. But so but I don't know how many I know as I spoke to the leaders of my congregation. They were not brought in, even though the units that were built were right across the street from us. But we were not brought in on the process. We have the imam here. I don't know how much they consulted the mosque in the building of those units. All that right there in and of itself brings a problem. And so, as the gentleman said, he went and spoke with people in the community and the people that he spoke with, people in those developed units, but they're not from the community. What I mean by that is they bought those units and moved there. But that's not they don't have the historical understanding per se. And I'm not trying to isolate them and say that we shouldn't talk to them. But I think there needs to be a larger conversation that includes those registered community organizations that says when we when we do these type of developments, we're going to make sure that they're in on the process and especially the immediate neighborhood should be invited to come to the table. When we get to when we get to an, I don't know, all the various acronyms, but not when we get to the to the city to apply for these various things. But at on the front end, we sit down and have these conversations.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So I appreciate that. And I just wanted to just say it since we're on the record talking about that outreach, because I think it's really important and I think we need to be talking about specific outreach changes. So one specific change and if you indulge me, Mr. President, we passed we just passed this ordinance, and it was sponsored by Councilman Espinosa that every home within 200 feet of a new rezoning must be alerted. Right. They get something in the mail. Every developer that comes in here must reach out to a neighborhood organization. Some don't respond, things like that. Those are kind of things we have in place today.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: But when you say mandate, what is the that extra? I'm just trying to.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: Well, that extra piece.
Speaker 1: So you're saying that those things are already in place. And again, I'm I'm new here. So but as I was as I was a part of this process, I did not. First of all, my church, which is right across the street, literally across the street from it, was not you didn't receive. And no one. I receive anything. No one reached out to us. No conversations were made with us. And I'm pretty visible in this community. So that was concerning to me.
Speaker 4: That's helpful. And I'm just going to stay on this real quick, because this is something that we pass. And if you didn't get notification, this this is a problem with our system. Cordy, can you just come?
Speaker 1: You want to say opposite down about me?
Speaker 4: You do what you want you to, pastor. So I'm just curious. Every property within 200 feet should receive a notice of any rezoning that comes through for City Council for review. Far before we get to planning board. So what do churches not receive that? Is it commercial properties do not receive that.
Speaker 5: What's the every property within 200 feet should receive that postcard. It's a postcard. So, you know, it might have been missed. I'm not sure. But I do know that this rezoning was noticed according to the code requirements. That is the mail postcards at time of application. And for the planning board hearing. So we sent out two mailings. We also post the property and then send that notification to the Arnaud's. Okay.
Speaker 4: And just just for the public's edification, when do you post the property?
Speaker 5: The applicant posts the property and they post it for the planning board hearing. And then they post it again three.
Speaker 1: Weeks or two weeks before to two weeks.
Speaker 5: Before, prior to the planning board. And then again for this city council hearing three weeks prior.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Doctor. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: One question for CPD and I meant to look this up. So with the current zoning, what can be built now? So not expecting an exhaustive list, but just kind of generally.
Speaker 5: Right. So it's ESU docs and that is single unit. The D, the X signifies the building forms. You have the suburban house form and the urban house form. Places, places of worship are also allowed under the code.
Speaker 1: The one unit or places of worship.
Speaker 5: Things like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. They must.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, Councilwoman Kinnick.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask CPD about the protest petition. I'm pleased that we ended up with a situation where we have majority community support here tonight. But there was earlier protest position and towards the same type of questions Councilman Brooks was asking about how we can do better. I think that there seemed to be some confusion about who's eligible to sign when you have an institution that doesn't have the same kind of traditional ownership as a single family home. So I wanted to ask about whether or not CPD has learned anything about how we can, you know, either one better educate folks on institutions and how signatures work for them and or do we need to make any changes to our code to make sure that we are not just accounting for single family homes, for example. Right. And the the protest petition, when we hand out that form, we also hand out instructions with protest petitions. They're pretty detailed instructions, multiple pages. And it goes through and it says, you know, the name must match exactly as you hold deed to the property. And we also say that we need authorization. If you're an LLC, it says on those instructions, you know, you need to have provided authorization that you're allowed to sign on behalf of this organization, and we can look at ways to make those instructions more clear. I think that that would be something that we can work on right away. Yeah, I think that it sounds to me like those are really geared towards businesses and homes, whether they be apartment buildings or, you know, single family homes and churches and nonprofits are totally different types of entities. I'm not sure that most churches or nonprofits would know who holds the deed decades and decades into their existence. So I think, one, if you can please take a look at whether or not the rules we have are actually appropriate for institutions like those that the deed holder might be long deceased , for example. And then secondly, yes, whether or not you can do some improvements, so are those things that you're willing to go back and take a look at? Yeah. And I know that the committee planning development, we have a Process and procedures subcommittee, a team of staff members and we work on, you know, instructions in these type of things to make them more clear and just better applicant and customer service type things, not like code related, but little things that we can tweak and then we can take up the chain. So we are working on things like that and I haven't taken a look at those rules and regs, but often things like a frequently asked questions or guide by the type of property would be much better than a rule regulation code type language. So thank you for that. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can you seeing no other questions? The public hearing for Council 18 1541 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Herndon. Hey, Mr..
Speaker 1: President, I want to applaud everyone for coming out. And I have to admit, usually when I hear we have three public hearings, I look up at the clock and to say we're at 750 is is really is really good to my colleagues. If you've never come out to this area, we throw one heck of a Denver Days event. I know Councilwoman Kennedy has been out there. The mayor has been out there. And so that was always a good time. And I'm glad to see that we have come together on this. Our charge here as a body is to make decisions based off of the criteria. And I was going to spend a little bit of time walking through the criteria and why I do think it's appropriate, but with the direction and people members speaking in support, I won't go through that level of debt because I want to take the time to applaud the people in this chamber because we saw where we were and you look up to see where we are now. And I think one. We sit down and we hear each other and hear each other's concerns, and you can reach a point of consensus. And to the numerous people, we need to support the leadership and members of Northeast Park Hill. Pastor Davis. Imam Ali. We have demonstrated that redevelopment can be successful where the parties can say, hey, we're at a place where we are, are happy and we do have an affordability challenge. And one development, one parcel is not going to solve it. And I believe as a city we're taking steps to get there. And so this is one of the steps and thank you for the for the acknowledgment that we need to do better. And I think CPD will take that to heart. And we can certainly have conversations as a body how we can make this, because we want this to be an inclusive process where people make sure they're all heard. And so as as Pastor said, this can be a model and I hope that other future opportunities, we can follow the model. We can look the Northeast Park Hill and said, hey, this is a way that you can get together and all the parts can get away with a successful conclusion. So I will be in support of this and I would ask my colleagues to do the same thing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Mr. President. I came to find that this rezoning meets the criteria, but I do need to go ahead and just put a couple of things on the record. First of all, I just want to put on the record that I had a number of contacts from the community asking for information about how this process worked, particularly when things were beginning to get contentious. We talked about the opportunity for mediation and that the city could offer a mediator if that was needed. I just want to be really clear that each of those communications I shared that I was not able to take an opinion on this zoning, and none of those conversations included information that was outside the record. It did not change in any way my opinion on this rezoning, but I think that what it showed me and we've all had every single person, as Dennis said, has had this experience. It is so difficult. Our entire job is designed to have this interaction and two way conversation with the people we represent and it drives us crazy as council members. We just had a meeting about this today that we cannot do that two way communication around rezonings. We can't, you know, say, here's what we like, here's what's challenging. We can't form an opinion ahead of time because the rules of how we do rezonings prevent us from doing that. And so it is. So I hear, Pastor Davis, your words so clearly about how it feels like there's not enough community input. And one of the reasons I think that is, is because the rules don't let us do that. We spent a long time with our lawyers this afternoon asking about Will. Is there any other city that allows for this? And the answer is, this is not just because of property rights. It appears that this is the standard practice in cities. And so so that is a challenge that leaves us saying how do we create the type of community input that the community desires? I mean, you can't have the normal back and forth that we have around, for example, a policy debate that, you know, where the council members can answer questions and share their views with their constituents. And so I want to just I, too, want to applaud the community because I feel like what you did was you stepped into the gap that our system creates, and you didn't let it be a barrier to having your voices heard. And so I really think that the self-organization that you had, the fact that you got access to a mediator and worked to have someone help represent you in that conversation. And I think that is, you know, to your credit, that you were able to do it. But I agree with you that I wish the system did not leave you in that boat. So I feel like the conversation I want us as a body to have is if it can't be us, is there an office of neighborhood assistance, for example? That can be the place where you can go and get some more of that support and expertize. I mean, I was able to answer process questions. I think any of us can and would answer questions to help folks understand how things work. But where you need an advocate, where is it that you find that? So so I'm intrigued by thinking about other ways when we're stuck in parts of this that we can, you know, think about how to create more of that. The second thing I just wanted to focus on is just the substance of what you have figured out in terms of your agreement. And so I want to just say a word to Pastor Kingsburg, who I'm not sure if he's still here. He may have had to leave. But the fact that that oh, sorry. The fact that I was looking at your old seat there, the fact that your congregation was willing to step up and thinking about making the pricing work, you know, to the developer who is willing to think about changing your your mix of of your product and to the community for your creativity. Again, and talking about, for example, the affirmative marketing, that it's not just the price of the unit, but it's it's how the word is spread. And we know from Councilman Brooks is just. That a townhome project that did similar marketing did results in a very local group of residents from the area, really getting the chance to buy a home and build wealth, which I think we do actually have a lot of very affordable housing in Northeast Park Hill. We don't have a lot of affordable homeownership for African-American and communities from diverse backgrounds to build wealth. And so that is actually a gap that this project is helping to fill. So I'm excited about it. I agree with Councilman Herndon that one project doesn't solve the challenge, but it creates these openings for more conversation. So I appreciate the way you've all used the linkage fee as as a launch pad to build those homes on the site. And I want to thank everyone for participating in what is clearly not a perfect process, but one where you managed to find a way to common ground. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And you can reach Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you to my colleagues for for your comments. I just want to just go straight to the the community. I mean, I think we hear a lot this is such a complicated and convoluted process. We know that from a community perspective. But I want to recognize you tonight and use yours as an example that actually in this convoluted process, it worked. It worked on your behalf. And so I think there's a lot more to build off of. I think there's a lot of examples that other the other 72 neighborhoods throughout the city can build off of and take it to the next level. And there's another thing that we've that I've been doing in the district and it's it's also council initiated rezonings where actually the councilperson is the is the person who takes on the rezoning for two property and maybe the property owner in the community to come to some sort of agreement. And so there are ways around that. But it's hard, it's convoluted and there's all those issues. And so I really appreciate all the work. I want to thank the developer, the property owner, the church for being willing to engage in conversation and engage in a solution. And once again, thank you all for going through security in the parking meters and sitting in these hard seats. We really appreciate you being here. It's when folks are not here that they're not a part of the of putting their fingerprints in building this city. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I won't repeat what my colleagues have already said in just thinking all of the all of the players who came together to come to this consensus in being able to move the project forward. I'm not sure when things changed, but city council members historically have played a role of bringing both sides together. I did that on the seven zoning changes that we did down in lower downtown. We had both sides at extreme ends of the spectrum and and we were successful sitting down without saying, I'm on this side or I'm on this side, but being able to bring opposing views to the table and being able to find that middle ground and then bring it forward. And I'm not sure, you know, what's changed that would not council allow council members to continue playing that role without prejudicing our vote, because we sit like a judge up here when we deal with zoning matters, we cannot indicate if we're for or against a rezone application, but we can bring two sides together to find that middle ground and hope that we continue to have that conversation about how we can play a bigger role in working within our communities. To address that, I appreciate the fact that the agreement is being filed as a. Part of the title to the property because that then assures that the agreement is something that will follow through. If, for example, the developer decided to sell the property, it assures the community that that agreement holds true because it applies to the land. And it's not just an agreement between the two parties. So I think that was a big part of the decision moving forward. So I just want to commend all of you for your work. And it sounds like we'll see a great project there with some affordable units in the near future. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Brooks High.
Speaker 2: Black Flynn.
Speaker 1: High. Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 1111.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3411 Albion Street, in Northeast Park Hill.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-MX-2x (urban edge, single-unit to urban edge, mixed-use), located at 3411 Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-8-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures from at least 20% of property owners within 200 feet of the subject area or 20% of property owners within 200 feet outside of the subject area) has not been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 7.4%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02192019_19-0029
|
Speaker 7: President, thank you very much. We'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 comes from each has called out council bill 29 for an amendment under pending. No items have been called out to miss anything. Doesn't look like it. All right. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilman, can you please put Council Bill 29 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19, dash 29, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 7: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Canet, your motion to amend.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1929 be amended in the following particulars on page four, line 33 strike. Each appointment must be made and substitute for vacancies occurring on or after the effective date of this act. The vacancy must be filled and on page six, strike lines 24 through 29 and substitute the following. As of the effective date of this act, the seven members who are currently serving on the Citizen Oversight Board shall continue to serve the remaining portion of their respective terms. The two new members who will be appointed in accordance with and after the effective date of this Act, shall be appointed to serve an initial term of three years, except, as stated in subsection two below, after the initial term of three years, the succeeding term shall be for four years. Of the four members who are currently serving on the Citizen Oversight Board, whose terms expire in 2020. The appointing authority shall determined by law one of the four new terms for which the next appointment shall be for a term of three years rather than a term of four years. After that initial term of three years, the succeeding term shall be for four years.
Speaker 7: Thank you, counsel, which has been moved and seconded. Comments or questions by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilwoman, do you have anything to say on the amendment before we jump in?
Speaker 0: Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of this amendment is to specify how the staggering occurs here, so that basically we have a number of folks expiring at different times rather than in big bunches. So the purpose will have two new members expiring after a term of three years, and then they will be on four year terms. And that will keep the staggering more consistent over time.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman. And I'm assuming that as sponsors, you all would like to comment once we amend it. Not here.
Speaker 0: I will comment when it's amended. Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. Are then seeing no other comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Second. Can each I black eye brooks. Espinosa Gilmore by Cashman. By Lopez.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 3: New Ortega, by Mr. President.
Speaker 7: All right. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting announced results. Nine Ice nine Ice Council Bill 29 has been amended. Now, Councilwoman, can you please vote council bill 29 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19, dash 29, be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 7: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on Council Bill 29. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Councilwoman Kennedy and Councilman Lopez for involving me in this wonderful discussion, along with a number of the our community partners, city agencies, the mayor's office. I think what we've come up with is, is an excellent bill that solidifies the authority of the Office of the Independent Monitor to oversee the actions of not just the rank and file officers on the street, but the chief of police, the the sheriff as well. This is truly as for those of you who heard our public comment session was certainly a community driven process. And I appreciate our partners from the community side as well. So I know my partner has had some comments as well. So again, thanks as well to the monitor, to the members of the Citizen's Oversight Board for everything they do.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also just wanted to thank my colleagues, Kinesin Cashman and our administration. Folks in the police department and different organizations that have been part of this, and especially the community and our independent monitors office. You know, they're charged with the task that we gave them a long time ago as as is the public. And that's to make sure that we do have civilian oversight of our police force. We all do it every single level. And it's it'd be a misnomer to say that that they aren't civilians themselves. This is an opportunity for us to really make sure that public safety is paramount by sending a message and just reaffirming the message that safety, the public safety is the duty of all of us, not just folks who are in uniform. And and that kind of commitment, this kind of oversight is important. We want to make sure that folks are safe while out there doing their job. We want to make sure that folks are not afraid to trust a person in uniform, whether they are a police officer, a firefighter, or somebody that every once, once a week comes and picks up your trash and throws it in the back of a truck on a cold January day at night. So I think it's it's important. These are all public servants. And I think, you know, when we when we think about the necessary functions of municipal and county government, we think of things like potholes and asphalt and public works. And we think of parks. We also should think of independent civilian oversight as being a necessary function as well, too. And it makes us better as a city if we are able to look at the best practices across the country to make sure that we are using every tool in the toolbox to make sure that public safety is built on trust. And public safety is built on doing the right thing. And, you know, the office is just, you know, as as the community, you know, had been really looking at this and asking questions about the office. And, you know, it's the office of the Independent has been in these chambers a few times, you know, just tinkering with the first ordinance that came through charter izing in making sure that the office is taken seriously and making sure that there's trust. You know, people in the community, they think. That we speak to each other in a manner that it's a team. You don't see the difference. And that these different divisions and these different agencies work together and they expect us to that our public safety depends on it. So our monitor. Nick Mitchell, thank you for your thought. Gee, folks in the off in the office and especially our community, the Denver Justice Project, folks who are who care about this and care about public safety and care about the folks who are behind the badge and also the folks who happen to be in our custody temporarily . Right. And entrusted with making sure that they return to a life that is who enjoy their freedom and do so in a way that that is that that is filled with integrity, but an opportunity to do so. So thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Cashman, it's good to be able to do this with you. And we got to give a shout out to the sheriff and the police chief for being at the table as well. So I look forward to this becoming the norm and I can't wait to see what the result is. So.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Kasich.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to thank my colleagues for their deep, deep partnership on this bill. And I'm going to talk about all the other folks I want to thank in a minute. Tonight's legislation is really about trust and the trust in our police department and our sheriff's department. It comes in many forms. So one example we heard about a little bit earlier from the proclamation that we had. It comes about having an inclusive department that looks like the community it serves, that helps to foster trust when folks can see officers or deputies that look like them or grew up in neighborhoods like theirs. Sometimes it's about the rules that they have to follow. Many of our community members and some of my colleagues and I participated in the revisions to the use of force process, the policy that the police department uses to determine whether or not force is justified or not. And having the right rules in place helps to create that feeling of trust that we all agree. You don't use force unless these circumstances are present, and it's necessary. And then this idea that if and when there is an accusation of wrongdoing, that there's an independent set of eyes that's looking at it and making sure that there's accountability. That's that third piece. And I think that that's what this bill here is is about tonight, is about making sure that there's trust and following those rules and accountability under those rules. And I don't think that the system we had was broken, but I do think it was outdated. And I do think that there were pieces of it that weren't working as well as intended, and there was confusion about it. And so tonight's process and tonight's bill is about building that trust back, closing those confusion points and strengthening that system so that it can last long into the future. So so that's the what for tonight. But the who is really important. And both my colleagues have mentioned the who this like almost everything I work on, I'm terribly uncreative. It comes to me because someone walks in my door and says, Did you know? And for me, that person was Katina Banks. And as the chair of the Citizen Oversight Board, she said, Did you know that there are these questions and did you know that we had some dialog and couldn't quite figure this piece out on our own? And a volunteer board of Citizen Oversight Board members really worked hard to figure out if there was a way to kind of figure this all out and without maybe legislation. Because, you know, we often ask folks, have you tried talking about it? Have you figured this out? And they had they'd worked, you know, both with the independent monitor and the safety agencies. And so, you know, we heard from other community members who had been sharing their feedback through the Citizen Oversight Board. I consider them like the funnel that that helps you to tell the story to me. But it wasn't their story. They were telling the story of the votes they heard from, many of whom are here. And they spoke to us during the open public comment period. It wasn't a hearing on this bill, but some of them came and spoke and some of them spoke at committee. So one of the things that I've learned doing big complex litigation or not litigation sorry, legislation, I am not a litigating lawyer. I'm a legislative lawyer. But one of the things I've learned is that, you know, like any cook in the kitchen, you can spend so much time on your staff, you get fatigued, you may not even feel like eating it at the end. We have worked really hard. I have never quite worked on a bill that has been so detail oriented as this one, and that includes, you know, that agency, the safety agencies that Councilman Lopez mentioned, how carefully they read it. And we had to rethink everything from a different perspective, see if we all read it the same way. Different attorneys giving us perspectives, different count, you know, community members. Every line in this bill went through so much discussion and it's hard. You know, at the end, you do you get fatigued. And I know that there are people in our community who are here tonight who feel fatigued because they were talking about and asking about these changes and they feel like it took a long time. And what I got to say is it's still a really good thing we're doing tonight. Even though you get tired during the process, we are not great sometimes that celebrating as a community to say, wow, the people came forward, the people had a set of concerns and we worked through them and we kicked the tires. And the truth is that we made some some slight changes in wording with the safety agency's input, but we actually came out with almost every fundamental piece that was important that we set out to put in this bill. And that's pretty amazing. And we did it in a way that earned the neutrality or the support of the mayor and the agencies. Right. So that they were saying, we make this work when, you know. And that to me is really powerful. So as we go forward, the one thing I pointed out in committee is how much natural tension is built into this system. It is designed to be in tension where you have someone looking over the shoulder of a department every day and trying to find out what they did wrong and advising them and. How to do it better. That is always going to be tense. But I'm proud of the fact that in this process we also identified a number of areas outside the language of the law where there's going to be more dialog going forward and what's, you know, confidential or not. On the policies, what does it mean to give prompt notice? Folks in these areas, both the independent monitors, office and safety agencies are going to have to do more work after this bill passes and they're going to have to stay in dialog on those details. And that's going to be hard because there's tension in that system. But it is, I think, a tension that helps us all to keep those officers safe is the community to trust them and to keep our community safe as they are following the best practices they can and that they know there's a high degree of independent oversight and holding up the integrity of the whole system. So with that, I just want to wish you the best as you go forward to implement these pieces and stay in dialog and to just say how appreciative I am of how much work everyone put into it to get us here to a really strong bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: No, I withdrew because Councilman Kennedy touched on the things I wanted to touch about.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, you back up?
Speaker 5: I would be absolutely remiss if I did not think Catena and the Citizen Oversight Board. You all work hard and people don't understand. And thank you, Robin, for bringing that up because that's what this revolves around, is that citizen oversight. You all spend so many volunteer hours hearing things that are very stressful and seeing stressful situations and having such weight right. And taking criticism from the public and from all around. And you're volunteers, right? So I have to you know that that's important. That's a key part of the original ordinance and and what we have here. So I make sure, you know. Katina Absolutely. But, but make sure that the other members of the board hear these words tonight, okay? And make sure that they understand how much we appreciate the position that they are in, the thought fulness that they put into their role. And and they have a city behind them. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Calcium can eat you back up.
Speaker 0: And cursing Crawford. She writes all our legislation, but she doesn't write it all like she wrote this one. She really, really, really wrote this one and rewrote it and rewrote it and rewrote it. Thank you, Kirsten.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Each seeing no other questions or comments. I'll just think Councilman Lopez, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Canete for all your hard work in bringing this forward. Happy to support it this evening, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Can each high black high. Brooks High. Espinosa High. Gilmore High.
Speaker 9: Cashmere High.
Speaker 3: Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 8: Ortega High.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results tonight. 1080 Council Bill 29 has passed as amended, and that does conclude the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published and we are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance clarifying and amending the authority of the Office of the Independent Monitor.
An ordinance clarifying and amending the authority of the Office of the Independent Monitor and expanding the appointment process for the Citizen Oversight Board to include City Council appointments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02192019_19-0024
|
Speaker 7: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Excuse me, direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put comfortable 24 on the floor?
Speaker 12: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 dash 0024 be ordered published.
Speaker 7: It has been moved. And can I get a second and second in the public hearing for council bill 24 is open. May we have the staff report? Councilwoman Black, I think you're going to take this one.
Speaker 4: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. President. This very short bill simply repeals the 2020 sunset of the 2016 voter approved initiative that allows businesses to apply for designated social consumption licenses. The ballot initiative, with almost 170,000 votes in favor, established a pilot program for businesses to apply for a designated social consumption license. Because there are only two businesses in operation since it was passed in 2016, this bill would remove the sunset to allow other businesses the time and opportunity to pursue a new business and a new license. It's a matter of business fairness, but prospective businesses need more time to plan, to finance, to find a location, and to apply for a license. So this bill will repeal the sunset.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. We do have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'm going to call the first five, if you would come up to this first bench. When I call your name, step right up to the microphone as your time will start to elapse. The first five we have are John MacAskill, Chairman Sekou Michael Polansky, Jesse Paris and Cindy Silverman. John MacAskill, you're you're going.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is John McCaskill, ten year resident of the East Side, founder of Hotbox International International, which is based in five points in an area now known as the Rhino Art District. For future reference, that can be found at the HDB XCOM. For questions and follow up, I'm here today to speak to the success that's happening developing under the current rules of social consumption with my startup HTC X International and our pending DCA application for the HOTBOX Solution, which you will see that is up currently at public record as the TBC solution, which is to take place May 31st . I would also like to close with comments on the proposed changes to the initiative and briefly address items that are being debated under the social consumption initiatives. Last month my organization submitted the first special event DCA application to be accepted by the city. While this application is currently under review, we anticipate approval to be announced in coming weeks. To date, my team has been the only organization to successfully navigate the special event license application. So how have we gotten this far? Tell you a little bit about my business first. The hotbox is an agile and sustainable solution. We have developed and upcycled modified shipping container into a mobile patio which adheres to all DCA requirements that can be temporarily placed for special events and then removed following a leave no trace ethos. This is a benefit to municipalities for who who want to determine specifically when, where and for how long consumption takes place. The hotbox is also a truly shared solution providing neighborhoods, businesses and other individuals. 21 to know a safe and responsible space to consume cannabis. With anticipated ballot initiatives for tasting rooms coming to vote in May. We will offer HOTBOX as a cost effective and sustainable replacement to traditional brick and mortar buildings as well. Second, we worked within the framework of the existing rules at the city in the state. We developed the hotbox with the city by sitting down with all regulatory agencies to discuss our product, our plan and a roadmap with full support from the city. We've been able to focus on safety and compliance without needing a rule changes. Third, the hotbox is designed to be a solution for everyone. Cities across the country, including Denver, appreciate the easily identifiable and malleable structure. We're developing the business for the nation's first standardized cannabis intoxication certification in conjunction with the TIPS TIPS Program, which is currently mandated in Colorado as an education program for alcohol sales. We're working to understand social implications with planned research projects at the University of Colorado, and we understand that we are on the frontier of social consumption. So we're developing innovative operating and use procedures with the latest technology focusing on safety, security and compliance. In the future, we look forward to designing, building, leasing and selling units across the country to industries and organizations and municipalities solving the problem of social consumption.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Zak.
Speaker 9: Yes. Good evening. My name's Chairman Siku. I will be the next mayor of the city county of Denver 2019. And, you know. I have never in my life. Seen. A body, a government body. Who could mess up a great cigar. And all you got to do is light it. All of this overregulation of marijuana by folks who are alcoholics that don't smoke has driven this thing underground. And people are doing this now and having social meetings in places that are happening as we speak around the clock. My grandfather told me legislation in law ain't worth a bucket of spit. If you can enforce it and you can't enforce this, you can't stop people from doing something they've been doing for over 100 years in this town. And then tell them after the voters say, do it and it's okay, you make it. I don't care. And that's the hypocrisy. And there's words that I can't say about this. Think that I'm an honest president this evening. But come on, man. This is straight up, people. La la la la, la, la. That's all this is. Because what you don't want to address is the white privilege cocktail. The two got it. Currently with this thing where you don't have nobody else doing this. As you preach diversity and you ain't got nothing at all on this level or any level. So what we're going to do is not only repeal this, but all of this legislation that's come into place to mess up a good cigar so we can let this thing flow. Otherwise, what are we talking about here? State socialism where you go and everything that happens with everybody. Cause you don't do it. Well, come on, man. Come on. Close the door. It's going to be a socialist and communism. Regulate everything. Are you gonna let the people do what they do and have faith that they have enough sense to govern themselves? As you go and salute that flag and violate every principle, doesn't that flag. What a freedom. Where's the liberation act? And you sit up there. Well, I can't wait. I can't wait. I've been looking for this moment. This is my year. And I want to thank you very much, because this is the stuff that organized the opposition to make me the mayor. Because in office.
Speaker 7: All of this stuff. I'm sorry, but your time. Your time is up. Thank you very much, Michael Polansky.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Michael Polansky. I'm the CEO of Teen Women's Honeypot Loans. I'm speaking to you today because your committee holds the fate of my company and that of the entire social consumption experiments in your hands. Entering uncharted territory. We knew, as all operators in the space know well, there would be hurdles to face. But the sunset clauses, the one hurdle we operators cannot outmaneuver or out persist. It is, in fact the one we cannot get over without your help. A Denver social consumption license program is set to expire in September of 2020. Since three hundreds of passage, Denver has seen only two licensed social consumption facilities open and zero special events permits issued. Why is this? There are many theories floating around. No viable business models. Distance requirements, too restrictive, too risky, etc. Certainly these are valid points, but all could be cured if we went after the disease instead of the symptoms. Having a sunset clause or expiration of a business makes all of those theories hold a bit of truth. How can one come up with a viable business model? Uncertain whether or not they can be operational in two years? How can one forecast financials not knowing if they will be around to actualize a standard five year forecast? How could a potential investor consider any financial deal not knowing if the company will be around long enough to see a return? Our investors cannot justify putting in money and faith into an industry that this clause effectively kills before it has had a chance to be born, let alone to flourish. And I stand in solidarity with everyone else in this room who has seen this special opportunity for what it is. I implore you to unshackle this burgeoning industry. Open an extension for another five years from 2020, if not indefinitely. The people of this city did not overwhelmingly vote for this bill to pass just so that it could be suffocated before it could grow. All of the meetings that all of these good people have attended time and again will be for naught if you do not take a reasonable approach to this. We have done the work on this side. Give us a real chance to see this through and this will be a great triumph for us all. Stifle it now with this shortsighted, unreasonable sunset clause, and this story has no chance for a happy ending. Without our efforts, we will be back where we started with a hypocritical message to all of our tourists that says, We will take your money and sell you cannabis. Then we will say you for using it in public. Our city has been the lodestar for the entire world to follow, and we have brought cannabis out from the shadows and shown the world that we can regulate and manage it ourselves. You will force us back into the shadows, back into the legal gray area, back into unsafe draw consumption, back to totally unmonitored overconsumption, back to unhygienic practices and unsafe biohazards. These are things that we resolve. We are the Band-Aids to the issues that the legal cannabis market has brought up. I only ask for fair consideration on the impact of your vote. By voting no or abstaining, you will be responsible for the death of numerous legal and licensed businesses, all of which climbed mountains to become operational as well as killing Denver cannabis innovation and our roles as leaders in the legal, regulated cannabis industry. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 1: Just two pairs represent for Black Star Action Moment for self-defense. Denver Home of Out Loud and Positive Action A Commitment for Social Change. And I reside in Albert Brooks, District of District nine, and I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. We are definitely against this, as has already been previously stated. You have. Enabled an all white cartel to take over this city. None of these businesses that you are. This law is pertaining to Freddie's consumption. Clubs are owned by black people. There is no black people own dispensaries besides Wanda James. Simply pure. There is no black owned dispensaries in this whole city. But yet it's legal for us to consume. But this has become a tourist attraction. The voters voted in 2014 to make this legal. And now Denver has become the moral high income city where people come here to get high but cannot even afford to live here. The cost of living has skyrocketed since this is being passed. And you got to sit up here. I realize this is a good. This is a good thing. People are being displaced. People are being criminalized. People are being pushed away. We are definitely against this. This is white supremacy at its finest, and we are no longer going to stand for this. And we're going to sweep the council like this with the homeless every night. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next up, Cindy Sullivan. And then I'll ask the last three if you could come up to the front. I think we have eight now. Have you come up to the frontbench if you've signed up to speak on this and I have already called your name, come on up to the frontbench.
Speaker 12: Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Cindy Sabine and I'm the CEO of Utopia Spa and Lounge. I was the second applicant to apply in Denver. I went through the process but was denied for being 18 feet too close to a daycare center. I've since been working with the city and I would like to take a moment to thank Councilman Black. You've been really, really great in working with the industry, working with the people and working with the voters that have stayed engaged and remained in this issue to move this conversation forward. But I'm here tonight to speak in support of removing the cap or removing the sunset on the on the pilot program. You heard Michael talk about the business ramifications that come with trying to put a business together and not being able to have the certainty of know that you can flush out a financial model and be able to guarantee to your investor that you'll actually still be there in five years. I certainly ran into this too, while we ran into for the Spa a number of investors that even still continue to trickle in with interest. We are not able to provide a location and in addition to that, the surety of the five year business model. So removing the cap or the sunset will really help in that regard. I'd also just like to speak out in support of social consumption with the remainder of my time. This is about harm reduction. It is about monitoring intoxication. That's really what is the most important piece I would like to keep in taking away and trying to make this program successful. You know, he was very supportive of the conversations that you all put forward around having a safe injection sites for the same very, very same reasons . When you think about this, people are using cannabis just like any other substance for a reason. If we can provide them safe spaces and places where we monitor them in order to do this, this is actually the safest substance available. And to that point, the safest place for people can go. We need to be able to continue to be on the forefront in this with cannabis. The point about private businesses in this going underground is well taken. I just hosted my second private consumption event on Valentine's Day to an almost 200 people. We recruited over two dozen healers. We had to turn people away. We had massage therapists, acupuncture, Reiki. Everybody was very much interested in participating. We had a really, really good crowd. And I will tell you, it was the most low key event I've ever seen in my life. I have heard the joke recently. A couple of times you get five drunk people together and they start a fight. You get five stoned people together and they start a band. I mean, we are really, really at the creme de la creme when we start talking about what we've done here in Denver for monitoring, intoxication, ventilation, all of the health and safety, the work that the city put into these models, into these rules. They're workable. The main problems that we have is that we have this sunset that is really a clock ticking down on everybody who wants to get into this industry right now. And then also in available locations, which I know you guys will continue to talk about. I really appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation and be involved in this dialog. And I really thank you for all your work.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next up, Mariana Thompson.
Speaker 8: Mariana Thompson, Denver homeless out loud. Ladies and gentlemen, say, everybody, that's for this is white. What does that say? Okay, so here we go again. More gentrification. So I don't know what when you get there, it's going to turn around and realize that there's more people in this world that need jobs and that need businesses like Latinos , like, you know, Puerto Ricans, like black people, everything but white people. You know, this is this is completely unfair. You guys talk about being progressive in a progressive city. You know, let's look at progressive, linear. Let's look at all of them. Okay. Thank you. My answer's no.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next up, Aubry Rizzo. Good evening, Mr. President. I thank you for an honorable council members. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am here in support of the repeal of I 300 sunset. I'd like to offer some perspective. First of all, I think everyone in this room should know that Denver is a leader in socially responsible marijuana policy and through its through the annual Marijuana Management Symposium that occurs and the only one of its kind in the world that occurs here every October, November. And then with the mayors and office recent announcement of the turnover new leaf program, we've really de-stigmatize social consumption of marijuana. So I really need to give kudos to the city of Denver for that. We we are a leader when it comes to socially responsible marijuana policy. Secondly, in 2017, I served on the Social Consumption Advisory Committee and in 2018 on the A-300 Task Force or Task Force discussions were interesting and occasionally passionate, and we did not always agree. But the one thing we did agree.
Speaker 9: Was that the 300 sunset should be repealed. I ask that you please consider the time that the task.
Speaker 7: Force members spent in discussion and meetings and vote to repeal the 300 sunset. Finally, I take pride in having served my profession as a veterinarian in the city of Denver as an independent small business owner for over 40 years. My proudest accomplishment was being able to provide employment and thousands of dollars in revenue to Denver in sales use and occupational privileged occupational privilege taxes in a business whose expressly stated mission was to serve our community because that is what small business does. We serve our communities in ways that big business cannot or will not if the A300 sunset is not repealed. Big Business and Big Pharma will find a way to make social consumption work. Shutting out socially responsible, community minded small business owners.
Speaker 9: Therefore, I ask that you please vote to repeal.
Speaker 7: The A300 sunset. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker tonight is Logan Goolsbee.
Speaker 1: Thank you, council members. First off, it seems like I'm the only representative from the industry that has intended. So please don't take my word as the the whole industry. But the industry does appreciate the work that the City Council and Councilwoman Black did in putting together this this review on the A-300. It took a lot of investment from stakeholders city members, community members, industry and attorneys as well, all coming together, sitting down on the same table to continue this conversation. For that reason, it looks like this conversation still needs to continue on. There was no resolution at the end of this at the end of this committee. Nor has there really seemed to be a unanimous resolution since then in the Special Issues Committee. I think by repealing this sunset bill or sunset, it allows the individuals to continue this conversation about these are these small businesses and this service that the city of Denver, the public for the city of Denver has voted for. It's it's been a small business struggle to continue on with not only these special events, but these businesses just creating these social use consumption businesses as well. We struggle a lot with voting, with the zoning, with installation systems, employee training, mandated employee training, the security systems, mandatory security systems, licensed area, electronic scene, electrical bathrooms, zoning, fire inspections. The list goes on and on in the regulatory framework that the small businesses do have to navigate. And we we would continue to pursue should these businesses be allowed to go on. I also want to speak to a comment that was made during the during the Special Issues Committee in the individual from the Boys and Girls Club stood up during a during a statement that was made by by the committee asking who would be opposed to the to the social use. The individual from Boys and Girls Clubs stood up and said, you mean for the children? And if that was the case, then everyone in the room should have stood up. It shouldn't be that we just look at my for 20 tours and Colorado cannabis stores as the only operators out there . But we want to protect individuals from those public public use areas like my for 22 years in Colorado cannabis tours and allow them to.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Michael Polaski. Please call you back up. So I'm confused on the two businesses. Is your business in operation as a consumption?
Speaker 10: We are pursuing a special events license within that as a request.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because my other questions are related, but not if you're bricks and mortar social consumption. So you're not. So thank you very much.
Speaker 10: Sir. Sir.
Speaker 2: No further questions, sir.
Speaker 7: All right. Seeing no other questions from members of Council for Public Hearing for Council Bill 24 is closed. Comments by members of Council. That's why I'm black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. As several of the speakers mentioned, we had a task force last year. Some of the people here served on the task force, as you did. And we looked at why there are so few licenses. And one of the main reasons was the sunset also distance requirements, which we will be looking at later. The sunset, I think it's a no brainer to repeal it. It's not serving any purpose. It's just hindering the ability for anyone to put a business plan together. So the task force recommended that we repeal the sunset, and I hope that my colleagues will support that repeal. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilwoman Black's seeing no other Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Council president. Are we going to I guess would we just call it out for comment a second or would we have a, you know, a dedicated comment then? Or should I comment now?
Speaker 7: You can do whatever you'd like. This is just to be ordered published so you can save for final will be next week, but there will not be another hearing, so someone would have to call it out.
Speaker 2: Okay. I guess I just want my colleagues to sort of ruminate on on this. When we had a when we met as a as a committee, we spoke to all the issues that were raised, particularly by the last speaker. And we sort of concluded on this matter of the sunset. And I don't agree that it is a no brainer to eliminate this as sort of a no brainer to eliminate this in light of the fact that we are looking at relaxing some other rules, you know, and so the idea of a pilot would be that you actually have some means to to rein it back in. And and so if we're if we do eliminate the sunset, what are the unintended consequences if we start relaxing distance rules and other things? And so, you know, I really wish, as it seemed to be going, that we would bring all these matters to council at once is sort of a package, because one of the things in my time in council, because we first we, you know, we dealt with a a licensing moratorium is that the council has time and time again sort of proven that it's reticent to to potentially, you know, put people, business operators who have definitely approached an industry at risk. At risk. You know, once they start making that investment, we then use that as sort of our, you know, you know, sort of we get worrisome about the possibility of other decision that we make, making those business operators that have vested into potential business that was at risk, you know, making them suffer the losses that they knowingly and willingly chose to pursue. And so I have always been in agreement that we should extend the the moratorium, I mean, the sunset, simply because the rulemaking has proven to be to be too. And I'm losing the words. But you understand there's too restrictive. And so I think we should look at relaxing those rules. But I do think that we should just have another extension. I mean, so that we are we are making it very clear to the operators that you are doing this with enough time to hopefully profit and prove that this is a viable industry with new rules and prove that you can operate in a in a good faith way, in a way that is enduring and engendering yourself to your community, providing the service and making the case for a subsequent sunset. Removal of the sunset. Right now we have no businesses in bricks and mortar businesses that have made that case, that this is a good pilot because of our own rules. So let's fix the rules that actually are not mean, preventing businesses from forming and give them adequate time and so that they can actually become viable. But let's not say, you know, put it on future councils that basically if things do go wrong, that future councils have to then sort of shut the door on on those investments that have been made long after they've been made. Let's let them do it with, you know, understanding that there is a legitimate vulnerability there, you know, so because it's always been right, it's still a federally listed. Drug. And so I think we've now proven we've made the case that it can be incorporated and sort of suitably legalized and hopefully made the case that it could actually be legalized at the federal level. But it is by our proper approach to regulation. So that's the thing I want you all to consider is without knowing how we're going to regulate, I mean, relax the rules. It doesn't make sense that we've relaxed this uncertainty, you know, indefinitely things.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just wanted to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Black, for working so hard on this. She's been diligently working on it. Some that I'm concerned about, and she's moving the ball forward. So thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. See no other comments. I'll just also echo a thank you to Councilwoman Black for taking this on and all of the task force meetings. And it is a lot of work. I want to thank the task force members who are here tonight who participated in that process as volunteers for adding your voice then and now. And I hope you'll stick with us as we continue to talk about these issues in our in Councilwoman Black's committee. And then I'll just add, you know, I think that Councilwoman Black, when you said this was a no brainer, I agree with that. I think the sunset was originally put in the bill to protect from a future that opponents were worried about, that this would open the floodgates and there would be, you know, the public consumption Wild West going on. And this was a protection to say, okay, we're going to try this, but if it goes really bad, this'll turn everything back off again. And with two licenses in the city, that has not been the case. And there are a lot of moving pieces and a lot of levers to try and play with as to see what exactly in here is is preventing more or licenses from happening so that we could see how this is working out even. And we're going to continue talking about those. But this is one of them. This is one of the ones that we've heard directly is a a hurdle to get through. And I think that it's an easy one to step away from, because it clearly has not led to the Armageddon that was feared. And so it's I think it's not needed and so happy to support. But thank you for all your work to get us here. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1924.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 2: BROOKS Hi.
Speaker 3: Espinosa Hi. Flynn Sorry. Gilmore I. Cashman. All right. Can each. Hi. Lopez. Hi. New Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 7: All right, now, secretary, please post voting, announce results. Ice Age Constable, 24, has been ordered published on Monday, March 18th, 2019. Council will hold a required public hearing on Constable 19 0079, changing the zoning classification for 901 Irving Street and will park any protest against Constable 19 0079 must be filed with the council officers no later than
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance repealing the sunset date of the cannabis consumption pilot program.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-28-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02112019_19-0029
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. All right. Looks like we got them all. Madam Secretary, if you could please put the first item on our screens. And, Councilwoman, can you go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This is the bill to update and clarify the powers of the Independent Monitor and the Citizen Oversight Board that works with the Independent Monitor on independent oversight of police and sheriff. We're going to hold our substantive comments until next week on this bill. But I wanted to, for transparency to the community and my colleagues, let them know that an amendment will be coming next week on a very tiny technical issue, which is we did not get this staggering quite right for the members of the Citizen Oversight Board. And so you'll see an amendment. We wanted to just give you time to absorb it, so we'll send it to you this week. But it will basically just ensure that we have a chunk of members kind of expiring in an irregular cadence rather than having a big chunk at once and then none for a year. So we didn't get that quite right. And I'm sorry we didn't catch it sooner, but transparency just wanted folks to know if anyone who's listening or watching needs to see the amendment. We will have it available through my office. 720337 7712 or contact the city council main office and we can have them get it to folks as well. So we'll talk with you more about the bill next week. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance clarifying and amending the authority of the Office of the Independent Monitor.
An ordinance clarifying and amending the authority of the Office of the Independent Monitor and expanding the appointment process for the Citizen Oversight Board to include City Council appointments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-30-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02112019_19-0042
|
Speaker 4: 720337 7712 or contact the city council main office and we can have them get it to folks as well. So we'll talk with you more about the bill next week. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam Secretary, are you pleased with the next item on our screens? And Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 42 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 19 Dash 004 to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Can I get a second? Moved and seconded. Councilwoman, suspend your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 zero zero 42 be amended in the following particulars. This is going to be fun. Together with the West, one half of that portion, a vacated Galapagos Street described as follows. By the way, insert this in the following after line 13 on page two, that part of Galapagos Street, more particularly described as follows commencing at the northwest corner of Lot five BLOCK 43 Viaduct addition to Denver City and county of Denver, thence southerly along the east, right of way line of Galapagos Street, a distance of 71.55 feet to the true point of beginning thence. Along a non tangent curve to the right with a radius of 48 feet, a length of 110.43 feet, and a delta of 131 degrees, 48 minutes and 37 seconds with a cord of 87.64 feet, which deflects 114 degrees, 5 minutes and 41 seconds to the right from the aforementioned course to a point on the West, right of way line of said Galapagos St, thence southerly along said west right of way line of Galapagos St to the north to right of way line of the valley highway. Thence easterly along said north the right of way line of the valley highway to the said east right of way line of Galapagos St thence northerly along the said east right of way line of Galapagos Street to the true point of beginning. You're welcome. On page two, omit lines 24 through 38, and on page three, omit lines one and two.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Now, can you say that five times fast?
Speaker 4: Yes, I.
Speaker 2: Can. All right.
Speaker 4: So the northwest corner of the the amendment.
Speaker 0: Did we get the amendment moved and seconded? No, we got it on the floor. Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yes, we did. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Are there questions or comments by members of council or Councilwoman Sussman?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the boundary of the proposed rezoning on Galapagos Street. The amendment does not substantively change the proposed ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank. Mr. President, I just want to express my gratitude that the amendment uses the term Valley Highway. Yes, we don't hear that very often anymore.
Speaker 4: It also sounds like it was written by Shakespeare.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jasmine Flynn. Seeing no other comments or questions. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment blank.
Speaker 5: All right. Brooks.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, I. Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. I earned it.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. Right. New Ortega by Cessna. I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results. 3913 is council bill 42 has been amended and now Councilman Cashman, will you please put Castro 42 on the floor to be ordered published?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 dash 004 to be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Any questions or comments? Nope. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, i. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. I. Herndon, i. Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 5: Can I. Lopez.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: New Ortega. I. Susman, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results. 1313 I as Constable 42 has been ordered published as amended, and that concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published and 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call 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 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass on a block for the final items. 19 Dash 006 218 Dash 1330 619 Dash 005 919 Dash 006 119. Dash 006 719. Dash 006 819. Dash 006 919. Dash zero zero 6018. Dash 1370 619. Dash 006 318. Dash 1420 119 003 519. Dash 003 919 Dash 004 519. Dash 0054 and $19 0008.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black eye. Brooks, i. I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman, I. Can eat i. Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 1313. I. 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 18 Dash 1477 changing the zoning classification for 1709 and 1717 Washington Street A required public hearing on Council Bill 18
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 805 West 38th Avenue in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-B UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial in the former zoning code to urban center, mixed-use), located at 805 West 38th Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-29-19. Amended 2-11-19 to clarify the boundary of the proposed rezoning on Galapago Street.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02112019_18-1539
|
Speaker 0: 813 IES Council Bill 1477 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 1539 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dash 1539 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1539 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Karen with Community Planning and Development and we are here for 5001 Packing House Road. It's also known as the Armor and Company Administration Building. Landmark Designation was established in 1967, which provides you the authority to designate properties within the city and county of Denver. Approximately 4% of the structures in the city are designated, or about one in 25 buildings. For this particular property, the owner is the city and county of Denver and it is in the National Western Center, as you can see, as highlighted on the map in red. If you look down towards the bottom of the map, you can see the outline of the stadium arena. That is also a Denver landmark. This particular property is in an area of change with its current zoning as I am x five with a use overlay of two. There is plain support for the designation in both the National Western Center Master Plan and the Elyria Swansea Neighborhood Plans, which both call out for the designation of historic structures. Specifically the designation of structures within the National Western Center. And as you can see, the red box down there at the bottom is the stadium arena. And the small diamond up at the towards the top is the property that we are looking at for a property be designated per ordinance. It needs to meet a designation criteria in at least two of the following categories history, architecture and geography, and to maintain its historic and physical integrity. And then the LPC needs to consider how it relates to a historic context or theme. So for this particular property, it meets two criteria under history one under architecture and three or two under geography. In the first under history, it has a direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation. This particular property is strongly associated with the meat processing facilities at the Denver Union Stockyards. The armor building was the administration building for the Armor and Company. The in this particular area, the meat packing processing plants had a huge amount of authority and power within the city and county of Denver, and the industry was incredibly strong. They oftentimes not only owned the meat processing plants, but they also owned some of the yards, they owned the cattle, they owned the ranches. So this is one of the last remaining buildings that's associated with the meat processing plant, which was so intrinsic to the development of the city and county of Denver. It is also significant under history for having a direct and substantial association with a person or groups of persons who had influence on society. So this particular building is associated with a couple of different groups. The first is the Gephardt family. The Gephardt family is the is the family that started the armor company. Henry and then his son, Charles, were the two that were the instrumental members of the Gephardt family within the armor packing industry. Henry founded the Colorado Packing and Provision Company, and then he was really instrumental in the Denver Union stockyards. He was an executive of the Western Stock Show, and he present he helped produce the National Western Stock Show. It was then passed onto his son, Charles Gephardt, and he was there when the Armor Company ended up purchasing what had initially been the Colorado packing and provision company. And then they allowed the Gephardt family to continue to run the business. And this is the building that was constructed for the administration of it. But since so much else has been lost, this is the one of the buildings that's associated with the Gephardt family. This property is also associated with the the neighborhood that surrounds it, that the meatpacking and the meat processing was one of the stable positions that could be gained by the immigrants who came over. And so it is primarily blue collar employment for the immigrants who are primarily Russian, Slavic and Eastern European, east from Eastern European countries at this time. And so the meat processing plants provided stable employment for the populations that lived in the neighborhood. And so this is a representative of the ability to maintain and live in that community was through the meat processing plant and so it provided stable employment for the population. The property is also significant for its architecture, for embodying distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. And this is a neoclassical style. It was constructed in 1917, and it can be seen through its cobbled cornice at the top. From the simple geometric designs on the brick walls. The very regular and symmetrical form. And in the fenestration pattern. And then the one story porch. Oftentimes on a neoclassical, you'll actually see a two story porch. In this case, it's a slightly stripped down version with the one story classical columns. And then finally, it's significant for its geography for promoting an understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of a distinctive physical characteristic or rarity. In this particular instance, it's rare for being the sole remaining building that's related to the meatpacking industry of the swift and armor plants that had been demolished. And so as you look at the 1961 Sanborn map, you can see the arrow that points to the the one admin building. All of those other buildings that are on there were associated with the with the with a swift in armor plate or with this with the armor plants. And they have since been demolished. And so this is the a rarity for being one of the only remaining meatpacking industry plants in the city. And finally, it's a significant under geography for making a special contribution to Denver's distinctive characteristic. This isn't something that is used or is there aren't many properties that are designated under this. It's the designation that is what makes Denver. Denver and the National Western Stock Show and the Denver Union stockyards are intrinsic to the character of Denver, and they have defined Denver as a major livestock hub since the early 20th century. And so this building is strongly associated with the intrinsic nature of Denver's history. After meeting all of the criteria, a property still has to maintain its historic and physical integrity, which is basically does the property look like what it used to look like? And as you can see from these pictures, it is remarkably intact. Underneath the boarded out, underneath the boards, there are the windows that still remain. So overall, there are minimal changes that have occurred to this building on the right hand side, which is actually a little hard to see. It's behind some bushes on one of the windows have been turned into doors. But overall, other than the painting of the brick and the boarding up of windows, but the windows there are still underneath. It has a remarkably good integrity and staff, as well as the Landmark Preservation Commission, found that it maintained its historic and physical integrity . And finally, the Landmark Preservation Commission considered how the structure relates to historic context or themes. And they looked at how it is associated with the development of the meatpacking industry in Denver, the growth of ranching in the livestock industry, and then with the National Western Stock Show and found that it was related to multiple historic contexts in Denver's history. When the commission reviewed that, they found that history under one A and one C, architecture under two A, geography three B and three C, that it maintained its historic and physical integrity. And they found that it was eligible to be a Denver landmark. They voted unanimously, eight zero. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals lined up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this item, ask you to come up to the front bench. When I call your name, step up to the podium and your time will begin to elapse. First up, we have Eric Anderson.
Speaker 3: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Eric Anderson. I'm the design manager for the mayor's office of the National Restaurant Center. This is a very important building to our new campus. It sits right.
Speaker 7: In the middle of all the things that.
Speaker 3: Are going to happen.
Speaker 10: And we're really looking forward to seeing a new use here. So I'm here to answer any questions regarding the site or the building itself.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next up, John Olsen.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, council members. My name is John Olsen. I'm the deputy director of Historic Denver. I'm here to absolutely support this as a designation up at the National Western Center, part of the National Western Stock Trail. I'm here as a part of of being with this historic Denver, which, of course, you're very used to seeing me from that standpoint. But I'm also here from the point of view of the National Western Citizen Advisory Committee. And in our conversations with the community members and with History Colorado and with the National Western Center, this was one of those buildings that was identified very early on as being very important to the site. We're talking about a very exciting development that's going to happen to the National Western Center and a national Western Stock Show area . But we want this to be part of Denver. And this is something that is a part of Denver. It's associated with Denver. The community members have associated with this with the meatpacking industry because they have a large history with the meatpacking industry. A lot of the descendants still live in the Globeville, Elyria, Swansea area. So from that standpoint, this is going to be very exciting. This is going to be a piece that's going to integrate, I think, very well with the development that's going to be going there. And it's really going to show what we're all about here in Denver that we're forward thinking when it comes to agriculture and urban ideas. But we understand and identify the importance of our past and the reasons why this location was so important to Denver. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 3: Jesse Paris Black Starts a movement for self-defense. Deborah Thomas Out Loud and positive commitment for social change. And I'm also now large candidate for 2019. We are actually in favor of this. Abbie reminds me of a time when Denver was such a humble place to live and it was a cow town and you could travel through the town in 10 minutes. Now try to. It takes over an hour. So, yeah, we're definitely in favor of this. It should have been done already, but yes, we're in favor of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Eric.
Speaker 1: Could you tell us from the standpoint of the National Western Center project, how does the landmark designation fit into the plan overall?
Speaker 3: If you go back to the master plan that was approved 2015, there were four structures.
Speaker 7: That were historically significant.
Speaker 3: That we thought at some point needed to be kind of kept.
Speaker 10: And talked about and make sure that we we.
Speaker 3: Were clear about what they wanted to be before we did anything else. And this was one of them. Very important. Of course, the 1909 Stadium Arena Building was the first one.
Speaker 10: And then and then we also had the livestock exchange building.
Speaker 3: Which will be moving forward hopefully soon. And then, of course, the Denver Coliseum, which is to be determined at a later date.
Speaker 1: TBD. Yes, thank you. I just want to make sure that folks understood how this fit into the overall plan.
Speaker 3: We've been looking at this for a long time.
Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: No, it's okay.
Speaker 0: You're good. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure who can answer this. I'm just trying to clarify. Is this the the residence that Tom Anthony lived in? It is. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, seeing no other question, the public hearing for Council 1539 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. It's it's nice to have a landmark designation where everyone is in support of designating this. So I think all parties and I think the National Lessons Center for for taking the lead on this and making this easy over this 250 acre redevelopment. So we've been talking about this for a long time, and it's always been a priority and a value from the residents in the area to make sure that these properties are historically designated and that they capture the fabric of the context in the neighborhood. And so I'm excited to support this and I hope my colleagues will do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1339. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Black tie. Espinosa I flinch.
Speaker 0: I humor.
Speaker 5: I Herndon I cashmere.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Can each Lopez I knew Ortega I assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting in results. 1313 accountable. 1539 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 1542 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 5001 Packing House Road, the Armour & Company Administration Building, as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 5001 Packing House Road in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-15-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02112019_18-1542
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting in results. 1313 accountable. 1539 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 1542 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dash 1540 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1542 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Jenny Button Borg and between planning and development. And tonight I'm here to present to you and 637 Galapagos Street Landmark Designation Application. The application was submitted by the owner of the property who's here with us this evening, Eric Kratzer and Meghan Hinman. Arthur, this is in the Lincoln Park neighborhood in Council District number three, Councilmember Paul Lopez. According to Blueprint Denver, this is an area of stability and the current zoning is you are age three A and you oh three. Kerry did most of the robust background on landmark preservation tonight. So this is going to be kind of a stripped down version. But the landmark designation criteria for this property is met in that it meets the designation criterion in at least two of the following categories history, architecture, geography. It maintains its historic and physical integrity, and it relates to a historic context or themes. So Landmark Preservation staff in the Landmark Preservation Commission find that the structure meets the required criteria for designation. Specifically, it meets history a to have direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation history. See having direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society and architecture. A It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type, and I'll go into those in more detail here for history. A The property was built in 1890 by Elizabeth Malone, who was the mother of Thomas Malone, pastor of St Joseph's Church, from 1886 to 1894. Saint Joseph Church is kitty corner from this property, and it's believed that the home served as the rectory for Thomas Malone when he was pastor of St Joseph's Church in 1900. The Schweitzer family moved in and resided there until 1921, and during their residency they started and expanded the Schrader Trunk Manufacturing Company, which became the renowned Samsonite luggage company. Their trademark Samsung luggage was named after the Hebrew strongman Samson and known for its strength and durability. You can see here on the screen the image of the Schrader brothers standing on top of their luggage to illustrate its strength. The company expanded many times over the years, and evidence of their factory presence still exists. And the image you see on the screen here and the ghost signage at 1553 Platt Street. The property also meets history. See, the traders were Eastern European Jewish immigrants who came to Colorado via England in the late 1800s. The patriarch, Isaac Schrader, first landed in Central City, and as the family grew, they moved to get the Galapagos address in 1900. Isaac ran several small businesses in Denver, including a luggage shop. His son Jesse, helped transition the business into the luggage manufacturer. Schrader Truck Manufacturing Company in 1910. You can see him on the screen here indicated with the Green Arrow and the larger Schrader family in front of their home in 1905. Isaac died in 1916 and the family investors, his life insurance money into the company, which was a pretty good deal. As I mentioned, the well-known marketing of the suitcase is strength. So here's the actual photo of the Schrader brothers standing on top of that suitcase. Jesse was the president of the company from 1910 to 1960, so this was very much a family run business in Denver for quite a period of time. The property also meets architecture aid and embodies, excuse me, distinguishing characteristics of the Italianate style. It is in the row house form. Characteristics of this style are tall, narrow windows, decorative brackets and a flat roofed cornice. Prominent two story bay window. Some of the more unique pieces of this property are the polychrome rusticated rhyolite stone and sandstone, red sandstone and yellow limestone facade. It is very much unique to the block and quite imposing. There's nothing else like it there. This is a 3000 square foot two story residence and some of the other unique aspects of the property are the nine ornamental sunburst motifs and the lintels on the front facade. The property is found to maintain a high degree of physical and historic integrity related to the structure's period of significance from 1890 to 1921. There have been some alterations to the property, including two windows, doors and both front and back porches. But despite these changes, the building is clearly identifiable as an exemplary Italianate that maintains its character defining features. So if you look at these photos, the first is a 1905 again of the family with the home in the background. An 1890 Sanborn map, which was the year the property was constructed, shows that there's no front porch. But then in 1903, a Sanborn map shows a one storey wood frame porch with slate tin roof. And we can I believe this is what you see in the 1905 family of the photo here. If you fast forward to 1977, you can see that front porch altered again. Looks like it's more of a craftsman style. So sometime between 1905 and 1977, that change took place. In the 1980s, there was a rehab that removed that front porch. And so the image that you see in 2018 is more of what the building would have looked like originally when it was constructed in 1890. The property also relates to a historic context or theme here. It relates to Denver's economic development and growth at the turn of the 20th century, associated with an increase in population due to immigration and the importance of immigrant workers to Denver's economy. The Schweitzer family exemplifies this as Eastern European Jewish immigrants who settled in Denver and contributed to the economic growth of the city through their family business. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint, Denver 22. The proposed designation is consistent with these plans. Again, this isn't an area of stability and blueprint. Denver identifies landmark designation as a tool to reinforce areas of stability. So in summary, the proposed designation meets three designation criteria in two categories history A and C, architecture A. It maintains its historic and physical integrity and relates to a historic context or theme. So Landmark Preservation Staff recommend approval for designation of 637 Galapagos St and happy to take any questions that you may or may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you're signed up to speak on this item, please come up to this front bench when I call your name. Step up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. First up, we have Eric Trotter.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm the property owner. So I'm here to support the application. Of course. The thing that really interested me in starting this process was a conversation that I had with my neighbor across the street who'd been living there for 40 years. She once knew a 100 year old woman who lived in the neighborhood who told her the story of the Samsonite family, the shredders living in the house. My wife and I felt that this building probably should have been designated a long time ago and that it was probably just missed. And it also seemed like we were on the verge of like losing the story. As soon as we were aware of the story was pretty easy to begin doing a little bit of research and discovering discovering the story of the Schwitters being in the house. But we were pleased to sort of discover all of this, go through the the designation application process. I started this about two years ago, and I'm really pleased to be here today. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have.
Speaker 0: Would you mind just stating your name for the record?
Speaker 2: Erik Crotzer.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jonathan.
Speaker 3: Hello. John Olsen, again, deputy director of historic Denver. I wanted to start off, I'm remiss by thinking in my last comments about the property on the National Western Center to thank the National Western Center staff, including Sean Snow, who is still in the in the room today, as well as Eric Anderson, who you heard from, as well as the leadership of Gretchen Hollar and Brad Buchanan. So without their leadership to move that forward, that would not have happened. So thank you very much for that. In terms of this building, this is a wonderful story. It's a wonderful building that has you know, a lot of people would overlook that. So it's wonderful that the that the owners were able to dig up not only that story, but be able to celebrate that in the neighborhood. And we at Historic Denver are always glad when we see people really loving the places that they live and wanting to recognize that. And there's many, many ways that you can recognize that. But one of the ultimate is to be able to designate that building so that other generations beyond us will not only have that story, but will have that that piece of history that will still be thriving as a part of our growing Denver. So it's it's something that I'm very proud to say thank you for the owners to to do that effort and go forward with the designation. And I hope that you will reward that effort by voting for it to be designated so that it'll be a piece of Denver's history from this point on. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 3: Jesse Paris represented for Denver Homicide. Low black stars are more for self-defense than positive action. Commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. We are in favor of this. We need more historical designations such as this throughout the city. We need to preserve the city's history and for future generations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? All right. Seeing no questions. The public hearing for Constable 1542 is closed. Comments by members of Council Kelsey Lopez. Yeah. Thank you. When this was brought to our attention, as it came through the process, I had no idea the history. I had decided as a young man to walk by this building all over the time, and there was something absolutely distinct. Here's the thing about his historic buildings. You know, when you see one, right, and he and they are part of your childhood, they're part of your memory. They serve as landmarks in your community. And this was always one. Every time we would down the street is like there's a house is right. It's just stone house, right. And it almost looks like a small castle. But no, I'm happy to see this come before this council and happy to support it, encouraged my colleagues to do the same thing. You know, on on the West Side, we hadn't concentrated too much on on preserving a lot of things like this over the years. And when we catch them, I think it's important because it tells the history of of a complete Denver and that west side, that very proletarian history that we have. But also I think of this and I think of my grandfather. My grandfather worked for Samsonite when he was retired. And so seeing that and seeing this come up in a in a neighborhood not too far from where he bought a house is actually pretty cool. So. Mr. President, I support this and encourage everybody to do the same. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: You know, I just wanted to use this time to thank you, Mr. Crotzer, and your wife, for following up on that story, learning the history of the property and bringing it to our attention and and then securing it for future generations through the landmarking process. So just thank you very much for recognizing the value that it has has served, it is serving and will serve in the future. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I probably should nail this down during questions. Either Jen or our historian, Councilman Flynn will probably know from my career as a journalist, I remember I think the Samsonite factory was on the east side of Broadway, around the Gates factory. And so I was never aware until this came up about the Schwitters home. And it's it's a beautiful piece. I'm glad you're bringing it forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. See no other comments. I'll just add a big thank you to all of our staff and our owners today. It's pretty exciting night to be able to designate two new structures in Denver for historic preservation. I'm excited to support this one, to make it two for two. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1542. All right.
Speaker 5: Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I cash, man. I can each nigga. I just. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce Results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 637 Galapago Street, the Samsonite House, as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 637 Galapago Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-15-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02042019_18-1421
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes, one abstention. Council Resolution 1528 has been adopted. Guzman-Lopez okay, if we go to Councilwoman Kennedy for a comment and then I'll come to you for the bill you want.
Speaker 5: Yes, the bill. Okay.
Speaker 0: So, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman, can you go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 6: Thank you so much, Mr. President. One more good news, bill today, which is a contribution from the city and county of Denver to the Work Now program. And this is a program that really came from a very robust set of community conversations, probably going back at least three years now as big construction projects were coming to Northeast Denver in particular. A number of residents came forward and said that it was really important for them to have local hiring in some of these big construction projects being done by the state or the city. And the real desire was not just to require that local residents could work on these projects, but that we have a much better way of connecting folks to those jobs. It's one thing to require to hire locally. It's another thing to have a place that screens folks, refers them to the employers and gets them ready to go. And we have a hard working team here within the city, but I think the realization from the community was that it was important that we really have this live outside the city so that it could serve all different projects, maybe state projects, maybe private industry projects. And so what came from that project was this work now collaborative that really brought together construction companies and associations and community members, and they have had huge success. My colleague, Councilwoman Ortega, spent a lot of time in the early phases of thinking about this partnership as well. And I think she's going to I asked if she could do the numbers because she's got the numbers in front of her. And I don't. But I just this is a big investment from our city. It's a half million dollars. And it's something that I think really has been a dream from the community for a long time. We had a recession the last time we got close to doing this kind of construction hiring. And all of a sudden there were a lot of out of work construction workers. So we stopped training. And that brought us to today where we have an aging construction workforce and a shortage. So in some ways, I feel like this contract, as small as it seems, that a half million dollars is kind of like a ten year in the making vision of how to really train workers on the big projects that we build. So I just want to thank the Community College of Denver for allowing their team to be so active in the community. And with government working on something like this, it's really out of the box. It's not a classroom project and I love that our community college was so willing to do this. And to Katrina word in particular, who really brought this vision to a reality. So and I'll I'll just, you know, with enthusiasm, it's on consent. We're not going to pull it out. But I'm really excited to see this bill moving forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. So to all of what Councilwoman Canete just said, I want to say ditto, but I want to acknowledge Marcus, who is in the audience tonight, who has been working diligently on this project since he got here to his work with the city, as well as Tony, his his cohort at OED, who has helped sit down with us through many meetings to make sure that we actually had language in our office, language in the contracts that is now setting goals for hiring for apprentices, making sure that we are training people in these livable wage jobs that has a career path and exciting to learn. A presentation was given to us last week at our Business Committee talking about how many people are in this pipeline right now, and the numbers keep growing as we all keep talking about it and advertising this program. But we have over 700 people right now in this work now program, various stages. So we've got some that are working with some of our pre-employment organizations to get people job ready. We have a number of people that are in the apprenticeship programs before they're ready to go work on the job site. And we have a number of them that are also working on the job sites. And, you know, the beauty of this is that it's creating our trained workforce that will be here in place for the many bond projects that we have that will be built out over a period of time. We have seen a number of applications that have come forward before this body from the River Rail Ilitch site to the Denver Bronco parking lot. I could go on and on. Testing them, but those create potential opportunities as well that will ensure that these very workers who are getting trained will have a pipeline of job opportunities for them to plug into. So again, I want to echo praises for Katrina work and the folks at Community College of Denver who really stood up this Work Now program that is not only being used on the I-70 project, but it's being used at National Western. We were going to be utilizing it on the Convention Center and all the other big fun projects. So I just want to say thanks to our team within the city for really the dedication and commitment and the the ironic part about all of this is this is a program that the city had done historically. But, you know, over time we saw a decline in in construction projects in our city. And as we're ramping up with well in excess of $6 billion worth of construction projects, it's important that we create the opportunity for other people in our community to benefit from the not only the construction projects, but the wealth that's being built around our community that needs to trickle down to our communities as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado, Department of Higher Education, by the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education for the Use and Benefit of the Community College of Denver for the administration of the WORKNOW program for construction-related careers.
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Community College of Denver (CCD) for $564,000 and for one year to administer the WORKNOW program, a collaborative workforce development initiative to recruit, support and train residents in construction and construction-related careers, citywide (OEDEV-2018). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-25-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-28-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02042019_18-1482
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvened. We have two 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. Council Work. Will you please put Council Bill 1482 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, I will move that council bill 18 Dash 1480 to be placed upon final consideration and do passed.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and second in the public hearing for council bill 1482 is open. May we have.
Speaker 3: The staff report?
Speaker 9: Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I can get this open. We can get started. So this is an official map amendment. It is a rezoning of 46, 50 and 46, 98 Central Park Boulevard. The request is to go for a master planned industrial mixed use eight storeys to campus hospital. The property is located in City Council District eight in the Stapleton neighborhood, and this just gives you an overview of the area. The request is for about four acres, 183,000 square feet. Currently vacant property. Again, the request is to rezone from master plan context industrial mixed use a stories to campus hospital to redevelop the property for a rehabilitation center. So subject zoning again industrial mixed use eight storey surrounding properties industrial mixed use eight stories to the east and west north is industrial mixed use five stories and then 12 stories to the south. Industrial mixed use. Again, subject property is vacant to the east and north is also vacant. South is an office building and west is a hotel or commercial use. This gives you an idea of these surrounding properties a lot of vacant properties, a hotel and an office. The campus is own district. One thing I forgot to say earlier is that the proposal is because the hospital use is not allowed in other zoned districts except the campus hospitals own district. That's part of why this is a requested rezoning. But the campus context is for those institutional uses medical, educational, entertainment, large, usually large sites. But again, that medical use is only allowed in c mph. There is a it would be a general primary building form and this is just intended to promote maintenance and concentration of health care facilities. So the process, initial information I notice went out in August of last year. Planning Board was duly posted in at their hearing on December 5th, unanimously voted to recommend approval of this application. Ludie heard this item on December 18th of last year and of course you're here tonight and this hearing has been noticed as well. So there are several are in OWS. We have had no comment from an R.A. or general public on this application. So, you know, the criteria, the plans that apply are current plan 2000, Blueprint 2002 and the Stapleton Development Plan of 1995. Current plan as detailed in your staff report. Staff believes that this application conforms with environmental sustainability strategies, land use strategies, legacy strategies and some of the neighborhood strategies talking about the location of facilities, particularly medical facilities in our neighborhoods. So Blueprint Denver This isn't within an area of change and this is where, of course we want to channel growth. And it is a blueprint land use concept of employment where we want these types of uses and very few residential uses and some of our institutional uses and commercial uses to go into these areas. The Stapleton Development Plan of 1995 calls for this area. It's in districts six and seven in the Stapleton Land Use Plan and calls for this area to be residential and employment and oriented to 49th 47th Avenues near I-70 and should be where there's business, retail and services for the northern portion of the Stapleton area and close, of course, to the transportation calls for improvements of the major highways in the area and of course, to the Stapleton way of developing integrating parks and drainage and natural areas into the community. And then there should be, of course, special sites for institutional and corporate uses according to the plan. So staff believes that the criteria is met, that this is consistent with the adopted plans, with the standard zone district, the campus zone district that we are implementing, the Stapleton Development Plan, as well as as we're developing this complete community in Stapleton. And the justifying circumstances are changed conditions as our former airport redeveloped. And then of course, the consistency with the intent of providing a place for these institutional uses in our campuses and promoting the maintenance and concentration of our health care facilities. There is also a Stapleton GDP. This site is within an area called office. However, there is text that you may find by text within the GDP. Speaking specifically to Central Park Boulevard, saying a variety of land uses are appropriate for the Central Park Boulevard Corridor. Institutional employment and commercial uses are especially encouraged along this corridor south of 49th Avenue, as they will easily be accessible to transit services and Central Park Boulevard. With that, staff recommends approval of this application.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. I would ask that if you're signed up to speak this evening, that you come up to the front bench. When I call your name, your time will start. I want to make sure that you get all of your time at the microphone. First up is Jeffrey Jones.
Speaker 8: My name is Jeffrey Jones. I live at nine Bretton Woods, Dallas, Texas. I'm here to answer any of your questions regarding this project or the rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Mariana Thompson.
Speaker 2: Console people. I did not see anything there that said subsidized housing or attainable housing. So, you know, until that comes on the table. No. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jerry Burton.
Speaker 8: Well, I'm always happy for progress. But the number one thing. Yes, you're building more apartments. But I must ask you this question. Who are you building them for? The point is, we need to be building more apartment for the bottom, bottom third of our society. 0 to 30% is what we need. And I would really love to see either one of these places to be designed for that. You know, we all got to get along here. We all we got number one country. It's not like I get up and move and go stay on the moon, which I probably could do if I if I really wanted to get away from the heartless people. But we've got to look out for each other. We got one. We got one world. We got to share it. We got to be together in all of this, you know? And right now, we you know, we are all in crisis. I'm for it. We are all in crisis for there. But we need to be thinking about the bottom one third of society, the one that is on fixed income right now, the one that working a minimum wage job or someone like me that is homeless, that I will be sleeping outside again tonight in protest, as always. But we got we got to be all inclusive. We can be about the top two third of society. It take all of us to be one society, and that includes one third. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Jesse Pearce. Represent for Denver homicidal Black Star Action Movement for self-defense and positive, active commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. I am against this based off the grounds that we have a crisis in this town. And to say that you are prioritizing health camp is opposed to an encampment, tiny home village sites, actual affordable, attainable housing site. It's just very misfortunate to see and hear that this takes precedence over all of that. So, yeah, we're definitely against this. The city really needs to get its priorities straight on who it actually wants to help and service and actually live in this town. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 8: Yes, Chairman Seiko. Founder Black's lyrics and movement self-defense and the next mayor of the city county of Denver. It. Appears. On the surface that. This is something that is needed for this community in order to consolidate and find a place central where the residents can get the health care that they need in an area where they don't have to go helter skelter and all over the place to get services. And that's a good thing. That's a good thing. And yet. What concerns me. This as we continually eat up the land resources in this town. At what point are we going to run out of land so that you can't do the things you need to do for the increasing population that's coming? It's a. And what this really represents. Growing up in this town, you have two different communities having to write their own food back in their stable to know it. That Stapleton area was primarily developed for white settlers coming into the neighborhood during gentrification. And when you look at how the services were provided west. Of Central Park. You see dilapidated buildings. Eminent domain. One, two, three, ABC. And yet it becomes more dire about when you see the plan that as you remove one population ethnic group and bring in another. All of a sudden, this is a booming area. But when you had those existing folks who had been here for years, it wasn't considered worthy of the attention of the city for development, to have them have anything. And a good example of the just shopping center stable. You don't have one not one business in that whole thing that's black owned or leased. Imagine that. Yet. Right across the street is Woodlawn Black Community. This is done by a black man. Yeah. Now. So listen. I know you guys are going to go for this. Because the criteria is consistent. The orientation of city council is to remain in the lap of the mayor. So the no one's consequence and then I know you guys are going to do that. They call you vote for my job of yours. Would I agree with it or not?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Now, one quick question. I think it's for CPD. Is the is this is development on this side of Central Park subject to Stapleton Design Review? Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other questions on this item?
Speaker 3: Councilman hundred. Yes. Mr. Perez, just one question and quick question for the applicant. If you could briefly describe where we're focusing on the criteria before us. But since there are no other speakers, just want to ask one question for my colleagues questions of my better understanding from my colleagues what the use will be for this site should the rezoning go through.
Speaker 8: This is an acute care rehabilitation hospital, so it's after you go to an acute care hospital. Any of them in in the entire city, when they're when they're ready to leave the hospital, but they're not ready to go home. And the average stay in our hospital is around 13 or 14 days. Some people are there for 30 days. This is not a drug rehab. It's a physical rehab speech and occupational rehabilitation hospital.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I'm just curious for the applicant. Based on what you just said, described as the use. We have done a really you know, from the get go, Stapleton has been designed with affordable housing as a crucial component. I've developed some of the affordable housing in the neighborhood and it reaches some fairly low income levels as well as veterans . How do you guys have any programs to administer to households with low income, low incomes or no insurance approximate?
Speaker 8: Well, I would say about 90% of our patients are 65 or 70 and older, up to 100 years old. So Medicare is taking care of about 70 or 80% of of the cost of this service. So in commercial insurance takes care of the balance.
Speaker 3: Are any of your programs subject to Medicaid insurances?
Speaker 8: No. No. This is not a classification. This is not a skilled nursing or nursing home. We we usually have one or two patients during a month where we're bringing them in. They may not qualify for one of those, but we bring them in as an accommodation. But it's under strict Medicare guidelines.
Speaker 3: I think we I think we may have done this near 29th, but that was so long ago. Do you know in your analysis of the market, is there maybe not a need today, but will there be a need for that level of care? I mean, care at that level to retain a complete community out there.
Speaker 8: We think there's a need today. The the closest rehabilitation hospital in that part of Denver is one in Aurora that's approximately 40 years old. One of the neighborhood association members actually told me that she had to go to a rehabilitation hospital in the last year or two. And the only hospital she could get into was near Porter Hospital, and she lives in Montebello, which is probably for her family. She said it was quite a burden even driving down there. But there's there's really not a hospital rehabilitation hospital near there other than maybe downtown. In Aurora.
Speaker 3: And just for again, for our information going forward. Is there benefit for you? Got any are you better off having sort of your zone lot being sort of an island or are you better off if there are some companion medical uses in the vicinity?
Speaker 8: Well, we have we are zoning the entire block for medical campus so we can accommodate one or two other uses on that block in addition to our hospital.
Speaker 3: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, seeing no other question. The public hearing for Council Bill 1482 is closed. Are there comments by members of council? Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I. I appreciate the questions about this. This is very clear. We're focused on the criteria. I think the criteria has been met. So this is something I will be supporting. But I will just take a moment to say I'm excited that this will be a youth that's in need. There's a huge senior population and far northeast. And as it was just stated, the ability that you have to travel so far for acute care, that this is a this is a gap that we will fill. So I'm excited about that. And you've got seniors beyond Stapleton in Montebello, in Northeast Park Hill. So I'm excited to see this coming. And I did just want to make a correction. Intersections Restaurant and Northfield Boulevard is a black owned business. Anyone want to come out and have breakfast with me? I'm happy to eat with you there. And I featured them in my newsletter and I encourage my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Seeing no other comments, I just thank staff for the hard work on this and the great staff report. I think it's clear that the criteria have been met and happy to support it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1482.
Speaker 3: Herndon, i.
Speaker 2: Black i. Brooks.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, i. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 4: Can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 2: I Sussman. Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting and the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Comfortable. 1482 has passed. Councilwoman, back where you please. What? Council bill 1483 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4650 & 4698 Central Park Boulevard, Stapleton.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from M-IMX-8 to CMP-H (master planned, 8-stories, to campus, healthcare), located at 4650 and 4698 Central Park Boulevard in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-18-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02042019_18-1483
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Comfortable. 1482 has passed. Councilwoman, back where you please. What? Council bill 1483 on the floor.
Speaker 2: Yes, I move that council bill 18 1483 that would be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1483 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone a single property at 2625 Walnut Street from residential and mixed use. 20. That's a former Chapter 59 zoning district. That's with Weavers to IMAX three. Design Overlay seven. This property is in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. The site is approximately 9394 square feet in size and has a two story brick warehouse style building which is currently vacant. The owner of the subject property also owns the abutting building to the northeast and would like to rezone the subject property to match the properties around it and to allow for an office use. So as previously mentioned, the site is zoned Army 20 with waivers. This is a mixed use district and it has a former Chapter 59 waiver requiring 10,000 square feet of office only. The subject property has about 22,000 square feet total, and the subject property is primarily surrounded by IMAX three. You have to dial seven. There are some CMU 20 with waivers also surrounding it. Cmcsa 50207 surrounding it and you have a p you d also in there. The site is contributing a structure in the ballpark neighborhood historic district. Any alterations to the existing building would need to go before LPC and a certificate of appropriateness would need to be issued. So the subject property is currently vacant. It was formerly occupied by an industrial use. It is generally surrounded by a mix of commercial, industrial and residential. These are a few photos of the subject's site. The top point is showing the subject property as well as the property to the northeast. In the bottom one is showing the subject property. These are also photos of the surrounding properties in the area. In terms of process. The Map amendment application went before the planning board and there was a unanimous vote recommending approval with registered neighborhood organizations. These are the RINO's that were notified. There was no public comment received from the general public. The R.A., the Rhino Arts District, commented that they had no issues with this request at all. As you know, to do to adapt to rezoning. There are criteria that must be met. We'll step through each one. Consistency with adopted plans. There are three adopted plans that are applicable to this rezoning the Comprehensive Plan Blueprint, Denver 2002 and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan of 2011. With the comprehensive plan. The the MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies and it furthers those strategies for compact mixed use. With Blueprint Denver, the site has a concept plan use of mixed use, and these areas Blueprint characterizes them by a mix of employment and housing with residential and nonresidential uses within walking distance of one another. The proposed rezoning, consistent with blueprints concept plan uses, allows for a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses to develop in a pedestrian oriented pattern with buildings up to the street and an active street level. Blueprint Denver also identifies this as an area of change. The guidance for these areas is to channel growth and to these areas where it can be beneficial and improve access to jobs. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the area of change intent of the law for reinvestment and reuse and industrial mixed use zoning, creating access to jobs in an appropriate location with also those enhanced design standards . It's located Walnut is a residential collector street. Collectors are providing a greater balance and would support the mixed use development along a collector street and with the northeast downtown neighborhood plan. The future land use is shown here as mixed use industrial, noting that warehouse forms are compatible with residential housing types. The proposed I am x three design overlay seven district is consistent with the plan's vision for the area, allowing a walkable mix of compatible uses. It. Also, the northeast downtown neighborhood plan talks about hype and recommends a maximum of five stories in the area for the stay at three stories. This is well under the maximum allowed and therefore is consistent with the plans recommendations. And then we have the applicability of the rhino design overlay deal of seven. It's consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast. Downtown Neighborhoods Plan to promote high quality design in the Reno Business Improvement District, where there is a base zone district of mixed use. The building form standards of this design overlay ensure that the development implements this northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. The goals and objectives for walkability and design. So staff finds that the requesting zoning meets next correct to criteria the uniformity of district regulations as it results in a uniform application of the requested zone district and overlay . And it will further public health, safety and welfare, enabling more walkable mixed use district and the in-depth implementation of adopted plans. In terms of justifying circumstances. The former Chapter 59 Zone District of Army 20 with waivers was put in place in 2004. Since then, the Denver zoning code has been adopted. That in itself is justification for the change, as we're going from former Chapter 59 into the new code. And then finally, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. It's consistent with the industrial context to strip description that exist in the surrounding area. As the context transitions from industrial mixed use with an I'm X three, D or seven, it's also consistent with that purpose intent there as it promotes vibrant pedestrian street frontages with active uses and existing mix of industrial residential commercial uses that characterize the site and the surrounding area. With that said, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all applicable review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you have signed up for this item, I would ask that you come to the front bench to be ready when your name is called to step up to the podium. First up, we have Jerry Burton.
Speaker 3: I'll get both of you to react.
Speaker 0: Because I know. I'm sorry. You're going to have to. All right. Next up, we have Mariana Thompson.
Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard from the previous bill, all of us activists, we see people dying on the streets. When are we going to turn around and take responsibility and quit adding to this problem when gentrification. And affordability. Someone's life. It's been. Taken. There are currently right now 23,000 children.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but I have to ask you for this hearing to speak specifically to this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. The answer is no.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman say.
Speaker 8: German. So cool, right?
Speaker 1: Hmm. Hmm. Hmm hmm.
Speaker 8: I dare you to pass this bill. You are now setting up the ground square where poor people have absolutely nothing to lose in this city by engaging in activity to stop all of this. Pass it? I do. Because you're going to be adding to the pain. You're going to be adding more to the problem. And you keep blowing into this balloon till it busts. And then what you gonna do? But you can't do so because Dr. King told us that you appeal to the conscience of people to see if they would change. But Stokely Carmichael said, you can't appeal to the conscience of people who ain't got no conscience.
Speaker 0: Again, if you could speak directly to the.
Speaker 8: Bill, please. So when we look at this unconscionable move to rezone rezoning, rezoning reason and then eliminate the population because there's no more land left. I would tell you right now, we ain't going nowhere. Homeless or not, we are not going. And we refuse to not stand up for our right to be included in this town. And so if this not good for us. It is not good for nobody. And we're sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 10: Jesse Pierce, representing four Black Star Acts. A Moment for Self-defense. Denver Holmes So loud and positive a commitment for social change. And I am also an at large candidate for Denver City Council, where a large election is May 7th in regards to this bill. We are definitely against this. It seems that the city has continues to miss priority. It's the priorities for this. The community wants for the city. We have a crisis. You want to build an office building that's going to employ who the are already neighbors that's being displaced and told to move along or to gentrify and transplants that you are seeming to similarly paved the way for. If this growing growth in developments, the people are being left behind. The people that built this city are being left behind, just like the people that built this country are being left behind. And it seems that you guys have no stop in progress with it. So we are definitely against this. So we need to sweep the council like they sweep the homeless every night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick question for you. Tell me your name. Mia. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Oh, Kourtney.
Speaker 7: Kourtney. All right, so I noticed that this is going back to the IMAX, which is the context around it. Can you tell me just zooming out a little bit, what is the max height for IMAX citywide?
Speaker 6: IMAX three is. That's three stories.
Speaker 7: Yeah, three. That's for this location. But we were engaged in a dialog in Blueprint to try and get it to IMAX eight, IMAX five and other zone districts. And I just wanted to find out where that was in the community planning and development conversation.
Speaker 6: So I guess maybe I'm not I'm not sure I'm fully understanding the question because, you know, you have I'm x33 stories. I'm x five at five stories. I am. So you have progressive. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So is that acceptable in the the reason I'm asking this question in this area, we've been and I'm pleased to see that this is AMC's it's coming back to the IMAX in the context. But in this area there are different height limits that are allowing for higher. And I'm just asking is it still acceptable for IMAX eight in another context, do we have that in another zone district?
Speaker 6: Um, so the I think we do have it. However, we have to look at the the neighborhood plan for guidance. Yeah.
Speaker 7: There's is a conversation that many neighbors in this area are wanting because there's been some restrictions from CPD because there are certain capital markets bankers who are not lending into IMAX zone districts. It's been an issue. And so this has been an issue we've been talking about for five years. And I'm just sort of wanted to see where CPD was on it. Is the developer here so we can find out what will actually help? Come on. So what? What are you actually planning for this?
Speaker 3: My name is Lisa Thomas, Lakewood, Colorado, representing the developer who's a developer. I forget the entity, but the proposed uses to convert the existing building to office space. So nothing structurally would change. It's just interior renovation.
Speaker 7: You forget the entity that you're representing? Yes. Okay. What kind of office?
Speaker 3: That it cannot speak to general office space.
Speaker 7: Okay. So so you, you know, as the applicant in front of us, you just want it to. Why are you getting this zone? Change that.
Speaker 3: Because the current zoning does not allow for more than 10,000 square feet of office. The existing building is more than 10,000 square feet. Current zoning also requires ten onsite parking stalls to be provided.
Speaker 7: The current.
Speaker 3: Use. The current use is the arm. Now the U.S. use its vacant building.
Speaker 7: It's a vacant building. And you guys are coming in to develop it here. When will that be?
Speaker 3: But we need to get the zoning approved the first step, and then we'd move forward with the entitlement process and permitting. Okay. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. One of my questions was asked by Councilman Brooks about what the building is being used for right now. So we're understanding that it's vacant. I wanted to ask Courtney if this building was at all looked at as a contributing building. By any chance, did Landmark take a look at it? And what was the the status of that?
Speaker 6: Yes, this property is in the ballpark, historic district. It is a contributing structure in that historic district. It's been before a landmark multiple times. They still need to be issued a certificate of appropriateness to move forward. It's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it's not necessarily a demolition of the building, but an adaptive reuse . So if they want to change the the window, the fenestration at all, the the opening the door, anything they need to go through landmark to make sure that the changes are compatible because it is a contributing resource to that historic district.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the DOE seven overlay really does not apply unless the applicant or the owner if that changes were to attempt to demolish and build something else. Right. So really, we're just talking about the base zoning.
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. So that's all I have. So it's just going to be office use and we don't know what type yet. Right. Okay. I guess that's those are all the questions I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Hey, you answered it, but maybe I want it sort of more plain speak. I just want to confirm that the the fact that the structure is contributing basically trumps any requirement from the DOE seven. Is that understood?
Speaker 6: Right. It's an existing building. And so, you know, essentially these DOE seven requirements are for a new construction.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. That's it. Thank.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 1483 is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, this is, you know, given our criteria, this is in line with it. Every other building zone district around this is an IMAX three. I want to tell the applicant, you need to know who you're representing. You want to you know, this is it's a big deal to come before city council, so you want to make sure you're prepared. And I would ask that before you come, the permits that you come in, make sure you tell us as the council representative what kind of office you're doing. That would be very helpful. I want to say to CPD that I'm pleased to see the industrial mixed use. I think I want to see more of it. You know, I know that we respond to what the applicants tell us, but to keep manufacturing opportunities in our city, I think is very important. And I also think that it's important that we add kind of that mixed use component. We've yet to see before this council, before the city, you know, mixed use, light industrial, having the ability for workforce housing in there. I mean, there are a lot of other cities that is that is kind of leading in that we've yet to see that. And so that's something that we really want to see. What I've heard from people who try and do that is that there's many difficulties with the city, there's many difficulties with getting loans to perform that . And so I love to look into that further. So this is something that that I'll be interested in seeing, especially in my district where there's a lot of industrial being resolved into C-Max commercial space and we're losing much of our industrial zone districts. So I'll be supporting this because of the criteria is met and. That's it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, seeing no other comments. I just think thank you. Big thank you to staff for all of the hard work on this and for all the information put forward in the staff report. And tonight, I think it's you've made it clear that this meets the criteria. And I will also echo Councilman Brooks sentiment about it's good it's really good to see some IMAX zoning coming through. So with that, I will be supporting this. And Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1483.
Speaker 2: Brooks Black, Espinosa Flynn, I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I, Herndon, I.
Speaker 4: Cashman Can eat. Lopez. All right.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I assessment.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary, please. Because voting in the results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Counts. Bill 1483 has passed. On Monday, February 11th, 2019, Council will hold a quiet public hearing on Council Bill eight 1539, designating 5001 packing house road to the armor and company administration building as a structure for preservation and a required public hearing on Council Bill eight 1542 designating 637 Galloping Street the Samsonite House as a
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2625 Walnut Street in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from R-MU-20 with waivers to I-MX-3 DO-7 (residential, multi-unit, to industrial, mixed-use), located at 2625 Walnut Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-18-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01282019_18-1497
|
Speaker 12: You see the proximity. This is looking south from Quebec, simply from the light rail station into the subject site. And so this is looking at surrounding properties. This is looking north again, showing the proximity to the light rail station and the currently vacant site to the north and looking towards Union Avenue. And then looking south from Quebec again, but showing the park and ride, which is directly east of the subject's site in the Arapahoe County enclave here. It's a pretty small park and had only about 60 spaces here. And so this is looking south across Shenango, directly south of the subject site. And this is one of the newly constructed buildings, I believe this one's 211 feet, about 15 stories. And so this is looking kind of south southwest from the subject's site. These are the approximately 80 feet tall buildings, mixed use buildings. And then looking north more towards the currently vacant but again rapidly changing area. We're seeing lots of development activity in this area. This is kind of zoomed out looking at the subject site kind of in the larger context of the the tech center on the Bellevue Avenue and I-25 interchange. So you see the subject site called out on the right hand side of the screen in the context of several office buildings. And then looking east of the subject's site, there are several buildings that are over that 200 foot threshold as well. And so the rezoning process to date has been our typical rezoning process. I will note the planning board on December 5th did vote for approval of the rezoning by a vote of 8 to 1, and they did of note they did discuss some of the infrastructure issues that were raised at that meeting and were also raised in some letters that should be in your packet, and we can all note those in the next slide. But ultimately, they decided those those infrastructure issues were concern, but not related to the rezoning criteria. And so of note, there was a protest petition filed per the Denver zoning code. There's a provision for legal protest that was filed. And staff did look at the protest petition and determined that the minimum threshold was met. And so therefore, council would need ten votes tonight to pass this rezoning. So the public outreach, there are actually no neighborhood specific registered organizations. But we did receive two comments, both from the Belleview Station Metropolitan District expressing concerns about the development intensity on the subject site and potentially negative impacts on the infrastructure within the district. And also that the rezoning is inconsistent with the Bellevue Station General Development Plan. And so these are the criteria that staff uses to evaluate each of the rezonings and formulate our recommendations. So I'll go through each one. So in terms of the first criteria, consistency with adopted plans, these are the only two adopted plans that that are applicable to the subject site. These are both citywide plans, the Denver Conference of Plan and Blueprint in Denver. Of Note the subject site is not in the Bellevue Station General Development plan. So in looking at some of the policies that staff listed in more detail in the staff report for the Denver conference, a plan again, a citywide plan, staff did find in its analysis that the request is consistent with several conference of plan policies. I'll sort of paraphrase them, but mostly related to encouraging infill development and more density at transit nodes and sort of encouraging use of transit in those areas. The site is certainly right next to a light rail transit station, so staff does find the requests consistent with those policies. And so on to Blueprint Denver, the other citywide adopted plan. So two kind of map based designations for the subject site. One is that it's in an area of change, and two, that the future land use is transit oriented development. So area of change, a couple of policies to kind of lift up here. One, these are areas per the blueprint policies where new growth can best be accommodated and in particular does cite areas adjacent to or near transit that have not realize their full development potential. And actually, blueprint does identify the Bellevue Station area as one of the greatest potential opportunity areas for for transit oriented development. And again, this being a transit order in development area, very consistent with that land use designation in terms of its correlation and relationship to the mass transit system and an area per blueprint where the city should encourage compact mixed use mid to high density development. So other kind of non based policies that you cited in the staff report from Blueprint similar to the comp plan in terms of supporting trends in support of land use and development in and around transit stations and to concentrate the most intense types of development around transit stations. So staff in its analysis did conclude that the rezoning request was consistent with Blueprint Denver for a number of reasons, but it's a paraphrasing here one that the rezoning would support mid to high density development and a transit oriented development area, a site being adjacent to the light rail station. Again, two, that the rezoning would support redevelopment of a site that has not realized its full development potential. And looking at the current restrictions on the building height, certainly an area that is not going to be able to see its full development potential in a total area with those restrictions. And then lastly, the rezoning would eliminate a former Chapter 59 Custom Zone District, which is a policy that blueprint never supports doing. And so one other document to cite. So this is not an adopted plan, but staff did site it in the staff report. In its analysis, the city in 2014 did a transit oriented development strategic plans. This is a mayor led initiative with some general policies and recommendations for Todd areas and it did call out the Bellevue station area as an opportunity area and called it out as an urban center. And kind of with that designation, those being the areas that are higher density in multimodal areas and areas, up to a maximum of 20 stories. The second criteria, uniformity of district regulations. That's just essentially saying that the rezoning request, the zone district regulations will be consistent across the site. That will be the case. So that finds that criteria is supported by the rezoning. Third, the criteria to further public health, safety and welfare staff finds that the rezoning request is consistent with that criteria, primarily through implementing adopted plans for policies that were previously cited, but unrelated to eliminating a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district and the fact that both Blueprint Denver and the Comprehensive Plan support increased development intensity on this specific site in the specific area. Force criteria justifying circumstances. The fact that this reasoning would would remove an old code Chapter 59 Customs Zone District in itself as a justifying circumstance and bringing in the new code so that criteria is met. And then you could also cite the surrounding redevelopment pace that's happening in this area as a justifying circumstance for the rezoning. And then lastly, the consistency with the scene in the Urban Center Neighborhood Context Zone District, Permanent Purpose and Intent staff does find the rezoning request consistent with that criteria, primarily because it promotes a mixed use development where an adopted plan or plans supports larger scale TOD with excellent multimodal access. And staff does recommend approval of the rezoning, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Tonight, we do have 20 individuals signed up to speak, so I'm going to call the first five and then call five at a time. If you if I call your name, if you can come up to this front bench and be ready to jump right in when I call your name to come up to the podium, because we'll start your time as soon as I call your name. So the first five that we have tonight are Jack Roy Tolle, Tommy Negro, Paula Williams, Howard Pollak and Taylor Hilliard. And Jack. Rose Voight. So you're up first. Good evening, Mr. President.
Speaker 13: Members of Council. My name is Jack Rizzoli, 1801 California Street, Suite 2600 Denver, Colorado. 80202 I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. And my sole purpose really here tonight is to is to lend additional support to the staff report. I think the staff report did a robust and admirable job of analyzing the zoning criteria before you and I would I would suggest that you you have that by your side when you're considering this decision. I'm actually I actually authored a letter that I believe became is in your packet. And it really was in response to the Metro District's letter that really took exception to only two parts of this, the rezoning criteria that you heard. One was consistency with the adopted plans, and the other one was for furthering the public health, safety and general welfare. The major thrust of the letter from the district is that you should be looking at the the Bellevue GDP. I think staff has suggested appropriately that that's not a plan before you. We are not in the GDP boundaries. And no matter how much twisting somebody might try to do, you can't we don't find ourselves in there. So we're we're not bound by those by that plan. Similarly, I I the they raised some concerns with regard to the health, safety and welfare and they mentioned they mentioned height and they mentioned density. As your staff has already suggested, this is this height and this proposed height and density is completely consistent with the adopted plans, and it's also consistent with the statements of the Metro District President and master developers in front of planning board. And I have supplied a record of that, of their transcript in front of Planning Board that you could you can make reference to. But essentially their comments were they were in front of planning board that we have no problem with the density. This is a TOD site. Of course we expect density. So between planning board and tonight, we find ourselves here contesting with with a letter that seems to indicate that the height is way too high and the density is way too too dense. I would suggest that it has nothing to do with land uses or proposed development. It has to do with infrastructure. And I would I would respectfully suggest to you that where the infrastructure is granted or where where we could get it, that is not something that city council should look at with regard to rezoning. That's the purview of site plan and it will be further discussed and vetted at that point. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tommy Nigro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, council members. Appreciate your time tonight. My name is Tommie Negro. Addresses 4949 South Niagara. I'm here representing the applicant. I'm with Stonebridge Companies and we are a Denver based hotel developer, owner operator that is again based here in Denver. We were founded in 1991, have 21 hotels in Colorado with four currently under development. So we're long term owners, operators, and we are part of the community here. The way I look at I think this is a fairly straightforward decision when you look at the criteria. We own a property that was developed in the mid-nineties predating the district and the light rail station. It's currently characterized by a two story low rise, deteriorating motel that is surface parked and is not very esthetically pleasing. What we want to do is is transform that site across from the light rail station into a very high quality mixed use development that consists of ground floor retail, hotel rooms, you know, very high quality, four star, you know, level. A new hotel is not been built down in the tech center, at least a full service hotel in about 30 years. We think that's an amenity that the area is sorely lacking and that's what we do. So we'll develop something very high quality combined with with office as well. Part of that will be certainly some public improvements, sidewalk lighting, landscaping that users of the neighbors, certainly tenants of ours, can enjoy. I think the reality is real estate affects other real estate. Neighbors affect neighbors. And we think that this will be a really positive addition to the neighborhood. And we're asking for your support tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Paula Williams.
Speaker 8: Good evening, counsel. My name is Paula Williams for 50 East 17th Avenue, Denver. I am with the law firm of McGee de Becker. Our office works extensively with Stonebridge. I'm available for questions in the event any questions come up with respect to metropolitan district matters.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Howard Pollack.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the council. My name is Howard Pollack, and I'm general counsel for Stonebridge Companies. My address is 956 Olive Street in Denver. I've been Stonebridge attorney in one form or another for close to 25 years. So I'm very familiar with the company and with the principals of the company. I wanted to give you a few additional facts about the subject site as a follow up to what Tommy Negro just told you. First, the property was purchased by our predecessor, an interest extended Stay America back in 1995. They built a 160 room extended stay hotel, which is comprised of approximately 25,000 square feet of building area on the property. That hotel, as people have noted, is still operating there today, but it's generally considered to be an eyesore and is inconsistent with the redevelopment of the adjacent land. It's also a hotbed of criminal activity and something that really, I think everybody in the area generally feels needs, needs to be redeveloped. The important thing to note is that the existing hotel and the infrastructure that supports it were developed back in 1995, which is almost 20 years prior to the creation of Bellevue Station Metro District and the redevelopment of the adjacent land. This site, since its development in the in the nineties, has been operated independent of any other properties or metro districts and still operates that way today. The primary access to the site since the beginning is been off of South Quebec Street, which is a public street that predates the initial development of the site. And it's our intention that that access will continue to be the primary access. Subsequent to our redevelopment of the site, currently Denver water provides water service to the site and will continue to do so. The site is currently on the Goldsmith Gulch Sanitation District Sewer System. I think in your packets we included a letter that Goldsmith gave to us that indicated that they would be more than happy to have us remain on their system after the site is redeveloped. That's our desire as well. However, if public works in the city concludes that we need to connect to the to the city owned sewer system, we'll do that as well. And we're willing to bear the cost of extending the connection to that sewer system and to pay all applicable connection fees to the city. That, that that the cost, I understand, is fairly significant to extend that pipe. So that's just something that we do want to talk further with the city during the site development process, planning process. We strongly believe.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but I'm sorry. But your time is up 3 minutes. Okay. Thank you so much. Next up is Taylor Hilliard. And then I'm going to call the next five to come up to the bench. Mark Staton, James Neiman, William Kaufman, Diane Miller and Kim Kucera. If you want to come to the front.
Speaker 10: Of the evening, council members, thank you for being here. My name is Taylor Hilliard and I am here to answer any questions.
Speaker 6: That may come up about design or zoning something. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mark Staton.
Speaker 13: Good evening, counsel. My name is Mark Styron and my address is 5085 South Syracuse Street, and I am the managing partner at Shanahan Steak House in Denver. And I'm here to, first and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to speak and also speak in favor of the development of this hotel by Stonebridge. I'm very familiar with Stonebridge Hotels and their product and the quality of which they've provided in many locations throughout the Denver metropolitan area. And I just really believe that this hotel would complete the site on the west hand side.
Speaker 6: Of the highway on Bellevue.
Speaker 13: And be very consistent with the current architecture that's being constructed. As a business owner, I would also want to state that I am very much in favor of this hotel with the understanding that it will bring added commerce to the Denver Tech Center and support all of the existing retail and restaurants throughout. So thank you for the opportunity tonight and I'll look forward to hopefully this project coming to fruition.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is James Neiman.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Jim Ninan. I'm the owner of Primus Development Company. We are currently the developers of 6900 Leyton Office Building immediately to the west of the subject property. We also developed the one Bellevue Station office tower immediately to the south of the subject property. My address is 7001 East Bellevue and Suite 650. Denver, Colorado 80237. I'm here to actually speak against the rezoning. In summary, I actually think the zoning is not inconsistent at all, as you've heard earlier, with the with the master thought process. However, the site is bounded by on three sides by existing development that has a general development plan approved on it. And the zoning would be inconsistent with that general development plan in this sense, and primarily in the sense that it does not require any open space where the general development plan for all the surrounding property requires it . And this property would be zoned for buildings up to a height of 250 feet, whereas all the surrounding property has a maximum height of 200 feet. I do believe that this property should be zoned consistently with the general development plan that is, the zoning on the surrounding property. The major issue that I have with it, though, has to do with fairness. The the Metro District was formed years ago to to provide and to find and install all the infrastructure around this property, the streets and utilities, sewer, sewer capacity and distribution systems. And this property, as my understanding, will tie in to that, but will not be subjected to paying any of the metro district taxes that all the other properties pay for, including myself, as well as the tenants at and within Bellevue Station. And I think that's a very unfair situation that a property would be allowed not to have to fund any of those infrastructure costs, but be able to tie into those utilities. So therefore, I'm protesting this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, William Coffman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Council Members. William Kaufman, 679 East Bellevue.
Speaker 6: Denver, Colorado. 80237. As general manager at our restaurant at.
Speaker 3: Denver, Bellevue Station and a resident of my house at Bellevue Station.
Speaker 6: I'm in favor of the rezoning project. At 4885 South Quebec Street. The current extended stay hotel no longer fits.
Speaker 5: With the current development of the area. The proposed development.
Speaker 6: Will remove a dilapidated building that I see daily and replace it with an opportunity to bring more to our neighborhood and more support for our area businesses such as the restaurant. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Diane Miller.
Speaker 9: Good evening, council members. I'm Dianne Miller. Miller and Associates Law Offices 1641 California Street, Denver. I am general counsel to Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts numbers one, two and three, which surround the property that's proposed for rezoning tonight. You know, since at least the 1960s, the incredible growth here in Colorado has been undertaken with an approach, a principle which is usually described to referred to as development, paying its own way. And what does that mean? The idea is that the cost of new development should be borne by those who are going to benefit from that development. And, you know, consequently, the cost of that new development should not be borne by those who will not benefit. It's Bellevue Station has created an incredible amount of public infrastructure streets, storm drainage, traffic control, parks and rec, storm drainage. But we wouldn't expect the people in the Bear Valley neighborhood to pay for that or Stapleton. We expected and what the city council approved were districts that allow the new development to pay its own way. The use of metropolitan districts is the result of a recognition by cities and counties throughout Colorado that special districts are particularly appropriate and suitable as a mechanism to ensure that development does pay its own way. Special districts are normally a very well defined area that encompass new development and that provide all that public infrastructure for the people who will use it. The property under consideration tonight is not within the Bellevue station metropolitan districts. The districts that surround it and that are providing substantial and significant public infrastructure to bring development into into this area. Are asking for your approval tonight for property that lies outside the district. But they will benefit in every conceivable way from the infrastructure that has been put in place by those districts. And because they are outside of the district, they will have no obligation to contribute to the payment of more than $33 million of bonds that have financed this new public infrastructure. Last week we requested the Denver elections division for a current voter list for our districts. There are 526 voters in the Bellevue station districts, and every one of those districts voters pays directly or indirectly to fund the cost of public infrastructure in our districts. We would ask and urge that you not approve the rezoning tonight unless or until that provision is made for this property, this development to pay its own way by contributing to the I'm sorry, I'm sure districts.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Kimberly, Sara and I will call the next five. David Foster, Mike Sullivan, Brooke Malloy, Lewis Bonds. Mark and Richard Farley.
Speaker 8: Good. Hello. Members of council. My name is Kim Kyocera. My address is 1660 Lincoln St number 1800. I am however, here to read a letter into the record from Hickmott RSK, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Western Union. His address is 7001 East Bellevue HQ 15 Denver, Colorado. They are their new headquarters located within the district. I sent this this to you via email, but it was late in the day. January 28th. Dear Denver Council Members. When people arrive at Bellevue Station to shop and eat, we want them to have a welcoming experience so they will stay longer and return a new building. Greeting them as they step off the light rail would enhance the visitor experience. We think the proposed building at 4885 South Quebec Street would significantly increase the experience in the station area for the public office workers, residents, customers and transit users. I have not seen the plans of the building yet. However, for the above mentioned reasons, I support the project application. 44885 South Quebec Street to Cmax 20. Sincerely Hikmet Herceg CEO Western Union. I'll also draw your attention to letters of support you have in the packet in front of you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Foster.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name's David Foster. 360 South Garfield here. On behalf of the Belleview Station Metropolitan District. You have a letter for me that should be in your file, should be in front of you. I wanted to make a couple of additional points this evening. First, I want to make sure that as part of tonight's record, we include the 2006 GDP that has been referenced a number of times. Belleview Station, Transit, Orient Development. As you know, rezoning is a quasi judicial legal process, and it requires certain standards and documents for your review, I only point you to the staff's own report under consistency with adopted plans. In the first sentence, there is the following adopted plans apply to this property. It is really, I have to say, surprising to me that the 2006 general development plan that was approved and adopted after the 2000 comp plan and after the 2002 blueprint, Denver wasn't even contemplated in the review of this rezoning. It's not even contemplated by your staff. It wasn't even contemplated by the planning board. And even tonight in your staff report, yet again not contemplated. Mr. Roy Sole speaks to that's because you're not bound by the plan. And who said you are? Who said you are bound by the GDP from 2006? It's a plan that informs the rezoning of this site. It informs the rezoning of this site just the same way blueprint in just the same way. Comp plan 2000. You're looking at a donut hole in the middle of a donut by ignoring completely the implications of a GDP that was adopted in 2006. You're doing just that. There are a host of other issues that I've identified in my letter. I want to focus obviously on open space, which is infrastructure for anybody to walk away tonight thinking that open space is an infrastructure is it doesn't recognize the full implications that development has on the city. In fact, it was just last month we were rezoning another Todd Todd site downtown that in fact identified one and a half times the amount of open space that was required by the zoned district that it was rezone two one and a half times the amount of open space. So this has zero no open space, that's infrastructure, it's ignored and the GDPR speaks to that. The reference was the surrounding development space from the staff report and in fact that is consistent with the GDP. The GDP contemplated exactly this surrounding development pace. I appreciate your time tonight. And I again urge you to look at the 2006 GDP that references the site. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mike Sullivan.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. My name is Mike Sullivan. I work at D.A. Davidson Company's 1550 Market Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202. We are a regional investment bank and broker dealer with public finance headquarters here in Denver, Colorado. The practice group I work within specializes in special district financing throughout the state in Mountain West region. Our client, Bellevue Station Metropolitan District, would like us to share different cost sharing strategies that districts participate in around the state and the state of Colorado and the benefit in which those strategies provide. We typically see three strategies for when public finance is used as a solution equitable cost sharing, the inclusion of the benefitted property within an existing district encumbered with an ad valorem tax leading to cost sharing based on taxable value. Therefore, the benefited property included would be paying the same mill levy as the other property owners within the district based upon the taxable or assessed value of the property. Secondly, the inclusion of the benefitted property within its own special district. The newly created Special District would enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts. This could lead to an allocation of cost sharing based upon benefit determined in the negotiation. And thirdly, the benefited property owner could pay up front to Bellevue Station Metropolitan District in an agreed upon fee based upon benefit negotiated. We believe these cost sharing strategies benefit the motivation behind regional infrastructure and continue to maintain a balanced playing field for future real estate investments. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brooke, more.
Speaker 8: My name is Brooke Malloy and I live in Littleton, but I am a property owner as a member of Belkin's Limited Liability and moderate investment company who own the surrounding undeveloped properties. I've been involved with the redevelopment of Bellevue Station since the late 1990s and I currently manage the Bellevue Station Master Property Owners Association and the Bellevue Station Public Improvement Company. Front Range Land and Development Company, as master developer for the 50 acres surrounding this proposed rezoning, has had to give up nearly 20 acres of developable land for public right of way in open space requirements. And this applicant is not being required to give up any land under this rezoning. A CMCs 20 zoning would entitle the landowner to build over 2 million square feet of development on this property. And yet the city is not evaluating whether or not open space should be required, nor is the city considering the impact this development would have on the surrounding infrastructure. I would request Council to deny this application of rezoning until the applicant has agreed to provide some sort of open space and that the applicants for rezoning be considered in light of the Bellevue Station GDP that the city approved. I reviewed the video from the December 18th, 2018 Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting in which this rezoning was presented. City planner Jeff Hirt explained that the current zoning on the property carries a 30% open space requirement and that the new zoning requires none. Mr. Hirt also mentioned that the Planning Department has worked with the applicant to address certain deficiencies identified in the CMCs 20 zoning that were of concern. But apparently community planning and development does not view the reduction of open space from 30% to zero as an issue, because Mr. Hertz said that open space could be addressed, but staff elected not to do anything and no amendments related to open space were considered. Councilwoman Black also pointed out that this is one of the largest areas in Denver without a park, yet the committee passed the rezoning request without further consideration. Mr. Herbert indicated that there were two public comments concerning infrastructure. Trust me, there's been a whole lot of comments regarding this issue. I don't believe that there is one land owner in the immediate area here tonight that is supportive of this rezoning. Yet this is an area yes, this is an area of change. And I think it should ultimately be resolved to something. And I think the landowners in my Property Owners Association would agree with that. But we all know that once a property is re zoned, it is virtually impossible for the city to come back and get another chance to discuss adding open space and looking at their impact on traffic and infrastructure. This process of pointing out deficiencies but not addressing them and simply checking the box to to move a rezoning through the process is extremely concerning. And I would urge council to deny the rezoning in its current state and go back and evaluate open space and infrastructure issues before it is resolved. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Louis Bonds Mark.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Louis Barnes back and I live in Cereal's Village. I'm an adjoining property owner through my membership in Vulcan's Slim City, Light Limited Liability Company and Moderate Investment Company. I also sit on the board of the Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts. I'm concerned that this rezoning in its current state does not meet the criteria outlined by the city, that it must further the public health and safety and general welfare of the area. In fact, I think this development, without any accountability towards traffic, utilities and open space goes to the detriment of the safety and general welfare of the area. Without the infrastructure built and paid for by the Bellevue Station metropolitan districts to which this property is not in the district, this property would be exclusively forced to use the intersection of Bellevue Avenue and Quebec Street for all of its traffic, which currently operates at a service level. F However, this applicant will have the use of the roads and underground infrastructure provided by the Bellevue Station Metropolitan Districts, yet will not have any obligation to help pay off their portion of those infrastructure costs, nor will it be required to participate in further traffic studies or traffic signals to which its development of potentially 2 million square feet of development will certainly have a stressful impact on the infrastructure. Thus, this rezoning will negatively impact the safety and general welfare of the area by forcing the area to increase capacity for sewage flows and traffic without participating in the solution. Ultimately giving this property a free ride at the expense of the surrounding property owners. I would urge Council to deny the rezoning of this parcel until it impacts. Until its impacts on the safety and general welfare of the area have been fully examined. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Richard Farley and McCall call the last five to come up to the bench. Robert Warren, Trey Warren Time, Tom Ragan, Eddie Chairman Sekou and Jesse Pierce, who come up to the front. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Mr. President. Members of city council. My name is Richard Farley, and I live at 2500 Walnut Street, apartment 112. And we're Colorado. I'm speaking against the proposal because, you know, Bellevue Station underneath the old zoning has undergone a substantial public review and approval ranging from a general development plan for its streets and parks to design standards and guidelines and design review. City Design Review, which I wrote to ensure its quality. The proposal before you doesn't have to provide any of this to achieve a substantial up zoning. It doesn't provide the kind of usable, consolidated, open space that Bellevue station does. It takes advantage of an overtaxed Bellevue station's infrastructure without paying for it. And there is nothing to require good design in the public interest. You know, I don't oppose development, but I do oppose development that provides the minimum public return for its substantial gain. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Robert Warren.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Robert Warren. I'm the president of the Bellevue Station Metropolitan District, formerly known as the Moderate Metropolitan District. And I am the manager of the MADRE Investment Company, which is the major landowner in Bellevue Station MADRE. For those of you who might be interested, was the name of my grandmother, which her name was Margaret Bonds back. But we called her madre. She taught us a lot. She taught us about hard work. She taught us to fulfill our responsibilities. And she taught us to pay our own way. And that we should never expect to get something for nothing. We have always lived by that credo. We paid our fair share to extend Denver Water Line Main, the conduit south to Bellevue Station. We paid to oversize the sewer line down Bellevue to accommodate Bellevue Station. We paid to oversize the pump station at Monaco and Bellevue to accommodate Bellevue Station. We paid to increase the size of the detention pond at Monaco and Bellevue. We worked with the city then to create a well-balanced and responsible general development plan with significant open space. We formed the Metropolitan District and we floated over $33 million worth of bonds to pay for the infrastructure. We built all the streets, all the curbs, the gutters, the sidewalks. We built the landscaping. We put in the sewer outfall lines, the water lines, the electrical conduits. And we dedicated five and a half acres of land for open space. And don't forget, we're still liable on those bonds. We still have to pay the principal and interest on those bonds. And we've not received one penny from the city and county of Denver. We've paid our own way to allow this parcel an island in the middle of our development, to increase its density 30 to 50 times and give it access to all the infrastructure that the district built for its own use without paying for any of the impacts on the district now or in the future and without contributing any open space is unconscionable. There's one other thing that Madrid taught us, and that was when faced with unfairness, fight and we're going to fight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Trey Warren.
Speaker 3: Hmm. My name is Trey Warren. I live at 57 Charlotte Circle. I represent Front Range Land Development, the master developer at Bellevue Station. I just like to continue to point out the inequities in this potential rezoning. We all recognize the importance of growth and the development in Denver, but it needs to be smart. And we don't think that a blanket 30 times to 50 times increase in density on this particular site without any studies, standards or any open space requirement, especially reductions from 30% down to zero is very smart. In fact, it's destructive to the surrounding development, and we're all trying to move forward responsibly under completely different rules. Bellevue Station was subject to a great deal of public and city scrutiny. We were required to provide land for roadways, utilities, about 15 acres to dedicated to the city. We were required to set aside five acres more than this entire rezoning site for usable open space. We were required to perform Storm Sanitary Traffic Water Master plans, then form a metro district and finance and guarantee it all. We still remain obligated to complete roadways and traffic signals and to mitigate future impacts to the surrounding areas. Impacts that are sure to grow with the approval of this particular zoning. But the applicant in this case has been asked to do nothing, none of the above. You should understand that there is no density restriction whatsoever attached to your CM zoning. The site footprint may be somewhat small at 3.2 acres, but the potential development on the site of 20 storeys could exceed 2 million square feet. The Bellevue Station Master Plan, created under intense study and restriction, contemplates only about 6 million square feet of total development. To suggest that a 30% increase in size with no open space requirement will have no impact on the surrounding area is crazy. It certainly will, absent any area plans by the city. The Bellevue Station GDP should, in my opinion, be the governing plan for review of the area. So far, the city has completely ignored it. The spotlight is now on the city with growing frustration over density, the loss of open space. And this request simply illuminates exactly why the city council must take the reins of what is right and appropriate and steer this zoning because it's clearly in its purview. Abdicating this responsibility to public works only silences the public voice and in gender's ill will and frustration. Please do the right thing. Require an open space, commitment, appropriate density and mitigation of impacts, anything less shortchanging the neighbors and the taxpayers. And in my estimation, this will trigger a gold rush of all the time you thirties remaining in the city to seek CMC's rezoning so that they might sell their open space for higher profit. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tom Reagan.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, members of city council. My name is Tom Reagan. Eddie. My address is 950 17th Street, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Bellevue Station Metropolitan District, which supports the Bellevue Station Project. The nearest neighbor to and which surrounds the subject property Bellevue Station is a 51 acre development and was first conceived in the mid 1990s when the BASBANES, Bach and Warren families, the owners were approached by Councilwoman Joyce Foster, who who suggested to them that they should consider a transit oriented development in connection with the new south east rail line and proposed station at Bellevue. The families agreed to, and they dove in hiring Civitas, a prominent local, fair planning firm, to lay the planning groundwork for the TOD and our firm to do the land use over a many year period. The plan took form and jelled and the owners even paid to have the first draft of the TMU 30 zoning prepared, which is the current zoning for Bellevue Station. They further dug in by doing a GDP, forming the Bellevue Station Metropolitan District and issuing well over $30 million in bonds to pay for the basic infrastructure, subjecting all real estate in the district to a mill levy of 50 mills. Now the current applicant wishes to develop cheek by jowl with Bellevue Station, with zoning that is larger and denser, with no open space, and to use both the district's infrastructure and open space for free. That's not only bad planning, but it's a serious injustice to the nearly 25 year dedication of the Bonds BLOCK and Warren families to producing a first rate geode with no city investment and to the infrastructure monies that they invested into the taxes paid by the district's taxpayers. I urge you to reject this reject this rezoning until the newly proposed development can be better coordinated with the existing and future development of values station. And until the range of. It can be made for the new development to pay its fair share of the district infrastructure it will undoubtedly use. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Scoop.
Speaker 5: My name is Chairman. Say, who founded the Black Star Movement? Advocacy for poor, working, poor homeless elders and students. We stand opposed to the rezoning of this property for all of the above mentioned reasons. And when we look at the folks who've been doing the development in this area, there is an unconscionable absence. Of black contractors and workers on any and all of these sites. If you go by and look at the construction and workers that are doing that, you don't see. No, not one black person working, not even holding a sign, which is in violation of federal law and state law and city law. And you choose to look the other way. And this has been going on for 15 years that I've been down here. So here comes the Chinese water touch, because I'm going to tell you over and over and over again so that you get it and that you monitor these rezoning things with these unconscionable organizations that is just buck naked, raw dog pirate capitalism. How are you going to come up in and get some for nothing? What everybody else is paying for this and folks have to pay bonds and whatnot forever and ever. And this even gets to the border. That's an insult to the intelligence of this body. I don't even know how I got this far. Except for some corruption. Hook up. And when you looked at that board, it said it was initiated by the mayor. This is part of the development issue that we have going on in the city now where it is driven by raw dog capitalism and don't care nothing about the neighborhood and what the people say. And the time has come for city council to do what the people say, do not what to tell us to do. You represent us. Not developers, not the mayor. So we've got to stop this lapping, lapping dog up approach to that. And it's time for council to stand up and oppose the mayor. We're even having to do this kind of stuff which makes this body look corrupt and in bed. KING Michael. KING Michael. The most corrupt mayor in the history and got mess going on everywhere in the city full of nothing but confusion and madness.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 3: Good evening. The council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I represent for Denver Homicide allow Black Sox a movement for self-defense and positive action, a commitment for social change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. Like we've previously stated, we are against this rezoning request. As usual, you do not heed the words of the community and take that into account before you make these rezonings which is already stated. This is capitalism on steroids and you want us to pay for something that clearly the community and the neighborhood in question does not want. I don't know how many times we have to come here and do a public comment. Honestly, I don't even know why we do public comment at this point, because it's pretty much useless at this point, because you do not take the words of the community into account. You just do what you're going to do. You are already being bought and paid. So please keep keep.
Speaker 0: Your comments.
Speaker 3: To this. What this is all to the question of how against this. So I urge you to vote no on this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. First, I wanted to ask someone from city staff. Number one, the city's policy on open space and why there was no recommendation for open space on this particular parcel. Normally when it's over an acre is my understanding. We require some open space and this is what, 3.7 acres? 3.2. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 12: Yeah. The only policy or regulation we have to establish open spaces for through the general development planning process and thus for a project over ten acres, actually. So this site is under that threshold. So in the CMCs 20 zone district in itself does not have an open space requirement.
Speaker 4: There is none. There is. No, no, no. So even when. Okay. Number one, let me let me go on with my next set of questions. So someone that represents the property. So, Mr. Niekro, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. So I'm trying to understand if this particular parcel was part of the original Met district or is has it always been excluded from the Metro District?
Speaker 6: It is. Excuse me. And it's always been excluded from the metro district and from the GDP. And that was certainly a factor when we acquired the site that we looked at. And, you know, at times there can be a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure, and that was not in place either.
Speaker 4: So can you just speak to what infrastructure is needed for the development that is being proposed for the site?
Speaker 6: Nothing that doesn't already exist and that we're not connected to. And that's, I think, some of my confusion with the opposition as we stated that this development was built in the mid-nineties and it's had infrastructure connected to it since that time. Quebec Street has been there. The light at Quebec and Bellevue was there, was there prior to the formation of the district. The sewer line that were connected to has been in place since this property was built in the mid-nineties or connected to Denver water. We're connected to Denver storm. So this infrastructure already exists on our site. And, you know, what seems like would be unfair to me is for us to pay for things that we don't want or need. So, again, the third district was formed voluntarily, presumably to, you know, improve the value of the land. And we weren't part of it. And I don't understand really why we're discussing infrastructure as it pertains to zoning when we already have it.
Speaker 4: Just a quick question about whether or not you plan to include any open space at all on the site?
Speaker 6: Yes, we do intend to include open space. If if my understanding is correct there, TMU, 30, which requires 20% open space. But it's my understanding that they negotiated that down. So while they're talking about all this open space, they worked to decrease theirs to 10%, if I'm not mistaken. And our development will have well over 10% of open space.
Speaker 4: Okay. So you're planning to include that? Yes. Okay. I have no further questions at this point in time. I may have some others.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Espinosa.
Speaker 10: Sorry. I thought Wayne was in there. That's what.
Speaker 0: It was. I thought so, too, because we knew. Did you read?
Speaker 10: Okay, so probably, Jeff, this is going to be a familiar line of questioning. What what is the kind of st classification does all have st have.
Speaker 12: All the st is a local street.
Speaker 10: Local street to Nagle local street.
Speaker 12: Quebec local street.
Speaker 10: Are any other streets bordering this property?
Speaker 12: So I'm assuming you're referring to the Zone District purpose statement and which says that the site could be primarily served by an arterial. So there are local streets directly adjacent, but Bellevue Avenue and Union are both arterials and those are served by the site, including Interstate 25, certainly.
Speaker 10: So it says served primarily not by an arterial. But once again, we're talking about a major arterial. So we have these two classifications in our zoning code about arterial and major arterial. So where is the nearest major arterial?
Speaker 12: I don't know. If we call out major arterials, I may be mistaken. We have different categories of arterials. Bellevue and Union are both mixed use arterials and certainly 25 is sort of within some category.
Speaker 10: So we had this conversation before. So Federal Boulevard and would that be considered a major arterial.
Speaker 12: And I'm not sure.
Speaker 10: Colorado Boulevard, would that be considered a major arterial?
Speaker 12: Again, I don't think we have the major classification. I would have to look at it.
Speaker 10: Would it be considered arterial?
Speaker 12: That would would Colorado Boulevard it are in arterial? I don't know I mean, it wasn't part of the analysis here. We're looking at the.
Speaker 10: Large zoned district classification actually requires this to be primarily served by arterial major arterial streets. So I'm just trying to find out what the relationship of this zone, lord, to any major arterial streets. And you're telling me CPD has no idea where the nearest major arterial is, by definition.
Speaker 12: So I'm saying Bellevue and Union are both mixed use arterials and that fits that definition.
Speaker 0: And they.
Speaker 10: Primarily serve this zone on.
Speaker 12: Yes, yes.
Speaker 10: And how is that what's the definition of primarily serve?
Speaker 12: I don't believe ever deficient apparently served. But you certainly get to the site coming from Bellevue and Union.
Speaker 10: Okay. Because again, how we're doing this in other zone districts is using the rail. And you just mentioned I-25. And I will argue that at least Bellevue and Union are porous, meaning they can cross at any number of places on a fairly frequent basis at intersections. But is that true for the rail to be able can I cross the rail or I-25 as frequently as I can cross Bellevue or Union?
Speaker 12: I'm not sure. The rail is a fixed route. Yeah. So we're not talking about going east. West. We're talking about one one route.
Speaker 10: Okay. Because again, what I've heard from the administration and from planning board is that the number of passengers served by those sort of rails in the fact that they stop is proximate, is somehow akin to an arterial or a major arterial. However, we want to find this. But I'm trying to understand if arterials are all sort of created equal because I can cross Colorado Boulevard and a whole bunch of intersections on a very frequent basis. I can also access multiple modes. I can take an Uber, Lyft, a bus, you know. And so I'm trying to figure out how a light rail with as infrequent a stop as it has in the sort of the limits of its service equate an arterial.
Speaker 12: I'm not sure anyone saying that equates to an arterial. I think that's part of the balance of the multimodal access for the site, which is excellent.
Speaker 10: Okay. So we are now. Okay, great. Then let's go to your slide on consistent mean criteria, zone district criteria. I've got to go to that page. So. So specifically the criteria with consistency with adopted plans. So conserve item two is conserved lender by creating more density at transit nodes. What are we? So again, my time within this dais, we have done a lot of increasing density. We haven't done a lot of one of the things we've noticed is, is and this is sort of framing the question, we've noticed that we've had a decrease in open space relative to the number of people that we're bringing in . And Denver has gone from a very respected place to sort of middling. What are we doing as a as an agency to conserve land area as we're increasing the density in these areas?
Speaker 12: Well, I mean, this is outside of the rezoning criteria, I think.
Speaker 10: But that is actually your net point number two on the next slide.
Speaker 3: Not sure which.
Speaker 10: So it's said review criteria. Consistency with adopted plans is the header right there. Right there. Back one more note there point to conserve land area. This is your justifying your justification conserve land area by creating more density at transit notice how what are what is CPD doing to balance this increase in density with conserving land area? Because what I see is greenfield development. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Yeah. I mean the open space issue has certainly been a hot topic lately and the Denver Post and CPD is looking closely at that. There are a few initiatives to look at addressing open space that we're working on. But again, those are city wide initiatives. And so what we're talking about here is BMX TOW, and so we're kind of bound by the requested hand in the standards within TMX 20.
Speaker 10: But that's what I'm saying. You're asking us to look at the density component, but relying on the conservation of land area component. And so I'm saying you're going, well, what are we doing in this station area and this TOD If we're not doing it by application, by application and waiting for only ten acre developments, do we have any other strategy in place to sort of make sure that we're actually hitting both sides of that just for justification?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I mean, again, it's certainly an issue that we're aware of, but that's a I mean, it's a citywide issue and it's not something we be tackling as part of this rezoning request.
Speaker 10: Okay, thanks. No further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: You're Mike is not a. Turn on your mike.
Speaker 9: I'm going to keep a secret. Thank you. Let's talk about a GDP. A general development plan isn't a general development plan usually done after a zoning has come through?
Speaker 12: Not always. Yeah. Sometimes they can go concurrent as action. Sometimes the zoning can follow the GDP.
Speaker 9: Right. GDP is generally about the infrastructure where the roads are going to go, where the utilities are, and is a document for the city to review and make suggestions, changes, requirements. Isn't that true?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I mean, it's it's a tool that we're looking to revamp now, actually, but a tool to look at horizontal development systems, mostly focus on infrastructure and open space.
Speaker 9: Right. And it's though not always usually done after zoning is in place and deciding unless the the person requesting the zoning wants to show a GDP before zoning, it's not required before zoning is a.
Speaker 12: There is the ability for the city require the timing of zoning within the GDP approval framework. But it's been done a number of different ways. It's really been different for.
Speaker 9: And the council doesn't approve or not approve GDP. Correct.
Speaker 12: Correct. It goes to planning board as a public hearing and a recommendation to the Development Review Committee, which is an administrative body.
Speaker 9: Right. So the council doesn't approve GDP? Correct. Okay. I I'd like to ask Nate a question. Thank you very much. I think it's need I should ask. Is that correct, Mr. Crawford?
Speaker 10: Natural Resources attorney.
Speaker 9: If a property isn't in a metro district, is it ever is it is the fact of there not being in a metro district ever a criteria that we use on whether to approve or deny zoning?
Speaker 10: No, ma'am. The only criteria is the five that are listed in front of you and on the on the screens.
Speaker 9: So being in a metro district or not is not something we can consider when we decide upon zoning.
Speaker 10: No, it is not. One of the criteria for consideration.
Speaker 9: Is not being a part of a GDP. A reason for us to be able to decide about zoning? No.
Speaker 10: The way I would think about that or advise you to think about that is is as if it were any other sort of adopted plan. If we're talking about a neighborhood plan or or the citywide comprehensive plan or blueprint, Denver, if you fall outside of the boundary for neighborhood plan, then your requested rezoning wouldn't be reviewed against that neighborhood plan. Same with the GDP. If you're outside the boundary of a GDP, then staff city council won't consider that general development plan against your rezoning request.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you very much. I had a couple of other questions, too, and maybe, Jeff, you can help me with this. There were some folks who thought that this might be too dense. It's a 20 story request or an idea that they would put a 20 story in. How how tall is the Western Union building?
Speaker 12: It's 15 stories, 211 feet.
Speaker 9: You even know defeat?
Speaker 12: I don't know how I know that, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Speaker 9: Me up there. What about the Kimpton Hotel? Well, I'll tell you, sir.
Speaker 12: Well, sorry, I'm not.
Speaker 9: The Kimpton Hot Kimpton Hotel. Can't remember if it's the Kimpton or the.
Speaker 12: I'm not sure which side that is. Is it west of I-25? North of Bellevue.
Speaker 9: Somewhere near there?
Speaker 7: Sure.
Speaker 9: Okay. I think that's just about all the questions I needed to ask. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of the comments tonight talked about the GDP and the metro district. So I've got questions on both of those. So City Attorney John McGrath, would you mind coming up to answer some questions about the Special District? And thank you, Councilwoman Saltzman, for starting that conversation. So.
Speaker 6: Which city attorney's office?
Speaker 2: Sorry. We've had a lot of conversations about this. Can you explain how districts are formed and who decides goes in and who decides doesn't go in? And can you ever force a property owner to go in?
Speaker 6: Sure. So a metro district initiates with the owners of the land that are within the boundaries of the proposed district. And, you know, case by case, it's difficult to say across the board. But generally speaking, a group of landowners or one landowner, if it happens to be under the ownership of of one group, will formulate a plan to, you know, presumably enhance the developer ability and and value of a property by bringing infrastructure to the site that would be needed for that purpose. There may be negotiations with neighboring landowners along the way to to determine whether other properties are interested in joining. But at the end of the day, it's it's a process that's initiated by the owners of the land within the district. And those are the individuals or entities that have a vote. And what improvements will be made and what indebtedness will be incurred to to pay for that. Obviously, the properties outside the district, whether they may in the future, benefit from that or not, don't have a say or a vote in in those decisions.
Speaker 2: And can a property that is outside of the district be forced to join the district?
Speaker 6: To my knowledge, there's no way for the city or anyone else other than just by negotiation between private landowners to to decide. There's a process in state law for individuals who are outside of a district to petition in a way to get included within the boundaries of the district. But I don't think that there is a reverse right or process for a district to decide to incorporate properties outside of their district boundaries.
Speaker 2: And are there other cases like this in the city where the first in developers create a special district and then another property owner benefits from those improvements but isn't paying into the district?
Speaker 6: It's not uncommon. If a district elects to make improvements that will become public improvements. Then at the point that those improvements are are the title to those improvements is vested in the city. The city is constrained to allow any property owner to have access to that infrastructure based upon the criteria that we have in place at the appropriate time. There's an analysis made about what the proposal is to connect to that infrastructure. And so public works in the city would go through that process to determine if there was sufficient capacity in light of the existing and planned uses in the vicinity and make a decision to either impose requirements or not. But it's a it's a public asset at that point. If if a private developer finances public improvements. Yes, there's an initial upfront cost. But eventually those improvements are transferred to the city. And the city then has the long term maintenance obligation for those assets.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. My next question, I think, Jeff, this might be for you. As far as the GDP, GDP goes, are there ever instances where I wear properties are added to a GDP?
Speaker 12: I don't know of any in and um. GDP is pretty well I don't know of any that have been added. Certainly many have been amended, but I can't think of an example where one was brought in recently at least.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then I my final question for now is about open space. So I've read all of the the packet and all the additional letters and materials we've received and I've heard 10%, 20% and 30%. So maybe someone from the Belleview station. Can you talk a bit about that? I've heard 30%. And then I heard somewhere in one of these letters it says it was negotiated down to 10%.
Speaker 13: David Foster on behalf of Belleview Station. So the TMU rezoning had initially had a an obligation of 20% open space. And I and kind of going back to a question that Councilwoman Ortega was asking that I don't think was answered correctly. The open space obligations are not as a function of a GDP. A GDP works to aggregate or identify where infrastructure belongs. The obligation of open space is in the underlying zone district. So the TMU had a 20%, but it was able to be aggregated into a way that allowed for 10% open space in in places that made the most sense for this Todd station. And you'll see in my letter I highlight the page from the open space that indicates where the largest portion of that open spaces, which is directly north of this particular site, but it's in close proximity to the station. The 30% requirement that was identified is for the existing site. The B4 with waivers has today a 30% obligation for open space. If they were to redevelop under a before, they would have a 30% open space obligation. But again, the clarification that I thought was important from before is open space is a function of the underlying zone district. The GM, you, the gmc's tow requires no open space irrespective of any promises made today.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President Clark. Jeff, I have a question for you. I know we're we're just at the rezoning, but could you share with us what sort of additional infrastructure improvements might need to be made based upon the property that we're looking at rezoning? The density, you know, would it warrant traffic signals? You know, I know the gentleman said that they're going to be responsible for sidewalk, curb and gutter. But could you talk a little bit? Not specifically, because we don't know exactly. We don't have the traffic studies. But could you share with us what it might entail as far as infrastructure improvements?
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, that's generally out of my wheelhouse. I will say that the C-Max to allow is really a huge range of potential intensities. I mean, there's a there's a proposal that's being verbalized to you today, but anything can go on and see a mix tape from a one story drive thru restaurant, which I know is unlikely to a 20 storey building. So with that huge range, it's really only prudent to look at the infrastructure impacts when you have a site specific proposal and anything further related to specific infrastructure, I'd probably refer to Mr. McGrath or. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a there's.
Speaker 4: So is the Sewer and Water Act adequate?
Speaker 12: Is it I'm sure.
Speaker 4: Is the sewer and water adequate to handle a project that would be as dense as what is being proposed? Or would there be a developer responsibility.
Speaker 10: To help improve it?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I mean, I can't speak to whether or not it's adequate at this time. I know that that would be a requirement. It would have to be adequate. And the applicant spoke to and I think in your packet there's a letter from the Goldsmith's district indicating they can serve the property and they indicated that they're on Denver water. But I'm really not the one nor I don't know if it's the time now to be able to make that determination. I would defer to others if they have anything else to add on that. But there's really not a lot you can say given the hypothetical nature of them.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Nate Lucero. I had a question for for unity. I'm since, you know, in District 11, we have quite a few metro districts. And I'm concerned that if a city council were evaluating the request of an applicant to or the request of someone in opposition of a rezoning to force or for us to, you know , vote down a rezoning based upon, you know, them not wanting to join the metro district. Is this precedent setting for us as a city? If we voted down this rezoning based upon a really a private business conversation between two parties with a metro district?
Speaker 10: Are we setting a precedent? It's a good question, Councilwoman, and I appreciate that. And it sort of goes back to the questions asked by Councilwoman Sussman, which relate to the rezoning criteria under which you evaluate rezonings. So there's no criterion that says if there's a metro district, then council ought to consider that because that's just not not part of the criteria. And we don't know when, if ever, a metro district is going to be formed in this case. There is there is one. It's not related to this property, but there is one. But it still should have no bearing on on the rezoning decision. And I don't believe that there's any way for city council to compel the rezoning applicant to join the metro district.
Speaker 4: I think. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 7: I don't have any other questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman new?
Speaker 3: Well, of course. Mr. Warren, please, sir, just trying to understand a little bit of the history of what the Metro District and the and the G and the general development agreement, the when when when the district was formed. Was there discussions with the previous owners for this property about joining the Metro District and joining the general development plan?
Speaker 5: Yes, there was. And they were productive discussions and they were about to enter into an agreement in lieu of joining a cost sharing agreement. But then they sold the property before the agreement occurred.
Speaker 3: Okay. So the owners of that property, have they ever paid for any improvements that the metro district has has entered?
Speaker 5: No, sir.
Speaker 3: So as they've been asked to pay for the improvements.
Speaker 5: Well, we have asked I don't know exactly how to answer that. We have asked them to step up to the plate and ascertain the impacts that their development would have on our district. We think we know a pretty good idea from the studies that we have done how they would impact the district. But we've asked them to negotiate and to enter into a cost sharing agreement and they've said they have no obligation to or they don't intend to do.
Speaker 3: It just became a legal matter then. They they weren't required to pay for anything. That's correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wong. Stenographer, does your question, please? I was pleased to hear that you were going to. You're thinking about a 10% open space requirement for your development. Would you be willing to get into a development agreement with the Metro District to make sure you can provide that 10% open space?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?
Speaker 3: Could you go into a due form, a development agreement with the Metro District? Just to give some assurance that you are going to provide the 10% open space.
Speaker 6: As.
Speaker 3: You develop the property?
Speaker 6: I think so. I'm happy to, I think, provide assurance. I guess I'm not quite as familiar with entering into a development agreement with the district. And I'd want to understand how that would work a little bit better. But I'm happy to stand here today and tell you we're very comfortable providing in excess of 10% of open space
Speaker 3: . Okay. So you can't give them some assurance that's going to happen.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman flynn.
Speaker 5: Thanks, Mr. President. Jeff, could I ask you, every time we look at a rezoning and we have all the five criteria that match the application, I'm always struck by the fact that there are other probably other zone classifications that also can meet all the criteria. So I'm curious how this is the most dense CMCs classifications. He emerged 20. It allows up to 20 stories of all the mixed use urban center classifications. How is it arrived at that? This was the appropriate application for this site versus TMX 16 or 12 or one of the lesser lesser ones.
Speaker 12: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I guess the quick answer is we respond to the request from the and certainly we work with them to find the right zoned district. But ultimately, we responded to the requests at hand and did the analysis based on that. TMX 16 wasn't one of the ones that was requested. I will say that the height allowances for that zone district are below the surrounding heights as context, but again we respond to same x 20.
Speaker 5: Okay, so that 16 is slightly below, but 20 is slightly above.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 12: At the number of.
Speaker 5: The time you throw.
Speaker 12: Yeah. I think 200 feet is the max height and TMX 20.
Speaker 5: 250 252 to.
Speaker 12: 0 zero 200 feet.
Speaker 5: Okay. I think it's actually 250 and 620.
Speaker 12: I think it's 200, if I may.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 2: Not in your staff for.
Speaker 12: 2016 is 200 feet. C-Max. C-Max 20 is 250 feet. All right. You're getting my numbers mixed.
Speaker 5: I apologize for throwing out too many abbreviations. My fault. It's getting late, and I understand that. So let me ask Mr. Negro a couple of questions. The extended stay was built in 1995. Do you know any of the circumstances being the owner now, but not then, as to and how that was developed? And is that one of the first developments on the the former, you know, the site there? The.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes. I don't really know many of the details surrounding that. My knowledge of what happened then is, frankly, exclusively related to some of the images from Google Earth dating back there. I think that we could repackage.
Speaker 5: Was was the parcel that the extended stay is what was that part of the golf course? Also, if you know, I don't Mr. Warren is shaking his head. Yes. In lieu of him coming up to the microphone. I'll tell you. Okay. So when the extended stay was purchased, it was hooked up to the Goldsmith Sanitation? That's correct. District. So when a when a guest it extended stay flushes the toilet doesn't it is always gone somewhere before the metro district was established.
Speaker 6: That's absolutely correct.
Speaker 5: At least at least we hope so. And after the metro district was established, is that parcel connected to the sewerage lines of the metro district? Are they interconnected?
Speaker 6: No, it's not currently connected. The infrastructure for that, the subject proper did not change when the metro district was created.
Speaker 5: Okay. So if it were developed under catch 20 and you have a denser development when people on the 20th floor flush the toilet, that will go to the Goldsmith Sanitation District also.
Speaker 6: Yes, that is possible.
Speaker 5: As possible. Is it possible that it will use or that it will have to use some of the infrastructure provided by the Metro District?
Speaker 6: It is not necessary.
Speaker 5: Okay. I believe, Mr. President, those were the only questions I had.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa, do you have more questions?
Speaker 10: I did.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 5: Correct answer. Yes. If he if his answer is different.
Speaker 0: Come on back up. Since we took a head nod and it sounds like the head nod was maybe not it.
Speaker 5: Was not part of the golf course. It was part of the clubhouse. Okay. But as part of the bounce back property.
Speaker 0: Thank you for the clarification, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 10: And I hate to bring up something that is completely irrelevant, but since we're talking about metro districts. At least in the formation of them, you can have a boundary that draw that's drawn in such a way that captures a minority landowner, and that landowner could be essentially compelled by a vote of the district. Is that true or not true?
Speaker 4: Sir.
Speaker 6: I. I don't know the answer to.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's the question for City.
Speaker 0: Who are you directing your question to so we can get somewhere?
Speaker 10: Anybody from the city that's available to answer that or anybody who knows the answer to that question? Actually.
Speaker 12: I will start I will start by saying I do not know the answer to that question.
Speaker 0: One of our attorneys back there want to take this question.
Speaker 8: When forming a metro just metropolitan districts you can form, you can identify a boundary that is an inclusion area. In order to include that property, you have to have 100% of the property owners signatures in order to include the property into the boundary into.
Speaker 10: Okay, great. Good. So I have questions I'm going to ask Dick Farley and David Foster to come up. So I'll start with you, Mr. Foster. On the GDP, how familiar are you with the sort of pre 2010 GDP and post 2010 GDP and the differences between the two?
Speaker 13: I probably can't speak to a real specific difference.
Speaker 10: Okay. At some point in the history of GDP's, in the relative recent history, the process has changed and previously they actually had to come and be adopted by council.
Speaker 13: Yes, I believe.
Speaker 10: A GDP from 2006, the vintage of this one was in fact adopted by council. So you can tell, you contend that there were even though the GDP doesn't include this area in its boundaries, that it does speak to these to this parcel, the proposed map amendment. Is that correct?
Speaker 13: Well, all you have to do is look at page four of the GDP and it calls out this particular three acre site, identifies its existing use and proposed future use. And it's somewhat frankly preposterous that you would take an approved GDP and approve plan that has been recognized as an adopted plan by the city and not contemplate the entirety of the property surrounding this l parcel. I'm honestly, I'm baffled. Staff may have ultimately determined that the GDP doesn't or shouldn't influence what zone district it is, but to ignore it entirely. When infrastructure was brought up at the planning board and the GDP, GDP speaks to infrastructure. I mean, I'm frankly, I'm I am surprised with the somewhat callous disregard for this approved plan.
Speaker 10: So there is a hurry, hurry hierarchy of plans, though, right? In the sort of the more granular, the smaller the area, the more precedent it essentially has.
Speaker 13: But that you know that to be true. You know that if you have the 2000 comprehensive plan in 2000 to blueprint and then you have something that is specific to a site or a small neighborhood area or a small neighborhood plan, you know, that you rely you so do we. By the way, as developers and property owners, we rely on those documents to speak more to the specificity of those uses. Then a document that identifies every property across the city.
Speaker 10: And are you is your understanding the same as mine? When I heard the city attorney's response to the question about considering GDP's that he essentially put it in the same level as a small area neighborhood 100%. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Dick Richard, Mr. Farley.
Speaker 5: Declined.
Speaker 10: So you heard the city's response from my previous questions about zoning, district purpose and intent and the response about relationship to arterials and open space. I'm going to read a couple of sentences again from the same zoned zone district. The section let me. So again, under the main heading that says general character, this is for urban center neighborhood context. So we're talking about urban center neighborhood context. Just so the record, can you state your credentials and who you are and your professional background?
Speaker 5: Well, I'm a urban designer. I was head of the Denver Urban Design section in from 2000. From 1987 to 96. And then I've been in private practice as an architect. I'm now retired. I've been an urban designer. I've been working with neighborhoods. And I mean, the last, you know, sort of five years or so, I was a principal at Civitas in charge of Urban Design. So, you know, I sort of bridge that gap between planning and architecture, between the built part and the policy part.
Speaker 10: Okay. I just wanted people to know that I didn't just pull you out of random. There's a very specific reason. So in section seven one, one general character, it says commercial uses are primarily located along mixed use arterial streets. Again, is there any is this or any of these streets that border, this property? Arterial streets.
Speaker 5: Well, Bellevue is close to the property, but is it along? It's not along, no.
Speaker 10: Okay. And then the. Sorry. Let me I'm trying to marry my notes with the actual text. It also then talks about the urban neighborhood context, and it says the urban neighborhood context, which this zone district is, is part of the proposed map amendment is part of this is the urban neighborhood. Context consists of a regular pattern of block shapes surrounded by an orthogonal street grid. Are the streets here orthogonal?
Speaker 5: Mostly. But, you know, there's that because of the topography and there's some warping of the of the orthogonal aspect of it.
Speaker 10: So. I was questioning the city because I've had this challenge with the the the sort of stretch that this administration has been doing with Tod's and applying zone districts that that seemingly are not appropriate for those zone districts, even though the densities may and the mix of uses idealized and all the notions that come with those zone districts that we may not, in fact, have the most appropriate zone district. Time and time again. And that maybe there is grounds for customized zoning in these regards when we have the uniqueness of these circumstances. So the reason why I brought up those questions challenging the, the relationship of the street grid because of the zone district preceded the zone district purpose and intent is not on arterials, but major arterials. You know, I was questioning the the validity of the of that relationship. But I'm am I to understand that you don't have those same reservations?
Speaker 5: Well, I think the the crux of the the issue is what is the city getting out of a massive up zoning? You know, what is a neighborhood getting out of a massive up zone? It's to me, the the aspect of some of the negotiations on the part of the planning office, you know, if you. I have no problem with the with an up zoning. But, you know, what are we getting out of it? You're going from something that is a 2 to 1 effort to something that probably is close to 15 or 20 FDR. And are we getting any additional open space on it or are we getting design review and design standards and guidelines? Or are we, you know, we're getting open space or we're getting housing? And, you know, I don't think we're getting much of anything with that kind of uphill.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn, you back up?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I was I while the discussion made me recall the other question I was going to ask, and that is and I Jeff May, you might be the most appropriate person to address this. And I promise to try not to confuse you again on the terminology, but the current zoning on all of the parcels here, including in the Bellevue station, GDP and the applicant property are all with one exception, that this council did in 2015. They are all old. Chapter 59 Zoning. Is that correct? There's an there's a one parcel that's smack 12 that was changed in 2015.
Speaker 12: But yeah, it's like someone can pull it up. Yes. Everything north of Bellevue, west of Quebec, is all old code zoning.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so we don't really have an option in the old for a rezoning of this parcel that the extended stay is on the applicant with, which is before with waivers and 50 foot height limit. I think I think most people would agree that just adjacent to a transit station that's probably not the that this this is under zoned right now according to all the planning for four transit stops to have a two storey.
Speaker 12: Yeah that's opinions that underutilized site for example.
Speaker 5: So we have to look to the 2010 code. So my question is and this gets to what I was asking earlier about the need to see Amex toe choice. And I know that was the applicant's choice, but what are what other classifications existed in 2010 code that would more that would better match the time you throw under chapter 59. We don't have one that's exactly congruent. But is this the closest to the zoning for the surrounding parcels of those that are available to us in the 2010 code?
Speaker 12: That's tough to say. I mean, the the team you throw, the fact that it has waivers on it to makes it a very layered, nuanced, custom zoned district. So we did not do that analysis of the most comparable. I will say we looked we looked both at the suburban context and the urban center context. And there was it really was in a suburban context zone district that really sort of fit in with the overall sort of land use and zoning framework. So that put us into the urban center context, and that is where we are today. There's just not I don't really have a great answer for you because it's such a customized, zoned district. We don't really have anything that.
Speaker 5: You throw the.
Speaker 12: 2330 with the way. With the waiver. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. So we don't have anything that can exactly match, but. But the CMH 20. Other than the 30 foot additional height and the open space. 10% minimum in the team. You're 30 and none here.
Speaker 12: Yeah, we don't, we, we don't have a zone district that based on district that has really robust open space requirements. I think we've got some in the Cherry Creek area that are specific to that area with some open space requirements. But other than that, not a requirement really that was carried forward into the current code, which is I mean, like it or not, it's kind of the system that we're working with right now.
Speaker 5: Then I'll say not. All right. Well, thank you, but that's almost frozen.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flint, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 9: Yes. I have a question about something that's been of concern to me about the protest petition. Certainly had an experience with that recently. In this particular protest petition, how many signatures did it require to engender a protest petition?
Speaker 12: Oh, gosh, I'll have to I have to pull out my staff report. I think it was only four. I'll have to confirm that for signatures. Well, it all depended on which property signed because it depends on the geographic area of the property owner who is signing. So in this case I believe you only needed four representing to get to that 20% threshold. But it really so isn't really the number of property owners, it's the number of property owners in tandem with the percentage area that they own.
Speaker 9: Exactly. So there are four owners that own 20% of the 200 feet.
Speaker 12: And if you'd like, I can confirm that with sense.
Speaker 9: Okay. Okay. Just wanted me to know how many it took. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Constable 1497 is closed. And we're going to move on to comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going first because this is in my district. And Councilman Flynn, to follow up on your line of questioning about the zone district, also in my district is the Colorado station and it is actually zone and 20. So just as an employee. So it's great that you're all here on some friends are in the audience tonight. The Bellevue station is an incredible development for our city. And in my district, my constituents are really enjoying all the great new restaurants there as I am personally. Some of you may not know this little bit of trivia, but this family has owned this property for 160 years. Is that right? 1880s, I've been saying 1860s, 1880s. They are very patient. I also wanted to comment that the statistical neighborhood is called South Moor Park, which anyone who lives in south east Denver would never call that South More Park. In fact, the actual park called South Moor Park is not even in South Moor Park, this particular motel. I think all parties who are aware of the area are pleased that it's going away. It's been a. A development that has had a lot of crime. And I know the police have been there a lot trying to solve some of those issues related to that motel. As far as this rezoning goes, I think I first heard about it close to a year ago. I know it was winter and I really struggled with it. I have had countless meetings with multiple city attorneys and people in the mayor's office so I could better understand the legal issues around it. As a council, we often go off topic when we are discussing rezonings. And so I have been very clear in talking to our attorneys to make sure that we stay on topic and that we follow the legal criteria for this rezoning. There's a lot of issues that are important to this rezoning, and some of them are relevant to the criteria and some are not. I hear you all when you express your sense of unfairness around the infrastructure. I agree with you. And, you know, if there was a way to make them pay for your infrastructure, that would be great. I have asked both of you to talk to each other to see if you can come to some sort of agreement. But there is nothing legally that the city can do to compel you to do that. There is no legal way to force one party into a special district. It is a voluntary thing to be in a special district. Again, we've had numerous conversations about that, and it is my understanding that all over the city we have instances where the first developer in pays for the infrastructure and the next guy or woman in benefits. And it's just not fair, but that's just what happens. I still would love it if you all would get together and come to some sort of agreement on the open space issues. Yes, we need more open space in our city. I'm pleased to hear that your plans would include some open space. I have to acknowledge Chris Nevitt in the audience. I feel like I'm on the Academy Awards. I like to think of it now. Chris Nevitt, he is our manager of transportation oriented development, had a lot of conversations with Chris about this project. And it it it is an appropriate zoned district for a light rail station and for Todd. And as we as I said when I first started talking, the Colorado station does have this exact same zoning, so I will be supporting this. It aligns with the legal criteria that we are supposed to be looking at. Again, there are a lot of other issues, but they are not relevant to the legal criteria to resell this property. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black, are there any other comments? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 10: All right. Sorry. I'm finishing up notes. I've heard that I'm better when I read than going off the cuff. My issue on this is as much the minimum as it is the maximum, and neither are adequately or appropriately addressed by the proposed zone district. In a zoning sense, we are trying to shove a square peg into a round hole and what can be built there is everything from a McDonald's to a 250 foot tall mass that covers every square inch of the parcel. No setbacks. No open space required. None. Which will it be? Who knows? We could, with more appropriate zoning, tailor to the unique circumstances and the opportunity that this land has for placemaking next to a TOD Transit Station. But we have to prioritize outcomes over the status quo. Selecting a base zone district to much of the things that Dick Farley just talked about is just accepting the status quo, which a lot of communities in this city have spoken out against that are based on. Districts do not do enough. We've done a two year planning effort. Denver Right. Talking about district standards and guidelines because of the deficiencies in our base zone districts. And not to take these opportunities to codify real outcomes that are. Todd is a dereliction of duty. There are major differences in concert mean there are major deficiencies in consistency with adopted plans and neighborhood contexts and non-conformists with the zone, district purpose and intent. The Base Zone District is intended and is defined in the Denver zoning code for an entirely different context. The area is clearly conducive to a mix of uses. I won't deny that. Increased density. That too. And has plan objectives for those outcomes with some much needed public amenities, including open space. This zone district is being taken out of context in an attempt to apply it to a zone lot that does not conform to the district purpose and intent. If we do not have an appropriate zone district due to the uniqueness of these circumstances that would capture the stated and codified objectives of all adopted plans, then you have the conditions. An applicant would need to justify a PUD that would appropriately address all requisite criteria. This MAP amendment fails to meet two of the most significant criteria and is wholly inappropriate. The fact that the city administration and appointees continue to ignore these simple facts continue to fail not only this particular station area, but all Denver communities, as it has repeatedly for the last ten years or eight years, sorry, since we adopted the new Denver zoning code. The things that Chairman Siku is talking about were real. And if we don't get these things right and we don't demand more from our city staff and push developers requesting. Dick Farley was right. 820 a tenfold increase in entitlement to go from basically far to too far. 20. That's 18 stories of zero set back that we are granting this developer for the cost of going through the rezoning process. If we can have tough discussions then and get better outcomes by the time it gets here and we continue and we continue to approve those things, don't be surprised what comes after the Denver right is adopted. Thanks. I'll be voting no.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President. Clerk You know, based upon the current plans that we have and the legal responsibility that that we have to look at the information that's presented before us and. Would I like different things done around requiring open space? Of course. I think as a city council, we should really dig into the, you know, the general development plan process we have. We don't have a say in requiring open space in new developments. We're leaving that up to CPD and especially when there might be recommendations where a developer might split parcels so that you're not under that ten acres to move things forward that can affect a community very negatively, not having that open space, I understand that. But we've got to look at what's presented before us tonight and in everything that has been presented. In reviewing the criteria. I believe it does meet the criteria because this is by a towed station. We need the density by a Todd, by that within that Todd area. And I'm very concerned that we're blurring those lines between what we as council can do around metro districts. I would probably never have a successful rezoning in District 11 if we were taking as some of the criteria that we were going to compel a property owner to become part of that metro district, just for the very fact of the way that Green Valley Ranch was built. And that's very concerning to me, because we could try to compel someone to join into a metro district. And that, unfortunately, could affect us getting a full service grocery store to serve our neighborhood because they want to make a business a business direction that they don't want to come in under that metro district because the metro districts serve their purpose. They help us get development and infrastructure in the city, but they also tack on additional taxes and mills that can make it very hard for local owned businesses to stay in the neighborhood. Our you know, the the prices that we have in Green Valley Ranch sometimes rival near to the urban core. That makes it an undue burden. And we cannot use the metro district argument to vote down this rezoning. And so with that being said, I will be supporting the rezoning. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. So first, I just want to thank everybody on both sides for coming down and sharing all the different perspectives on this issue. I think it's critically important that we look at every single zoning on the merits of what is presented before us. I appreciate the commitment that was made to include open space on this site because that was a big part of tonight's conversation. This is an area of change under blueprint. It is a tod site. Across the city we have been seeing zoning increases to accommodate trying to get more people at our tod locations, encouraging more people to take public transit, try to make sure we're closing the gaps on first mile, last mile so that people don't have to drive their cars to go to work regardless of wherever they happen to work. And I think if we really want to see councils involvement, as was previously done when I served with a whole different body of people, then we need to change the zoning code if we want this body to look at the details that we used to see, because that authority was abdicated to the Planning Department under previous council, and we now no longer see that level of detail that used to come before this body. And I think there is less predictability for the neighborhoods, but I think that there is also less predictability for the developers because you then have to deal with the planning department to work through this process. So that's something we may want to have a collective conversation with our development community about. And I've had this conversation with a number of them. You know, when when we did a metro district in the Central Central Platte Valley in my old district, the city played a big role in basically doing some of the infrastructure, like building the parks, which actually were built to serve the Highlands neighborhood on the other side of the highway. But with all the new development that came in, it actually serves, you know, those constituents probably more so than it does people on the other side of the highway. The metro district obviously covered a bunch of other improvements that really kind of laid out the opportunity for the developers to come in and build a lot of that high density development that exists there today. This is a 3.2 acre site. And I know we're looking at just the merits of this case. But just to put this into context, we're now talking about approximately 500 acres of development that we're going to see along the I-25 corridor. And we're not even having the big picture conversation because we're not involved in that process, because we've been taken out of it to look at what are we doing to address the impact to the existing infrastructure of waterlines, sewer lines, all of our other utilities, the existing roads. I-25 is gridlocked today. I drive that corridor every single day, and we can't widen it through parts of that section because we've built right up to the edges. So as a city, I think we need to take a step back and look at how we are addressing the bigger picture of the impact issues when we are looking at huge parcels. And again, you know, just taking into account what we will be seeing on the I-25 corridor, it's going to be massive. And we think we have gridlock today. We need to be getting our arms around this on the front end and not wait until it hits us in the face and go. What are we going to do now and expect the taxpayers to pay for everything? So these are important conversations to have. I will be supporting this tonight. I appreciate the fact that the developer of the Bellevue Metro Station, this MIT district, you know, covered the cost of all the infrastructure to build out that site. And, you know, I served with Councilwoman Foster at the time. All of that was brought forward. The sewer lines, the water lines were were increased in size to accommodate the increase in development activity that was proposed at this new TOD site. But that doesn't that doesn't require that the current property owner has to cover those costs. Each metro district stands on their own. And we have seen more and more of them come before this body that have been approved for new development that is yet to come, some of which I just talked about. So. Legally, I can't see any justification to say this particular property owner because they will be utilizing the roads, potentially tapping into water or sewer lines, all which connected the city's lines. That that they should be held accountable or responsible for some of the costs that other property owners who came before them had to incur that are within the metro district. So for all of those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I don't see any other comments, so I'll just quickly add. Councilwoman Black, you had acknowledged our toddy guru, Chris Nevitt in the building. I just wanted to also acknowledge that he's a former member of this body representing Luckey District seven. So Councilman Nevett, honored to have you in the chamber this evening. Good to see you. I want to say thank you to staff for all your work on this, putting together the presentation, I think as outlined in the presentation tonight and in the staff report. For me, this meets the legal criteria for rezoning and I will be supporting it tonight. Councilmember Since Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met with petition signatures, then ten affirmative votes are needed instead of the standard seven to pass this bill this evening. With that, Mr. Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1497.
Speaker 11: That's all.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 7: Gentlemen. Brooks. I know. I feel more. I earned it.
Speaker 3: I kasmin. I can eat. I. Lopez I know.
Speaker 9: Ortega Hi. Sussman Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right, Mr. Secretary. Close the voting. Announce the results. 12 hours, Mr. President. 12 eyes one day. Council Bill 1497 has passed. On Monday, February 25th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1480 for changing the zoning classification for 42 on Delaware Street in Globeville and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1540
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4885 and 4889 South Quebec Street, in Southmoor Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from B-4 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2, to C-MX-20 (business in the former zoning code to urban center, mixed-use), located at 4885 South Quebec Street and 4889 South Quebec Street in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-18-18. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by owners of 20% or more, either of the area of the lots included in such proposed change or of the area to a distance of two hundred feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 20% respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01142019_18-1013
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks council members. All right. We will move on to our first public hearing in Kathmandu. Will you please be accountable? 1013 on the floor.
Speaker 11: But to move the council bill 18 1013 be placed upon final consideration to pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1013 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Thank you. Good evening. Members of the council Andrew Webb here from Community Planning and Development to present on this proposed rezoning of property at 2929 West 10th Avenue from pad 487 to see Annex five. This proposed rezoning is in Council District three. It's in the Sun Valley neighborhood along federal between 10th Avenue and Halden place. This rezoning includes several other properties within the boundary of PWD for 87, in total about 12 acres, comprising a campus of health care and social service facilities and parking known as the Castro campus. A key reason behind this proposed zoning is are the limitations imposed by the existing former Chapter 59 PDP 47 that that put limits residential care uses on the site to use 0 to 12 years of age. The city does own a 43,000 square foot building at 2929 West 10th that it would like to repurpose for a solution center that would provide emergency mental health care and transitional housing to people experiencing homelessness. The structure was previously used as a family crisis center, which provided temporary housing to youth during family displacement and emergencies. That facility closed in 2016 as part of a reorganization of those services, and Department of Human Services would like to reestablish a new adult residential care use at this location. As I mentioned, the current zoning is pegged for 87. About a quarter of the site was zoned out of beauty for 87 to see Annex five in 2017, the PWD had two sub areas, so this proposed rezoning would be to the other sub area of this former Chapter 59 PD. Surrounding zoning includes quite a bit of CSX five directly to the east and then CMCs eight as you get further east and north of the site OSA at at Rudy Park to the north of the site IMAX and XY. So commercial corridor and mixed use zoning along federal boulevard to the west and south of the site, S.R. eight and to the southeast of the site and Annex three to the direct south of the site where there are quite a few established industrial uses. Land use includes the on site, includes the Richard T Castro Human Services Center and health clinic and parking uses surrounding uses include Fairview Elementary directly to the west of the site across or east of the site across Decatur. Recreational use is to the north, multi-unit residential in the Sun Valley, housing to the south and east and commercial and industrial uses. This 45 degree aerial gives some perspective on kind of lot layout and scale of development in the area. These photos show development on and proximity to the site, including commercial development along federal directly to the west of the site. A view of the site from the corner of Federal and Holden Place. A view of the site from 10th Avenue showing the structure at 2929 West 10th that the city would like to repurpose image of the recreation center and park to the north. The middle photo there on the right side of the screen is development to the east of the site, across to Carter Street. And then finally. Bottom right there is some of the an example of the DHB housing in Sun Valley. And I should note that this may be somewhat out of date as I believe that redevelopment of that area into a kind of more of a mixed use development has recently begun, and some of those structures have been demolished. Again, this proposal is for C-Max five. That stands for Urban Center Neighborhood Context Mixed Use. With a maximum height of five storeys, the zone district promotes mixed use centers with moderate to high building heights, prioritizes an active pedestrian realm with high build to requirements and shallow setbacks, and is intended for redeveloping areas around transit stations. In terms of the process for this proposed rezoning, we received, we sent out the informational notice of receipt in April of last year. There have been multiple community meetings to present and discuss the project starting in June of 2017. The planning board hearing was held on in September. The planning board did recommend approval. The Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee considered this rezoning on October in early October and the first reading at City Council was in mid-October. The final public hearing has been postponed a couple of times in order to provide time for the neighborhood association, the Sun Valley Community Coalition, to work with the the applicant and the proposed operator of the site on a good neighbor agreement addressing some neighbor concerns. The registered neighborhood organizations listed here consider the site to be within their boundary and all have been notified at multiple points throughout this rezoning. We have received several instances of written comment from the Sun Valley Community Coalition, which has voted to oppose this rezoning. The their full text of their of their comments is included in detail on the staff report. But to summarize, the neighborhood has indicated a desire that the crisis center be used for a youth facility. Among other things, to approve a rezoning. The as you know, the council must find that it is consistent with these five criteria from the Denver zoning code. With regard to the first criteria and consistency with adopted plans, there are three plans that affect the site, including that comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver and then the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan, which was adopted in 2013 with regard to the comprehensive plan. This proposed rezoning would forward advance several policies and strategies in a comprehensive plan aimed at encouraging mixed use higher density development where people can live and work near high quality transit. The nearby Decatur Federal Station is a major rail and bus transit node. Blueprint identifies the majority of the site for transit oriented development and identifies the southern third of the site for employment uses and indicates that it are designated as an area of change. The site is served by a commercial arterial and enhanced transit corridor along federal and then a mixed use collector along the east side along Decatur and a residential collector to the south along 10th. All of these streets are consistent with recommendations for appropriate street types for the CMC's five zone district. The Decatur Federal Station area plan identifies the northern part of the site for transit oriented development and then identified the southern part of the site as employment transit oriented development, recognizing some of the existing industrial uses, especially south of 10th Avenue here. The plan also recommended a building height of five stories for the site. The kind of gray box you see in this map is actually the the Richard Castro Family Services Center. The map highlights some major public buildings in the area. With regard to the other criteria, this request will result in the uniform application of the CMC's, his own district's building form, use and design regulations. It will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and policies for walkable development to support transit oriented redevelopment. And with regard to justifying circumstances. The applicant cited a change community change in the area, including the opening of the Decatur Federal RTD station and a major Denver Housing Authority redevelopment underway of the Sun Valley Homes to the Eco Village. Mixed use mixed income development. Finally, with regard to the final criteria, the urban center and neighborhood context is intended to promote pedestrian scaled areas that enhance the convenience and enjoyment of transit and walking. And the C-Max five zone district is appropriate for this location. Based on the criteria in the zoning code. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on a finding that all review criteria have been met. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. There are 12 individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'm going to call the first five up to this front bench so that we can get through everybody. The timer will start as soon as I call your name, so step right up to the microphone and start your remarks. First five, we have Jay Flynn, David Roybal, Kathleen Cronin, Jeannie Granville and Jerry Burton. So if you could come up to the first bench and J. Flynn your first.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Jay Flynn, and I work at the Mental Health Center of Denver. I am also a citizen of the city and county of Denver. I wanted to share how important the services that will result in this zoning change are. I feel like they're essential to the well-being of the citizens of the city and county of Denver. I've been honored to work with the Neighborhood Degree Association on a Good Neighbor Agreement, which we have signed in which the neighborhood is assigned. And I believe in my heart that we will do a great job being a good part of the neighbor, could be a good neighbor and developing a program that will move Denver forward in its wellness and help citizens recover from their mental illness and help people in crisis early in their crisis, before their crisis reaches a proportion where they end up in jail or they end up a danger to themselves or in hospitalizations. I think this would be a really valuable service and we need this zoning change to make that happen. I appreciate the neighbors concerned. I understand that we've been in many meetings with them and I feel for them in my heart. I'm committed to making this an addition to the neighborhood that will make the neighborhood a safer place and not a more difficult place. Thank you so much and have a wonderful evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Roybal.
Speaker 3: They Roy Barnes have a 42 West Ninth. Next representative for City Council District three. Born and raised in this area since 1987. Dealt with some very hard things in my life coming up. Nobody would have survived it, either be dead or in jail or prison. And here I am running for public office. And that's what the city deserves. Somebody that came from the bottom, from the ghetto that's been there, that when there's violence at the age of seven, you know, being hurt.
Speaker 0: Mr. Lane Could you could you speak to the issue at hand?
Speaker 10: Well, there's a lot of history to this place, you know, being there in 2003, me and my sister being there.
Speaker 3: In the Denver Crisis Center. So much hurt and pain from kids being removed out of homes in there and a lot of corruption, you know, teenage girls getting knocked up by staff there. You know, it's in the newspapers. I seen it. Witnessed it. And having to nonprofits, you know, close with in the last ten years within the Sun Valley a church a battered women's shelter. You know, I hope to see this get used for the community and not have not have this place open to outsiders to come use drugs. And with the high crime and 14th and federal, you know, that needs to be mentioned, me being there firsthand, dealing with it. You know, I hope this this helps the community better as a community and just not put more money to make. Because if it's a nonprofit was the highest paid nonprofit already working with the Denver Police Department. So, you know, they're going to get this contract. And then same with the building, with the human service rezoning that's going to be coming up. And the stadium, the new stadium redevelopment, it's a lot of a lot of building going on. And I think we're getting too head of.
Speaker 10: Ourselves because the city's already going to get it.
Speaker 3: When when the Castro building gets in the air, the Sun Valley is not for sale. We do not want it to be yuppie washed, like to five points. We don't want it to come turn it to some rich neighborhood that does not cherish the culture and history. And we hope that the culture and history and the new redevelopment of the Sun Valley makes makes a better neighborhood. So nobody have to go through what I've been through or my sister or other people been through. And I'm here and I'm a survivor. And if I get elected, I'm going to be right there in the front lines, pushing this this forward and making sure that that the power belongs to the people in the community and not know corruption, as I read developers, corporations, all that.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Kathleen Cronin.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Members of the council. I'm Kathleen Cronin. I'm the director of Earthlings.
Speaker 6: Earthlings works with the homeless population in Sun Valley.
Speaker 1: We're located at 2746 West 13th Avenue.
Speaker 12: We've been there in a home on a property owner, not a homeowner property owner there since 2013.
Speaker 6: I'm speaking in favor of the rezoning. I believe it is in keeping with the plans, as the PD folks.
Speaker 1: Have spoken about.
Speaker 12: I believe that the only objections that would be raised.
Speaker 1: To this is because of the planned use, which is to provide for mental health.
Speaker 6: Services for those folks that are experiencing homelessness.
Speaker 12: It would be our position.
Speaker 1: As Earthlings.
Speaker 12: That we would be in favor of this use and also in favor of the.
Speaker 6: Rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeannie Granville.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Jean Granville and I am here as president of the Sun Valley Community Coalition, which is the registered neighborhood organization. We have supported most recently several rezoning efforts that would allow for increased density of affordable housing. And we are currently have debated quite a bit and our initial vote for this particular rezoning was negative or not in support. And our update after we had worked extensively on a Gina continues to be not in support and that is for a couple of different reasons, one of which is that after an extensive period, six years since the Decatur Federal Station area plan, there has been a regular and, as I said, extensive zoning planning process that the city has chosen not to be involved in. I think that you saw the map which showed a lot of the housing density that would be in the upper half of the neighborhood and that the southern half would be more of an employment use. Since that plan was first developed, some of that housing has changed to now where we will have 2000 plus children living in DHP housing. That's not including some of the other housing that could also be built because DHS will be building density on a smaller print footprint, which will allow for even more housing. But 2000 children that will be literally right next door living and playing. And the concern is that with 2000 children, we already have vulnerable families living there that have experienced trauma for a wide variety of things, including domestic violence and issues related to mental health. As a vulnerable population. I think there is some concern that even with the Good Neighbor Agreement, which I do have to commend Mental Health Center and the Office of Behavioral Health Strategies for sitting with us that that that does not negate that there will continue to be those children right there at the doorstep. The other thing is, is that so and with that there was also a preference that the and had been talked really quite extensively since the FCC, the Family Crisis Center, had closed quite a bit of conversation about keeping that as a mental health service center.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry about your time as possible day treatment. Thank you. All right. Next up is Jerry Burton. And I'm going to invite Phil Kasper, Brian McCann, Chris Rolston to Poorer Towers and Jesse Paris to the front row. You will be next.
Speaker 7: Go ahead. Oh, thank you. My name is Jerry Burden. I'm a veteran. I'm homeless right now. But at the same time, I used to live over there at Decatur.
Speaker 14: Place apartment, me and my daughter.
Speaker 7: It's a good area. I mean, change is good, but at the same time, it isn't good if we use it for what we really need it to be used for. And I think I get doesn't want to see it become like five points. I can no longer move over. I can't Fivepoint used to be an area that was of people of color and I can move in over there no more. And I just don't want this area over here to be the same. It'll be good if you put more 0 to 30% apartments or whatever that people are that are experiencing or are unhoused right now that can be able to move into. And that's all I got to say on that matter. But as far as everything else, I'm down, but I'm not down because I know how things go. I it's funny, too, how every time we we make a decision, it's convenient for the councilman to make the decision and not and not put us first. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Phil Kasper.
Speaker 2: My name is Phil Kasper. I'm a 32 year resident of Denver. Dropped in the dirt here 60 years ago and I live at 2516 west holding 2516 West 13th Avenue. Most of the residents in Sun Valley have experienced homelessness and understand its stresses, challenges and tragedies. So it's not that we don't understand the needs of homelessness in our community. The fact is that our community is extremely stressed and we need to preserve a safe environment for the children that are there. We've worked 30 years to counter the negative aspects of 50 years of of being ignored by the city of Denver. So this community has the highest percentage of children in the state, and no other community in the country has been identified as having a higher percentage at 66% ten years ago. And the zoning change allows the city to impose uses that are not yet revealed to our community. Our objections revolve around the risk that the city will use the zoned campus for purposes that will injure the children and families and undo the work that's been done there. The city will place we are worried that the city will place a shooting gallery in the neighborhood. The prospects of having higher homeless population on the river. Mentally challenged individuals wandering through the neighborhood with 2000 children. The city now is not participating in the redevelopment of the Sun Valley Eco District to the extent that would inform us about the uses that are proposed for that property. We believe that those there are uses already identified. However, we have not been informed of them. There is a plan and it has not been revealed to us. Is there a plan to allow people to use Schedule one narcotics in any part of that site? Is there a conspiracy to circumvent federal drug laws? Will our taxes be used to defend in court challenges from the federal government? If council approves a drug shooting gallery for the zoned site that is 29, 29 or any other location in Denver. That's my biggest fear.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brian McCann.
Speaker 7: Brian McCann. I live at 27, 27 West holding place, and I'm against the rezoning because I don't know what's going to be coming into the community. I'm a new face in the community, but still live there and it's getting better over the years that I've been there. But. I don't see the benefit of not telling us what the reasonings for. I do believe that most of my points have been spoken already and more will be coming up. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chris Richardson.
Speaker 1: Good evening, everyone. Chris Larson. I run the Sun Valley Youth Center. My goal today was a filibuster and have a whole bunch of kids sitting here. And we decided not to do that. And here's why. Our families are afraid. They're afraid to come to the government right now and complain about anything. We're working with refugees and little kids. So I've been in Sun Valley 20 years. This is my 21st year. I don't age, though, guys, so it's okay. And I think the thing is, for years and years and years, we've been planning Sun Valley and now it's starting to come to the full development. There's actually cranes that have knocked down community housing. 58 families have now been displaced. People are afraid. They're afraid of what's coming in and they're afraid that we're not going to be good on all this planning for them and for the community. We've been talking about having spaces and places for kids like some of our kids have to go to the east side to receive mental health services. The building is no longer a crisis center. We're all in agreement that that was not a good place to have an orphanage where kids were emancipating. We're all about that. But we've been asking and advocating in 20 years of planning for a mental health middle school, for a mental health high school. We love mental health center of Denver for the purposes of youth and families. And so the concern for myself and for the youth in the community that I serve is how can we for a zoning use? And this is what's hard is that the zoning came to us with a youth attached to it. So that's why we're speaking to the youth so strongly. We don't know what's going on between that what's going to happen with the West Side Health Clinic. We've heard they're staying. We've heard they're going. That's really convenient for a family that doesn't have vehicles for single moms with lots of kids. We want to continue to keep some of those services there. So our biggest complaint is that this use does not meet any of the planning where we were talking about furthering and bettering our community. This isn't being designed for families to come. It's not being designed for single moms to go and get some parenting assistance and help and things like that. I think to Jean's point, when we were talking about the planning and all the housing going closer around the stadium, that's not the case anymore. All of the plans keep changing. So now all of the first phase of housing is going to be built correct directly right in the backyard. So when we took the kids up to the crisis center to go visit and see what this thing could look like, we're talking about people that are going through rehab and people that are going through treatment. I'm sure there's going to be drug use. I'm sure there's going to be smoking going right up into the kids balcony. We have kids with asthma. We have kids with all kinds of issues. So our biggest concern is that is now going to back right up into the community where there's already going to be 5000 kids coming in or 2000 or it doesn't even matter. 300 kids like we need to advocate for them because they aren't able to come and speak for themselves. And in a community where kids outnumber adults and it will continue to be that way as long as there's public housing going in which it is. We want to make sure that this space can be used for the betterment of their lives and in the betterment of their.
Speaker 12: Mental health as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, tips for a tower.
Speaker 1: I'm going to stand next to her. Okay.
Speaker 6: My name's Zipporah and I've been going to this only church for a while. Okay.
Speaker 1: Sorry she was going to try and speak and she will not.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you for coming down. And thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 14: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Lao Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. We are definitely against this, especially after hearing all the testimony from the community. We do not have any kind of guarantee that this justice is going to be for what you say it is going to be for. The community has come out and let you know this straight up. So I would ask that you honor the wishes of the community and vote no on this proposed rezoning, because we don't need any more unintended consequences from these redevelopments, these rezonings, and these other things that you guys do. The community is fed up. This community has been ostracized. It's been neglected. And this is where the majority of children reside and live and play. And to see that you are not taking all of that into account. What this reasoning is a shame for this council. So with that being said, I urge you strongly urge you to vote no on this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 2: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Up next, Mayor City County of Denver, 2019, founder, organizer of Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense Defense. I'm going to speak from personal experience. I'm appliance. Image City. Me tell you what I went through with them. To court cases. Gentrification related because I refuse to use my Section eight to go outside the city. Four years. It took me to going to over 700 places in four years looking for a place in the city, countered Denver. They couldn't direct me to one. And when they couldn't do that, they moved to take the Section eight away from me. I had to go to court twice on the same day. Finally, Susan Fine, who's the Section eight federal representative, found me a place on the east side where I reside now 3421 Elm Street and 15 minutes . The stuff in there is racist. As for the statistics as to how many black people do you have working in all of your sites? Ask not how many minorities. Oh, no, don't play that one, because you're going to find brown people. You're going to find women who qualify for minorities. I couldn't even get a black counselor. And when I asked for one, I demanded one. I had to go to court to get my ID. So they found me a student who just got out of college. No senior staff whatsoever. And then for the facility that's right behind me where I live on 34th, then Elm Street, the one that's located on your door, your diet, you check out the staff in there. They had four black people in their number now and they quit on the job because of racism, employment, bouncing Germans.
Speaker 0: Could you please speak to this zone.
Speaker 2: We're talking about? Did you get ready to do this whip? So this is apropos because you're asking me to support a corporation. That's racist. That's twice the premise. And they look for nothing but the gentrification of our neighborhood to establish white rule, including to step in. You better check out who you dealing with, because I'm coming up for certification and I have the strength and the courage to tell the truth about what you do to me. Yeah. And you say to people that Skip. Scared so they could lose their right to mental health and then boxes in the business of driving folks crazy. Were you in the mental health business to fix both? You be out of business. Think about it. And now they're increasing their services because they are in the process of not mental health, but mental. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Your time is up. Next up, we have Barry and Thompson.
Speaker 4: And that puts a lot.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. People short and sweet. Just like I said before, gentrification. So you want Sun Valley to be another five point? Is that what you all want to do? What you say on paper and what you do are two different things. And for that I say nay. People in this in Sun Valley have gone through a lot of trauma. I grew up in a city in a barrio in Tucson, Arizona, with the same exact problems, with the exact same gentrification that went out. What happened? All white. Where would. Where were the minorities? Poor get poorer at the expense of rich people raping them. Nay, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 3: Yes. Whoever put together the neighborhood agreement or the neighborhood who drafted that, worked on it over that is. Just come to the mike. So this this bill was postponed because the neighborhood agreement was not yet executed and fulfilled. And now are we to understand that it's been fulfilled now?
Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. It's been finished and signed on both parties.
Speaker 3: Okay. So their comment saying that the execution of this actual facility may not be for those who are experiencing homelessness. Is that fulfilled in the neighborhood agreement? Is that spelled out? How many people will you be serving?
Speaker 2: Yes, that I believe is really clear in terms of who will serve. How many people we serve, how many people we serve at a time. And what the service was will look like. And it will be for people experiencing a mental health crisis and.
Speaker 3: How many formerly homeless.
Speaker 2: We don't know how many will be technically homeless. We won't discriminate based on whether somebody's homeless or has a house. If they're in a mental health crisis, they can be served. They're okay. We expect that a number of them will indeed be homeless or a larger percent will be homeless.
Speaker 3: How many will you be serving?
Speaker 2: I guess our crisis unit will have 16 people and our we'll have 30 transition beds where people can stay 30 days so that we're not releasing people straight out into the street but have time to find them. Longer term housing.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. And for the neighborhood that signed on, you didn't have any disagreement with signing on? Is that what I'm hearing?
Speaker 1: I think that if you read the comments in my update, we felt that it was in the best. We were involved in discussions on this. After the fact, the city went ahead and filed. We reached out to invite them to come talk about the zoning. And at that time, it was disclosed that the reason for the rezoning was to allow for the because the the the crisis center building had to be re zoned in order to allow for its use as a as an adult facility. Our first after several conversations, our first vote was no, but we did get a very strong impression that the city was determined. And we looked at other we offered other kinds of alternative plans and uses and even saying, could it be for women and and children? You know, women primarily because that's more reflective of our current population. Those were all kind of rejected. And so it was felt that in the best interest of the neighborhood that we frankly enter into our start the process of working on a good neighbor agreement to really try and get some accountability and oversight and potential protection for some of the concerns and get getting some of the concerns addressed even with that. Then after we looked at to sign the GINA and the reason for signing the Gina was because we were told really clearly that frankly, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive to accept that. Gina if it passed and we hadn't signed it. We went ahead and did it. There were still people who felt that they were doing it reluctantly and had no choice.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay, ma'am, did you did you have some. No, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: We just you asked for everybody. That was a part of it. So I was.
Speaker 12: Like, yes.
Speaker 0: If you're going to could you come up to the microphone, answer that question so that everybody watching on can hear you, too?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So to Jean's point, yeah, I think we signed it, because if there's a use coming that we really can't stop, we want to make sure that we have some power in that agreement, if that makes any sense. So we did end up having to have a mediator help us do that good neighbor agreement. So it was not a simple process, took lots and lots and lots of writing, but we got to the point where we all feel comfortable with 90% of it. There's still a lot of it that we don't feel comfortable because part of it is with the city and the city doesn't do a good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And I can say for mental health Senator Denver and I can just say it, but we we really would have been happy to sign a good neighbor agreement. In any case, we have good neighbor agreements with pretty much all the neighbors, many of the neighborhoods, most of the neighborhoods we're in already. And our anticipation was whether there was a conflict in zoning or not. We would have signed a good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 3: And tell me your name, sir.
Speaker 2: I'm Jake Flynn. I'm the vice president for adult services with Mental Health Center of Denver.
Speaker 3: Mr. Flynn well, one last question here for you, sir. You can still sign a good neighbor agreement that does not have to be tied to the zoning. So would you be willing to enter into kind of an hours of operation agreement, how the facility would be run when a facility is shut down from the hours of operation , things like that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes. And we have indeed signed this good neighbor agreement already. And I think we would have been happy to sign one very similar to the one we came out with. My biggest our biggest conversation points were about making sure that the Good Neighborhood Agreement respected sort of the rights and dignity of the people we would serve in treating them like people and not like possessions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Andrew, one quick question. I don't know if you can pull up the surrounding. I just want to get to the context, the question before. For us is not the use, but it's actually the rezoning. But. You know, city council. One of our criteria is health, safety and welfare. So I want to make sure I ask that question about the use. This currently is. It's a PD.
Speaker 8: That's correct.
Speaker 3: And under the PD, what's the height limit?
Speaker 8: The party does not actually stipulate height limits. I don't believe it just lists, uses and floor area ratio of the.
Speaker 3: Hot talking ability be built on this from the floor area.
Speaker 8: Depend on on the on how much parking was needed to be provided. So it would vary but probably similar to what is allowed now or similar to what is proposed by the the the proposed new zone district.
Speaker 3: Could you get something over 60 feet? 56 feet? From our standpoint.
Speaker 8: It would depend, you know, if if a large amount of the site was left empty. Yep. You could possibly. Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: And so looking looking around the area, it looks like there is some same x five. There is a max eight. Is that in the orange?
Speaker 8: In the orange is S.R. X eight, which is the residential mixed use district. And then there is CMCs eight and red up to the north and east of the site.
Speaker 3: Okay. So you concur this plan, support to support the Arizona.
Speaker 8: Absolutely. The plan support from Blueprint and the Decatur federal plan are very clear. Okay.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Can you stick around? So help me out here. You know, a lot of the conversation has been centered on on 29, 28. West was 10th. But were the rezonings for the entire Peddie area? Is that correct? That's right.
Speaker 8: That is correct. The PD, when it was originally adopted in 1999, had two sub areas. One of them is the one that we're considering that you're considering this evening. And the other one is the site that is essentially to the north, the northeast corner of the site, so framed by Decatur and Holden place. It's now CM five and is shown on this map is kind of just mixed in with additional CM X five to the east but it was zoned in 2017.
Speaker 3: So so 19 do you know. So in 1999 the LPA for the for the West Line was established. Do you know if this PD predated or postdated that?
Speaker 8: I do not.
Speaker 3: Because one of the things I'm struggling with is it would be one thing if we were talking about a rezoning of the of the the zone lot that sort of well, we are talking about the entire zone lot. But if we were talking about the parcel that captures the the subject property, because this is this an area that is six times over six times bigger than just where 2929 is. And and, you know, APD is is got a lot of a lot of constraints to it by design. So that was a negotiated outcome sort of well was well aware of where we were going and where we were headed. I think the only sort of new thing over there is the Lakewood Gulch, you know, the widening that sort of got expedited by the tragedy. But I don't know, maybe urban drainage probably had plans for that. Even that predated 99. I don't know. So I'm I'm struggling with the area did what was this the planning board's recommendation by.
Speaker 8: The planning board recommended to approve the rezoning. And I think the main reason for the proposing to amend the whole thing is several fold. One is that it is a former Chapter 59 PD with for a ratio and other calculations that are essentially based on the the area of of what is we're currently talking about tonight which was technically called sub area two in the original PD. So amending out just a section of it. The code doesn't provide really for amending out just a section of of an old code PD unless it has already identified that area in some way.
Speaker 3: So you'd almost have to amend the PD first before then rezoning.
Speaker 8: That's right. Just a.
Speaker 3: Partial. So too. Then this gets to the slide about future street types. You're you're referencing future city types in the zoning district standards don't make any reference to commercial arterial or enhance transit corridors. So what are the street types using the existing designations?
Speaker 8: I want to make sure I understand the question.
Speaker 3: The existing the existing street designations. So. So if I look at the district standards and I've got them here. If I can call them up. Oops, the you know, it references arterials and collectors. Right. And so not commercial arterials and enhance transit corridor. So is that a collector? I mean I mean, is that an arterial.
Speaker 8: That federal is an arterial? And is it designated specifically as a commercial arterial and separately as an enhanced transit corridor?
Speaker 3: The reason why I'm asking is that we actually in the zoning code, we actually designate arterial and then we make a distinction called major arterial. Is federal considered a major arterial?
Speaker 8: I would have to look at how how public works designates them. As you may know, public works has a slightly different map. Most recently published, I believe in 2017 that that does have some current street designations. I would have to look at that and confirm. I would be surprised, however, if Federal was not considered a major arterial.
Speaker 3: Because it specifically says CMC's five applies to areas or intersections that are primarily by collector or arterial streets. Right. And that's true for the eight story category. But then for for trawl at 12, 16 and 18, it's primarily served by major arterial streets. It doesn't even mention collectors. And so this is what is giving me pause is we're talking about a sixth of a property that is on what I would probably suspect that Public Works considers a major arterial. We are definitely within a half a quarter mile of of of a major trans high frequency transit corridor. It's it's an enhanced transit corridor. It's a commercial arterial. We're definitely within a quarter mile of the light rail station, definitely within a quarter mile of a major park and system. And so. I am I am struggling here. So the last. So I'm curious, did any of that come up in a planning board?
Speaker 8: It did not. Are you thinking about the is it is it the the designation of the of the five storey height limit? Or are you thinking that maybe perhaps I should be.
Speaker 3: Looking at the Decatur Federal Station area, I mean, station area plan language that's cited in the staff report and it says encouraging mixed in the character area that this is part of it says that the encouraging mix of building heights and variations formed respect maximum of building heights of 5 to 12. This plan, this map seems to suggest it's five only. But the language actually shows that variety in this particular area. And so I'm just going and looking at the level of investment that we are making today in federal we have historically made in the East West connections and wondering why why were if there's any other dialog or just simply because, again, I'm not struggling with this. If we're only talking about the piece that's on the collector street but the six times folded this it's placement, it's proximity to this level investment. I have to contemplate the balance of this property with respect to everything else. So that's why Mike and my questions. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask Jeff Holliday if you can come up somebody from Denver Human Services or Office of Behavioral Health. I'm going to ask some questions about the Good Neighbor agreement. Where does the Good Neighbor agreement live in? How is it.
Speaker 7: Enforced? I'm sorry, Councilman Lopez. I couldn't hear the last part of your your comment.
Speaker 10: Good neighborhood agreement that was signed. Where does that live? Where does that live long term? How is it enforced? And I saw provisions on it on reporting out. So walk walk that through for us and for the folks here in this room just to understand what this is, what the agreements are, and how is this a document that's going to see life?
Speaker 7: Thank you for the question. So ostensibly, the Good Neighbor Agreement lives between both parties. Mental Health Center of Denver and the Sun Valley Community Coalition as a as a third party Office of Behavioral Health Strategies will monitor when services are stood up in the building the the services that are being rendered. You'll notice in the Good Neighbor Agreement that it references a community advisory committee. Neighbor advisory committee, I think is is how it's it's framed in the good neighbor agreement. You'll also notice that my office is a party to that neighborhood advisory committee. And so my role in part is to ensure that the provisions of the Good Neighbor Agreement, as they're agreed upon between the parties, is appropriately addressed as a function of that meeting.
Speaker 10: Why doesn't the.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 10: The neighborhood advisory committee a party here on page seven. Number three. Is there is is there any reason why it's not specifically mentioned.
Speaker 7: Say the first part again. Councilman Lopez, I'm having a hard time hearing what you're what you're saying. Sorry. It's just my is my bad ears.
Speaker 10: No, no, no. It's okay. Good neighborhood agreement. Page seven says a specific information to be contained in these reports will be agreed upon between the Office of Behavioral Health Strategies, Sun Valley Community Coalition and MHC d. Why didn't we include a neighborhood advisory committee in their.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure I understand your question, but the good neighbor agreement. I could grab my copy and take a look at this specific reference.
Speaker 10: Oh, let me let me just repeat this. So the office so the specific information to be contained in these reports, this is the Good Neighbor Agreement. Page seven will be agreed agreed upon between Office of Behavioral Health Strategies, Sun Valley Community Coalition and Mental Health Centers of Denver. My question is, is why wasn't why isn't the NPC, the Neighborhood Advisory Committee included in there? Is it? I see that there's the Sun Valley Community Coalition. Is it because they're parties of that? They make up the NCC? I was wondering why the NAACP was not just. Put out in here in terms of reporting?
Speaker 7: Well, I can't presume to know how each party was thinking, except what I would say in my involvement is, at least from my perspective, where we addressed the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and the work that that committee would do on an ongoing basis satisfied the concerns that were raised as a part of the of the mediation.
Speaker 10: Okay. Who's enforcing the genny? If something if there is a complaint, let's say, if there is an issue that arises that purports to violate the agreement. How is that enforced? What happens?
Speaker 7: So the parties that are named as as participants in the Neighborhood Advisory Committee as as a as a starting point, would engage in a and a consensus building activity where there are points of disagreement. If the dispute if that doesn't resolve it, then they would bring the matter to myself and whomever is the expanding authority of the services contract once that is left.
Speaker 10: One more question on on this particular let me just go forward that MHC is the provider in the Good Neighborhood Agreement. The city can switch providers, right. We have to still do we have to have an agreement with them to provide services, a service agreement that that.
Speaker 7: That's correct. Councilman Lopez. If the city were not happy with the services that were being provided by MHC, they could certainly seek a different vendor for those services.
Speaker 10: What happens to the Good Neighbor Agreement if we seek another vendor?
Speaker 7: The Good Neighbor agreement would presumably. It's a good question. Currently, the good neighbor agreement is is a requirement for for the vendor, I presume that that would carry over. Certainly that would be my my perspective, that I would want to see any vendor that goes into that space. If it weren't MH CD enter into a good neighbor agreement with the community on record.
Speaker 10: Could you make a commitment and can the city make a commitment on making sure that any subsequent vendor that the Good Neighborhood Agreement could live, that it would be required that they enter into that at least be as a signatory to this good neighborhood agreement?
Speaker 7: Well, I would make a commitment on behalf of my office as somebody who oversees the the service contract, that if if an occasion arose where we had a different vendor, that I would require that they enter into a good neighbor agreement with the community.
Speaker 10: Is that in jeopardy? Mr.. HALL. Let me ask I'm looking to the administration. Is this something that. Is this is this good neighborhood agreement, good for any other vendor? Is this a requirement for end? Are we willing as a city if, let's say that another vendor comes in or bids in the future, does this good neighbor agreement , are we going to require that they be a signatory to that?
Speaker 12: Councilman. I'm going to jump in here. Sky Stuart mayor's office. It was a requirement.
Speaker 1: In the RFP. We issued that any provider have a.
Speaker 12: Good neighbor agreement, so we're going to continue to have that requirement in place.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. The current site and I'm going to look at CPD the uses are there and what we're understand is that there has been a use that has been defined. Have I heard testimony that people are not aware of what the use will be? What are the current uses of the PD and explained to me is my understanding that in order for the Family Crisis Center to be utilized in a way that would help homeless individuals and provide these services, that's not allowed in the current PD, that you'd have to change the whole rezoning to allow that. PD What's allowed now? Like what are the uses now? From what I understand, because I only all disclosure, I live about five, five and a half blocks from the site. Sure. So I know it is the Castro building and the Sam Sound website health clinic and the Family Crisis Center, which is now empty.
Speaker 8: That's correct. So those three uses that you just mentioned are permitted uses. The PD allows for an office use that covers the the the Castro Center, a health care facility use with overnight stays for the for the clinic and then for for this component of the site. It allows and I have the language here up on screen. I'm not sure if you if you're able to see it, it allows day and night care facilities for youth 0 to 12 years of age. And then finally the PD allows parking.
Speaker 10: Okay. And my last question is I I'll just if I may, Mr. President, just one one more is if I can ask Lisa Lumley, the division of Real Estate. There are fears that we heard in this hearing tonight that there's going to be gentrification and redevelopment and that the city can do something with this site, that we would sell it, that there are other uses. You are the division or you represent the division of real estate in the city. Is there any offer on these sites? Is there any intent to sell any of these properties that are under question to any kind of third party? Or are we going to develop it into anything aside from what's there?
Speaker 12: Good evening, Lisa. Lovely division of real estate. No, actually, I can let you know that Human Service has approval to move forward to invest significant amount of money in the building to retrofit an upgraded.
Speaker 10: In the Castro building.
Speaker 12: Yes, in the Castro building. I'm sorry. And so the plans are to stay put. We are not looking to redevelop the site. It is a full investment from human service that they intend to be in that community and continue to serve it. This is just about trying to address the use the the existing produce for the Family Crisis Center, knowing it's a city owned building that for the majority of it has to sit empty because it's non-compliant in its current state.
Speaker 10: What about Denver health in particular? Sam Sanders, The Westside Health Clinic? Is there any intent on them or interest on them in leaving?
Speaker 12: Not that I'm aware of. I can't speak on behalf of Denver Health, but not that I've had any conversations with.
Speaker 10: Okay, all. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Most of my questions have been answered. I just had.
Speaker 6: One question.
Speaker 1: For you, Andrew. I noticed there was just one no vote from the planning board. Did that person explain why they voted no?
Speaker 8: Yes. There was one no vote from from someone who works in that area of the city. And I believe her explanation was that she wanted to to indicate her support for community members that were in opposition.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I'm sure that under the I was looking through the staff report and the all the various the the original pad in 99 and because we're rezoning the entire pad, not just 29, 29. I'm curious what other restrictions and stipulations were made in that that are going to expire by virtue of approving this over the entire site rather than just the old family crisis center? What what else? What other protections and stipulations is the neighborhood losing by by eliminating the PD?
Speaker 8: The the regulation that you see on screen here about the day and night care and therapy facility for youth is probably the most the most limited requirement or allowance use allowance in the current.
Speaker 7: But I think some of the other restrictions had to do with parking, mostly parking.
Speaker 8: Exactly.
Speaker 7: That's requirements, etc., setbacks.
Speaker 8: That's correct. And and so the new the new zoning, the CMC's zoning allows for a more pedestrian oriented built environment and potentially less parking than would be off street parking would be required by this this older PD.
Speaker 7: Mm hmm. Councilman Espinosa, right out of the box, asked most of the questions that were also on my mind. But one other. Since you have that up on the screen, would it have been possible to amend the PD simply to take that out and just leave it as a PD, but replace that one phrase to take out the 0 to 12 year old clients and allow 18 and above.
Speaker 8: We we don't really have a pathway currently that is in use to amend old code PDS and the policy has been to find appropriate new code zone districts to replace those PDS.
Speaker 7: To your knowledge, is this the first PD that at least since since in this term of the council that where we are rezoning the entire PD to something else but only because of a one of the parcels in it if you can. You understand the.
Speaker 8: Question? I do. I do understand.
Speaker 7: It seems to me the other times we've eliminated PDS and replaced it with 2010 zoning. The reason was the entire.
Speaker 8: That's right.
Speaker 7: Acreage of that had to be defended, too. Right. But here we're only looking at the Family Crisis Center. And can you think of another PD that we've eliminated that dealt only with a small parcel?
Speaker 8: I can't think of one specifically a rezoning that was specifically because of a small parcel. But some of the some of your colleagues in the council may recall a rezoning like that.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman connected. You want to help answer that?
Speaker 1: We did a rezoning of a pad because of a walkway limitation, because the walkway violated the PD. So we did an entire PD rezoning because a walkway didn't fit the criteria.
Speaker 6: For the entire site.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Kennedy. Next up, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: That's one point. I'm doing okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I also have a couple of questions. Mr. Holiday, would you mind coming forward? What are the current, I don't know, uses or operations that are occurring in that building today?
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Ortega I would have to defer to our DHS colleagues that own services that are going on in that building today.
Speaker 9: What do you hear from DHS? Would you mind coming forward, whoever the.
Speaker 1: Good evening, counsel. Bettina Schneider. I'm the chief financial officer at Denver Human Services. Currently, we operate the ordering process with our child welfare division, child protection division. There is a Denver Police Department presence there that interviews the kids. There is a pediatric clinic from Denver Health. It is a closed network, so we don't have kids. Just walk in and say, hey, I want to see a doctor.
Speaker 12: We would send them to.
Speaker 1: West Side across the parking lot. So we do have a current operation in that building.
Speaker 9: So how does this change? Assuming this zoning passes tonight and MHC is able to put their clients into the building.
Speaker 1: We are looking to relocate the order in process to a different city building. I'm the one we're looking at right now is at 405 South Platte.
Speaker 9: And what's the timing of that?
Speaker 1: We've actually already hired an architect. So looking at converting basically like a warehouse office building into a medical clinic, a space for the district attorney's office and the city attorney's office. They actually have a presence at the FCC building now as well. And for our staff and child protection. So I'm sorry, the timing of it, we were hoping to have it completed by May or June, but it's construction takes a remodeling.
Speaker 9: So will that take up that entire property at 405 South Platte?
Speaker 1: We will use the first and second floors. It's a three story building. The first and second floors would take care of the ordering process. And we're looking to relocate some administrative staff to the third floor of that building.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 9: And will any of that include beds?
Speaker 1: Bed space. Yeah, we are looking at it so that we need a washer and dryer and there would be like a sleeping area and it would be an emergency type situation if kids had to spend the night because we couldn't find a placement for them.
Speaker 9: Similar to the way that the current location operated?
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely. Yeah. We're not looking to change the current operation.
Speaker 12: Just move it to a new location.
Speaker 9: Right, right, right. So you're not going to have classrooms in some of these.
Speaker 0: Kids will not take it. Sorry to jump in. If there are questions about what's going to happen at 405.
Speaker 9: This is directly related. This is directly related. And it's important to know and understand, you know, the sequencing of what's happening here. So that's helpful. Thank you. I have no no further questions. So how soon would it mean planned to be in this building, assuming this passes tonight, Mr. Flynn?
Speaker 2: My understanding is that given the scheduling of moving some of the present folks that are working there out to the South Platte building, that we would at the earliest start operation in March of 2020 and somewhat more likely June of 2020.
Speaker 9: So so this move would require it made CD to do some major renovation of the building.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're planning it with the city, and the city's actually doing the renovation. Okay.
Speaker 9: Can somebody speak to what that cost is? Lisa, I'm looking at you, but I don't know if there's somebody else that could speak to what it will cost to do the renovation of this building.
Speaker 12: Councilwoman. I don't know that I have an exact number today. I know that they've been trying to work on it and work on the timing as certain things have been delayed, they've had to adjust. That's something that we can get back to you on. Okay.
Speaker 9: So I guess I'm trying to understand because the building we're moving the kids to is the very building that MHC was originally going to go into for this very purpose for the solution center. And I'm trying to understand if there's a huge cost difference between what they would have spent there. I know it's a much more it's a whole different building. It's more of a commercial building.
Speaker 12: What I would say is that the the reason the Family Crisis Center was considered after four or five was given, it's build out and it's residential the way it had been originally built, residential, even though it was for youth versus adults. I don't know that. I don't know how how huge the cost differences. And like I said, we can get back to you on that. I know the part of that cost difference is going to Albertina Luft play into human services. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It part of that will play into those some of what she mentioned the administration for moving some people from Castro down that will help their overcrowding as well. So there'll be a blending of that at the four or five building.
Speaker 9: All right. And someone that can speak to the agreement, will sex offenders be allowed at the site?
Speaker 2: No, we are not allowing any registered sex offenders at the site.
Speaker 9: Who's going to do the screening?
Speaker 2: We're asking the police to do the initial screening. And when people get to the site, we'll also run a callback, a CBI background check. But we'll ask the police first because most folks will be coming to the site via first responders. The concept is first responders bring people to the site, then there are no walk ins, so nobody can just simply walk in and present for services. It's really geared to help first responders who are in the field working with people who should not be arrested. There's no reason to arrest them, but they are in a crisis.
Speaker 9: So, Jay, I just want to ask Mr. Flynn, I should say sorry, how what's the difference between how many people were going to be served at the solution center, at the old location versus this location?
Speaker 2: The plan is the same.
Speaker 9: Exactly the same. Can you just tell us why that was? That site was rejected over this one. I mean, this one wasn't even on the table.
Speaker 2: But I'm you know, I would have to defer to the city in terms of why they changed the plan for the building. My understanding was that the first building is much more expensive to renovate.
Speaker 9: Okay, I thought it was an MHC decision, but I could be wrong about that. So there's someone that can just speak to that that would be helpful.
Speaker 8: Tyler Jacko at the Department of Finance.
Speaker 14: So the main reason why four.
Speaker 8: Or five was not an.
Speaker 14: Appropriate use was because after further discussion about both programing for the site.
Speaker 10: As well as renovation.
Speaker 8: The best case scenario for the site was actually demolish.
Speaker 14: The building.
Speaker 10: And rebuild.
Speaker 8: And on that particular site there was actual when you go through that process, there'd be a lot of environmental remediation driving up the costs of trying to do the same services on that particular site to an enormous degree. I think we're talking almost five years ago, close to $7 million to do that entire process, which.
Speaker 14: We're just estimates. And given all estimates and construction.
Speaker 8: Over the years, those have come up woefully short. So imagining that costs would go up over.
Speaker 9: Time, did we not do a Phase one environmental when we purchased that?
Speaker 10: It was a part.
Speaker 14: Of the process, so we were actually having to go through the.
Speaker 8: Purchase of the building at the same time of kind of looking for a particular user.
Speaker 14: So it was done, so was.
Speaker 8: Known of those particular pieces, but that wouldn't be affected if you're renovating the building versus actually demolishing and rebuilding.
Speaker 9: I have two other very brief questions, but if you want to defer to others and put me in the back of the queue, I'm okay with that. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Naughty Councilman.
Speaker 11: Yes, Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn, can I ask a question?
Speaker 2: Of course.
Speaker 11: Sir. Just on the Good Neighbor Agreement, do you have a copy of.
Speaker 2: I think the city council has a copy and Jeff has a copy. I know, but you can certainly ask me a question. I'm very familiar with the.
Speaker 11: Okay. Again, on page three, I like you mentioned about sex offenders. I guess there's about five other categories of individuals that would not be admitted to to the service right. Persons in need of a 72 hour hold.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 11: Under arrest, medical crisis, chemical dependency, alcohol plants, not appropriate for a shelter is wrong. And will the police be triaging all those? Categories of anyone they bring over to the solution center.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they will triage as well as they're able. And then we will have nurses at the solution center. So they will do another triage. Just some somebody gets there and we find out, for instance, they have a bad head wound and we would call an ambulance and move them to a hospital like Denver Health where they could get the medical care they need.
Speaker 11: So the police missed one of these categories. Then your staff, when they do their triage, they pick up on it. What happens then is then in there, in the section you goes about unplanned discharges. It talks about security officers, where they're going to be held there until they find transportation or they're going to be escorted to federal . What's going to happen with that, that patient?
Speaker 2: So, for instance, if somebody comes and the police thought they did not need to be placed on a 72 hour hold, but we find they are an imminent danger to themselves and they're likely to hurt themselves quickly or soon and need to hold. We'll place them on a hold there, call an ambulance and get them to go and move them, transport them to a higher level of service. So if somebody most of these categories are for folks who need a higher level of service, so instead of turning them loose in the street, we're going to get them to that higher level of service.
Speaker 11: And will a police officer stay there until you do that triage?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll stay there. The plan is. They'll stay there, too. We do, too. Indeed. Until we do that initial triage.
Speaker 11: Okay. And so that any in any other unplanned discharge like that, the security officer will escort that that that patient, their client to the bus driver to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's correct. And that would only be for unplanned discharges or for people who did not need to be placed on a hold, weren't dangerous, but still wanted to leave. We'd make sure they got out of the neighborhood with the safety officer.
Speaker 11: Well, safety and security has been, you know, a big issue. And you've heard it tonight. It's been a big concern of mine. And so I just want to make sure you've tightened up all that security so there won't be any patients released to go into the community that's not unescorted or you'll be able to manage that.
Speaker 2: Yes. For people for unplanned discharges. We know that in the 30 day program, we'll have lots of people that we want to leave the program to go look for housing. Part of our plan, for instance, in the morning when kids are at bus stops, we're going to have staff go over there with them to make sure everything's calm. At the bus stop on federal, we're going to have two safety officers on staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Speaker 11: That's good. At 30 days, I should be more stabilized than obviously when they first come to you.
Speaker 2: So that's certainly our hope.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman new Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. My first question I think is from you, Mr. Flynn, which is, is there any plan to use this site for supervised injection?
Speaker 2: Not in the part of MGD and not in part of the city that I know of. And I have not heard anybody say anything to that effect, certainly not on the first floor and third floor that we'll be using. Absolutely no planning for any such thing.
Speaker 1: And Councilman Brooks, as someone who's been involved in this conversation, have you seen any proposal to use any site in this site that's being zoned today for that use?
Speaker 3: Councilman, thank you for the question. We have not even begin to look at location for sites. So it's absolutely ridiculous for us to even think about this being one of the sites that once it passes the state, we'll start a location conversation around May or June.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My other questions are for our city attorney, Kirsten Crawford. It's very tempting to want to have a conversation about the folks who will be staying in a portion of this site, because that's what many of the speakers have raised. And I guess I want to ask you, you've recently admonished us or warned us that we need to be talking about the criteria. So I just want to ask, are we allowed to base any form of the zoning decision on who will be occupying a portion of the site after it's owned? The short answer is no, and especially in the context of tonight's staff report, the criteria is in the staff report. The criteria depends on meeting whether there's plan support. What is actually going to happen on the site is not part of the criteria. And, you know, there's also the Federal Fair Housing Act, which would, you know, suggest that council ought to consider whether any of these comments would, you know, be discriminatory or appear discriminatory based on what the uses are. So I appreciate the question. It is a good one and I would encourage council members to tailor their questions to what is contained in the staff. Can you just clarify briefly, you mentioned the fair housing. What's the status that could be, you know, implicated in the conversation that's been happening tonight or the testimony we've been hearing about who the who will be on the site? Well, the the Fair Housing Act protects disabilities, mental health disabilities, mentally disabled, recovering alcoholics, drug addicts. So any status that would fit within one of those classes is protected by the Fair Housing Act. So it would be prohibited to make a decision about the zoning based on someone with one of those disabilities being a future resident. That's right. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. All right. We have a few people who are back in the queue. Councilman Lopez?
Speaker 10: Yeah. May I speak? Jean Granville, if you can come up.
Speaker 6: Hmm.
Speaker 10: As you know, I was not part of the good neighborhood agreement processes, kind of. I respect your space and your bargaining space there. Can you talk a little bit about the so you had you would sent an email to me asking me for a delay?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 10: Yes. What was the reason for the delay? To delay the rezoning? Because it was happening supposed to happen last month.
Speaker 1: Right. Are you talking about the first request? The first request? Yes. The first one was because we had not we did not have a Jeannie at that time on at our August 7th meeting after the city had delayed. I think the neighborhood to give the neighborhood time to kind of get used to the idea to find out more about and get some of the questions asked about the use. And I understand, you know, the Fair Housing Act, but just to understand it better, we had we had the vote and it was pretty clear to us that the city was determined to move forward despite some of our alternative uses. And it was really felt that it was in the best interest. And so in my conversation with the city and I'm using that collectively with with the team, you know, I said, why don't we at least start looking at a good neighbor agreement? Because people were very concerned. It was you know, people were very clear they were against it. And if we were going to move it at all, perhaps a good neighbor agreement might make a difference, too, to start addressing some of those concerns. Plus even give us a better idea of what was really planned in there. We had had a lot of reiterations at first. It was a lot of bad a homelessness. It really ended up to be a lot more about mental health crises. So our, our, our, our, our, our request was really because at the time we were scheduled in, I guess it was September, I think September 13th, we were scheduled to have the final hearing. We had just not even gotten back a response to our changes. We had gotten an offer from the agency, which is about three pages. We were pretty disappointed because there was a 27 page good neighbor agreement that had been done in Seattle for the model that this is based on. And we were kind of disappointed because there really wasn't very much substance in it. And so we were in the process of responding and we had not heard back except to hear that it would be another ten days beyond the 13th before they could even respond to us. So so we were we were just getting started really on the whole good neighbor agreement process.
Speaker 10: So we got that request. I was right on the reasons why. I mean, I think it was important to make sure that we had enough process. A lot of people come to these chambers and say, well, we don't. There was the process was flawed. Is not enough process. Do you feel that we've had enough process to this point to get to this point and enough community input, enough process?
Speaker 1: I think that we've done as good a job as we can do right now. I understand there's a few errors that you know will have to be rectified.
Speaker 10: On point those.
Speaker 1: Right. And even to the standpoint of including the Community Advisory Committee, in terms of determining the reporting, I don't think it was really an intent to exclude them. It was just that the Sun Valley Community Coalition had very specific concerns about that, that the reporting would be substantive. I think that we've done as good a job for right now as we can. I'm sure it's going to be a work in progress that hopefully with the community advisory group in place, we can further sift that out as we go.
Speaker 10: The Community Advisory Group, who all was that? I mean, you don't need any mentioned names, but was there enough community on the community advisory group?
Speaker 1: It was it was representative of really all segments of the community. We never have as many residents who are actually living. I think it was mentioned that there is a lot of fear, there's a lot of concern that, you know, if. They are anything other than, you know, grateful for the housing, which many of them are, that that might be held against them. But we did have involved in the process and beyond just the working group, also an executive committee that had residents on it, not nearly as many. We I have to say, we made an executive decision not to put this out in the community and raise the alarm because and try to get as many people down here to really voice their concerns, because we don't want to retraumatize people, many of whom have suffered some of these same instances. We also don't want to be defined, you know, as as a neighborhood in it, you know, one way or the other. We just want to become the neighborhood that we outlined, you know, in the Decatur federal plan that is really going to create additional affordable housing and opportunity for people who have not had that opportunity in the past. Okay.
Speaker 10: I appreciate that. So and you signed it. I saw Lisa saying I did.
Speaker 1: Yes. And she she's a resident as well. And she's also the vice president of the Sun Valley Community Coalition who had intended to be here to speak tonight but had an emergency at Denver Health with her daughter.
Speaker 10: The two errors, if I may ask questions about that, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Again, I just ask that you keep it to the rezoning and identify how that is relevant to the criteria. If we're going to dig into questions, if there are things about the good neighbor agreement that can be handled outside of our hearing here is really about the zoning criteria.
Speaker 10: Mr. President, this is a rezoning in my district, so I would like the opportunity to ask those questions. One, because in the Good Neighbor Agreement, the rezoning says 2929, West 10th Avenue, the good neighbor agreement says 2727.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 10: How do we go about fixing that? What's what's the correct one? And I think for the purpose of the rezoning, I think this is very important.
Speaker 1: Now, I know. And that was not I'm sorry. I apologize. The it it came to us as a PDF, the final copy, and it rests with the mediator at this point. So we'll get back with him to get that changed. I guess we could either initial it or just sign it if if mental health center is willing to reassign it again, as is with the changes.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I'll bring the other one up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Had two questions for council. So, Councilwoman Kennedy, you brought up the prior rezoning where we were the we re zoned to a base zone district from a pad on a walkway. But one of the comments I made at that point in time was that, you know, that could have been resolved by a variance rather than a wholesale rezoning. But can you can you can you that can you do that with uses? Can you get a variance on uses?
Speaker 1: That's a legal question, but I'll defer to Nate Lucero.
Speaker 3: Okay. Good evening, Members Council Services and city attorney. Councilman Espinosa, can you ask the question? I'm wondering if this party could have simply gone through the Board of Adjustments and requested a variance on on a use to allow this use on this in this beauty. You cannot request a variance in a pud. It would have to go through a rezoning process or a PD amendment. Okay. So. Right, it's a great. So the only way to amend the PD is through the redo the rezoning process. Correct. And then but then confirm that because this is going to to a cmcs five zoned district, the applicant, if it were to be denied today, the applicant could go in tomorrow and apply for a PUD. Correct? That's correct. Thank you. A different zone district would not be barred by the blackout period in the charter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just continue with a couple more questions that I had. And, Lisa, you won't be the one to help answer this. In the agreement that we have with them said, will they be a tenant or will they be an owner of the building? We're not selling the building. Correct. Okay. You could just say that on record. That would be helpful. And how long is that agreement in place?
Speaker 12: Oh, then I may ask Tyler to come up as well. So we haven't fully executed it yet because we needed this to move forward. But they would not be owners of the building. They would be it would be a service agreement. Like we have a number of our agreements in the city where the building is a part of that service agreement.
Speaker 9: Okay. And then I just wanted to ask Skye a question about how the mayor's executive order comes into play. I know with some contracts, we have put them out to bid after a certain period of time. How would this be looked at? And is there sort of a a designated length of time before the XO goes into effect? So, yes, the.
Speaker 1: Competitive selection policy that's incorporated into XO eight calls for contracts to be rebid every 3 to 5 years. So this contract has not been executed yet.
Speaker 12: I believe it will be coming to council as soon as that happens. So you will see that at that time. But I anticipate.
Speaker 1: It being in that 3 to 5 year time.
Speaker 12: Frame that's called for in the competitive selection policy.
Speaker 9: And that contract will be for renovation as well as operations. Or will those be separate?
Speaker 12: They'll be separate contracts. The contract with MH KD will just be to provide services.
Speaker 9: Okay. And I'm assuming that comes out of the Office of Behavioral Health Budget, correct?
Speaker 1: I believe so.
Speaker 12: We've moved those dollars around a couple of times, but Tyler's nodding at me. So, yes. Okay.
Speaker 9: Which is now housed at the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. Okay, great. Um, let's see. I think I just have one last question, and that was tied into this question about the cost. So I think I'm done. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman.
Speaker 11: Real quick question, Kirsten, just a question about the public safety and public health, safety and welfare criteria. I was asking a lot of questions about the safe management of clients and the triaging of that facility. And I was thinking that that fit into that category as a criteria for a safe. I'm worried about the safety of what's going to happen with the facility. And so and I see that in the criteria. Is that not correct? And that was my question. Was that in line with that?
Speaker 1: So Kirsten, cover Legislative Council. The Public Health, Safety and welfare criteria is a very broad criteria and a lot of things do arguably fit within that criteria. But the problem with that being raised with respect to the uses on the site is that you're you're approving the rezoning of a use, but not the exact thing that will go into the building, although we are talking about that tonight. So while there's plans for something that's not absolutely 100% definitive at this point in time, so in my opinion, it's while I think it's okay to ask the question, I don't think it should be the basis of, you know, the approval or the not approval of the rezoning.
Speaker 11: It seems like public welfare is a very concern for that neighborhood, you know, with those type of patients being treated there. So it seemed like it fit very much in line with with the criteria to me. I can understand the difference. But but, you know, I'll just let it go. That.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, councilman. New seeing no other questions. The public hearing for council bill 1013 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to thank everybody for coming tonight to the hearing and also thank you to the community and all parties that are part of this rezoning. Thank you for your work. Thank you for your due diligence. Thank you for the questions. And thank you for your participation. I think, you know, when I was first contacted about this zoning application, I thought to myself, I thought one the Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan, the vision for Sun Valley and how this fits in. And a lot of that was the question of, well, this is a historically a very disenfranchized community from design. Two, two now. And here's another use like this in the West Side. And I think to myself, how why aren't we doing this more in other areas, right? Why aren't these uses existing in other areas? Why is it just downtown District nine, District three, in some of these areas? And I have to think about this. Right. And I have to think about the uses and how they you know, we can't just look at the city in terms of these boundaries within our own council districts , but our how are we making sure that we are doing our part no matter what zip code we live in? And how does it make how do we make sure that the city understands that that's also important to. That it's not just in certain corners of the city. However, I'm very familiar with the Family Crisis Center because it has been empty for quite a while, has been underutilized for quite a while. When we started taking in when, when, when, when we had the refugee crisis, a lot of the young people that are unaccompanied coming to this country, one of the first things we did was ask at the Family Crisis Center, be considered for federal dollars to be able to do that much to so many people's disdain and controversy. Oh, my God. They were empty. We pushed for that. We didn't get those dollars from the federal government. It wasn't chose as a site. Yeah. So it remained empty. It's one thing to have. To just have units that are not connected to supportive services, that are not going to help somebody get out of poverty, that are not going to help treat them, treat some of the trauma that they've experienced. That's not the solution center. The solution center is going to be doing that. It's going to be focused on making sure that folks who have expected that are experiencing homelessness or have experienced homelessness combined with the trauma that that only services, the mental health services can help with. As provided. I think about the rezoning. You have two major or three major uses there. And what's being asked of us is to consider in this pardon every time. For those of you who are running for city council or have an interest in city council and what we do, rezoning is a huge part of it. And if you intend to occupy one of these seats, you got to understand Pewds and how detrimental they have been to the city and how restrictive they are and how it's the opposite of what we want to be able to see. If you want a planned zoned district, right? If you want a zone district that that's modern and that fulfills the vision of Sun Valley. It's not a pudi. The West Side. And this area has a lot of need for health services, even though we built a brand new Denver health clinic. Federico Pena Southwest Denver Health Clinic. It is still one of the top needs in the area. I doubt that the Sam Sandoz West Side Health Clinic is going to go anywhere. I doubt that Denver Health is going to hightail it out. There are a lot of people who are still uninsured and still struggling and that and have that need. Denver Health is one of those and key parts to it. The Rich Castro building was a project of the city's and the bond a long time ago and a need and it's still there. That need is still there. Those are employees we are talking about. That's a human services center, though, one one of the most requested things of the city and the needs demonstrated needs in that part in our part of the city is for human services. I doubt highly that the city would hightail the rich Castro building out. But the one thing that remains empty is the Family Crisis Center. Right. So the PD is the one thing that's prohibiting us as a neighborhood and as a city from even doing anything in the future on. Any other future use. However ridiculous or sublime it could be, would be restricted by the PD. We'd have to come in these chambers and fix the beauty for all the other services and all the other suggestions that I think are awesome that can be used at a campus like this. Guess what you have to do. PWD won't let you do it. You have to come back in here and reason it and guess what you would have to rezone it to. This is the rezoning that is envisioned in the Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan. The same plan that I was asked by Mr. Casper and the Sun Valley Coalition to implement. I did a legislative rezoning to implement that. So the zone districts are what match in the plan? Way before Denver got hot again. So I want to make sure people understand the history there. Right. Safety is a big issue. And I want to go on record. This is a big issue. And as a young woman who was in this room, who I understand what her concerns are, even though there was only a few words at the microphone. You heard tonight in these chambers what the protocol is? Who's going to be here and who isn't? And even I have some thoughts about that. I may not agree with that. Addictions are hard. But you know what? In concerns for and out of respect for what's being discussed in the community and what they want to see to make sure that that those safety that that those safety boundaries are there. They're there. But we also have to remember that this this good neighbor agreement, that's why it was important for me to see this process is because that's the commitment you heard tonight, the commitment from the city, commitment from behavioral health for a mile from mh CDD on what the protocols are going to be sex offenders here. That's a big that was a big worry nobody's shooting up Phil Casper we're not sponsoring anything like that on site. That's a worry, right? People who are intoxicated or anything else that was right here that was just said on page three of the good neighbor agreement is that's not there. Right. So you can rest assured of those issues. But understand at the same time that these are also human beings that want to also lift themselves out of poverty. There are people who who have homes. And there are people who don't. You don't have to go far away. But across Federal Boulevard in my neighborhood, I know where there's some folks who are homeless previously and they're living out of a garage. Or the living. They're renting a room. They know pod or good neighbor. Agreement for that on my block. It's none of my business. As long as they have a roof over their head. We cannot follow somebody because they're homeless. They don't have to be escorted to a bus stop because they're homeless. They're not in jail. They're not on probation. They're just being they need help. And as a community, I understand I understand the worries. That's the stereotype that we've been programed in thinking. But that's not fair. So when I hear testimony, I want you to understand that the use is a valid use. The rezoning under the conditions that we are allowed are valid conditions. Because the good neighbor agreement and because of the process, I think that helps address those issues. Not every rezoning has one. And I also want to make sure that the city understands that this is something that we expect. You don't short change a zip code or neighborhood or the process. That's why on council I asked when Steve Charbonneau asked, Hey, no, we're almost there. Please consider the delay, even though it was unpopular here on this dais. That's why. Because whether you have a good neighbor agreement on the east side of Denver or whatever neighborhood it is, it should have the same weight and the same respect on our end. Right. So and so I want to I want to just put that out there. The neighborhood plan. Right. Was only adopted five years ago. It calls for the zoning type of cause with the higher density. I hope that people see this and the city look at this as an opportunity to modernize the campus, to make this a campus, a real campus that addresses that. That helps whether you're looking for health care, you're looking for housing or you're looking for help. Right. That this campus addressed that and becomes a modernized campus, that it connects to the rest of the neighborhood and not turn its back on the neighborhood. Right. Physically and figuratively. I want to thank you, mental health center of Denver, for coming to the table and making sure that their space for this, for listening to this and for signing on to a good neighbor agreement with these residents. The Sun Valley Community Coalition, y'all are one of the most organized group of folks in the community in this city. And I appreciate that energy. So so knowing that you are still part of this, you are part of the agreement, DACA, for being at the table and giving us the information we need and then finding a solution to help mediate the process. Steve Charbonneau is a good facilitator, from what I hear. So I wanted to put that out there. The Sun Valley Youth Coalition, you are the youth center. I think it's absolutely awesome that the youth are involved. However, I want to make sure that they understand the provisions of these good this good neighbor agreement and they understand there's nothing to be afraid of. But we respect on a HD CD so that you all make sure that that's the case. The last thing I want to say. Well, I just want I want to leave this I want to leave this these these comments. And I do see this as something that that should not just move forward, but be approved tonight. I heard the testimony here after I got written testimony. Not in this zip code. Not too many people are far away from actually being considered clients of these services. Let's just be honest. There are a lot of people who are just a breath away from being homeless. And this is something that I believe in our district and our neighborhood very, very compassionate. Whether it was Barnum, whether it was the West End Flats, which are throughout our neighborhood or even this or even in southwest Denver. The issue is never whether this is a youth that we support or not. The issue is never whether this is services that we support or not, it's doing it the right way. So I want to thank you, thank the city, the administration and my city for helping for committing to doing this the right way. So with that, I do support this moving forward. Yeah. That's all. Oh, yeah. The one little quip I had was that I think people in this neighborhood are much more danger crossing and federal than any kind of use like this.
Speaker 0: But thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: First off, I want to apologize to my colleague for disagreeing with him again in this area. But I'll explain why. And but before I even get into my explanation, I do want to make it very clear that I don't take any issue with the center and what it does and what it's intended to provide and what it's aspiring for. But I want them to get to. Yes, in an appropriate way. So I don't fear so. First Deputy. Well, you know, pwds are constrained by design while they are annoying to administer by staff. They provide certainty and predictability, usually wrought by a collaboration of landowners working with community. And we need to understand that that their that they have their usefulness. You know, they don't need to only be gone to on a regular basis, but there are times when it becomes appropriate. So I'm going to cite our own zoning code here. This is section 90 611, item B, that section 96 one is planned unit development district D B is unique in extraordinary circumstances that justify the use of a D district include but are not limited to the following. And then there are four situations, but they're not limited to those four. But let's go to item three, which is where a development site is subject to an existing PD, which this is, and rezoning to a new PD district will bring the site closer to conformance with current zoning regulations and adopted plans. That's when it's appropriate to use a PWD or in so. So if we're changing a use that would that is allowed in a a in a current zone district. I would say that making an amendment via PD is getting us closer to conformance with current zoning regulations and adopted plans. So I do think that whether we use the specific mention of PD of that of that rule, which is 9611, B three, or we use the broader thing which is but are not limited to I do think that we could have used a PD to sort of address what are my actual concerns with this zoned district. I mean, as with this MAP amendment, the existing FAA are on the on the agenda is consistent with adopted plans unless it goes north of 12. With no one said we want to curtail development height here to be consistent with adopted plans. But there are a whole bunch of district standards in the CMCs five that radically alter that radically alter what can be done on this site today that are restricted by the PD. And I don't think it would have been appropriate to I mean, I do think it would have been appropriate to amend the PD areas concurrent with a C know and do a concurrent rezoning application for a CM five for the parcel that is adjacent to the collector street. You know, because that zone district, the CM x five is appropriate for the collector street and it is consistent with these maps but not consistent, I mean, but not appropriate for a major arterial such as federal. And so, you know, the the real, you know, going that approach, doing an amended PD and either just adding this use to that portion of the site or going with a concurrent rezoning and parcel out. I mean, porting, you know, amend the map, the PD area so that you can create this rezoning opportunity. The zone lot would preserve the negotiated outcomes and the other 83% of the PD area. That is significant. One, we're rezoning 16 to 18% of the land area. I mean, we're rezoning the entirety of the area. Would I in a way that I I'd you know I see based on the criteria is being inappropriate to address a concern that involves one building on a portion of a 16% of the site area itself. So granted, doing so wouldn't address some of the youth concerns presented here tonight, but it would address the failures to meet the rezoning criteria. Among them are the justifying circumstances and consistency with district purpose and intent. Rezoning of the entire PD to address a use issue on a portion is creating more problems than it solves and a lot of potential unintended consequences. So I do think that there is a way forward. I asked that question specifically on whether an applicant could immediately turn around and go to a party. Because I do think that we can address this without essentially creating a potential long term unintended consequence on the balance of the property there. And you don't have to look very far. I get to go by 44th and Tennyson in my neighborhood. And what a base zone, district C, you know, CMS five or in that situation can do once you open up the entirety of our form. It can be anything. But with this put in place that was negotiated. We have predictability and there's nothing wrong with predictability. This community is probably reeling by the fact that it has been an unpredictable place for a long period of time. That is why it has welcomed so much intervention by CPD with multiple plans. And while it's welcoming the Eco District and there are many, many things that are intended to capture a very vibrant and holistic community. And I think this piece actually can and should be part of it. But rezoning in this way, that parcel for this reason, is, is to overlook the a whole lot of the criteria I named, too, I actually could touch on for. Fairly easily. Thanks.
Speaker 0: I think Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I while I am concerned about the circumstances here, where we are rezoning the entire area because of a desire to change the use on a smaller portion of it that doesn't conform to the PD. I think it has been demonstrated that the application does meet all five criteria. I want to I just want to remind people, including my my neighbor to the north, Councilman Lopez, that we do have facilities all around the city in Council District two. In fact, we have we are the home of the single largest substance abuse treatment center and the largest mental health facility in the city in county of Denver, both of them on the Fort Logan campus, both of which routinely accept criminal referrals from the Department of Corrections, from probation, from community corrections, and especially at Fort Logan Mental Health Institute. The state may soon restricted and not allow civil referrals because of the backlog in state courts that have a need for access for quicker determinations of of competency. We also in Council District two, we are the home to at least that I can think of three long term residential facilities operated by M.H. CD and we are in the happy to see the Good Neighbor agreement negotiated here because we are in the midst of renegotiating the Good Neighbor Agreement on the Sanderson Apartments to address some of the issues that have occurred there. So I'm very happy to see the framework that Sun Valley has set up, and maybe that will help us serve as help serve as a model for us to to finalize our agreement, I believe, next month. So I just wanted to point out that we do have, I think, at Fort Logan alone between the arts program run by SIU School of Psychiatry and the State Mental Health Institute, at least six times the number of long term residential beds that this solution center will have at your site. So I am supportive of this rezoning, and I think that the criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Lopez. Oh, Councilman or take up. I'm going to go to you first since you haven't had a chance to present Councilman Woman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I've sort of vacillated back and forth on on where I'm going to land on this issue just because of some of the history of kind of where we've gone with where we're going to serve folks in our city. And this is a process led by the city, not a process led by a developer, which is normally the case. And there should be extra over communication as well as extra work that we as a city do when we're going in the community. And we should not be treating low income communities any different than we would any other part of the city in terms of approach expectations around, you know, early notification around how we engage community. I am a little concerned about and I didn't ask the question about whether or not Sun Valley Community Coalition is in fact a legal entity. I don't know that that matters or not. I think the commitment is there from limited to to do what is being what has been sort of agreed upon between the community and image CD. I am happy that we will look at the opportunity in the future for the executive order to be implemented and that we're not trying to sell the property. The city will continue to own that. I think all of that just ensures that we continue to have community engagement in that part of the process so that as the project would move forward, that is an expectation of the community that it it's not just going to operate in perpetuity. We saw this with a whole different operator in our city that I won't get into the details of, but there is some importance in in just continuing to function in that way. I currently serve on the Crime Prevention and Control Commission, and I'm serving on a body that's looking at a a rewrite of our group living ordinance . And there is absolutely a need and a. And four different housing models that serve the group housing needs of people that cover a variety of categories. So there's absolutely a need. I'm not happy that we have said we're going to no longer look at the site that we were going to put homeless men in. Folks that are chronically mentally ill. But now we're going to take kids who come in in the evenings or, you know, UN emergencies, and we're going to put them at that building. So how is it not good for men, but yet it's going to be good for children. I'm assuming we're going to spend the money that is needed to do the environmental abatement on that building. I don't know what those costs are yet. I'm sure we'll see that one brought before us at some point in time. But again, this is where the details matter and how we look at these things and how we make decisions around, you know, what we're being asked to do. We're being asked to rezone this. But for me, all those details matter. Because there is such a great need for this type of housing. I'm leaning towards supporting this, but I'm not happy with the fact that we could have used that in a way that building in a way to better serve the community. And I am concerned about the gap period about where children will go while this building is being renovated, while the other building is being renovated, so that we, in fact, have a place that that screening can be done if we have to keep a kid overnight because they're brought in three in the morning because of whatever situation . I worked at Human Services, got a chance to see, you know, some of the situations that our caseworkers have to deal with on on a regular basis. And we need to make sure that gap is closed so that there is a place for our children that are picked up in the city of Denver, can go and be safe while we're working towards getting them connected to, you know, whatever services might be available. I know we have a lot of forgetting the right word, families that take these children in because we no longer have the crisis center playing that role in our city. So I'm going to just stop at that. But I think in the future, as a city, we can do and should be doing a better job in how we get out front and communicating with our with our neighbors about the details and not have people having to. To call and ask questions because they're hearing rumors about something going on in a building in their neighborhood that wasn't completely shared upfront with with the neighbors about how this was coming about. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, you have already been up to express your thoughts on where you are on this. I see you back in the queue. I will ask you to keep it as short and concise as possible to add to what you've already said. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. President, let me remind the council. That in 2017 we did rezoning this party. And as for the Denver health or the Denver Denver Indian Health Services, they could not deliver services. They could not even operate the Denver Indian Health Family Health Services, including dental, health care for folks, especially for native folks in this city. They could not open up or operate because of the Pudi. We reasoned it. It was unanimous. And I went through. So it's all about the youth on this one.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Lopez. Seeing no other comments, I will just add my thanks to everyone for being here, for sticking it out, for coming down and sharing your opinion to all the work that you did with the Good Neighbor Agreement to staff for putting together all of this work. You know, there are a lot of things that we talk about and a lot more that this council would love to talk more about that unfortunately, don't fall under the charge that we have on the criteria. And I just wanted to point to the staff report, and I think you did a great job articulating how this met the legal criteria. And for that reason, I will be voting yes tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1013.
Speaker 10: LOPEZ All right.
Speaker 6: BLACK Hi. Brooks, I. ESPINOSA No.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 6: Flynn, I. Herndon High Cashman can reach Lopez. I started with.
Speaker 10: I'm going to do it again.
Speaker 6: Ortega.
Speaker 9: A reluctant tie.
Speaker 6: Assessment. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 6: 11 times when they.
Speaker 0: Will have a noise when they come to Bill 1013 has passed. Councilman. Will you please put Council Bill 1381 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2929 W. 10th Ave. in Sun Valley.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2929 West 10th Avenue from PUD #487 to C-MX-5 (planned development to commercial, mixed-use) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01142019_18-1381
|
Speaker 0: Will have a noise when they come to Bill 1013 has passed. Councilman. Will you please put Council Bill 1381 on the floor?
Speaker 11: I move the council bill 18 1381 be placed by final consideration to pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1381 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Council. My name is Eugene Howard with Community Planning and Development. I will be bringing forward the application for 1845 West 46th Avenue and thank you for the opportunity. So this request for rezoning is in Council District one in the Sunnyside neighborhood. The subject parcel is located on the northwest excuse me, northeast corner of Shoshone Street and West 46th Avenue. The property itself has approximately 7460 square feet. The request before us is to change the zoning from the Urban Neighborhood Context Single Unit to the Urban Neighborhood Context to unit. I do have the applicant here present. Should there be any questions at the conclusion of this presentation? And the purpose stated in the application was so that the zoning of this parcel is in better alignment with its adjacent neighbors. So looking at the existing zoning currently in place, the subject site, as I mentioned, is a single unit zoned district. It is adjacent to one other single unit parcel. However, the remaining for the most part, the majority of the remaining properties on the site do already have the two unit classification. Looking at the land uses. This parcel is currently being used as a single family structure on a block predominantly used for single family, single unit residential. We do have a couple of duplexes in the vicinity as well as some other multi-unit uses nearby. The Urban Neighborhood Zone District that is being requested does allow for the urban house form, the duplex residential form as well as the tandem house. So those three are the building forms allowed in the two unit zoned district. The C designates the minimum square footage for a zone lot. That being 5500 square feet. So the subject property is in excess of that requirement. Looking at the context, the upper right image is of the existing property. The lower image is the look across 46th Avenue to the south. Again, we see some other residential uses there. Expanding our view out from the subject site. Starting at the upper left, we see some level of redevelopment occurring in the general area. Everything from two units over to larger single family uses on North Korea, this street. That lower image is of other, larger single family residential construction that's relatively new. And then the last image on the lower left shows us some townhome, another duplex development that's happened in the nearby area. Looking at the process, the applicants did provide the city and staff with a completed application in August of 2018. It was appropriately posted for our planning board hearing, which took place in mid November. Planning Board did unanimously vote to proceed or move this application forward to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which heard this case on December 4th. We also received a unanimous vote to proceed to this public hearing. We go the registered neighborhood organizations that were notified. There are the four listed here on the screen. As of this evening, prior to this hearing, we had not received any formal comment from any of the four resident or registered neighborhood organizations. Moving forward to the criteria, as you heard in the previous case, there are five areas that staff reviews related to any rezoning that comes before us. So starting with consistency with adopted plans, there are three plans in place for this subject site, the Denver Comprehensive Plan from 2000, Blueprint, Denver from 2002, and then the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan , which was originally approved in 1992. Moving forward, looking at the comprehensive plan, staff has found that this application satisfies the three strategies listed in the comprehensive plan, the first being environmental sustainability. Should this site redevelop and redevelop using the two unit zoned district designation, it would be a way of promoting infill development and making good use of land and resources and reducing continuous sprawl. Looking at the Landrieu strategy around infill development. So this again speaks to that and also would be consistent with the surrounding zoning that exists on three sides of this parcel and then the neighborhood strategy where landowners are encouraged to invest in their properties. So this could potentially be a reinvestment in the Sunnyside neighborhood should the site redevelop at some point in the future. Blueprint Denver sees this or calls this area a single family residential area. In an area of stability. Staff finds that this request is consistent as the single family residential would allow for a variety of uses, including two unit residential. The property is already adjacent to two unit zoning on three sides. As I mentioned, areas of stability are do allow for a certain level of redevelopment and new development. And the subject property is located on a residential collector street, which is really meant to help connect residents to amenities that exist in the neighborhood. And in this particular area. We have an unnamed park, we have a middle school, we have a U.S. Postal Service location. We have a variety of commercial, retail and industrial uses which could allow for employment opportunities for residents within the neighborhood moving forward. Looking to the Sunnyside plan, while it is one of our older plans, there were two elements within it that we found in support of this application and that being a call for harmony, if you will, and architectural diversity. And should this site redevelop, it could add to that fabric, that mix of residential uses that the Sunnyside plan would suggest, and also keeping the residential character of the surrounding area of that block would further the goal of maintaining and stabilizing the residential character that's in place. Moving on to our other review criteria. Criterion two we feel it's been met as the urban neighborhood to unit zoned district would result in the uniform application of that zoning. Given that this property is surrounded by that zone district already, we believe that it would further the public health, safety and welfare by having this location should it redevelop be in close proximity to amenities that have been mentioned. Again, the park open space, a middle school, the commercial, retail and industrial areas which could lend themselves to employment for anyone living there as well as our building form standards. Looking at criteria number four, for a to be particular, we feel that this has been satisfied because the area has changed and is in the process of changing with the redevelopment that's already occurred. And then criterion five Consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent. Given that the applicant is not looking to change the neighborhood classification of urban neighborhood, it would be consistent with that as well as the existing zoning on three sites. So given that review and given the criteria, staff would like to ask you all to consider approval of this application. We feel that it has satisfied all the criteria required for a rezoning. So thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have six individuals picked up this week, signed up to speak this evening. So if you have signed up for this one, if we could if you could come down to this front bench so that we can get through everyone in a timely fashion, that would be appreciated. First up is Ray Williams, followed by a David River. Ray Williams. I might have mistakenly done that. I was just putting.
Speaker 8: Down to be here for.
Speaker 10: Answering questions as the property.
Speaker 0: Owner. That's right. If you could just introduce yourself and then we'll know that you're available.
Speaker 10: Ray Williams and the property owner at 1845 West 46th Avenue. And I'm available for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. David Rubel Let's see that he's still here. Jerry Burton. All right, Chairman CQ.
Speaker 2: Term of so-called next mayor is due to come in December 2019. Oh. This one. Qualifies all the criteria. That's just true. And to allow larger developments the opportunity to make money on rezoning and not let smaller folks do the same thing is not only immoral and unjust is just downright hypocrisy. How are you going to tell him he can't do it and you gave it to folks who's doing 200,000 units? Changing zoning. You can't do it. You can't do it. And see that sets the city up for lawsuits. Only problem is, the small folks like him ain't got no money to give no attorney more money than what the property is worth to go get it. So you got to be fair. You got to be fair. And yet this is exactly what happens to poor people because it's a rental unit. He doesn't live in that. It's a property profit producing thing, which is legal to do under the cab system in America. There's nothing wrong making no money or no property. But when you do it this way, what does that do for poor people who got to rent? Who got to pay the market value. And the market value goes up on this kind of rezoning because look where the property is located. Major transit, that's a selling point. Got curb appeal. Hey, we can really increase the property value of that property with a zoning change to hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions in the future. If this thing keeps going the way it's going in terms of rent is too high and we can't afford it, we can't afford it, and we can't make him do that or accept Section eight to do that. So what do we do? But we got to move. We got to get out of City County, Denver, out of the city of high income. And you tell me you're trying to create a city of diversity and you're running folks out who are poor just aren't owning changes like this because you increased the market value. You pushed the profit over the people. And then you end up with a city with nothing but both looking like Boulder. And then you look up there. Self-interest. Not one of your poor. Not one we don't know. Could take one seat and no policy position in this city representing poor people who are actually poor. Talk to me about this mess.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Mariana Thompson.
Speaker 6: Short and sweet, ugly books once again. Come on, people. What about subsidized housing? We got 23,000 children in Denver. School system unhoused. If that doesn't hurt you as a parent, that's one thing. My children never had to suffer, and I'm now advocating day after day to get in surveys from people. Ugly boxes. Gentrification? No.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. We have.
Speaker 14: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Perez. I'm representing for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. We are definitely against this rezoning. Like was previously stated. We have a housing crisis in the city. This is not affordable by any means. This rezoning change for this property that is in question, this whole neighborhood, this whole part of the city, which is in Espinosa's district, by the way, has been rapidly gentrified. The original natives of the area cannot afford to live in the neighborhood anymore. They are being displaced and they are being put out. And this seems to be a pattern in all areas of the city, but it's more obvious. In this district, in this neighborhood, who are asking you to vote no on this. We have a housing crisis. This is not answering nor dealing with the crisis at hand. This is just putting more money into people's pockets that already have money. This is just enriching those that already have the means to enrich themselves. And it is completely neglecting those that are poor and downtrodden and homeless. And the city has made, in an effort to completely put them out of sight, out of mind, to increase tourism and make this the city, the world class city that neglects homeless people, that neglects people of color, specifically black and brown people. And criminalizes the homeless on a basis of just being homeless. So, yeah, everybody, listen, I'm asking you to vote no on this and sweep council like they sweep the homeless every night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I got a question.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa? Yeah.
Speaker 3: So, Ray, can I ask you a few questions? And I wasn't expecting the comments that we got, so don't. You're going to read into that? Don't freak out by the questions. So how long have you resided in this property?
Speaker 8: I have not resided in the property. I've owned it since 2005 when it was a foreclosure and I bought it out of foreclosure.
Speaker 3: So no one was living there at the time. It was a hot home. But it is. Is it currently occupied?
Speaker 10: It's been rented.
Speaker 14: I had to rehab the property from despair.
Speaker 8: And it's been rented.
Speaker 10: Since that time.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no other questions. A public hearing for Council Bill 1381 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: So. Jesse. Thank you. You said what I've been saying in so many forums, so many times up here, exactly what still is going on in this district. And I'm upset. Right. Because the you know, when I first said, hey, we have a gentrification problem in northwest Denver and we need to do something. And the only person that really can wield that sort of power in a strong mayor government sort of overnight. Is the administration. And shortly thereafter, about a year, even a vulnerability study had been done in 2015. They took a year for us to see it and then it was mapped out what we already knew was going on in northwest Denver and then still no action in it was told that it was a market problem and that the city couldn't do anything about it. And then in Coffy happened. And you bet, that brought a whole bunch of attention to the issue. And even though we had built an office of hope. We killed Hope and replaced it with a nest. And that the good news is, is NEST is focused on gentrification matters. But guess what? Where it's not focused on northwest Denver. You know, the priorities are in the northeast section, in the southwest section of the city. But it is still happening in northwest Denver. So I don't fault it is that there is a problem in the in the mean it is a opportunity the market forces are what drive this thing. But they are come when this happens and I don't fault the applicant in any way, shape or form. With this happens, they're making a voluntary request for the city to grant them additional entitlement, and they can make an easy case. But when they're coming in and asking, why not put strings on that? Councilman New came into office with a proposal a binder three inches thick about about infrastructure fees because when you build these things, you have impact that we all bear the cost of. And you can do that. There's a way to to put a certain surcharge in this process. And I'm using the wrong legal terms, but we all get it. And so it's not the problem, the applicant that we have not put the tools in place to do this. So you're not going to see me opposing this rezoning in any way, shape or form. And in fact, if you watched Luti committee, you're wondering sitting there, why aren't we doing both proposals at the same time? So at least that other property owner has the ability to get on entitlement that some other savvy developer is going to eyeball at some point and go, Look, there's a donut hole there. Maybe I can buy this property out for what its existing entitlement is. Will pay my less than thousand dollars to file a mean to do an application and and be able to double the amount of housing that I can sell there. Because it's when you have a parcel this big 7000 square feet, you could cover it with about a 9000 square foot home. Good luck selling that. As desirable as my district is, $3 million home is hard thing to sell. But two $1.5 million homes. Doable. That's crazy. Because in 2005, this was a foreclosure and that was a tough area to bank on. And a lot of people who didn't have a lot of means were living there. And a lot of those people who were renting and again you're not you're not this were had their property sold out underneath them and a lot of people when the market finally hit and it's hit over here. If you went over there when I started my time in office, 46 did not have a single new build on it. On this side of town. On the east side of town. You. Now there are in the tens of new units on that street between 40 tiona and pacos and that's the market. It is forcing people out of viable, affordable homes and being replaced with four or five. And who knows what the market is these days? And we. Could do something about it. We should do something about it. And we have not. Part of the reason why I announced that I was not going to run for reelection because I found that, like ballot measures. Sometimes you can move this body better as a constituent outside on the other side of the dais than you can on this side of the desk. And I bet you would be a partner with me on that because he bought this area when it was vulnerable. And the project right across the street houses a lot of subsidized Section eight units, but it's a great project. And this will be a great neighborhood, but it would be a greater neighborhood if we could somehow capture this wealth and this prosperity, but not displace people in the process. And we need to build those tools. So I use this to get on my my stump speech, but it does meet all the criteria, just like all the surrounding properties do. It does make sense. I just encourage the developer to build something that is sensitive to the public realm, has good quality, character, durability, and will last as long as many generations as is the housing stock has in that neighborhood today. And so with that, I'll be supporting the rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. As for noticing the other comments, I'll just add thank you to everybody who stuck with us this late into the evening. And again, thank you to staff for great presentation and for articulating the staff report why how this met all the legal criteria. And for that reason, I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Espinosa by Black Eye Brooks. Flynn.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: Herndon. Cashman.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 6: Can you. Lopez. All right. New or Ortega y assessment. Tonight.
Speaker 0: Get to me.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. All right, Madam Secretary, please close the building, announce results.
Speaker 6: Lebanese.
Speaker 0: Lebanese calls about 1381 has passed. On Monday, February 11th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1477, changing the zoning classification for 1709 and 1717 Washington Street in North Capitol Hill. Any protest against Council Bill 1477 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, February 4th, 2019.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1845 W 46th Avenue in Sunnyside.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-TU-C (urban, single-unit to urban, two-unit), located at 1845 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-4-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1463
|
Speaker 0: 12 nis one abstention. Councilor Bill 1530 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Brooks, if you want to go ahead with your comment on 1463.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. This contract is A and a, B, C, National Western Center, IGA. And many folks have heard me talk about the the Doug Gagne interceptor and this. Doug, any interceptor is a drainage project except the drainage pipe is out on land and this pipe is just going right right next to the river. And so part of what we talked about into C in the National Western Center is river revitalization. And this has been something that the community has wanted for a long time. This has been something that we've been asking for for a long time. And I just wanted to highlight it and actually bring up Gretchen Holloway and also whoever wants to come up from NWC. But Brad Dotson, I know we've talked about it as well to come up and just share a little about what we're doing here. And I think we have some of our partners here to to talk as well. So.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Members of city council. I'm Gretchen Haller. I'm the executive director of the mayor's office of the National Western Center. I will speak for just a moment mostly to introduce Micky Conway, who is here with me. Also Jim McQueary, who's in the audience both from Metro Wastewater. Mickey is the district manager and a huge partner in this, as is Jim as the chief innovation officer. And what this bill in front of you tonight allows is really the opening of the river at the national western campus for use. So there is a dual wastewater pipe structure there. This agreement is one of the most significant partnerships that we have made on this campus, and it would not be possible without the creativity and innovation from the Metro Wastewater folks to provide the funding, the resources, the heat from those pipes. It both moves the pipes off the river, provides heat to allow us to bring forward energy to our campus. It also provides a bio filter that the community has been asking for to help reduce some of the odor from the pipe. So it is a win win win on this bill. And I cannot thank our partners at Metro Wastewater enough. And Mickey Conway.
Speaker 4: Thank you, gretchen. Mr. president, members of the council, i appreciate.
Speaker 1: You having us here. For those who don't know who Metro Wastewater is, we are your wastewater treatment provider here in the metro area. We have 22 member municipalities who make comprise the district and we're a regional entity. Denver is our largest member. Ten of our board members are from Denver and our newest board member, Councilwoman Sussman, will be joining us at our next board meetings. We're really excited about that. This has been a really innovative opportunity.
Speaker 4: Rich process.
Speaker 1: We found a win win for for the NWC, for Denver and for for the district. And so we're able to move this infrastructure, improve it, work on odor and as Gretchen talked about, allow for access to heat to take heat out of the sewers, which can can heat large areas of the natural western center and also lowers the temperature of the effluent that we put back into the Platte River, which is good for river ecology. So I really appreciate Denver and National Western's.
Speaker 4: Willingness to work with us on this, and I appreciate our time with the council tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilman Brooks, anything else or you.
Speaker 6: Know, I just think this is another great example of a great partnership and how it works for the people and of the people for the city and county of Denver. So thank you so much for your partnership. This is a $10 million project getting done in our neighborhoods to reactivate an incredible river. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Is there somebody from Public Works that can answer a question on this? Oh, sorry. I can try. So there's this. It just so happens that this comes up relative to a conversation I was just having about certain facets of the IGA and the timeline of delivery. Is this on time? Was there a anticipated date when this would be, I guess, acted on in a how are we relative to that date in the IGA, if there was one.
Speaker 1: Sorry.
Speaker 2: We this is one of the infrastructure components that we had hoped to deliver. We have sequenced it within our horizontal construction program so that it aligns with the construction of the rest of the statewide infrastructure. And we are also looking to it as a potential feasible component for future phases of development. So within all of the anticipated construction, it does fit within our timeline.
Speaker 12: So it within the NWC timeline or within Seed's timeline or within the IGA timeline.
Speaker 2: So the IGA timeline corresponds to the construction schedule that we have for the campus. This really does not have an interface with Seedat at all.
Speaker 12: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Brooks, thanks for calling this out. There are a few things I'm really excited about tonight, and this is one of them. When I remember when I was at Greenway Foundation and the first rendering came out of this area and what was possible because this seemed like an impossible task to get this buried, it presented a six foot tall sewage pipe that would have prevented people from accessing the river as an opportunity for art and a mural. And I remember I was I was almost passed out from that one. So it's exciting to see. I really appreciate Brad, Gretchen and everybody, all the hard work that went into this because this is this is absolutely the right thing to do. And I know it wasn't easy. And so to get here is very exciting. So thank you for calling it out. Councilman Brooks, you. Thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead with your comment?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District for relocation of the Delgany Interceptor Facilities.
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (District) for $8,689,506 in District funds and $1,735,762 in city funds for a total agreement amount of $10,425,268 to replace the existing Delgany Interceptor sanitary sewer system from the right of way for Interstate 70 on the south end of the National Western Center (NWC) to the existing siphon inlet structure on the north end of the NWC, in Council District 9 (20184618). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-22-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-11-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1507
|
Speaker 0: So thank you for calling it out. Councilman Brooks, you. Thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 12: I will. So thank you. Also, I wanted to say, as I sort of I'm glad I'm wearing a hat today because I feel like I'm a bit of a writer. Oh, you bet. The NWC people are here because when? Because I got to watch my colleagues, Robin, Robyn and and Stacey Gilmore sort of really ride herd on on the administration and trying to make sure that this this these measures, these tweaks, these much needed tweaks in this bill got done executed, and that the administration went further than they wanted to go and kept testing that comfort zone and making the case on why this was important and needed to be. And even sort of expressed concerns about this may not being enough, agreeing to figuring out how to monitor, take measurement, mean measure and then maybe improve the mean tweak the performance going forward. So all's I want to say is this is this bill is it expands the refund payment programs to elderly and disabled persons on property taxes. And it and it and it expands to homeowners and it does a number of things that it has been it's just been a great pleasure to watch both of my colleagues lead a whole group of very expert and capable people on their work group. And so it's just I just wanted to take a time to sort of think both Robin and Stacy, thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article XI (Refund Payments to Elderly or Disabled Persons) of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (Taxation and Miscellaneous Revenue).
Amends Article XI of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) relating to the Refund Payments to Elderly or Disabled Persons program to expand eligibility including to low-income homeowning families with children, citywide. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-19-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1508
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our streams and classroom? Can each go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you to my colleague for his kind words. Bill 1508 I'm proud to be a member of the out LGBTQ community, the first one to serve on this council. But I'm pretty humbled because I don't lead or speak for this community. I serve it. And the members of this community are most active in Denver from the LGBTQ commission, and many of them are here tonight. And this bill is the result of their proposal that this was important for us to tackle at the city, their ideas about the best way to do that, and then their work to work with the Human Rights and Community Partnership Department and other experts like one Colorado, to get what we needed. I just wanted to give a short summary of the longer comments that I offered last week, which is that societal expectations to be rigidly male or rigidly female or to love someone in a heterosexual relationship are powerful and sometimes reinforced with violence and threats in our society. If you know someone who's lesbian or gay or or who has transitioned from their gender that they were born or raised as then you know that the feelings that someone has about their gender and the person that they love comes from deep inside of them. It's as innate as as I was trying to explain this to my son and it's like being left handed or right handed society may expect everyone to be right handed, but the shame and the the embarrassment and the cajoling can't change you into someone else. It can't change you into a left handed person. Any more than conversion therapy can change you into someone who's straight. Or change your gender from what you feel on the inside. And so this bill tonight is about banning a practice that exemplifies and leverages shame to try to convince people that they can change who they are. It's a practice that's been well documented to be dangerous by dozens of medical organizations that are outlined for almost a half page in the bill. And today, we're going to protect our most vulnerable community members, minors, from this dangerous practice. And we're going to affirm the fact that they may need support because there is shame and rejection when society rejects individuals for who they are. But then we want to give them the support they need to work through that we don't want to use dangerous practices. So I'm proud to have been part of this bill as well with a straight ally. This council has passed many pro equity ordinances even without a majority, this LGBTQ. And so every day it's an honor to work with Councilman Clark and the other members of this council who never shy away from being strong advocates, even if it's not a life experience that they've all lived. So with that, I am proud to have this be part of our consent agenda without debate, but not without comment, because it's an important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to say thanks to the LGBTQ commission for elevating this conversation, for this body to bring this forward, and then Councilwoman can each for bringing this forward. I also want to express my appreciation to Representative Brianna Two-Tone for having brought a proclamation to us that we adopted. I want to say, like three months ago, raising this very issue, and it was passed unanimously among this body. And it's my understanding that you will be doing this at the state level, hopefully. So for for your efforts and for for, you know, bringing that out to us and being willing to come and testify when we brought it forward. I just want to say thank you also for for your work on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Lopez. And thank you to my colleague, Councilman Canete for bringing this forward in front of the city council and the mayor's office for their position on and just for our commission. Our commission is amazing in Denver. It's not just the commission for namesake, but it's a it's an activist commission. It's active and recommends policies and is a part of our public body and how you create policy.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much for your participation. Thank you for your leadership. You know, when this came to committee, I couldn't I.
Speaker 0: Couldn't believe that we had to explicitly banning what we do we do because we cannot.
Speaker 1: Allow people to be tortured into hating themselves, because that's what this this therapy is. It's not therapy. It's torture, plain and simple. It's cruel and inhumane. And we have to stand.
Speaker 0: Up to that. And so I'm glad that Denver can be included in those lists of cities that does not condone torture.
Speaker 1: In any way, shape or form. And so, you know, I'll say I said this in committee.
Speaker 0: And I'll say it again, you know, as a parent, it's my job.
Speaker 1: To make sure that my child is not brought up in.
Speaker 0: Chaos, to protect them from chaos.
Speaker 1: For them to be who they are and to love them for who they are. Right.
Speaker 0: And that goes with.
Speaker 1: Everybody in this world that's born.
Speaker 0: There to be loved for who they are, not to be tortured and to hating themselves. So thank you for for bringing this this forward. And I'm proud to be on this council to vote on this in this city.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, can you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. See no other comments. I'll just add one more round of thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for bringing forward the proclamation to Councilwoman Kane, each for being an awesome partner and leader on this. To the administration for keeping with this. After we thought where we were, we didn't know if we could find a route to tonight at the city level and to the city attorney's office for really putting in a lot of work to find us that route to the commission for all of your awesome work pushing the city and bringing these things forward. And, you know, I really liked Councilwoman Can to what you said. And so I'm going to say to you, I certainly don't speak for our LGBTQ community, but I'm very proud to represent that community tonight and to represent all the awesome allies to that community that we have in my district and across the city. I think that the two think two words that came up where this is going through tonight on consent. And we passed this as a proclamation unanimously. And I think that says a lot about Denver and how we are trying to do our best to support this community and make sure that we are the best representatives that we can be for our awesome people. So we we love you and I'm very excited to be here. The other thing I was really excited for tonight, so I'm excited to vote yes so that Madam Secretary or we're not going to vote because it's consent.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article IX of Chapter 28 of the Revised Municipal Code concerning “Prohibition of Conversion Therapy.”
Amends Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) by adding Article IX concerning the prohibition of conversion therapy for minors. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-19-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1346
|
Speaker 0: 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 mounted on the wall, you will see your time counting down speakers mostly 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. All right, Councilman Herndon, will you please put accountable 1346 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 hours, 1346 to be placed upon final consideration and due process. It has been.
Speaker 0: It's moved. And can I get a second? Second ID? The public hearing for counsel go. 1346 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening. Theresa Lucero with community planning and development. Let me pull up a PowerPoint and we'll get started. So this is an official map amendment to rezone properties to 19 to 20 1 to 20 3 to 20 5 to 20 7 to 35 and to 45. South Holly Street from Urban Multi-unit two and a half stories and urban single unit d ex to urban I'm sorry urban urban edge multi-unit two and a half with one waiver. But the property is located in City Council District five in the Hilltop neighborhood. It is over just over half an acre, 28,129 square feet. It is consists of three one story residences, two single family homes and one multi-unit residence. Again, the proposal is to rezone from urban edge multi-unit 2.5 and urban edge single unit to urban edge multi-unit 2.5 with a waiver to redevelop the property into a multi-unit structure. The waiver is there's only one aspect to the waiver that the apartment building form within the urban edge context would go from two stories to two and a half stories. This would bring it into consistency with the other building forms in context and would allow a three story structure to be built. And of course, with all of the other EMU, two and a half story standards applying. CPD usually doesn't support waivers, but unless there is a text amendment pending to make that change to the zoning code and there is such a text amendment on our list for future zoning code changes. So that's why CPD is comfortable supporting this waiver. Existing zoning in the area EMU two and a half and ESU x were the subject site. The surrounding properties to the North Mex or urban edge mixed use two stories to the South approved PD 101 to the East Urban Edge Multi-unit two and a half stories and urban edge single unit and to the west urban edge single unit. The land use subject property single unit for two of the structures and multi-unit for the third to the north is commercial to the south of that multi-unit residential to the east, a mixture of single unit and multi-unit residential and to the west single unit residential. This just gives you an idea of the context of the subject properties and an idea of the building form and scale surrounding the property. Top is this subject properties. The commercial to the north is the upper right hand picture. And then across Holly streets, the lower right hand picture, the townhomes to the south is the lower left hand picture. And then across the alley structures are is the upper left hand. So as far as the process goes, this went out for informational notice in April of last year. There was a planning board posting prior to their November 7th hearing where they unanimously recommended approval with one abstention. And then the committee passed this on to full city council on November 27th of last year. And then, of course, we're here for the hearing and the signs have been posted properly for this hearing. So there are several R and O's in the area as far as and they were all contacted and notified at every step. There are two are Nos, Cranmer Park, Hilltop Civic Association, which does not oppose this rezoning. And Chris Moore Park Neighborhood Association, which does oppose. And then there are six letters of support and 35 letters of opposition. In your with your application and staff report. So review criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The two plans that apply are Plan 2000 and Blueprint. Denver staff believes that this application is consistent with the. The strategies shown here and detailed in your staff report, basically talking about environmental sustainability and strategies that. Allow a diversity of housing structures to be built in our neighborhoods. The AM You 2.5 zone district again is an urban edge context, which is a blend of the suburban and urban contexts, primarily single unit and two unit residential, with some smaller multi-unit structures and some commercial structures embedded in the area. The multi-unit forms allowed in this context are rowhouse garden court townhouse up to two and a half stories. And then, of course, the apartment building for him currently allowing that two storey height limit. Denver. This is an area of stability where Blueprint Denver talks about preserving and revitalizing neighborhood character and single family. Residential is the land use concept, which is predominantly single family, but does include new development and a diversity of housing types. Size and cost. Street classifications. Harley Street is a residential collector, street balancing mobility and local access. Half of lockdown is East Alameda Avenue, which is a residential arterial and an enhanced transit corridor where we want to connect major urban elements and locate higher intensity, mixed use, commercial development and multi-unit development, and where transit supportive land uses are generally sent. So staff believes that this is consistent with the strategies and blueprint Denver and Compton 2000 that by using a standard zoned district with one waiver, that we are furthering the uniform application of zoned districts of similarly situated properties in the city. And by implementing our plans we are and allowing some reinvestment in our neighborhoods, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The changed conditions is the justifying circumstance. There are several changes specific to the area, as many.
Speaker 8: Residents in the area are.
Speaker 7: Scraping their houses and building new single family homes in the wider area. There are some changes on lead with a new community center and some rezonings we've got pending for commercial areas on retail. And of course the further afield, the locally annexed changes that have occurred in the last few years. So staff believes that changed circumstances is the correct justifying circumstance. And of course, we've already talked about the urban edge context and this zone district fitting in with that blend of suburban and urban. So our staff believes that the review criteria are met and recommends approval.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have 39 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you are sitting in this front row, I'm going to ask you to clear that so that we can bring five speakers up at a time to try and get right through everybody. When I call your name, please step right up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. And so when I call five, come up so that you are ready for that. Also, if you get to if we get to some people later in and someone has already said everything that you wanted to say, you can indicate that and you don't need to reiterate everything, but you have your 3 minutes to use as you choose. So I will call up the first five speakers and a Dawit, Don Saul, Jaron Lewiston, Jennifer Preston and Carmen Marga and Anna DeWitt. You are a first. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Good evening, City Council. I'm honored to win. I'd like to begin by explaining what makes this project and rezoning request so unique compared to many rezonings. I, the applicant, am an owner of one of the properties and I'm a French teacher at Denver North High School. Myself and eight of my neighbors in the Hilltop community came together to redevelop our property. However, it was important to some of us to be able to stay in the neighborhood, and therefore we decided to support a project that we could afford moderate priced and moderate sized condos. As you're aware, the average price of a hilltop home is over $1,000,000. It's a very hard place to find a moderate priced home. This rezoning is also unique because a portion of the property already contains the zoning we are requesting. Immune to five. The two single family homes located within a project proposal lie directly next to a two story pad. These two single family homes are therefore completely enclosed by multi-family zoning. The future of these two single family homes are most likely a multi-family zoning. The essence of my proposal today is that the EMU 25 zoning is extended to these two single family homes and that we are given the waiver that the 2.5 floors are included in the apartment building form, as they include for every other building formula e m2 five zoning. With this will be able to build a beautiful building that houses moderate priced units. We also will be able to spread the density we could build on just that one already emu two five zoned lot to all three lots. Throughout this process we have held public meetings, met with neighbors upon request, and met several times with our neighborhood R.A. and the R.A. in the next neighborhood Crest Swarm. We have also used city mediation over a mini month process. I'm glad to say that we've reached an agreement and have signed covenants and restrictions with our R.A. that will take effect if you approve our rezoning. Some of these covenants include no rooftop decks, which was a difficult concession for us to make a significantly reduced backyard from which is not allowed now reduced side yards, a 17 foot wall along the alley to eliminate sightlines in the neighbor's backyard, added trees if desired, in the backyards of the three neighbors closest to the project and several other smaller accommodations. I believe that representatives from the Hilltop R.A. will speak further about the covenants that we agreed to. Some of the parties in the negotiation as we build very significantly reduce density. That is a direct quote from the media's report, which you have a copy of. We explain that the entire purpose of this development is to create a place for moderate price units. If we were to build a few large townhomes on this property, they would undoubtedly cost upward of $1,000,000. This would price out myself and my neighbors involved in the project. We have also been criticized on the other end of the spectrum for not building affordable units here. These units are moderate price, which in this neighborhood is under $500,000. We have also been told that the building is out of character for the neighborhood. Actually, the 1957 units that they are now are terribly out of character for the neighborhood. Our building or Rita's townhomes for the front.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. Don Saul.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Could they mean city council members? There is a single sheet that you have related to the performance of this project. So as a good engineer, I will start with the end in mind and address the building scale of this project as it relates to the rezoning we're requesting at the building scale. I've already worked on the engineering for a prototype building. That'll be for this project. Our analysis shows where 25 to 35% energy use savings, 45 to 55% energy cost savings. All of this is without the planned Peavey on site. This will be achieved through high performance envelope, 100% LED lighting, all electric heating and cooling systems onsite PV. If we move to the community scale, I want to commend the Council for approving the Green Building Ordinance recently, which requires a cool roof and one compliance path. This project will likely meet many of the compliance paths when we're completed and we move to the global scale. I would like to note the 80 by 50 Climate Action Plan that's been put in place with some specific building goals by year by 2030, buildings by 30%, energy use reduction by 2035, new buildings net zero, energy by 2040. Move away from thermal heating emissions. All of these things are being accomplished by this project today, not 20 years out in the future. So I want to mention that I agree with a statement made in the 80 by 50 climate panel. I quote, The tools to solve this generational challenge are available and affordable today, and that is represented in this project. My name is Don Sol. I'm passionate about transforming the built environment. I want to thank the mayor for stating in the Climate Action Plan and reinvigorating my passion that I quote in pivotal role in pivotal, pivotal times . It is necessary to shed complacency and raise our voices for progress and prosperity. So I am raising my voice as a climate reality leader. As a past chair of the USGBC, Colorado, as a professional engineer, as a concerned citizen, and most importantly, as a father. We can and should be aggressive on all of the 80 by 50 sector specific goals, not only buildings and achieve them today like this project will. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jared Lewiston. Jennifer Preston.
Speaker 2: Hello. Good evening, council members. I'm Jennifer Preston. I am the owner at two, two, five South Holly Street. So one of the applicants. I have not responded to a lot of the negative comments that have been, quite frankly, thrown our way from every direction by members of the public and our surrounding neighborhoods that are not interested in this project. And. My original decision to purchase this home with my husband was we needed more space. We were living in a downtown high rise, wanted. We had gotten a dog, we were going to start a family and we wanted to be in a good neighborhood. We found Holly Street. It was absolutely perfect, but we also were looking forward enough to the potential investment opportunity in purchasing this home. Our home inspector very clearly said your sewer is is getting really old, your roof is getting really old. So you're going to have to put some money into that or the land is really valuable. So that was absolutely part of our plan to purchase. This was the investment opportunity. And I think obviously in today's age everyone can understand that investment. Preparing for your future is something very smart to do and sometimes difficult to do when you're in your mid twenties like I was. And while living there I have obviously seen a lot of the original traditional 1950s ranch homes be purchased and torn down and become a three storey 5000 square foot. They take up every square inch of their 6000 square foot lot and that makes me sad. But at the same time that is the right of the owner of that unit. I just request the same respect as the right full owner of my unit to be able to build what is best for me, for my family, and
Speaker 8: . What I feel would positively.
Speaker 2: Contribute to the neighborhood that I love to live in. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Carmen Marga and I'll call the next five up to the front bench. Marc Passman. Cecilia Ratelle. John. Ricky. Lisa. Ah. Unkrich and Logan. Maya. Carmen. Margot. No. Carmen Marc Pressman.
Speaker 4: Hello, everyone. Good evening. I am the husband of Jennifer Preston who just spoke just earlier. I don't have a massive amount to add to what she said. I think she spoke fairly eloquently about it. I will speak a little bit about the the the reaction to what we have proposed within the hilltop community. On the one hand, I understand the change is difficult for everyone. Unfortunately, Denver is changing from the city that it was ten years ago and will change still further to be a different city ten years from now. Our goal with this redevelopment has been to honor the architecture and the kind of quality of architecture and craftsmanship that we see already within Hilltop and to find something that works within those parameters. If we wanted to simply make a quick buck and slap something up quickly, we wouldn't have taken the last 12 months to ask for this rezoning. We already have zoning to be able to place in some, I think, what was classified as slot homes that we really didn't want to put in there. We have also taken the time to speak to many different neighbors, registered neighborhood associations and many different people. We have listened to as many of their as many of their issues as possible, and we have made the changes that they have requested us to make. Things like trees for additional privacy. We've reduced the initial density of the redevelopments as well. And so even though some who do not like our redevelopment may say we haven't consulted our neighbors enough, I honestly don't know what more we could have done to be able to speak with them and try and appease our neighbors as much as possible. Through the process, though, it has been shown that change of any sort has not been welcome. And unfortunately, that's just not an option for us with the land that we own. So we respectfully ask for the right to be able to change the zoning so that we can build something that is going to stay in our neighborhood , be it will fit within our neighborhood and will be there for years and years to come and that everyone can be proud of. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Cecilia Ratelle.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the committee. I'm here to speak on against Bill 1346. I am a member of Mary Beth Assessments District. I live in Chris Moore. And there's really three issues here that we're concerned about. The first one is the continuous rezoning, right? So as you I'm sure you guys have all felt like no, the area you've got what some people refer to as Buckley Annex, but Boulevard one, which is still not complete. You've got multiple other condos and apartment buildings in the area that are just coming on the market that have four rental signs all over. I just did a quick Zillow short search and there's hundreds literally within, you know, just like you can zoom right in. You can see it yourselves, right? There's plenty of inventory. So when you continue to. Reason is different large parcels of land. The long term impact is still unknown. Right? So we had this Villawood is Boulevard One or Buckley Onyx, which used to be the payroll area for the Air Force. That's where there was a lot of wildlife. And now we have literally deers and rabbits running through our neighborhood because they have nowhere to live. Right. So it doesn't in pieces. And when you just rezone one thing at a time, it's not as big of an issue. When you continue to rezone one thing after another, that's where this becomes an issue, and that's really what our concern is. So we also had on the other side of Christmas Park where there used to be a church, there's now multiple huge units there that are buildings and condos. And all of this is within, you know, a very small area. The the apartments that I'm talking about now are less than a mile away from where this new development is being talked about. So that additionally, the traffic issue, Mary Beth, was nice enough to come to a meeting. I want to say it was December four. We had a traffic meeting and our neighborhood showed up in droves. I mean, it was unbelievable the number of people that came to that meeting. And from that, one of my neighbors put together a list and had people sign a petition that were concerned about the traffic, the safety and the enforcement of the traffic issues that are being developed. People are going 50, 60 miles an hour around the park through the neighborhood. And this is an issue. Right. And so now you're adding more dense traffic to Holly, which is where a lot of these people are coming off of to cut through to get over to Monaco or Quebec. And that's an issue in here. He has over 450 signatures in just the last five weeks. And that's not that many. That's a lot of people for a neighborhood that's not that large. Finally, the safety, right. We need to address the impact of what these additional people constantly in these small areas are. There's no problem with having high density housing in cities. However, when you continue to put them in these smaller neighborhoods, that's when it becomes an issue. So I encourage you to really think about the full impact before continuing to rezone Denver and the neighborhoods that we're trying to call home and oppose. 1346 Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, John. Ricky.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name is John Rickey. I want to speak to the project itself, except to say that it's a well-chosen, reasonable and worthy.
Speaker 6: Because we're here.
Speaker 9: To speak about the zoning. The zoning is a minimal change in other parts of the city, have seen much larger changes in zoning next to the same current low density. This is not a big change. It's actually the next increment of change. It's as small as you can get while actually allowing more people to move into the neighborhood. So the scale is reasonable. The location is ideal. As I was looking, there's coffee in local grocery. There's a burger place right next door. Within walking distance, there are furniture stores, gyms, dry cleaners. My goodness, there are elementary and high schools. There's Crest, Moorpark. This is a walkable neighborhood. And the more people who have that opportunity to use it as such, the better the transit. How has no one ever told me about the three? L How do you guys know the three? L That bus goes from Aurora City Center to Cherry Creek to downtown. That is like a commuter dream right there. That that's this is a perfect place to add a little bit more density. There's absolutely no reason not to put it there. But moving on from that is the bigger question that everyone I think is probably really upset about. And that is, are we going to be a Denver of Denver rights, a people with a common cause building a better city? Or are we all a bunch of individuals who just happen to live next to each other and we put up with each other just as much as we have to? Where does our civic duty lie? Are we going to fight tooth and claw for our tiny little piece of property to the detriment of everyone else? Does our responsibility to our Cindi, to our city, and at the four corners of our lot are a green lawn and fresh paint as far as it goes. As you pick out your window, you know. Or do we want or do we owe it to Denver? You know, the very idea of the city to to to strive for better to to invite more people in, to make the city more accessible. Is that something that we as Denver ites need to be doing? We could just sit here and revel in our comfort. You know, we're comfortable where we are. We like the way it is and we don't need the change. But is that fair to everyone? Is that fair to our neighbors? What about the neighbors we haven't met yet, the neighbors who can't move here because there's no place for them. The question it really comes down to is, are we going to build higher fences or longer tables? That's that's the way I see it. Are we going to try and get more people here to make Denver even better? Or are we going to wall ourselves off and be happy with.
Speaker 6: What we've got? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Lisa Ulrich.
Speaker 8: I'm Lisa Urich. My husband and I own the home at 230 South Hudson, directly across the alley from the proposed project. I also was chosen by my immediate neighbors to participate in the mediation process. They say good fences make good neighbors and good zoning laws make for good neighborhoods. The applicants are asking you to waive the current zoning laws. The zoning restriction that currently exists for an apartment style project is to limit the density of the property. It's not too long ago in just the same neighborhood, that hilltop that the city council limited lot splitting in hilltop in the same neighborhood. What for? To preserve the nature of the community as it is. It's a bad idea to violate your zoning laws without a compelling reason. The homes that are there now are livable. They're lived in. It's not that you need to pass a waiver in order to fight some sort of a blight. And it's a bad practice to allow the planning board to, in effect, change the zoning, do it piecemeal by granting waivers without a powerful reason to do so. I'd like to talk about the mediation process. I thought it was a good opportunity to see if we could come together with the developer and see if we could find something that we could all live with. And the developer did make some concessions. In the end, I took those back to my neighbors. And the basic concern, which is the danger, the safety issues of the density. It just there was no agreement to be had. The developer wanted to triple the number of families in these properties and the neighborhood believes that that was would be detrimental. Sometimes the middle ground is just too far away. Next, I like to talk about the crown or Hilltop R.A., which was deeply involved in the mediation process, too. And I want to acknowledge that there was a lot of time and hard work and effort put in by the R.A. to become familiar with and to deal with this issue. But don't let their hard work, which I also put in, convince you that their decision is the right one or that they represent me or my neighbors are for this project and our property is on the very edge of the crown or hilltop. R.A. This project more fully affects the rentals on the other side of Holly than a large number of the people in Crown or Hilltop. I believe Crown or Hilltop R.A. approved the project with concessions out of fear. Out of fear of what could be built. The developer had made some comments that something worse could be put in there. I if the if the applicants want to redevelop their property, I think they should do so. I just think that they should do it following the current zoning codes. Otherwise, why do we have them?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Logan Mayer. And Logan, before you start, I'm going to call up the next five major Katie Burke, Tom Hart, John Pratt, Wendy Rioch and Siri. Maggio I'm really sorry. I'm not I'm pronouncing a lot of those apologize. Logan Mike, go ahead.
Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Logan Mayer. We have been addicted to single family houses and low density spread out white picket fence development for over 60 years since the Highway Act of 1956. This spread out low density suburban development has deep roots and economic, environmental and social injustices. And the consequences are becoming more and more apparent. Every day we have car clogged roads and freeways burning our valuable time day in and day out. We have an ever increasing number of typically young, poor and nonwhite people struggling to find affordable rent, let alone the American dream. And we have increasing infrastructure liabilities from the miles of sewer pumps, water lines and roads needed to service these areas patched over with municipal bonds and bad debt. And when we are developing, we are promoting monstrous beige tower blocks that are notoriously bad at standing the test of time. This is opposed to middle development that has been proven. That has the proven flexibility to be reused for generations. Think up Hill and most of Europe. Additionally, middle development often is built with character and heart by long term residents who have a vested interest in the city. And they are also who provide us provided us with some of the best historical buildings Denver has today. Perhaps most importantly, with our addiction to low density, suburban building esthetics, we are promoting heating and cooling 5000 square foot homes for four people, for two people and car dependent lifestyles that have zero with car dependent lifestyles. And these have zero objections from the zoning code. These zoning policies may not affect you today, but the cost of the sprawling, manicured lawn and white picket fence, keeping the right neighbors the right distance away and copious carbon dioxide will have devastating environment, environmental costs that will haunt my generation and many generations to come. Today, you will hear from people who will maintain that this proposed variance is not in line with the neighborhood that they thought they moved into. I would suggest that these neighbors build a time machine and go back to the decade of their preference. As the challenges that Denver and America face today and the challenges that will consume future generations is largely the byproduct of zoning wisdom. In the built environment of previous generations. As for the approval process, requiring such high barriers to entry for middle class developers will continue to prove to be a disaster economically, socially and environmentally for Denver . While the rigorous approval process and gaggles of architects, engineers and lawyers that are required for such a project is a complete nonstarter for most middle class Denver ites. When someone has the creativity and drive to follow through. Despite these considerable obstacles, we create absolute spectacles like this one involve all of Denver and make our neighbors go on trial and feel like bad guys for simply trying to make where we live a better place with some slightly taller housing. Given the economic, social and environmental consequences of our current built environment. I think we can afford this variance and have a moral obligation to allow situations like it be right in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Major Katie Burke.
Speaker 2: Good evening, city council members. I'm Katie Borsak. I live on South Ivey, south of in Alameda, about one block from the proposed development. I picked this neighborhood because it's single family housing, because there's a yards and it's near a park. Over the last five years, all of us who have live on South Ivey and in this neighborhood have had a front row seat to watch. Alameda and South Holly Street just become so busy that there's traffic all the time. If anyone really wants a lesson in patience, take Holly Street around rush hour in the morning or in the evening. It's backed up for blocks. It's therefore pretty normal for people who want to skip Holly Street to get on Ivy Street. My street or a few streets down to skip the traffic. And as has previously been noted by Cecilia, they go 60 miles an hour. They run the stop signs. And this isn't this is a neighborhood. There's people walking to the synagogue that is 50 feet from where this proposed development is, a 65 year old synagogue. There's restaurants there. People are walking their dogs. There's joggers. It's a resident. There's the residents, a resident neighborhood with lots and lots of people who are out there playing in the streets. This does bring a lot more cars, a lot more of that traffic to the area, regardless of what people say about how many families. Yes, maybe it's only triple, but we're talking about a road that's already congested beyond belief. And if you don't believe me again, take that little drive down Holly around rush hour. And I hope you have a book on tape. It's a neighborhood where we've seen, as previously noted, a lot of already a lot of development that's already congested beyond what we can tolerate. No one seems to be listening to us about what we want in the neighborhood and the kind of development that we want. It's not about being opposed to development. It's about being listened to what we want that development to be in our neighborhood. So I think when we look around and I know myself, I look at people walking in on Saturday, I look at people playing in the street and I'm just waiting for when someone's going to get killed by one of these cars. And so I think we all have to ask ourselves, like, how complicit are we willing to be in negligent manslaughter if we allow these developments to continue to happen and this traffic to become so bad that it's regular for people to go down my street going 60 miles an hour and put my dog and my neighbor's kids and my neighbor's neighbors kids at risk, because we want these streets to have so many houses and so many people. And we picked this neighborhood because we want to have a yard. We want to have, you know, single family houses. So just please consider our arguments with that.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tom Hart.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you. My name is Tom Hart. I live at 4530 East Cedar Avenue, which is just down the street on Cedar. I am the zoning committee chair for the Premier Park Hilltop Civic Association and an architect. Our neighborhood is from Colorado to Alameda to eighth to Holly. And so this property is within our boundaries. We've been working with the neighbors for over a year on this issue. And our goals have been to have some control over what is going to be built and to get the best possible project for our neighborhood. We are aware that with current zoning, up to 20 dwelling units could be built where there's now a multi-unit building, then the adjacent single family homes would be vulnerable to rezoning and on those properties would probably get another 25 units on there. So 45 possible on this property. We believe that these properties, however, which are along a collector street adjacent to a neighborhood center, adjacent to other multi-unit properties within a block of a transportation corridor. And along the edge of our neighborhood are an appropriate location for increased density that provide more housing that is more moderately priced and is currently available in Hilltop. We had multiple meetings over many months past year. These were open to the public. We have heard and understand the concerns of the neighborhood. We had mediation. Included in the mediation was R.A., the adjacent property owners, the current property owners, adjacent Arnaud's and the developer. The mediation concluded with a report that summarized our agreement, and we voted to not oppose the rezoning contingent on covenants. And the covenants include were limited to 23 units. The height would be limited, there'd be no rooftop decks above the third floor. There would be a rear setback from the alley of 65 feet to habitable space compared to 12 feet by the current code would provide. They will provide 36 parking spaces which exceeds the code by 50%, and no short term rentals would be allowed. So these covenants, and this is important to know, will not be in force unless the zoning is re-approved is approved. So we want to have control over what is built. We have negotiated covenants. We don't oppose the requested rezoning and we respectfully request that you approve the rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Pratt.
Speaker 4: Father, John Pratt, 2/10, alcoholic. At a property in the alley across from the main green here. Okay. I'll keep it real simple.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to give you all the detail. I'm going to keep it real simple.
Speaker 4: Life and death. The applicant has proposed that they use the alley between Holli and Hudson for entry and exit. Of their residents of the main green. Okay. I don't know how this thing got got by somebody in the city without turn in and turn out of Holly. But they're gonna use the alley. I find that a little strange, but let's just take that as the basic fact. Everybody remembers the old thing from the seventies. If you're old, as I am, or the eighties. Speed kills. We're not talking about methamphetamine here. We're talking about vehicular speed. Now, if you've been the intersection of Alameda and Holly, it's the highest point of the relative terrain. If you approach the intersection from the east, going west towards the mountains, there's a distinct rise, not a real hilly rise, but you can't see over the intersection. All you can see is the traffic lights, if you can see them. Now, there's been several axes there. The most recent one was a motorcycle accident. I'm not sure where he lived or not. Seemed like in the summertime the the the low setting sun. It's longer in the sky at the perfect angle that blinds the drivers. It's blinded me a couple of times, I'm aware, but so I try to avoid the circumstances. Some people are not not as privileges that they have to sort of look for the light. Maybe they can't see the light. We've all been there some time in this room where we've driven into a setting sun or a rising sun in Denver, Colorado, and had not seen the light at the intersection at all or have mistaken it. We've all been there. We've all maybe somebody in this room has run a yellow light. Maybe somebody has maybe even gone their car to make the yellow light. And worse, even they a reception under a red light. We've all seen it. We see it every day. Maybe we've done it ourselves. The applicant attends. Applicants intend to exit their residence vehicles.
Speaker 1: To the Alameda side.
Speaker 4: Or the Cedar Side. If it goes to the Alameda side, you're going to kill somebody. It'll happen. Here's why. Because as people increase their speeds. The reaction time increases, the braking distance increase, and they won't be able to to to assess the situation a half a block until the impact the cars exploded in the alley on alameda , ca. Those people only know they're turning out onto a perfectly safe situation. They can't see the car coming over and vice versa. To the north is not much better. It's a slower speed. There is parking, lack of visibility and a lack of a four way stop at Cedar. And that's Cedar and Hudson. That's reason to shortcut for Alameda. So. Police. Say in Denver. Protect and serve. I asked every member. Same.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, sir, but your time is up, sir. Next up is Wendy Roach.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Wendy Rehak, and I am the interim.
Speaker 11: President of the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association. And I, I wanted to tell you a little bit about the association.
Speaker 2: We're approximately 2500 households within the boundaries that Tom just mentioned.
Speaker 11: All the households are considered to be members of the association, whether they are dues.
Speaker 2: Paying members or not. We take seriously our responsibility to individual members of our neighborhood, particularly when they hold opposing points of view.
Speaker 11: Our board of directors is made up of 22 residents.
Speaker 2: Who are annually elected and live throughout the neighborhood. And we strive.
Speaker 11: For geographic diversity as well as a diversity.
Speaker 2: Of skills.
Speaker 11: And interests that they bring to the board. Our association has a deliberative process when it comes to matters of rezoning liquor license requests or Board of Adjustment Appeals that come before us.
Speaker 2: And what we try to do is gather information about the matter at hand, invite the affected.
Speaker 11: Parties to the table to hear what their concerns are. We try to work.
Speaker 2: Toward a mediated solution whenever possible, and in the matter of recent zoning applications.
Speaker 11: We have made use of restrictive.
Speaker 2: Covenants.
Speaker 11: To achieve.
Speaker 2: Protections for the neighborhood at.
Speaker 11: Large and for those closely.
Speaker 2: Affected neighbors. Rather than engage.
Speaker 11: And protracted and often unsuccessful lawsuits. So our Civic Association's position, our official position is not to oppose the application. I want to tell you, this has been particularly difficult for us because it involves sets of opposing neighbors. We have the seven.
Speaker 2: Applicants asking for the rezoning and immediately.
Speaker 11: Affected neighbors that are ten or 12 or more in the homes, the single family homes across the alley as well as in the pod and surrounding areas. So we this was difficult for us.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 11: It was a tough decision.
Speaker 2: To make. But what we feel is that we feel strongly that we are.
Speaker 11: Protecting the neighborhood. We're protecting it by assuring that there is a set of restrictive.
Speaker 2: Covenants that limit the number of units. Require a minimum number of parking.
Speaker 11: Spaces that is above the current code required to keep those folks from parking on the residential side streets in the neighborhood. We address privacy concerns that the neighbors expressed.
Speaker 2: And other concerns noted in the mediation.
Speaker 11: Report. These are in place to protect.
Speaker 2: Both the nearby neighbors and the neighborhood.
Speaker 11: At large. If this application.
Speaker 2: Is approved tonight, and I.
Speaker 11: Respectfully request that.
Speaker 2: You approve the zoning application.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is Siri McGill and I'll call the next five to the bench up front Mike Hughes, Katie McCrimmon, Leslie Tau Gorski, Gail Hamlett and Adam Astrof. Go ahead.
Speaker 11: Good evening.
Speaker 2: My name is Siri Maggio. My husband and I live four blocks from the proposed development. My R.A., Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association never once solicited my feedback.
Speaker 11: About the proposed development. My husband and I are vehemently against this development.
Speaker 2: For the following four reasons. Number one, the project has been proposed as a moderately priced solution for the neighborhood.
Speaker 11: I tell you, it is not. The average listed.
Speaker 2: Sales price proposed for this development is $550. The current average dollar per square foot in our neighborhood is 435, so it's about $115 difference more than what we would normally pay in our neighborhood.
Speaker 11: Number two.
Speaker 2: The project brings absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever to the neighborhood. Unlike the coffee shop and the burger place, other than over densification and more traffic issues. You've heard from a number of us about the traffic issues on Holly and Cedar as well as Alameda.
Speaker 11: The only they only.
Speaker 2: Reduced the number of units by a very small handful of units. So their concession really is no concession at all. Number three, the developer, Jason Lewiston, has employed what I consider to be sneaky and threatening tactics to prove his point and to get this approved.
Speaker 11: He was quoted as saying.
Speaker 2: If I if we get rejected on April 4th, watch what I submit on April 5th. If you think this is bad, see what I'm allowed to do by law. You think you're upset? Now, wait till April 5th comes number four in my last bullet. Any time you allow a waiver, you set a very dangerous precedence. In closing, there are many of us here tonight who do not have speaking roles.
Speaker 11: I'd like for those of us here who oppose.
Speaker 2: This, to raise their hand so that the council can see you.
Speaker 11: Counsel, I please ask you to reject this waiver.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mike use.
Speaker 1: Council members Mike Hughes, 40, South Bellaire.
Speaker 4: Street in Hilltop and a board member of the Crown Park Hilltop Civic Association.
Speaker 13: I simply want to.
Speaker 1: Stand here and stand behind.
Speaker 4: Wendy and Tom in the work that they did to try to find a compromise that would work for everyone. As you can see, that's a hard thing to do. But I commend their efforts. I commend the efforts of the applicants, our neighbors who are here asking for your help.
Speaker 13: As they.
Speaker 4: Try to move into their own future. And I.
Speaker 0: Believe that this is an.
Speaker 1: Appropriate compromise and a reasonable choice. So I'm going to ask that you support.
Speaker 13: The.
Speaker 4: Rezoning tonight. And again, I wanted to be on record.
Speaker 13: Supporting the hard.
Speaker 4: Work that went into the mediation and that Wendy and Tom in particular did on behalf of our neighborhood. I'm proud of their efforts and hope that you will support the rezoning tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Katie McCrimmon.
Speaker 2: Hello. I live just blocks from the proposed zoning change. And I just want to thank all of you for this hearing tonight. I've attended a lot of these over the years. I know they last a long time and it's hard to listen to public comment for so long, but we're very grateful that you're willing to hear our voices. I want to talk to you about two key issues. One is traffic that you're hearing a lot about. And want to give you some data that I hope will help you. And I think you have a packet with this information so you can refer to it. And the other is polling. I helped do polls in our neighborhood in the crust Moorpark Neighborhood Association and also in the larger adjacent press. More filings, too. We wanted to be sure to represent our residents without assuming what they thought. And so we did polls. Let me start first with traffic. This is a picture that I think you have a copy of. We're lucky we have some synagogues right in our neighborhood, too. This is just across the street from the proposed site at the synagogue. And you can see the car ended up on their front lawn. These are folks who are our Jewish neighbors, walk on the Sabbath on Saturday and on their holidays. And this is the kind of traffic we're dealing with now on Holly. Holly is a small it's a narrow street. People park on both sides. So you end up with about 24 feet across. There's just not a lot of room. And you're hearing about this traffic. So we got the data. And in fact, what we found is that last year alone, there were six hit and runs just on Holly and a couple of blocks. This is Denver data. You can check it out yourselves. 20 accidents in a couple of blocks and it's been kind of consistent for the past few years. We have the park burger that got redeveloped and we do have a lot of traffic people coming in to go to the park burger and the novo coffee shop. They're great in our area, but people are walking across the street. It's really tough. There aren't there's not a traffic light there at all. In cedar there are traffic lights further down the way between hilltop and and the cross more neighborhood. Another thing you're hearing a lot about tonight is affordable housing. And I just want to convey to you that some of these folks are making it seem like they're doing us a favor. We do have a challenge in Denver. I'm a native and and I want teachers and firefighters to be able to. And I have a kid who's as a son who's studying to be a teacher. I would love for him to be able to buy a home in Denver, and I worry about that. But these homes that currently exist that they want to tear down, these are the most affordable homes in our neighborhood. They're not technically restricted, but they are the least expensive in our neighborhood. And finally, I didn't tell you about the polling, but all of our polls in our neighborhood of nearly a thousand people showed opposition between 80 and 95%. So we're here tonight, but there are many more people who are at home and agree with us.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Leslie, to our guests here.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Hi. My name is Leslie to our galaxy. As many of you know, I ran against Mary Beth Sussman. She and I don't always agree, but on this subject, we're in agreement. I feel that this development is thoughtful. I think it's considerate of the neighborhood. To quote a line from Diane Carmon today, neighborhoods rail against plans that would increase density. And yet the affordable housing shortage cannot be addressed unless we make room for more homes in our midst. It is not fair to ask every district except Mary Beth to add density. And that's why I'm here tonight, speaking in favor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Gail Hamlet.
Speaker 11: I'm Gail Hamlet. I own a home at 200 South Hudson Street. My family has lived in Hilltop for 45 years. So I've seen change. You have to change. I am opposed to this zoning change and I'm going to make it short because some people have already expressed my concerns. But my main concern is safety, traffic and the health and well-being of the citizens of Hilltop. Holly's street is a narrow two lane neighborhood street on an established, stable neighborhood, with the addition of Park, Burger, Restaurant and shops as street has become more and more congested. I live immediately in back of Park Burger on the alley across. In the last year we have listings, increased multi-family dwellings and Cedar East of Holly and Monaco, making Cedar even more busy. From 11 to 9:00. I cannot find parking around my house. All the parking is taken mainly for people going to park. BERGER The developer's plan is to add 30 or more cars to a very narrow alley, which would be the main in and out access to these proposed units. My home is at the corner of South Hudson and Cedar with a front driveway to get in to my homes. But many of my neighbors have to get into their homes through the alley. The alley is very small, as I said, and this presents a dangerous situation. There's been a dramatic increase in accidents in the last year. As one of my neighbors already said, there have been 20 car accidents and six hit and runs. What would happen with an increase in traffic in cars from an alley to flow on to Alameda, which would be one way and to get out of cedar? The Hilltop neighborhood has lots of walkers. We're a walking neighborhood. Many children and parents are walking to school, and many of our neighbors are worshiping at the synagogues and temples in the neighborhood. And they walk. Rezoning would result in more traffic and definite safety issues. This is a Denver part of Denver that's already stable. There is no justification for a zoning change. I joined 90% of my neighbors in opposing this change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Adam Astrof and I call it the next five up to come to the front bench. Lynda Lewis, Patrick Quinton, Amanda Sawyer, Jane Harrington and Sara Franklin. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Adam Astrof. I currently live in District nine and I wanted to come here and speak in favor of this project, both on a personal level and on a citywide level. I am a Colorado native and I've been really heartened to hear all of the concerns that many people have voiced for housing teachers here in the city of Denver, as I am married to a kindergarten teacher. I also really appreciate the concern for the Temple Emanuel community, which I am a member of, and that's kind of what makes this development a potential dream home for my wife and I to start our family. These condos are something that I married a teacher with a master's degree, many of whom are in DPS can afford. This is walking distance to Temple Emanuel, where we could send our kids to preschool. It's a beautiful neighborhood. We go there regularly and it's a place that we'd love to be a part of and set down roots. And so we could really make Denver our home. I think that the concessions that have been made by the applicants are really effective. The building, it's nice, it's brick. It's not one of these slipshod slat homes that we've seen go up around the city. This is something that's going to stick around. And I'm especially attracted to the ecological, you know, component of it with the green roofs. On a broader level, I've lived in a number of districts in Denver over the past eight years. Right now in District nine, I live adjacent to the Highlands and to five points and there has not been an area of stability for them. There is a lot of change throughout our entire city. It's been borne primarily on one side of the aisle that I learned about from a recent Denver ite article. And frankly, it's time for everybody to bear their share. I know from History, Colorado that Denver's population didn't really grow a lot from 1960 to 2010, and now the city's exploding. I've heard a lot of concerns about traffic. You know, more single family spread out. Development isn't going to help with that. And I think that especially as the city is, I think conservatively expecting to reach a million people by 2040. We just can't keep up with the demand for car infrastructure. I'd really encourage the council to embrace this zoning change. This is something that it's not going to solve all of our affordable and attainable housing needs. But this kind of missing middle housing will help get young professionals out of the rental market. And, you know, I will tell you that we're driving up those prices. We can't afford the mortgage on $1,000,000 home like the ones in Hilltop, but we can pay 1500 or 2000 and rent, and that's certainly not making the city more affordable. So thank you so much for your time and I hope that you will support this rezoning to make Denver a city that's more livable for everybody, especially teachers
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Next up, Lynda Lewis.
Speaker 11: My name is Linda Lewis.
Speaker 8: I've lived in Hilltop for 48 years. I live 14 feet from this project. My views are not represented by my councilwoman, Mrs. Sussman, nor by my R.A., the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association, which focuses on Cranmer Park and its beloved sundial and tells me I am lucky that the board has members with expertize in real estate and architecture. Why they not protect me out of all I own. Despite its mission statement, it tries to represent the bricks and mortar of the neighborhood, not the people who really live here. I am vehemently opposed to this project. First, this is not affordable housing, but luxury condos. Second, this is seven units of 1950s housing in the neighborhood of 1950s housing. The owners talk.
Speaker 2: Of redeveloping their units.
Speaker 8: Because they don't want to pay for the maintenance that 1950 housing requires. Third, they want to put up 23 units on Holly Street with no bus route and only one lane of traffic each way.
Speaker 7: Near an intersection with no.
Speaker 8: Stop sign or a light which has a grocery store, a synagogue, a restaurant with an outdoor play area for children, an ice cream shop and a coffee house. Parking is grossly inadequate already, and traffic backs up for blocks. There have been 20 auto accidents in the past year. To add an additional 46 cars to this, all to enter or exit through the alley between Hudson and Holly poses not only a constant difficulty for those whose garages are in the alley, but a clear and present danger to the children who play outside the restaurant near the alley entrance. Fourth, the R.A. set up to guide your deliberations by telling you the prevailing sentiment in the area most affected by your proposed development has decided it prefers.
Speaker 11: A more.
Speaker 8: Activist role for.
Speaker 2: Itself.
Speaker 8: Rather than describing what the local residents think it is prescribing, what the board wants the residents to think. Think how by doing the magical two. Step one We are neutral, but we sign covenants.
Speaker 0: I am sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Patrick Quinn, Tana. Patrick went on a Amanda sawyer.
Speaker 2: Hi everyone. My name is Amanda Sawyer. I'm a resident of Hilltop. I live seven blocks from this proposed development, and I'm also a candidate for Denver City Council in District five. Respectfully, I ask that you deny this rezoning request. We all know that there's a housing crisis happening in Denver. We desperately need to add housing in our neighborhood for middle income earners, and we need homes where retirees can move when they're ready to leave their single family homes. But we also need to make sure that the families who live in this neighborhood are safe. If this development were actually going to serve a public benefit, I would support it. But even families making 120% of median income, 120% of median income will not be able to afford to buy these properties. And this developer is not selling the physical, affordable units. He's paying into the fund. So it's just another set of $10 million luxury condos. So why should we sacrifice our neighborhood safety for it? It doesn't make any sense. This neighborhood doesn't have very many sidewalks and it doesn't have any bike lanes. But this project is going to add at least 24 vehicles to this block. The density it adds, will create more than 35 units per acre in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes, 35 units per acre in a neighborhood of single family homes. There's no neighborhood plan governing this, but an analogous plan like Mayfair caps density at 14.5 units per acre. That's more than double. The city is using leaps in logic to justify this development like considers considering building builders sorry scraping single family homes as quote unquote changed circumstances. Councilman Flynn, you brought this up at the land use transportation and infrastructure meeting. That's within the current zoning code. That's not a changed circumstance. This developer is also requesting a waiver to make this work. Waivers are supposed to be used sparingly and to provide a public benefit. Where is the public benefit here? It doesn't make any sense. The truth is that there are other options for this land that would serve a compelling need. But they won't make this developer enough money to make it worth his time. This project is not about serving the general public of Denver. It's about lining the pockets of a developer. While the hardworking people who live in this neighborhood get left behind with rocket high rents and unsafe streets. Our city needs to find its soul again, and it will not be found in lining the pockets of the developers. It will be found in the spirit of the families who live here. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeanne Harrington. But ladies and gentlemen, I will ask that you contain your applause, your cheering, your booing. We are here to hear everyone. And that is eating up time. There is a room right next door where you can watch on TV if you feel compelled to cheer in there. That is okay in this chamber. If you would, please let us timely get to everyone and make sure that everyone has a chance to voice without cheering, clapping and booing. I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. Next up, Jeanne Harrington. Okay. All right, Sara Franklin and I'll cover the next five. Jesse Paris, Mary Conway, Jonathan Remo, Kofi Snow, Mark Gibson and Betty Zimmerman. Sorry about the names. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: I'm Sarah Franklin. I live at 456 Dahlia Street. I am a native of Denver and I have lived in Park Hill. I have lived in Cherry Creek. I have and I have lived in Hilltop where I live currently. So I'm kind of aware of problems with parking and especially like when Cherry Creek where you go down to Cherry Creek, you don't have parking because the residents have their space where they can park all day. Is that what you're going to create over here on Holly? Because right now there's no really good parking on the street for the residents. If you go over to Pearl Street and the Sushi Dan area, what has happened there with the parking? And you already have. They have like seven spaces. At the park burger and the ice cream shop and. And the people, if they do have parking for these new this new complex, where are their guests going? To park. Whose parking are they going to take? Like down in Cherry Creek, where we have to pay to go into the Cherry Creek Mall now. Are you going to have parking? What kind of restrictions are there going to be? I just feel that between the parking and the traffic, with the addition of what's going on at Eighth and Colorado Boulevard, Holly is going to become more used than ever because Colorado Boulevard right now is that. And I think it's time for city council to take into consideration what they've already approved and let it soak in when they all get filled up and figure out just exactly what's happening before you add more to this. So I would appreciate your voting no and setting a new precedent for the city and county of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon. Evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm representing four Black Star acts. A Moment for self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud.
Speaker 13: And Positive.
Speaker 1: Action Commitment for change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. Clearly this is not what the neighbors want. This is definitely a NIMBY. After hearing all the testimony today. I am definitely against this. This is more. We don't need any more unintended consequences from this rampant development that's going on in the city. The members of this neighborhood have literally told you like it's going to be an issue with the parking is going to be an issue with the layout of the neighborhood. It's just not right for this district at all for this neighborhood. So I have to honor the wishes of the community and vote that, you know, in response to this, because this is not what this city needs. This is now what the community needs. And they're very blatant and crystal clear about it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mary Conway.
Speaker 11: Hello.
Speaker 2: How's everybody doing? My name is Mary Conway. I live at 238 South Harley Street, which is directly across the street from this development. Both of my sisters, both owned units at 227 and 225 South Hall. They were first time home buyers and they were able to buy in the neighborhood that we grew up in, luckily enough. And they were great first, first time homes and they built a little bit of equity and they bought bigger homes. That's what Denver needs. We need first time homes. So now you're going to change the zoning and allow them to take out any of the affordable housing in our neighborhood. This is it. This little five plex. 225 to 20 7 to 20 3 to 21 and to 19. That's the affordable housing we have in our neighborhood. And you're going to do away with it so that because they didn't put enough money in their highway to replace their sewer line or replace their roof. That doesn't seem right. The traffic I wish you could I wish you could spend an afternoon on Harley and realize how horrible the traffic is. I have to deal with it every day. And, you know, I'm worried my son is going to get run over all the time if he goes out and he's 14, 15. So I'm worried he's going to get run over because people fly down, Holly. They fly. If it's not bumper to bumper traffic, people ask if people flying by 35, 45 miles an hour, just like like it's nothing because, oh, it's in Colorado Boulevard. So backed up. So I'll just use Holly. Well, that's what everybody does. So Holly is already. It's it's ridiculous how how unsafe it is and for you to even entertain the thought of adding it would amount to 50 cars in this in this project. I it's it's mind boggling how bad of an idea that is. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jonathan Remo can you know.
Speaker 1: Hello. I'm Jonathan. Remote Casino. Good evening. City Council. I was formerly a resident of 540 South Forest, which is just south of Leeds. Still, they call it Hilltop Adjacent. I was one of these people who was walking to synagogue on Saturdays, pushing a baby stroller, you know, wife, kid, that whole deal. We had a two bedroom condo which was walk up outside. We were aspiring to live in the neighborhood. You know, there really aren't a whole lot of affordable options, certainly anywhere near Hilltop. You know, frankly, you know, this this is my my religion. I mean, like I would like to walk to synagogue. I realize that's not exactly a governmental Denver city and county issue, but it does speak to a broader issue of inclusivity. My wife is also a Denver Public Schools special education teacher on the West Side. I'm a federal government employee. I'm not furloughed. I mean, to give you an idea, like I used to take the 83 L, I was like one of these transplants that took, you know, like, I didn't drive a car at all. I didn't own a car. In the four years I've been in the state of Colorado, I think I've had a car in the last year. And the reason I've had that car is we had to move farther south to Yale and Quebec. So. You know, that's a great neighborhood. We're happy to live where we live. You know, my strong preference, you know, my my my affinity community is in the hilltop neighborhood. I guess what I'm trying to say is if.
Speaker 9: People who are making. Probably in the upper.
Speaker 1: Third of the income spectrum, can't afford to live in the inner core of Denver. Who can? And I think. But that'll just yield the rest of my time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Marc Gibson.
Speaker 4: Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, thank you for your time. My name is Mark Gibson. I live at sixth and Bel Air since 1995. I urge you to deny this zoning request since the 300% density increase you are opposed to bestow on this assemblage creates a 500% increase in cars. And in reality, this amount, this density increase amounts to a ten X increase that is 1,000% higher density than the average in this neighborhood. This rezoning or this way, in this waiver, this amounts to basically writing new rules for developers, not for the city. And you're abusing the argument that unmitigated growth and changes somehow justify more more unmitigated growth. And once again, we're entertaining the zoning density increase without asking or or requiring any real growth in gridlock mitigation. Now, this city government has presided over recent years and the proliferation of stacks and stacks of soulless shacks in this community. And now you want it down on the Holly Street neighborhood. Let's kill this cluster right now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Next up, Betty Zimmerman.
Speaker 11: Good evening, honorable members of the council. Mr. President, I first of all, in full disclosure, I promised Wendy that I was going to publicly apologize to her because I misquoted her in the letter that I wrote to you. So please accept my apology. That was not my intention. I leave in 255, thankfully, the first house adjacent to the proposed project. I want to say that this is not old versus young. This is not about not in my neighborhood. This is about not this in our block. I cannot even begin to sense how families will move into these $500,000 apartments and be comfortable walking with their kids or their kids riding their bikes down the street. The only access I have to my house is through that narrow alley. That's the only access I have. I believe that when you rent a waiver, there must be extenuating circumstances. Maybe we want to implement Blueprint Denver, for which I worked very hard. We are as Blueprint Denver as they can be. We are diverse, different economic backgrounds, ethnicities. Just come and take a look at us. Affordable housing. What does that mean? No. 500,000 other apartment? Is that what we call affordable housing? Their scarcity of housing? Maybe that will be a reason. However, just down the street, they renovated 12 garden homes that tried to sell for $500,000 each. Individual individual units, they are now rentals for sure. They are vacancies on Monica in Cedar. Honorable members, I am going to ask you to deny this petition because a waiver, if I did my research correctly, sets a precedent that would prevent that open, which will serve as a springboard for other developers that want to do something like that. Getting to do this without having to even ask for it because we are ruled by precedent. Please, are we being a test site to see what happens here? Because. This makes no sense in our block. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to call the next five up. Michael Rich. Meg Whitelaw, a niece reached reach. Larry and Larry brawl. Oh, and I'm sorry, John. The Rungs, you're also in that group, and I had scrolled past you, so. Michael Ulrich, you're up.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
Speaker 4: My name is Michael Urich. I'm a property owner located at 230 South Hudson Street, which is located directly across the alley. And I'm one of three property owners most directly affected by this proposal. For reference, I have lived here with my family for 26 years, 28 years, and have been enriched by the neighbors and the homes built in the fifties, the owners of the properties and to 19 to 20 1 to 20 3 to 25 and 2227. South Holley have indicated that as first time property owners, they are short of capital for the improvements they would like to make to their properties. As a homeowner, I also experienced this situation and paid for those improvements, sacrificing the enjoyment of other things I would prefer to spend my money on as this is a.
Speaker 1: Part of being a homeowner.
Speaker 4: If this is clearly the reason for a rezoning request, then it is misguided. An approval of a change to s m you three would drastically alter for the neighborhood, raising several concerns.
Speaker 1: Of which safety is a major one. As you may or may not be aware, that volume of traffic in the neighborhood has.
Speaker 4: Increased dramatically since the addition of the Park Burger Restaurant. While cars and pedestrians navigate through the neighborhood, there are constant near misses with children and families. As we currently travel out of they out of the alley, north to Cedar or south to Alameda. An addition of residents of 27 units and 40 parking spaces exponentially increases a probability of tragedy. Technological distractions do play their part with drivers. If covenants have been agreed to by the developer and have been filed in the public record, who is going to monitor and enforce them? Should the developer run out of money? The possibility of an unfinished project exists.
Speaker 1: Due to competition and economic downturn. Leaving a large open space in a residential.
Speaker 4: Neighborhood and the current residents of this complex with no place to live. This is not a neighborhood in transition, such as Lowry, where large tracts of land have been cleared to create neighborhoods. As mentioned in the status report, the neighborhood is a stable neighborhood. I asked that you consider the damage potentially done by the approval at this rezoning request. This is clearly.
Speaker 1: Not a good fit and the approval of this request would.
Speaker 4: Be misguided. The correct decision will be to deny this request for approval of application 201700153 as there is no compelling reason to approve it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John, drugs.
Speaker 13: Members of council neighbors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I'm John de Rawlings. I live at 40 Kearney Street, right on Crest Moore Park.
Speaker 4: I tonight am.
Speaker 0: Conflicted.
Speaker 13: Participant I have spoken with Anna and Jason many times over the years. I've spoken to neighbors. I was asked by the Moorpark. Organization to be involved in the mediation sponsored by the city. What I noticed noticed.
Speaker 0: That and and Jason had pretty much.
Speaker 13: Religiously rejected any.
Speaker 0: Changes to the proposed apartment.
Speaker 13: Building, which no one has mentioned is net zero. As far as I know, this hasn't come up tonight. Consequently.
Speaker 0: According to the plans I got to begin with and.
Speaker 13: Have still have here after they were revised its over 50 beds.
Speaker 0: To start with and there's still 50 beds.
Speaker 13: And if you double up that's a lot of people that location.
Speaker 4: In mediation.
Speaker 13: I offered, along with Pete Casillas.
Speaker 4: Support if the project.
Speaker 13: Included.
Speaker 6: Some townhomes.
Speaker 13: A portion to be townhomes and kind of what was built on the property over near the church, what used to be the church on Monica after it was zoned and a place we thought maybe if our wives threw us out.
Speaker 4: We would be.
Speaker 0: Able to live there.
Speaker 13: Without being in a shoe box. We were told there wasn't enough revenue generated.
Speaker 4: By that project, but on the other hand.
Speaker 13: Getting back to this to the net zero concept. I was taken with the idea that.
Speaker 0: Maybe this.
Speaker 13: Might be something the city was working toward, even though we're talking, you know, decades from now to some kind of standard.
Speaker 4: My concern.
Speaker 0: Is.
Speaker 13: That.
Speaker 4: There.
Speaker 0: Hasn't been anything built.
Speaker 13: In Denver that's net zero in apartment apartment buildings. There have been a couple of thrive projects up in Stapleton at Lowry that were.
Speaker 0: Strictly single family.
Speaker 13: Attached projects.
Speaker 4: I might they might get my vote alone.
Speaker 0: I'm not talking.
Speaker 13: Just me, not the neighborhood. If I knew that it was possible to start to make some headway with this concept.
Speaker 4: On the other.
Speaker 0: Hand, the.
Speaker 13: Other thing that. No, I've run out of time.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Meg White La.
Speaker 8: Hello. I'm a resident.
Speaker 2: Of the Cress Moore Park neighborhood.
Speaker 11: We are a small community located.
Speaker 2: Primarily on.
Speaker 11: The south.
Speaker 7: Side of Pressman Park. We are bounded by large streets.
Speaker 8: That carry heavy, heavy traffic.
Speaker 7: Monaco on the east and Alameda on the south. Our westerly boundary is Holly Street, which in recent years has seen greatly increased traffic as vehicles.
Speaker 8: Try to avoid Monaco and Colorado boulevards.
Speaker 7: The results are speeds.
Speaker 8: And volume on Holly, not appropriate to a residential neighborhood. The entryway to our neighborhood is Cedar Avenue.
Speaker 7: It is the street that binds our neighborhood together and which is.
Speaker 2: The access point to all of our homes.
Speaker 8: The intersection of.
Speaker 7: Holly and Cedar is the gateway to our small neighborhood. We are a religiously and.
Speaker 11: Ethnically.
Speaker 7: Diverse community of about 186 total homes, businesses.
Speaker 11: And synagogues. Historically, ours.
Speaker 7: Was a place where African Americans and Jews could reside.
Speaker 2: Unlike the Chris Moore neighborhoods.
Speaker 7: In earlier years.
Speaker 11: What happens at the.
Speaker 8: Intersection of Cedar and Holly is vital.
Speaker 7: To the interests of our community.
Speaker 8: Obviously, the addition of another housing development across from this gateway has a significant impact on us. Why is this so important to us? Very simply.
Speaker 7: Safety. This is an area we traversed.
Speaker 2: Day in and out.
Speaker 7: Cedar Avenue is the heart of our community. About six years ago, on the hilltop side, a trio of businesses were slotted into this intersection a burger place.
Speaker 11: Coffee place, and an ice.
Speaker 7: Cream shop. The number of vehicles at the intersection has greatly.
Speaker 2: Increased, both.
Speaker 7: In terms of traffic.
Speaker 2: And parked cars.
Speaker 7: All over our immediate.
Speaker 8: Neighborhood.
Speaker 11: To this already congested.
Speaker 7: And dangerous area.
Speaker 8: Dangerous to try to make a left.
Speaker 3: Hand turn out of our.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood. Dangerous to try to make a left hand turn into it. There is now.
Speaker 11: A.
Speaker 7: Proposed high density 60 bedroom development to be shoehorned in next to the businesses. The access will be off Cedar.
Speaker 8: Avenue on a less than 12 foot wide alley. I went out and measured it myself. It's 11 it's 11 feet six inches.
Speaker 7: Wide for all these cars. Both existing.
Speaker 8: And and new residents are smaller.
Speaker 7: Than the standard residential.
Speaker 8: Alleyway. You as council members. Members are the final decision makers and sadly.
Speaker 7: The very first ones in this entire process who will consider safety. The proposed.
Speaker 8: Development burdens an already bad.
Speaker 7: Situation. We do not think we should be frightened into accepting this development just because the developer.
Speaker 8: Has threatened us with a, quote.
Speaker 7: Worse alternative if we don't go along. And the Hilltop Board has sadly bought into this fear. We would support we are not NIMBYs. We would support a modest development appropriate to the scale and circumstances of the surroundings.
Speaker 8: Please, we ask you do not hide behind hilltops.
Speaker 7: Decision not to oppose that decision hurts some hilltop residents.
Speaker 2: And every one of ours.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, a nice rake.
Speaker 11: I live on first, then I the traffic. If you take and look at your traffic count there are two every two weeks from. They are two seater to Alameda. There are there is a traffic accident. There are six hit and runs. Now. There is a problem with that. We also have an air BMB at 244 South Hawley, which the city is unable to enforce. It is illegal. There are 22 residents that are invited in to smoke marijuana, adding further to the congestion. Mary Beth is well aware of this. The city is well aware of this. And we were told that they didn't want to interfere with their already reservations. The owner does not occupy this. 244 South Hawley It sleeps 22 as it's advertised. Again, another addition to the 20 to the Holly Street. The developer has not operated in good faith. He was they were offered an adequate $25,000 to pay for her roof and her sewer problems. That was from the lyrics. They turned it down. The exaggeration of the people that are involved in this project. It is not. The average house in Hilltop is not $1,000,000. Good God. Where did she get that? She pulled it out of a pile of hay. Affordable. It is the only affordable housing in hilltop. She paid too much and she has been whining ever since. We all paid too much, depending on the market. We all bought 1930s, 1950 houses. But we sacrificed. So why are you even considering sacrificing entire neighborhoods for so few? Why did they buy into the neighborhood to change it? And it was quoted yesterday in Denver. Right. That she is no longer going to live there. So she leaves us with. God knows what it is a myth to say that. We are.
Speaker 0: I am sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much, Larry Brown. And then I'm going to call the last four Pete Cassius, Greg Kerwin, Keith Whitelaw and Sean Emery, if you want to come up to the front. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Hello. I'm Patrick Allen, and I'm representing one of my neighbors.
Speaker 0: Who? I'm sorry. It's Larry Brown.
Speaker 4: This is for Larry Brown. He gave me a statement to read.
Speaker 0: I don't think we allow statements to be read. The person who signed up has to read.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry about that. So is Larry Brown here or. No. Okay. I apologize, Pete, because. Yes.
Speaker 1: All right. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for your patience. A lot of good points have been made and I'm going to try hard not to be redundant. I'm Casey is a live at 175 South Jasmine's street which is about three blocks from the development. I am the vice president of the Customer Park Neighborhood Association and I am the member of the Mediation Group on behalf of our neighboring neighborhood association. And really, I just want to add a little something to the flavor of the mediation. So if we if we are if we derive any kind of satisfaction from the fact that there was a process that arrived at a set of restrictive covenants, I have to tell you, in all honesty, at least half of the people that were present at the mediation effort were not in favor or supportive of of the takeaways from the particular, you know, two meetings that we had as a group. In fact, you know, it was one of the stranger processes that I've ever been a part of as a business person around and mediation and negotiation. We started from the rigid point about the very specific proposal. We were encouraged by the mediator to come with creative ideas and thoughts and represent our constituents the best of our ability, which was and is our our desire. And we got to a place where I believe a subtle reduction to the total number of units was taken as kind of a win and and a reason to rejoice. And that was not our that was not certainly the instructions from our constituencies. We wanted to have a substantive discussion about alternative building forms. You know, mind you, on the property itself, we have a garden court building form and two single family units to jump all the way to a apartment form with waivers was just a jarring change to to the neighborhood and to to from a density perspective, certainly. So we would have loved to had more conversation about is there a more appropriate interim step that we could get to that would still drive some of the affordability issues that the applicant put forward as the whole reason for them going down this path. And we just we just they just wouldn't go there, frankly. So I am disappointed that we didn't get to a better outcome from the mediation process. The covenants are made as stated between the Hilltop Cramer, Cramer Park, Cramer Park, Hilltop Civic Association and the applicant. They don't represent, I think, the opinions and desires of our broader neighborhood. And I'll just I'll just leave you with, I think, net net, if you just kind of back up and apply common sense this thing, we're taking a a large structure that's very dense and we're plopping it in a really, really bad spot. We've heard, you know, chapter and verse on how bad it is to traverse between Holly, between Alameda and Cedar. And and that is no joke because as a father of a young family, it can be downright scary sometimes. So for no other reason, we would encourage you to to turn this down. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Greg Kerwin.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Greg Kerwin. I live at 200 Kearney Street in the more area I drive on Holly almost every day to get to and from our home. I oppose this rezoning. I have three points to make to you at this public hearing about the constraints that the Denver zoning code puts on what this body can approve as a rezoning. First and most important, when you deliberate tonight, do not. Do not tell us that you cannot consider traffic and parking in a rezoning. And I'll explain why. In fact, because of the 2017 court decision that I helped win, in part for some of our neighbors, the white law decision.
Speaker 9: You are required to consider traffic and parking.
Speaker 4: Problems for this proposed rezoning as a factor that weighs against it. Under the Public Health, Safety and Welfare factor in section 12 .4. 10.7 C of the zoning code, that's what the Court of Appeals told you. The city of Denver's position did not get accepted in our case. For many years, one citizens have attended a hearing like this or a planning board hearing. What we've gotten used to as the refrain from council members and planning board members is.
Speaker 9: Oh, we understand traffic and parking problems.
Speaker 4: Are the major concern we're hearing about tonight. But too bad we are not allowed to consider traffic and parking problems when evaluating a proposed rezoning. That excuse never made sense to me and because of the recent court decision we helped obtain, it's not lawful anymore. There's nothing in the zoning code, the Denver Charter or any Denver ordinance that tells this council it cannot consider traffic and parking problems. In our lawsuit, we ultimately lost. You're probably familiar with that, although the days of the expert contacts between developers and this council are over because of our lawsuit. You don't hear.
Speaker 9: From developers knocking on your back door or.
Speaker 4: Sending emails to your private email anymore. That was our lawsuit. I explained the rationale of the Court of Appeals in my written comments, and I brought a copy of the decision. I would urge you to check with the city attorney's office to confirm my interpretation. Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the White Law versus Denver District Court decision. You should not be telling citizens anymore, and you should tell the planning board not to use that excuse. Finally and very briefly, you construe what.
Speaker 8: Is the adopted plan requirement?
Speaker 4: Don't construe it as meaningless, where any strategy citywide can constitute an adopted plan. There's no plan that calls for this density and don't construe justifying circumstances as meaningless. Here development.
Speaker 8: In Lowry and on.
Speaker 4: Lead stale or changes from small homes to big homes. Those aren't justifying circumstances here. Thank you. And Mr. Clark, may I put this copy of the court decision in the council record?
Speaker 0: You can hand it to the council secretary. Thank you. Next up, Keith Whitelaw.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Keith White. I live at 6300 East Cedar Avenue, seven blocks from the rezoning site. I'm the president of the Crisp Park Neighborhood Association, which is a Denver. R.A. Our R.A. boundaries are on the North Bay and Cedar, Alameda, Locust and Hawley. The R.A. includes 187 more or less households, businesses and institutions within its boundaries. All residents, businesses and religious organizations within its boundaries are considered members. Following receipt of notice of the subject rezoning application, the R.A. communicated with its members through multiple email and hardcopy notices. Online surveys, an extensive informal discussion to determine a position regarding the current application. On October 15th of last year, the R.A. conducted an online survey directed to all known email addresses of its members. The survey produced a 91% rate of opposition of its members to this application, and that's the basis for our owner opposing the application. Our members have valid reasons for their opposition. These are stated in the numerous letters and emails that you have before you as a concession to the brevity of life. I will not repeat them all now. These reasons, though, make clear the failures of the application. The requested rezoning is not consistent with Blueprint Denver an adopted plan. The application itself admits that the land in the area that the land subject to the rezoning application is in an area of stability where redevelopment of the type proposed is generally inappropriate. A recent well, we've heard about the recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision just now, which does direct you to consider parking traffic and certainly safety and your rezoning decisions. So you heard it from the expert prior to my speaking further. There are no just just circumstances to justify the rezoning in this vibrant, stable neighborhood. The proposal is wrong on many levels and should be denied. One final point. The other R.A. has touted ill conceived restrictive covenants as some sort of a solution that supposedly will protect the neighborhood. Who can enforce these covenants? The applicant developers themselves. Who are the only persons able to restrict their own properties? That is pure foolishness. So please don't be fooled. Deny the application. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Sean Emery.
Speaker 4: Hello there, city council. My name is Shannon and I have lived with my family at three, six, seven South Kearny Street for over ten years. Even though I live in South Hilltop, the proposed rezoning site is only four blocks from my home.
Speaker 6: I travel the intersection.
Speaker 4: By the proposed rezoning site at least two times a day with my family and used to walk through the.
Speaker 6: Intersection to visit Park, Berger.
Speaker 4: And Highpoint Creamery, a donor walk to this area for the past year. Given the history of my family and my family's safety when crossing Holley along Cedar.
Speaker 6: There are always parked cars along Holly, down to Alameda, obstructing view of drivers and pedestrians crossing the intersection. I've seen numerous.
Speaker 4: Near misses by both vehicles and pedestrians. The other concern I have with the rezoning proposal is the precedent of rezoning the single family home to a high density three story structure. When we moved this, when we moved to this neighborhood over ten years ago, we chose this neighborhood because of the lack of population.
Speaker 6: Density and.
Speaker 4: Towering structures. If we desired living in congested areas or high rises, then we would have moved. Stay closer to downtown. The next logical move, if this rezoning is accepted, is that developers will be emboldened to rezone other single family homes and our neighborhood to high density structures because of the precedent set by the creation of this high density structure and waiver. When considering your vote in this matter, please don't vote for the sake of your fellow council members. Instead, they should vote for the consensus of the neighbors directly impacted by the.
Speaker 6: Proposed rezoning of this property. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And lastly, I think we've ironed out Patrick Allen. All right. Thank you. Thank you for being with us. Well, we got that figured out.
Speaker 4: Go ahead and thank you for doing that. You know, it's great to be. These people do sit at my table, never use that table fence thing. I love having them at my table. But great comments and it's a wonderful community. I worked very hard to build up equity in my Washington Park home and thank God Chop was my favorite class in high school. But I built up this great home and I was able to sell it because I always wanted to come to Hilltop Crest Smart, the park, and I did. It worked hard. Now for the rest of you are looking for some living spaces. That huge monstrosity of a development behind my home. That was rezone two years ago. We have 50 units for sale, so come on over. We need to fill up. You know, Kudlow Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Want to be.
Speaker 4: Developer banging on my door at 715 in the morning to talk about the cost of the fence we've asked him to help us with. Be careful.
Speaker 0: Scuse me, sir. I just ask that you address the council, not the audience.
Speaker 4: Just be careful when you're working with them. This has not worked out for me for the last two years. I've been there for a president privileged to do that. I have a very small budget, $43,000 to pay taxes in church, you name it. And I've spent 1500.
Speaker 1: Dollars.
Speaker 4: On legal fees.
Speaker 1: On zoning.
Speaker 4: Issues just to deal with deeds and things. And we're still not done. So it has not worked out very well.
Speaker 1: The density is huge. One of the original owners, one of my neighbors, great guy.
Speaker 4: Has left. He has moved. He just cannot handle the density of that little neighborhood. My wife was involved in a terrible car accident at Monaco on Cedar. Made me a believer in the rob for all those bags deployed. Thank God. But that guy ran.
Speaker 1: That red light. Who knows?
Speaker 4: Late for work. All that traffic beats me. And then when I went to the this the traffic meeting, here's these city planners where they had I don't know, they got to readjust. Recalibrate. We have people driving on Locust Street because they don't want to handle the traffic on Monaco. They're on locusts. Think about locusts, the Lever to Beaver community. And they're driving they're all around going through the parks and all that. That's not good. I ask you guys, the city, it's getting out of control. My beautiful hilltop neighborhood, community, it's going downwards. Please give it some thought. I've worked very hard to live there, so it's all the people at my table. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That does conclude our speakers. I want to thank everyone for helping to create a safe and respectful place for everyone to share their opinions. I know that's not always easy when we're here with neighbors and we don't all agree. So thank you for that. We are going to move on to questions from members of council. Council. I will ask that you please keep your questions concise. Be cognizant of the time that you're taking and stick to questions during this portion. Councilwoman Ortega. Your first one.
Speaker 7: I want to ask someone that can speak to the restrictive covenants that have been discussed in terms of when they would be filed. And maybe just a little bit more details about what those covenants entail. If someone can come and address that, please.
Speaker 4: So the and.
Speaker 0: If I could ask you just I know you've already spoke, but if you could reintroduce yourself, if you're asked to come up for a question, that would be great. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Tom Hart and I am the zoning committee chair for Grammar Park Hilltop Civic Association. And so we let's see what really in the covenants we have put a limit on the number of units, the 23 we have or you can't go any taller than the rest of the neighborhood zone, which is 35 feet. We've got 36 parking spaces. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Could you speak more directly into the microphone thinking.
Speaker 4: There'd be no rooftop decks, which is a lot. Thank you very much. 23 units, the height, 35 feet. No rooftop decks. Really limited number of building forms to permanent townhouse, suburban house, duplex. Materials should be brick on all four sides. Setbacks where they're going to meet the front and the side setbacks, including the third floor being setback. Additional differences. The rear setback is 60 feet. Have a little space, 60 feet, 65 feet to habitable space. The code requires 12. This can be garages built along the west property line, which is the alley, and that wall will be brick and will be 17 feet tall. That was done to restrict views to the neighbors across the alley, 36 parking spaces, minimal light trespass to neighboring properties. Trees divide provided for the neighbors across the alley. So. And no, I don't see it right here. Yeah, short term rentals. Here we go. The the covenants then are not going to be put on the title until and unless this zoning passes. Obviously, you wouldn't put the covenants in its own passes.
Speaker 7: So if it passed, then they would be filed thereafter. So it's not contingent on whoever the developer is, it's based on the property. That's regardless of who would develop.
Speaker 4: Right. We had a similar you might remember the project, the 3050 South Colorado. We got covenants placed on that. Now the property could be sold to somebody else. Somebody else could build fewer units. But these are the limits.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 7: Okay. At this point, I don't have any other question. So I yield to my my colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Mr. Hart, are all the covenants on that piece of paper? We've had a member who's asked if you could turn that over to our council secretary to take a look at or do we have the print copy of it here? You have a print copy of those covenants, would you? Okay. Handing that to our secretary. Thank you. All right. Next up, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 11: I had some of the same questions that Councilwoman Ortega answered. So that is good to know that those covenants would go on to the title if it passes. I have some questions. Maybe this is appropriate for Teresa Lucero, but I'm interested in how many units are on the properties now? How many can be built there now and how that compares to the proposal?
Speaker 7: Teresa Lucero With Community Planning and Development. There are currently seven units on the properties.
Speaker 11: On all three.
Speaker 7: Parcels? Yes.
Speaker 11: And. If the properties were redeveloped without being re zoned, how many units could go on each of those?
Speaker 7: I don't generally get into estimating that the it depends on how parking and how things are designed and the building form selected. So there are a lot of decisions that need to be made before you can decide what you're building. Currently, I will say currently the zoning is EMU two and a half for the larger portion of the property, the five unit. Portion. So there is existing. Authority to build multi-unit.
Speaker 11: So what are the forms that could go on that without doing anything?
Speaker 7: There is the garden court, the apartment, the townhome. Sorry, let me get to the right page on my notes there.
Speaker 11: And then can you also define what apartment means?
Speaker 7: So the forms that could be built under the EMU 2.5 are suburban and urban house. So single family homes, duplex, a tandem house, townhouse, garden, court and apartment. So the apartment form is a multi-unit structure that is basically your basic boxy apartment building.
Speaker 11: And are there parking requirements?
Speaker 7: There are one unit.
Speaker 11: No matter how many units are in there.
Speaker 7: No matter how many units, if there are 40 units, then the requirement would be 40 parking spaces. As we've heard, the current proposal is 23 units and the parking. They've negotiated a higher parking. I think it's 36. Right.
Speaker 11: Okay. And then I have some other questions.
Speaker 2: I'm a me. I'm not sure. Okay. Let's start with you since you're there.
Speaker 11: So immediately south there is a development that's a PWD. This is clearly not as old as the rest of the neighborhood. Do you know anything about that? How many years?
Speaker 7: I know it's seven units. It was approved, I believe, in the late eighties. So, yes, seven units.
Speaker 11: And and was that rezoning into that PWD, had that previously been single unit?
Speaker 7: Yes. So it was a pretty.
Speaker 11: And then immediately to the north, there are the commercial properties that people have talked about that seem to be causing a lot of traffic issues. Has that always been zoned for commercial or was that zoned?
Speaker 7: It was resolved in 2010 with the citywide rezoning, but it was risen to a commercial zone district because it was an existing commercial zoning.
Speaker 11: It was. So those retail spaces had always been there. Oh, okay. Someone told me, I don't know if this is true, that Holly used to be a streetcar line. Is that does anyone know? Is that correct?
Speaker 7: I don't know that we.
Speaker 2: It would not.
Speaker 7: Surprise me because a lot of our collectors streets were. Streetcar lines.
Speaker 11: And Holly is a collector, is that right?
Speaker 7: And Holly's a collector.
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm going to ask one more question and then I'm going to give someone else a chance. Okay? Okay. It's not for you. Okay. Some people were referring to the developer, but after hearing our first speakers. You're the home. Are you the homeowners and the developer? Could, could, could.
Speaker 0: Can you come up to the microphone.
Speaker 11: And clarify what.
Speaker 10: Can. Sorry about.
Speaker 8: Your question.
Speaker 11: So some people were referring to you all as the owners and then also referring to the developers. And so it sounded like you are where the developers are now, clarify what they are.
Speaker 2: There are seven separate homeowners that all own their individual properties. And then we have been approached by a developer, Jason Lewiston, with a proposal to purchase all seven units and redevelop the lot into more multi-family housing. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 6: Yeah. I want to keep going on that line of questioning. I'm going to ask, can you come back up to the mike? Thank you. So I want to. The existing zoning is EMU 2.5.
Speaker 2: Correct. Can on one lot.
Speaker 6: On one left. Yes. Okay. On the other lots.
Speaker 2: It's it's single family.
Speaker 1: Okay. So you.
Speaker 2: Have R s e, SMU X.
Speaker 6: Right. And Theresa, why don't you come up to Lucero?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And could you could you pull the microphone up?
Speaker 2: Sorry. Thank you. Sorry.
Speaker 6: So, um. So that's helpful. I don't think we've. You know, make that distinction. So on that lot where it is EMU 2.5, what's the maximum you think as a developer you could build there?
Speaker 2: I'm not a developer. I'm just the homeowner.
Speaker 6: Oh, do we have a developer in the. Yes. Oh, there is. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm 60 inches away.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. What's the maximum you could build on that? Um, m e IMU 2.5.
Speaker 4: I'm Jason. Lowest and.
Speaker 9: Introduce myself.
Speaker 4: We we believe we can get 20 units, maybe smaller units. We're essentially limited by that. It's. There's no set.
Speaker 9: Amount of units that are limited. It's parking. And if we do.
Speaker 4: One space per unit and we built an 18,000 foot building, we'd have to do structured parking underneath.
Speaker 13: But you know, I'm very good at infill and I know how to maximize, you know, parking spaces and building sites. So.
Speaker 6: So if you had the EMU U 2.5 on all of the lots, you're saying you get the 20 units.
Speaker 4: No, I'm saying on the existing lot.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I could have we could have taken the five out of five units. Thank you. And saved all of this. Grief. And it's been some grief for us particularly.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not. But, yes, we could do 20 minutes without any meetings, any neighborhood discussion.
Speaker 6: Right. And are those 20 units what those have to be for sale, for rent? What would be the sizes? Just give me a ballpark, I.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, they be, you know, smaller units. It'd be between 500 feet and 800 feet. And I don't.
Speaker 0: You know, they could be for rent and they could be for sale.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you. Theresa Lazaro. This came before planning board. I didn't get a chance to attend. Can you tell us the outcome and the outcome?
Speaker 7: Well, this came before planning board twice. The first application was for a different zone district planning while CPD opposed and the application was denied.
Speaker 12: What was the original suburban multi-unit?
Speaker 7: Three stories.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 7: And then the applicant revised their application to the EMU 2.5. And the result was there was a unanimous recommendation of approval at planning board with one abstention.
Speaker 6: Okay. And it was the abstention for conflict.
Speaker 7: The abstention. He didn't say why he was abstaining. He just said he was abstaining.
Speaker 6: Great. And did you get any. I'm sorry. I didn't look in my packet here. Did you get any letters of opposition.
Speaker 7: From.
Speaker 6: Any neighborhood?
Speaker 7: Well, Chris Moore Park. Yes. From R.A. or. Yes, Chris Moore Park.
Speaker 6: And the of no position. What neighborhood was that of? No position.
Speaker 7: Oh, that's Hilltop. No opposition.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: You done, Councilman? All right. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Mr. Lewiston is here, so I have a chance to ask him something on the architectural drawings that we were given. There's a term that I'm not familiar with that says that the units will be.
Speaker 1: Fully.
Speaker 5: Accessible.
Speaker 4: What does that mean? Physically handicapped.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, Theresa. I don't know if you'll know this because it predates everybody in this room, probably. But I'm curious how those two commercial parcels at Cedar came to be. And I looked them up and they were built in 1955.
Speaker 4: Or prior.
Speaker 5: So it even predates Chapter 59. But it seems odd that there's because just to get to Councilwoman Black's question, there was not a streetcar line that went down.
Speaker 7: But one of the speakers looked it up. And no, it wasn't a streetcar, Holly wasn't a streetcar line.
Speaker 5: Right. So we don't know why that wasn't on Alameda as opposed to sort of in the middle of the neighborhood. Okay. So so the fact that the Park Berger in that building is new, that's not in itself a changing circumstance because that's been there since at least 1955.
Speaker 7: Nonresidential structure has been there.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 7: New business, new use of the structure.
Speaker 5: But can you explain how the waiver works? And that's different than the than the covenants that the neighborhood has. But the waiver, it seems to me it allows more square footage or more density.
Speaker 7: Well, it allows a third story to be built. The other building forms in the zone, just in the context, all allow 2.5 storeys and the same height, 35 feet. Right. So everything from a single unit. Through every other building form except apartment allows the two 3030 to 35 feet depending on your width of your lot. And then. The two and a half stories except the apartment form. So the proposal is to take the apartment form to two and a half stories.
Speaker 5: And that allows the waiver allows the third level to the.
Speaker 1: Second or last level, third level only habitable. But on a smaller.
Speaker 7: It's smaller because there are.
Speaker 1: The both planes.
Speaker 7: Step backs. Yes. That are apply in this context. So the side step backs are 15 feet on either side and then in the front it's ten feet off the street. So you end up with a smaller footprint on that top level.
Speaker 5: Okay. And I appreciate the solution talking about how many develop how many units can be developed under the existing zoning, because that was that was going to be one of my questions, Councilman Brooks. And. Tom Hart listed the covenants that had been negotiated. And as you went through the list, that sounded it sounded more like the covenants make this more of a negotiated pudi than a standard zone district, don't they?
Speaker 7: They are pretty restrictive. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. That's all I have right now.
Speaker 0: I think Councilman Flynn, Councilman you know Theresa.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 0: I'm sitting here some discussion about obviously a lot of discussion about the traffic on Holly and the safety concerns there. Has there been a traffic study when you're in the discussions of all this, you sound like you've been through a lot of discussions after it was denied one time and now you're back again with what discussion has there been about? How do you know?
Speaker 7: There has been a lot of raising of the issue. But CPD usually takes up traffic issues at site plan instead of zoning. So that's.
Speaker 0: They didn't give you a position? No, they didn't give you any data or any.
Speaker 7: There has been some discussion of the traffic counts on Holly. There was some discussion of that at both planning board hearings.
Speaker 0: And was there a conclusion to that?
Speaker 7: Well, just stating what those counts were is extraordinarily high.
Speaker 0: Or is it.
Speaker 7: Not being a traffic engineer? I'm not privy to how they are, but I can tell you what counts. There were and these were taken four years ago, so they might not be as current. And they were 11,338, both southbound and northbound on holly between cedar and alameda. So around. Well, 11,000.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay.
Speaker 7: Question about today.
Speaker 0: Question about the Ali. You know, the access on the Ali. I know we approved a rezoning overall Colorado. And I think they're using the Ali access to the private Ali. Remember Ali? So is this Ali much more narrow than the normal?
Speaker 7: Ali I have not measured this, Ali. It is a public. Ali Right. The zoning code does require Ali access if an Ali exists. I would imagine that public works might want some widening. Okay. If it was inadequate.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. Thanks to his assertion. Joel Noble of joke. Come up. Star witness. Jill, I appreciate you coming up. I know you're a member of the planning board. I assume you were there for this discussion.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Councilman.
Speaker 0: Yes. What about the traffic or the traffic situation? Did the planning board get an interpretation of the traffic situation?
Speaker 6: Certainly. John Noble 2705 Stout Certainly Planning Board heard as you have concerns, as we often do at rezoning time about potential traffic impacts, because a zoning allows a range of things that can be built, it's generally not felt by CPD and what planning board follows that we are in a position to analyze traffic at that time. It's later at site plan. When somebody proposes a particular building with a particular number of units, with a particular set of uses, uses would determine the time of day traffic might come and go.
Speaker 12: That that's analyzed by staff.
Speaker 6: So while we, as you did, heard those concerns, it really didn't factor into if this is the appropriate zoned district for the location.
Speaker 0: So it's site plan you can probably get into whether there needs to be a traffic light added at Seton Hall or the speed reduced over there on the Harley, those kind of issues.
Speaker 6: I would expect public works would. Yes, that's exactly what goes on.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much, John. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Miss. Mr. President. Teresa, help me with a couple of things, if you would. See if I can get to where I need to be here on the review criteria too. On uniformity of district regulations. Further see uniform application of district regulation because the same regulations will apply to the subject site as to all other areas on the AM you 2.5 in the city. Correct. But we have a waiver in this case. Mm hmm.
Speaker 7: So that one.
Speaker 4: That would.
Speaker 7: Standard would be different. Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Okay. So it is slightly different in that case.
Speaker 7: Until we until we complete the text amendment.
Speaker 4: Okay. Oh, I see. I see. On the third criteria. Furthermore, public health, safety and general welfare by allowing redevelopment that is in character with the neighborhood in scale and design. I'm having trouble seeing how what's proposed meets that. Can you help me with that? Well.
Speaker 7: The same height restrictions are consistent throughout. I mean, if you're building a single family home, you have two and a half. You're allowed to build two and a half storeys and 30 to 35 feet if you're building a townhome. You're allowed to build two and a half storeys and 35, 30 to 35 feet. The only building form in this context that has that two storey is the apartment for all others, including single family, have the entitlement to build two and a half storeys.
Speaker 4: But it talks about in character within the neighborhood. So not not with the code.
Speaker 7: When when this first came in, the proposal was that SMU three. Right. That would have allowed an apartment building to cover the entire lot from the front to the back in a three storey apartment building. Staff felt like that was out of character because this is a neighborhood that has. A different height in the front and the back. And that's what the zoning standards are, the way the zoning standards are written in the context. So with this new proposal, this new zone district, there is a height limit in the front, 65% of the lot. That's that higher height. But the rear, 35% of the lot is is held to one story. So Steph felt like that was more in character with the urban edge context.
Speaker 4: So the three of the of the original proposal differs from the three created by the waiver because of the setbacks on that third story. Is that.
Speaker 7: Correct? Well, that's plus those three stories are restricted to that front, 65% of the lot. It can't cover the whole lot like it would have in the suburban zone district that was first applied for.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. And I don't I don't know who whether the developer or the owners. I'm just wondering along the lines of Councilman New was talking about. Has anybody had this discussion? I'm sure you've all heard your neighbors concerns. You may share your neighbors concerns about traffic in the area. I'm wondering if anybody's had any discussions with Denver Public Works about what might be done. And I understand that normally it waits until site plan to do this. But just wondering, I see no hands go up. Okay. Thank you. Further developer, Mr. Lewiston, without without the waiver. How many units does that would that limit development to? What? What does that third story waiver get you? Well, we can still build.
Speaker 9: An apartment form a 35 foot tall building. It has to be two stories. Okay, so I show on the. I show on the.
Speaker 4: 20 unit version is. Yeah. So that we can see what you'd end up with.
Speaker 9: We could do mezzanine and the second story and have a third, you know, so the second, the second floor units can have 15 foot ceilings and a mezzanine that takes up one third of no more than one third of the space below. I'm you know, I'm good at what I do, right? I mean, I'm not good at very much, but I'm good at land development. And so, I mean, I know how to max out of sight. And that's what whether it's me or the next developer, that's what would happen. So that's why we're we're hoping you'll consider.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And the last question I have for you, we heard 23 units. I've heard 50 beds. 60 beds. Do you know where you designed that far along.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Again, the math I'm not I, we have 9/1 floor units with three bedrooms to that. That's 27. 9/2 floor units with two bedrooms that's 45 and then not five is is 50. And then we have a penthouse unit that we haven't designed yet. So it's that's a little high, but.
Speaker 4: Okay, so about 50 beds. Yeah, something like that. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: I had questions for the four for you, Jason, but I'm going to skip first to Teresa. Are you aware that the city has never approved a stacked structure using their rowhouse form?
Speaker 7: I'm not aware of that.
Speaker 12: Okay. Well, they they never have. And it's in eight years of the existing row house. The row house, as you know, is the is the row house form an allowed building form in the zone this. It is. Are you certain of that?
Speaker 7: Well, can I go get my zoning code?
Speaker 12: Yes.
Speaker 7: I find the right page.
Speaker 12: You can do 4.3-5. I'm sorry. 4.3. Dash five.
Speaker 8: Three.
Speaker 12: Oh, that's my. And you're looking at probably something newer than I am.
Speaker 7: You're right. It is not. Okay.
Speaker 12: So the city has never allowed that form to you to have snack units. So what we did through the legislative means, through the slot home text.
Speaker 0: Councilman, I just want to make sure you're getting into a question and not a comment here.
Speaker 12: It's it's trying to get the staff up to speed on changes that have occurred in the life of this of this application. So is the townhouse form allowed in this zone district.
Speaker 7: In the EMU?
Speaker 12: Yeah. 2.5.
Speaker 7: I thought that's what we were just talking about.
Speaker 12: I meant the row house.
Speaker 7: And townhome is. Yes, but Row House is not.
Speaker 12: In the townhouse. Do you know what the difference is between the Townhouse District and the row house with regard to unit relationship between units? It's limited to.
Speaker 7: Understanding what you're asking.
Speaker 12: Me. It's limited to side by side only. Meaning we had to write a whole thing, a whole. It's been two years to create this sort of a bility to have street facing rowhouses units that weren't in fact stacked. And if you look at that zone district because you're saying something, you've said something in answers to my colleagues that sort of try to equate garden corps. I mean garden mean apartment forms at three. Stewart I mean at 2.5 and all the other forms at 2.5. So if so, if we look at the apartment form. What is the lot coverage? Maximum light coverage for an apartment dorm?
Speaker 7: Well, it would be restricted by those setbacks, so it would be a minimum 6000 square foot lot. But this is, of course, larger. There would be a block sensitive setback if there is.
Speaker 12: To.
Speaker 7: Where the condition exists.
Speaker 12: That you have a front rear and side setbacks. Correct. In every single one of the form standards. Right. But in the case of the apartment form, you can build the entirety of the space inside of that. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: Say that again. I'm sorry.
Speaker 12: You can build a building the entirety of the maximum height and volume inside of your setbacks. Yes.
Speaker 7: Which is what sub for that.
Speaker 12: The applicant has to step.
Speaker 7: Back.
Speaker 12: Right. Which is what I am. Which is what the applicant has depicted. Right. In their other drawing.
Speaker 7: Okay. Yes.
Speaker 12: So now going back, is there is there a lot coverage? So when you said that apartments mean that we're trying to equate the fact that you can build two and a half storeys in a suburban home, an urban home, a tandem home, and now an apartment. Can you build 100% inside of the setbacks in the in the other forms? And so is there a zone lot coverage maximum? Well, there's.
Speaker 7: The 6535.
Speaker 12: Split. That's on a height. That's the man in the massing. We don't have that restriction on the apartment form as of course we do. We do. We do.
Speaker 7: Where I see it for 65%.
Speaker 12: On the apartment for on.
Speaker 7: The apartment form. Front. Page 4.3. Dash 23. I'm looking at the zoning standards.
Speaker 12: Yeah. And so I told you, you're probably going to see something that's more updated than I. I'm looking, unfortunately, at the 21 that is predates the urban townhouse form.
Speaker 7: So you're looking at before the slot home.
Speaker 12: Text we did, we modified the apartment form to have this front back separation. Mm hmm. Okay, that's good. But we're still but I'm still talking about block coverage. So on the Urban House form, do we have a maximum lot coverage?
Speaker 4: Um.
Speaker 7: Let me get back to that one. Urban House. You have the front 65 and the rear 35.
Speaker 12: I'm talking about line I in the in the zone standard.
Speaker 7: Rear alley building coverage per zone long including all accessory structures for. It depends on your lot size. So it ranges between 37.5% and 50%.
Speaker 12: But we're only talking about the EMU 2.5, is that correct? Right. And so doesn't that just have one number?
Speaker 7: Um. No.
Speaker 12: It has a lot size. Okay.
Speaker 7: Oh. For depends on on the width of the light.
Speaker 12: Or we're talking about in this case, we're talking about a greater than 75 foot lot. Mm hmm. In width, that's 37.5%. So a maximum coverage inside of the setbacks of 37.5?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 12: Is that the same for all those other zone districts? Except for the. So for duplex in tandem.
Speaker 7: Well, on this chart it says all s u t u r h amu districts.
Speaker 12: You know, I thought I mean, let me, uh. It's a.
Speaker 4: Question.
Speaker 0: Councilman, if you already think you know the answer to your question, you should save it to comments. If you're asking a question that you don't know the answer to, then happy to entertain. What I'm just.
Speaker 12: Saying is, how did staff come to this idea that this is this is an appropriate waiver when we have in fact, articulated whole.
Speaker 4: Rooms.
Speaker 12: Rule changes to precisely to prevent the use of the rowhouse form first stacked apartment forms and that in fact, the apartment form is a different form, entirely akin to the representation that the the applicant has already shown on the existing parcel. And so I don't understand, I'm struggling with trying to understand that, but unfortunately I'm getting I'm not getting the answers from staff that sort of give me any sort of clarity that they understand these things. And so, um.
Speaker 0: Do you, do you have a question to ask?
Speaker 12: So you said that CPD is contemplating a text amendment. How did this perceived shortcoming in the zoning code come to your attention?
Speaker 7: How did.
Speaker 12: There's this shortcoming that that there's not enough stories in an apartment form that you need another story in a permanent form in this zone district.
Speaker 7: I'm. I'm don't know that. I just know that this is. I'm not on that committee that works on the text amendments. So I just know that it is on the list of text amendments to be done. I don't know how it came to our attention.
Speaker 12: So my colleague, Councilman Flynn, noted that this is a very complex waiver that is akin to a PUD. Is that the waiver? That the waiver.
Speaker 7: Is simply a number of stories. I think the councilman was talking about the covenants being complex.
Speaker 12: I think they are also restricting. Well, so it is so is is the waiver that staff is contemplating is it a because you've said three story a lot. And as you know, none of the zone districts here have three stories. They're all 2.5 in the waiver itself.
Speaker 7: In the code allows three stories.
Speaker 12: No, it only allows a half a story.
Speaker 7: I can't point to the language, but they're my understanding of the code is that if you have a two and a half storey height limit, you're allowed that third story.
Speaker 12: So I think we need to speak purely in the code. Write the code allows two and a half stories so you can have a have a partially habitable third floor. You cannot be the entirety of the third floor. A third story would be three. Because if we were to talk the what is the what is the change in condition that you cited?
Speaker 7: For the justifying circumstances, correct? Well, the applicant cited the change in that people are demolishing their houses and building to the newer standards of two and a half storeys. I cited the likely annex changes and the changes occurring on still as changes occurring in the area.
Speaker 12: So has anything actually changed with regard to the actual structures on the three subject parcels?
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 12: So that was one of the interesting, too. Oh, I'll mention that later. And if this. So the applicant has shown us two options. One is this option. The other one is he's just concentrating an apartment building on a single parcel that already has the existing entitlement. If that applicant had come forward, hypothetically speaking, if the applicant had come forward with the request for these waivers on that parcel only. I mean, just simply a two and a half storey waiver would then staff supported down.
Speaker 7: I, I would assume so since we're supporting it on the larger parcel.
Speaker 12: So we could.
Speaker 7: Based on the proposed text amendment that.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then the last thing is, what is the number of snacks? So adjacent to this parcel is the.
Speaker 7: Adjacent. On which side?
Speaker 12: Yeah, on the on to the north. mx2x is the number of stories allowed on that.
Speaker 7: For which form.
Speaker 12: It's the the general building form is the only allowed form in that district. On my older version of the.
Speaker 7: Okay yeah. Mix 2x2 stories 30 feet.
Speaker 12: So. So there there is an existing and again, that too has the same similar to the apartment form. It doesn't have. It's not encumbered by a maximum lot coverage requirement. No is allowed to have. So it's allowed 100% build out to its setbacks. But it is restricted to two stories uniformly the same way the apartment form had been historically in this own district for the last eight years, or actually till today for the last eight and a half years. So staff is contemplating a waiver, I mean, a text amendment to grant through two and a half storey or three. Which is it? What is the text? The moment that staff is contemplating a two and a half story text amendment or a three story text amendment? Okay. So staff is constantly a two and a half story text a minute in an area where we already have 100% building capacity and it's restricted it to stories in other similar forms. The reason why I'm asking you that is if you go back to your townhouse form.
Speaker 7: You're talking about two different zone districts.
Speaker 12: In the same.
Speaker 7: Mix versus the EMU.
Speaker 12: In the same context. So let's go back to the town townhouse for what is the maximum building heights in the townhouse for.
Speaker 7: 30 feet or 35, depending on the width of the lot.
Speaker 12: Can you double check that one for me? Because that's all I have. You know, I apologize.
Speaker 8: See.
Speaker 12: Here's one of the things I'm trying to understand here is in the staff report, it said that the purpose for the waivers is to get to the three storey height, doesn't say to get an additional half story of development entitlement, but. The 30 to 35 foot height is the same, regardless of whether it's limited to two stories or as in this in the current incarnation, or if they were to get an additional half, is that correct? So the heights are not actually changing.
Speaker 7: No, the number of feet are not changing.
Speaker 12: So it's just additional development entitlement by the additional half storey on this floor.
Speaker 7: Right. Now, there are two different townhome forms. I'm not sure which one you're referring to. There's one for the mixed use district and one for multi-unit districts. Those are the slight home changes.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So it just maybe it's because this process started before this lot homes. But I don't know that we would review this as an apartment for other than the fact that they stacked it and moved it to the front. You know, it's once again, it looks this is weird because we're sort of talking about are we we're talking about a zoning change, but we have an actual project that is then articulated by. Other things, and I'm confused.
Speaker 7: Well, that's why we try not to talk about specific projects when we're doing zoning entitlements, because things can change.
Speaker 12: Yeah. And so thank you for that. And that leads to my one question for Jason, which is the letter that was passed out is not a restriction or covenant. Do you actually have an executed covenant that could be recorded on the property if this zoning were to go? Yes, we do. Do you have a copy of that? You can actually see I. I didn't bring it with me. Is that a two party deed restriction or a single party deed restriction? Okay, Captain.
Speaker 9: It's in the proper form to be recorded. It signed.
Speaker 13: Notarized.
Speaker 12: It's ready to be recorded just by the property owner or by a second agent. I'm sorry. Is there is it, say, Cranmer Park, Hilltop Civic Association, a signatory to the deed restriction? Yes. Okay. Because that that's crucial. I'd like to see. I'd like to be certain that the owner couldn't simply remove that recorded deed restriction, but that it would require two parties to do so.
Speaker 4: Well, I can have cranmer.
Speaker 1: The Cranmer had an attorney. I mean.
Speaker 13: You have to have.
Speaker 9: Faith that they're not quite that.
Speaker 4: Naive. Yeah.
Speaker 12: That's my problem, though, is that even though these are not matters for council to actually consider in their criteria, it is sort of crucial that, you know, there are a lot of things that are being codified for support that that need to actually have some measure of law to to go to. Because once the entitlement is granted, it's the entitlement for the entire mass that you have already articulated. But now across all three parcels, not just the one. Yes.
Speaker 9: And you mentioned at the planning board something that I do agree with, that there should be more interactions with the board and the developers rather than private parties. You mentioned that to me at the Ludie meeting. I agree with you and I have a lot to say about that.
Speaker 4: About developers meeting with city council members.
Speaker 9: I mean, I essentially now it's treated as a criminal trial and I'm a defendant like I'm O.J. Simpson and I'm not allowed to talk to my city council member after I've applied. That's absurd.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to just check it, make sure that we're still questions about the the thing that's in front of us. We could, for another time, talk about how we wish the world was. This is the world that we're in and we're in a public hearing in the questions section. Councilman, do you have any further questions?
Speaker 12: No further questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Teresa, did you have an answer to one of the questions?
Speaker 7: One of the questions was the covenants. And you have a copy of the covenants attached to Tom Hart's letter.
Speaker 0: So in the in what we've been provided. Thank you very much. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: That letter.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And Mr. Lewiston, just a couple of follow up questions on the. There was some testimony about affordable housing that these would be affordable units. And then there was other testimony.
Speaker 4: Yeah, these and I don't.
Speaker 5: Mean affordable capital AA, but generally affordable for the neighborhood. And then we heard some testimony that the price points would be up to a half million and and more. What is your plan for the price points of these units?
Speaker 9: They'll be three in the three hundreds to five hundreds. And I yeah, I don't like the word affordable because then everyone jumps down my throat and says, it's not affordable. They're moderate.
Speaker 5: Right. Anything that's purchased. Purchased as affordable by the party to purchase.
Speaker 9: Yeah, there are holes there referring to the building, the houses behind it. Behind there.
Speaker 5: Right. Okay. And then there was you had a quote that if you think this is bad, that if you didn't get the rezoning and think you're upset now, where do you see what I'm allowed to do by law?
Speaker 9: You know, that was badly out of context, but. Okay.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm giving you the opportunity to contextualize it. Thank you. The reason I brought that up was in your option two that I'm looking at here in your architectural drawings, you have 22 units. One fewer, except 20 of them are on them are on the parcel already zoned. So your option two is based on your current zoning. And is this the one that you were? Is this what you were referring to about? Yes. I don't know how to do by law. And you spoke to this earlier.
Speaker 9: I met with these. I'm I'm it. My girlfriend is one of the owners. I mean that's everyone knows that. Most people know that.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 1: Like. Well, I.
Speaker 5: Don't I don't read the society.
Speaker 4: I'm bragging, which is I'm.
Speaker 9: Bragging because she's a tall, hot blond and I'm excited.
Speaker 13: That she is.
Speaker 5: But I will lose you a couple votes right there.
Speaker 9: The point was, I was starting to hear these people are going to have to pour money into these buildings and I wasn't going to allow that. That's insane. It's a 1957 crawlspace building. So the options were, do we sell it to the to the you know, I'm also a broker. Do we sell it to a developer? And a developer would would do this a developer wouldn't put up with I mean, who needs this this aggravation? I mean, frankly, I mean, to get called names and to be called accused of things.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. So.
Speaker 5: Okay, so. So option two on your architectural drawings.
Speaker 9: That's what that's what you were telling me. But, I mean, someone would max it out. We've seen what happens when I mean, when developers are given free reign. I mean, I never imagined we'd have a problem convincing the neighbors that that that that this was a bad option. But, you know, Lord knows.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to hear from you what was meant by that quote.
Speaker 9: So this is there's going to be a new development on this street period. These units are going up for sale. So if if we get the rezoning, we're going to build this project. If we if we don't, we're going to probably sell to the general public. And you're probably going to get some a lot closer to option two, not for me, because I want to come back here and I don't want people to hate me and think that I'm tasteless. This is tasteless, but it's allowed to be built.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: He was president. Nate Mesereau had a question for you. I'll try to bring this back to what I thought we were actually supposed to be talking about was the zoning. So, Nate, the charge before us is we have a question of we have a current zoning and they're requesting the rezoning to go to another zoning. And that is what we should be talking about. And the reason why I'm asking this is because there have been a lot of conversations about the development. However, what they have, what they have proposes development they're not obligated to because we're creating a zoning that allows X. Now, there is a covenant in place that says you cannot go above these restrictions. But if the current proposal that they have said in front of us, they're not obligated to that. There's just obligated to whatever the zoning affords are allowed is correct?
Speaker 12: That's correct. Nathan Mr. Assistant City Attorney. Thank you for the question, Councilman.
Speaker 9: You are correct. What you're considering tonight is a rezoning and whether or not the particular zoned district that's being requested.
Speaker 12: Is.
Speaker 9: Appropriate and meets the.
Speaker 12: Criteria that's outlined in the Denver zoning code.
Speaker 9: You're not deciding on any particular project that may be proposed for the property. It's simply whether or not the rezoning is appropriate in this location.
Speaker 1: And Theresa and Joel touched base on this, but just to kind of hit a little harder, conversations about traffic are kind of futile because we don't know what the proposal is going to be because they have not gone through the site development process.
Speaker 9: That's true. It's kind of tricky to consider the traffic impacts, but this council may consider traffic if you sort of look at the rezoning holistically and what could what could be built at this location, then certainly there is going to be some traffic considerations. And the opinion that Mr. KIRWIN referred to earlier did indicate that that this council may consider traffic in certain circumstances is what the opinion says. But but it is difficult.
Speaker 8: To to know.
Speaker 9: What the project is going to be.
Speaker 12: So you kind of have to. Take take.
Speaker 2: It into consideration.
Speaker 12: And give it whatever weight you think that deserves.
Speaker 13: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Are there any other questions? That's one black.
Speaker 11: I just again, like to ask about the covenant. So. Say this. This did pass. They are immediately will go into effect. They'll be filed tomorrow morning and they go into effect.
Speaker 0: Could you come answer that of the microphone for all the people watching on TV who can't see or hear you? Thank you.
Speaker 11: Yes, they are immediately enforceable upon approval and will be recorded on the deeds. And and does that require that you or someone come down to the Kirkland Recorder's office and do that?
Speaker 7: Who files them.
Speaker 11: Let's see who files it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The buyer.
Speaker 11: Yeah, we could. Either one of us could do it right there. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. They're signed and notarized and.
Speaker 0: Okay, then, Councilman Black. Thank you. I see no other questions. I just want a quick clarification. Teresa, I know you thought you were off the hook earlier. I believe it was. Councilman Cashman was asking along the lines of scale mass heights in the neighborhood. We had one of these in my district a little while ago where there was a lot of talk of that because the existing buildings in that area are one story, but the zoning allows. And in that area, it happened to be in our very tall buildings when when we were looking at the legal criteria for rezoning. We're not looking at the form, scale and height of the buildings that are there right now. We are looking at the form, scale and height of what is allowable under the current zoning.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? Okay.
Speaker 7: CPD is looking at.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Okay. That concludes the public hearing for Council Bill 1346 is closed. We're going to move to comments by members of council. Each council member will have an opportunity should they choose to comment. And we're gonna start with you, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the people in the in the chambers, too. I know those seats are pretty hard. And for you to sit through that, I think I really appreciate your being here. I didn't ask a lot of any questions because I know a lot of the answers. I think that considering the traffic is really important and we have had some counts on Holly recently. I don't have them in front of me. But it is the some of the reasons why we were able to put in a new left turn signal on alameda and holly. It was why we were able to put a speed notification permit, permanent speed notification sign near the school. And it was a reason for us to put the pedestrian kind of strobe light thing at Holly and Cedar. So the city has taken into account to a great deal how the traffic has changed on Holly. I live at fifth and hudson very close to all of this and I have lived in Hilltop for about 47 years and so I have seen some changes myself since I've been living there. I remember in our neighborhood, just just a block from my house was this project to put in some stacked flats condos at Third and Holly. I will recognize those if I talk about them. There's 32 of those I learned. I thought it looks looks like there's about ten, but there are 32 of those. And excuse me for sort of waxing historical here. And I was, you know, a young mom when they went in. But 20 years ago, I'm going to guess and actually fought the fort. They're going in not because of the number of people that were coming into the neighborhood, but because we were going to lose our grocery store and our drugstore. For those who have been there a long time, like I am, that losing that was a very hard thing to do because having those kind of amenities in a neighborhood are wonderful. The ability to walk to some of the places that we can do and we have some embedded retail in this neighborhood, the Holly and Cedar Place being one of them. We used to have more of it at Third and Holly, we used to have have it in other places because when neighborhoods were built a long time ago, they had they had the opportunity that people could at least set some time during the day, not have to get in their car to go to a place they want to do, wasn't going to take cars away, but it was at least going to give some opportunities to not have to get into a car every single time. And that particular 32 flap project at Third and Holly has never really presented any particular traffic problem that that Hilltop has ever noticed or worried about . We're talking about 23 residences here at on at this part, at this project that is close to being able to walk. So that's some of the things that you want to do during the day. You wouldn't need your car like that. Gosh, there's a grocery store and a liquor store and a butcher shop and a couple of restaurants, and there are opportunities to not have to use your car every single time. When we were building Lourey and Stapleton, we knew that we had to also produce neighborhoods where people could walk to things and not get away from what we did in the sixties, which was remove all housing from all commercial, which increased the use of our cars enormously. Now we have this huge population coming into the city and if they cannot find a place to live, they move to the suburbs, which increases our traffic exponentially, exponentially, because 60% of the traffic we get in Denver is from the suburbs. Most it is the most of the traffic which we have. The more spread out we become, the more traffic we have. And so when when thinking about projects like this in a neighborhood, it's almost returning to the kinds of neighborhoods we used to build. If you take a walk through Capitol Hill and those of you have been around here a long time know there's lots of apartment buildings right next door to single family homes so that people of all walks of life would be able to live in the same place together. You do want to have the ability for young people to be able to live in a neighborhood you want to. You able to have your teachers and your nurses and your craftsmen to be able to live in in neighborhoods? The hilltop and increase more are some of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city. But I'm pretty prejudice about it. But I think there are some of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city and we won't build them again because the land is too valuable. The the the and the need for housing is too great. So if we're not going to build those again, how do we give people an opportunity to enjoy some of the amenities that these neighborhoods have? How do I make sure and I and I know that these are not affordable in the technical sense. But it is true that the median price of a house sold in hilltop last year and this is from the data, was $1.1 million. That was the median price of a hilltop home. Interesting. The median price of a smart home was 833,000. I would have guessed it was reverse. I would have guessed the homes and cars more would have been more expensive than the ones in Hilltop. So if you have a way to move into a home in this neighborhood for 300 to $500000, that is a lower price point in order to to move into that neighborhood. And the what we need to have is a housing stock that has is it has a variety of the kind of housing that people can possibly want to live in. In our in our cities. Because if we don't, they're going to move to the suburbs and we're traffic is going to get worse. Now in zoning. And, you know, the thing we worry about a lot about in zoning is scale. You don't want a huge behemoth building next to smaller ones. I mean, we certainly have examples of that. We had examples of it was flat homes and we decided that just isn't going to work. It just doesn't work to have smart homes. We have examples like the Darth Vader building on South Colorado Boulevard, this huge monstrosity of thing that's around all the small. It looks like some huge middle finger, if you ask me. And so we don't we want to look when they're doing zoning that it be in scale, that that it's at the size of the other buildings near it. And this is the exact same height as a with setbacks that are similar to the single family home setbacks by the covenants that are in place that if if if the if if we didn't do this if we didn't have the covenants in place that the neighborhood worked very hard on. And there's a very like, you know, Miss Bowman has left the work that they did on 50 South Colorado Boulevard. They were the neighbor worked work really hard to get covenants on there to have reached an agreement with the developer so that that one could go by. We didn't have that we wouldn't be able to ensure the scale that the covenants can help us insure for so that it doesn't look strange in the neighborhood and the process certainly asking for mediation and having neighbor neighbors get to talk to each other. Not only that, the neighbors in which neighborhood this is in, but also the neighboring neighborhood, because everybody has a feeling about it and effect on it. I think it was a very good process and certainly even a mediation. You're mediating between people who don't agree with each other. And so somebody is going to be some people are going to be happy and some people aren't. But to go through the long process of mediation about this, I, I think kudos belong to the Crowder Hilltop Association for taking that kind of time to do it. So for all of these reasons, it's not going to be popular with the people who are against this. But for all of the reasons related to a variety of housing stock, to traffic concerns, to scale, to process, I am in support of this project and I encourage my counsel for council members to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Are there other comments? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Yeah. So I want to thank Councilman Herndon for getting us back to the subject matter of right, which is the zoning and looking solely at the zoning. Why that helped me. Because the thing that I was struggling with in my questions was how did we end up what? What is the city really, truly contemplating with respect to changes in this zone district that justifying these waivers that then some how does it result in what I think is actually a pretty awesome project? If this proposal came to my neighborhood, I would be fighting like hell to get it through. I'll just be honest, but we're not getting things like this, you know, we're not getting this level of compromise or concession and sort of voluntarily. But I can't overlook the fact that, yeah, it's simply a mass and scale question about the zoning at hand. And so what I did is I appreciate the applicant bringing forth these renderings, right? Because this is what the zoning district would be approving of tonight. Not the one gray box, but the gray box, plus the blue box, plus the half story above. That's the entitlement. What we're talking about is this proposal. You can see the difference between those two. This is why I support this idea wholeheartedly. But there's nothing. The only thing that could tell me that, yes, this would happen is the actual deed restriction being ready to record on that property, which actually is not a matter for this council to even consider. I have articulated and he did it. Ludie and the applicant agreed that the Council should be able to consider a good, solid deed restriction that gets this outcome. And then that would be a justification on why you would never go here, but you would allow compromise to get here. That's actually really way, great way that the city should operate. And I have articulated to Legislative Council that we should have that rule in our rule book. And I have been told that nope. The way we already defined our waivers and conditions is adequate enough. I'm telling you tonight, this whole fight doesn't happen if we have a way to get here without enabling this. Because that's how we've done it in District one. And so you have this solution sort of I don't have that covenant. And I'm telling you right now, and this is going to probably set this thing up for litigation. If I had that covenant, I'm probably siding with this applicant because I know this isn't going to happen. But as a legislator, I have to think about, is this appropriate? And that's where I'm struggling, you know, because I would argue that, yeah, if we just look at the gray box, that entitlement exists, it's the other 60% of that lot that does not. And that other 60%. You can't develop that many square footage. That's where I was going with my comments. Mean my questions to staff there's maximum zone lot coverage of restrictions on those other two parcels to the tune of 37 to 50% depending on which which form you use. And so right now that whole half a story isn't an option in that zone district. And that's consistent with all the other I mean, the other two massive forms, general form and storefront form that are allowed in this this context in the adjacent immediate area. So I appreciate Greg KIRWIN bringing up the white law matter and then putting it in into comments here. It's in here. Thank you for having it in filing it. Not because of the question about health and safety, regarding traffic, because that's legitimate. You're adding an entire half a story. There are units that come along with that city. Sort of pretends that we don't consider density because we don't. But Plan Blueprint Denver the one that's on file, the one that applies here contemplates density all. I mean over and over and over again. So we cannot assume that a half a story is just void of people. It's going to have people. So that does have other ramifications. But what was interesting to me in that same decision was the other matter of justifying circumstances. And I'm going to call it up here and. So that was. Where? Oh, sorry. Picking through things. It reads, Finally, competent evidence exists on the record to support City Council's conclusion to justify justifying circumstances existed for the rezoning. And as noted above, the Denver Zoning Code provides that justified circumstances exist when either the land or its surrounding environs have changed or are changing again. There is no the only rezoning that occurred sort of just solidified an existing commercial development and existing non-conforming situation. Didn't change the zoning for the sake of changing the existing situation. And the neighbors in that case asserted that the land refers to the overall neighborhood itself rather than the parcel subject to rezoning. Because. Because. And but the city argued the city that's us landed that the land refers to the parcel. That's why I asked that question. Well, what's changed on the property itself? Nothing. It is still five modest homes that are affordable in this area. And yeah, I'm not naive. You look at that gray box and the entitlement that's on that gray box. Those five units are just like so many in my neighborhood are ripe for the picking. Probably why the property was bought in the first place and it will go away and you can still pack. I laid it out. You could take that same little row house structure and put two of them there and have nine. The 99 unit part nine space parking garage. So you get eight units and nine garages all in the same thing. Take the design that they have. Probably can for. To the new urban townhouse standards. So it's going to it's going to there's money to be made here. And density to come in the same product that we're looking at, just not as many of them is possible. So. So I, I go back to this this to my colleagues here. This is what you're approving, not this. That's the difference. And so I wish we had the tool. The tool isn't, unfortunately. In this letter it alludes to it, but I don't see it. And unfortunately, legally, even if I had it, I'm not supposed to use that as the justifying circumstance to approve this rezoning. So the criteria to me are not met, changing conditions, just health and safety concerns. It's not it's clearly not consistent with the adopted plans. And then the form and scale are already appropriate, even for the apartment form that is allowed on the existing parcel that is multi-family. So with that, I will be I will be voting against this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you, all of you, for being here so late. And I particularly want to thank a few of the speakers. I didn't catch all your names, but some of you said some things that really hit home to me. Logan Mayer and Adam Ostroff and you both reminded me to be forward looking. And in another recent council hearing, I talked about advice I was given by a councilwoman who was in office in the nineties and later became chief of staff to a mayor and then director of Public Works, who reminded me.
Speaker 2: That all of.
Speaker 11: Our decisions we make our for the for the future. And so thank you for reminding me of that. And Councilwoman Sussman talked about the.
Speaker 2: Dangers of sprawl. And.
Speaker 11: You know, traffic is bad because we all get in our cars and we drive on the streets in our cars by ourselves, except for Councilman Clark, who takes his bike to work.
Speaker 2: But sprawl makes traffic bad.
Speaker 11: And so infill projects are really important. And so you both alluded to that, and I appreciate that. Additionally, housing diversity is really important in our city, and we don't want to have exclusive neighborhoods where you just have a bunch of. Large suburban houses that only a certain kind of people can live in.
Speaker 2: So thank you for remind me of that. Also, I heard all of you and.
Speaker 11: The two things I wrote down, what everyone said.
Speaker 2: There was some of you think that the housing the proposal is not affordable enough.
Speaker 11: There's a lot of discussion that could go around that. But the the number one by far and away the.
Speaker 2: Number one issue was traffic. And we all.
Speaker 11: Hear that every single day. Traffic in Denver has changed so incredibly much in the last ten years because.
Speaker 2: 100,000 people.
Speaker 11: Have moved to Denver. The metro area has grown by, I don't.
Speaker 2: Know, a million people since 1990. Everyone has a car. That's why traffic is bad and that's why we're all working on.
Speaker 11: Trying to get people to take other forms of transportation. But, you know, that's the cause of traffic. I was surprised to.
Speaker 2: Hear that four years ago, 11,000.
Speaker 11: Cars a day. Go on. Holly.
Speaker 2: I do think that is a lot of cars. I did.
Speaker 11: Calculate on my phone if you added 46.
Speaker 2: Cars because if you had 23.
Speaker 11: Apartments and each one had two cars, that is less than half a percent increase. And that that's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. I also I like this idea of of it being green. I am I like the idea that there was a compromise negotiated with the neighborhood. I think a lot of the features that you negotiated address some of the concerns we heard from people, particularly.
Speaker 2: Parking and landscaping, the.
Speaker 11: Reduced density. The alternative that could happen.
Speaker 2: I think, would be.
Speaker 11: Less consistent with the neighborhood. And I know some people expressed concern that this might set a precedent, and I don't think that that is true at all.
Speaker 2: I think our single family neighborhoods.
Speaker 11: Are very secure. This is a.
Speaker 2: Completely unique block.
Speaker 11: That has the PWD with townhomes and the commercial and just the two little single family homes. And those are the things that are the odd man out on that block. I think those two single family homes are the things that that don't fit in. So in addition to that, I do think it meets the criteria and so I will be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Mr. President. This is such a different world we're living in today. It's amazing. We're all seeing the same amount of change. The one thing that I heard that really rang out from me is Mark Gibson's statement. I'm looking at all the faces. I forget which one was Mark? If you're still in the house. Thank you, sir. About growth without mitigation. While I'm aware that we we're we're. We're looking at zoning category rather than a particular project. I think we need as a city to start looking at these zoning categories differently and to be doing traffic studies on what would happen if that zoning were taken to its maximum. And an approach in that direction. I believe we need to be a lot more attentive to mitigation then than we are now. And I do think we basically know what's going to be built on this site if this zoning passes. It may not be 23 units. It may be 20. I don't think those five houses are going to be there much longer. I may be wrong, but just looking at the evidence of what I watch around the city, it doesn't. The economics don't seem to reinforce the guess that it will remain single family homes. So, you know, my neighborhood is looking at neighborhood streets that are going to see somewhere between from the developer's estimate, 300 to 7 800 new units on neighborhood streets. What I figure we're looking at here is the difference between seven units. 14 units. 22 units. My tendency is to look at this as. By the way, the way I interpret the legal requirements that we're supposed to look at and I have trouble with the fact that the consistency in applying the zoning regulations is if we pass a text amendment allowing that extra half story. And I'm not convinced that the third element of health and safety is met. So I'm sitting here leaning towards not approving this rezoning. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Neal. I found this so interesting tonight because it just parallels and goes right along with what I was going through with one of my neighborhoods and one of my districts in very similar situation. Yeah, a couple of parcels asking for some rezoning from additional units and the zoning allowed for those parcels is two units less than what they're asking for, for the rezoning two units, you know. And so what can in your situation is so much better because their situation is they stay with the zoning, they're going to build nice homes, they'll fit character. You'll be fine. Your situation if you if we do know this today and not approve it, you're going to have a piece. I honestly what I'll say about this design but are apartment.
Speaker 4: Blocks.
Speaker 0: That will not fit character it will be ugly is terrible. We won't do anything to help you in the long run. And because that property is going to be developed here, you got a chance to build something so look nicer, at least in conformance to it. It may not be it may be more units, there's no question about that. But it's only on a main busy street. So I think that you have a chance to do a better with the what you see the means in the main thing. You don't want to stay within the zoning and see that other kind of alternative developed. Plus the other thing too is very similar to the other neighborhood. And guess what? Their issue big issue was traffic that this gave them the opportunity to address traffic with the city because they all rallied around traffic and safety and we'll be making improvements in that area here. You have a great opportunity to address traffic that can't be addressed by zoning. We've heard that can be addressed by that tonight, but it gives you a great opportunity to do something about Harley to make it safer. Like councilman assessment is mentioned. She's done it a little bit earlier. So I think that there's some opportunities there. So I will be voting for this tonight and knowing that it has to does meet the zoning and we can't consider the traffic. And I understand your frustration and I really do thank you for Mr.. Thank you, councilman. New Councilman Flynn Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: I know I was listening very intently to council members Espinosa and Cashman because they were touching on some of the things that concern me about the review criteria. And and I I'm concerned with what I see is perhaps an overly broad interpretation of some of them, such to the extent that there may be no rezoning application anywhere in the city that we couldn't we couldn't find a criteria here or there. If we if we sort of squint and say, well, justifying circumstances, changing circumstances here. And I think the the presentation said there are things are changing in the wider area around there that well, if you want to, you know, depending on how far you want to go and say, well, there's change over there and there's change over there, but I don't I don't see a change. I don't see changing circumstances on in the near vicinity of this block. One of the missions that we have in our plan and in Blueprint and unfortunately, we don't have a neighborhood plan here that we can that we can look to. But among the things that it says is that we can that we look for infill opportunities where they're appropriate. And I see a lot of places around Denver where they're appropriate, and I don't believe that I see that here. I also wanted to note that there was a comment and I want to differ a little bit with Councilwoman Black. There was a comment about single family neighborhoods. And I think one of the statements that was made was that the the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 sort of promoted the expansion of single family homes. I grew up in a town that had single family homes built in the teens and the twenties. And we have single we have Queen Anne's and Victorians built here in the 1800s. Single family homes have been a standard for a long time. And I think. The city needs to understand that if we don't also conserve single-family neighborhoods, we will not be a city that offers a diversity of housing forms. Density is appropriate where we have high frequency transit. I have some of those in my in my district. I have Federal Boulevard, for example, with excellent transit service. And we would welcome proposals down there. But as far as embedded in the middle of a single family neighborhood, that's to me, that's not conserving our diversity of housing forms and our single family neighborhoods. Denver has to be a city where your own where your only option, where your options to raise a family with kids are not limited to a high rise condo, but to a single family place where you put a swing set in the backyard. And I want to push back a little bit on the affordability of single family and whether that leads to segregation or not. My district is almost is very heavily single family and they're very affordable. My district is one of the areas of Denver that that still has affordable, single family units. And my district is majority minority. And we have increasing diversity. In my district, I'm very proud of that. And so I considering all that, I, I I'm going to vote no on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I have listened to all of the input and have sort of leaned both ways based on the input. And, you know, we sit in a quasi judicial capacity here where our decision is based on the input that we get from you all at this public hearing. I know many of you have sent us emails and whatnot prior to tonight. Most of us don't look at that until this evening when the public hearing happens. But I just want to go through a couple of things. First of all, you know, large parts of of Holly are an arterial street. Some parts of Holly are more single family than other parts. Right. But at the end of this block is some commercial. I like the fact that the developer in the neighborhood worked out an agreement and that the details will be filed as a covenant on the property so that there is some assurance, regardless of who will develop the site, that that agreement holds. Still, I can remember when we did something called the Regulating Plan that was only an agreement between the developer and the neighborhood. And if the developer sold the property, guess what? That agreement didn't mean a damn thing. And so that's where this one matters. Yes, the project will generate some linkage fee funds for the amount of square footage that will be put into the development. But it's not going to be equal to the value of the units that are lost or the units that are being replaced. It just doesn't the math just doesn't work out that way. I share the concern about the justifying conditions, and we see this happen across the city over and over. And if you haven't looked at this, you all need to be paying very, very close attention to Blueprint Denver before it comes to city council, because it gets away from the verbiage of neighborhoods of stability. And my concern is that means every neighborhood is sort of up for grabs, if you will. And there is value to the single family character that we have in our residential neighborhoods. It's what people love about our city, right? We have great neighborhoods in our city. But when you look at some of them, like Jefferson Park, where Councilman Espinosa lives, that neighborhood doesn't look. Much of anything like what it used to in terms of the housing stock that is in that neighborhood, because it's pretty much changed significantly. I live in one of those neighborhoods and had I not purchased my home when I did in the Highland neighborhood, I couldn't afford to live there. So there is some value in in trying to protect our our single family neighborhoods. It doesn't mean that we don't want to see some development on the edges, which is what the old blueprint plan was all about. It was to look at how do we support development and some neighborhood services and creating more mixed use opportunities where you can have your residential with your commercial in your neighborhood, with that you can walk to without having to get in your car and drive, you know, a few miles away to access some of the services that you want. We know that growth is here and it's happening, but I'm not convinced we need to continue to do that at the expense of our residential neighborhoods. And how far is that reach where you say justifying conditions are what you use? I remember a rezoning in Councilman Lopez's district where because we have a light rail stop a few blocks away. That was used to justify going into a block that was a few blocks in from a commercial street right in the middle of a residential block to resolve. And then what happens? That domino effect. Right. I mean, I see Holly as a commercial corridor, but I also am concerned about. That that domino effect that we've seen happen in many of our neighborhoods. And it actually started in the Cherry Creek community. We've seen it in Sloan's Lake. We've seen it in Highlands. We've seen it in Jefferson Park, we've seen it in Park Hill all across the city. It's happening. And does that mean all development is bad? No, not necessarily. Because where we have density, we're getting greater services. Right. For our communities. But it's it's how we do it and ensure that bless you, that it's it's blended into our community and it's not. Having a degradation effect on the rest of the character of our neighborhood. So for all these reasons, I'm really struggling with being able to, you know, give a yes to this particular development. And part of what's what I'm struggling with is the fact that if you look at the west side of town, we're going to see well in excess of 500 units, 500 acres of development that is going to be happening basically west of I-25, west of, you know, along the federal boulevard corridor. That will stretch all the way to Councilman Flynn's district. And these are huge acres of of parcels where we're going to be seeing hundreds and hundreds of of. Square footage, thousands and millions of square feet of development. And we have to, as a city, look at the impact to our infrastructure. Can our sewer systems handle the volume of what we're going to put into these areas? Can our our our, you know, all of our utilities, our roads, our highway system, I-25, is already congested. And the plan they're doing right now with the Powell study does not go all the way to I-70, where we're going to see 43 acres at the Denver Post site alone. And that doesn't include all the rest of the sites in that same area that we've been rezoning. And we've got three of them that were just filed last week with more yet to come. So as a city council, we don't we don't dove into the details like the previous council that I served on used to, because that was delegated under the 2010 zoning change to the planning department. And the planning office gets to the planning board, gets to weigh in on some of this when it comes to them. But we don't get that level of detail. We don't get to vote on that level of detail. And I'm concerned that, you know, there's no predictability for the neighborhoods and to a large degree, there's no predictability even for the developers, because they come in, they get the form base right, the scale of what they're asking for. But then it's our planning department that gets to make the decisions on the details. And so for all these reasons, and I've been really vocal about the fact that. The way that the form based zoning works doesn't necessarily work in the best interest of our neighborhoods and the people who are planning these projects. And so for all those reasons tonight, I just am not comfortable voting for this one to move forward tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Gentlemen.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Right, seeing no.
Speaker 1: Other.
Speaker 0: Comments. Councilmember since community planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest signatures of the owners of at least 20% of the properties within 200 feet outside of the subject area has been met with petition signatures representing 27%. This means ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1346.
Speaker 2: Sussman, I. Black eye.
Speaker 3: Brooks Espinosa.
Speaker 1: No. Quinn, no.
Speaker 3: Gilmore Eye.
Speaker 2: Herndon Cashman.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Kenny Lopez.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: New Ortega? No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, with close the voting announced results.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes. Five knees.
Speaker 0: Eight eyes. Five knees. Since it needed ten affirmative votes and it only got eight then. Councilor Bill 1348 has failed. We do have two more public hearings tonight. But I will I will ask that if you are not saying for both of those, you please be quiet as you're leaving so that we can get on to those in the people who have been waiting a really long time for their chance at the microphone here. So we are going to get right into it. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1387 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 219, 221, 223, 225, 227, 235, 245 South Holly Street in Hilltop.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-MU-2.5 and E-SU-Dx to E-MU-2.5 (urban edge, mixed-use and single-unit to urban edge mixed-use) with a waiver, located at 219, 221, 223, 225, 227, 235, and 245 South Holly Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-18. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures of the owners of at least 20% of those property owners within 200 feet of the subject area or 20% within 200 feet of the outside of the subject area) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 27%, respectively).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1476
|
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1476 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that bill 1476 be placed upon final consideration.
Speaker 4: And do pass.
Speaker 0: That has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1476 is open. May we have this death? Are you doing the staff report? All right, go ahead. Take it away. Councilwoman.
Speaker 11: That is a solid Elizabeth. I didn't know if it was on. Yeah, this is a thing to primarily get the scooters off the sidewalks and to allow scooters more flexibility and being able to use our bike lanes and our roads. Yet it has some other changes to the original regulations. One is that it has to have lights and flashers and things if you're going to ride it from dawn to dusk and some other little pieces of information. But it's primarily to kind of recognize the scooter for what it is a motorized vehicle, with the understanding that when the state legislature first ruled that scooters were toy vehicles and had to be on the sidewalk, they were not contemplating the motorized scooters. And so with the help of our attorneys and certainly I'm sure this will probably be taken up in the state legislature, we made an ordinance to sort of kind of relieve the issue that we've got between pedestrians and scooters on our sidewalks. It's still not going to be allowed anywhere on the 16th Street Mall and the Parks and Recreation is going to be making some regulations about how they can be used on our trails and in our parks. That's coming later, also coming later. And regulations are how to how they should be reassembled right now. They have to be reassembled in the mornings at transit's stops. But the public works department is going to take a look at that and see if there isn't some other better way to reassemble them based on the usage that we see by scooters. And that's the staff report. I also want to say that we've got some intrepid speakers here tonight because they knew I had asked if they wanted us to postpone this public hearing, and I told them it was going to be maybe close to 11:00. And they said, no, no, no, no, no, we'll we'll we'll come down. So when you when we listen to these folks, they really mean it. And that's my report.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. You give a very quick report. We'll put you in charge of more of those. I think we have to have five individuals signed up to speak, so come on up to the front row so we can get to everybody expeditiously. First up is Camp Sarah.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Kim Kyocera. My address is 1660 Lincoln, Suite 1800. And I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of Lime. They have both e-scooters and e-bikes in Denver, and they're very proud to be here in Denver. And I am here to speak in favor of this ordinance tonight. We think it provides a much better framework for both pedestrians and scooter riders. And we wanted to thank both city council and the Department of Public Works for bringing this forward. And we hope you'll support it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Britney Moore, Thunder.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council president, members of city council. I'm Brittany Maurice Saunders. I'm the president of Local Affairs for SeaWorld Handling Public Affairs. And we reside reside we work at 511 Broadway in Denver. Thank you for your time tonight. I am here tonight on behalf of our client Bird as the inventor of the E-Scooter Sharing Bird currently operates in more than 100 cities in the U.S. and last summer began operations in Europe, the Middle East and in Mexico. I'm here tonight to urge your support of Council Bill 1476. We believe these changes will help balance our riders needs with the urban street network. We want to thank council members Sussman and Cashman for your leadership on this as well as us. Quickly, Nick Williams, Jason Garrow and Cindy Patten with Denver Public Works, as well as Skye Stewart in the mayor's office. Bird is very proud of our presence in the Denver market. We look forward to continuing our work with City Council and Denver Public Works leadership to help meet the mayor's vision to reduce car traffic by 2020. Thank you for your support tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up and even.
Speaker 11: Hi. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to comment tonight between human and policy director at Bicycle Colorado. I'm also chair of the Denver Streets Partnership. That is a coalition of non-profits working to improve biking and walking and transit infrastructure, as well as accessibility in use to support healthy, inclusive, connected, sustainable communities. And we're here tonight to say we support 1476, the scooter bill that will allow scooters in bike lanes and on roadways. Tonight, we just want to thank you for your leadership in creating strong policy really quickly to make Denver a scooter friendly city. So thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Cashman, for leading on the effort. And we also want to thank the attorneys and public works officials who worked quickly right along with you. We know it wasn't easy. There were some tricky legal hurdles in state and in city law and a very tight timeline. And in thinking back on it, it was interesting to me to note that public works had a permitting. Speed with scooter cities around the country like Washington, D.C., like Chicago and like L.A.. Thanks again. Congratulations on removing barriers to the safe, safe operations of new mobility options. We really like this scooter bill because it's sensible law that'll make it easy for everybody to understand the rules. And it's also going to give riders the opportunity to move around efficiently and effectively. It's also an excellent model. We think the state legislature can look to as they start to tackle this, some of the same challenges coming up in their session. So thanks for leading on this issue.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 1: Jesse pairs Black Star Action Moment for self defense. Denver Homasi out loud and positive actually commitment for change. We are in favor of this. Seeing that number really needs to live up to this sustainability aspect of transportation in this town. It's the mile high income city, but we still make it easy to get around. So yeah, we're definitely in favor of this bill 18 1476. So we're asking for your approval of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Jill. Tory.
Speaker 11: Good evening. I'm Jill, Luke and Tori, executive director of Walk Denver and vice chair of the Denver Streets Partnership. I'm here tonight to express support for Council Bill 1476 regarding the operation of electric scooters within our city. The arrival of scooters within Denver shone a spotlight on an issue that our city has been grappling with for a while.
Speaker 2: Namely.
Speaker 11: What is the best use of our public rights of way our streets and our sidewalks and our cities? Who gets to use these public spaces.
Speaker 2: And how do we all get around more efficiently? A confusing.
Speaker 11: Patchwork of policies in this arena has created conflict among residents.
Speaker 7: Workers and visitors who use.
Speaker 11: Denver's streets every day. But it doesn't have to be this way. We can manage our streets more effectively if we keep some simple principles in mind. The Denver Streets Partnership outlined these principles in a position paper that we released last year, and we are pleased to see several of these principles embodied in the proposed legislation, including first prioritizing people, walking first and foremost.
Speaker 7: On our city streets. Second, for trips that are too long.
Speaker 11: To walk, prioritizing the safest and most space efficient modes of travel. And third, separating modes of travel by speed. Like bicycle scooters are smaller and slower than cars, and therefore they.
Speaker 2: Are inherently safer and more space efficient than cars. We therefore applaud the.
Speaker 11: City for welcoming scooters as part of a truly multimodal transportation system and for accommodating them in bike lanes and on slower speed roadways while only allowing scooters on the sidewalk when these other options are not available. Walk Denver and the Demonstrates Partnership urges City Council to adopt the proposed legislation as written and to keep these same principles in mind as you are developing additional pilot policies and strategies for managing our public right of way.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I think we have one more speaker, Patrick Quintana.
Speaker 13: Members of council in the evening. Thank you for organizing this hearing and giving us the chance to comment. My name is Patrick Quinton. I'm the market manager for lifts here in Denver and I live in Councilman Cashman's district. Lyft is excited to engage in this conversation about the future of Dockless mobility in Denver, the city's efforts to legalize riding scooters and bicycle lanes, roadways and sidewalks, and to share some of the guiding principles that shape our work in this space. Let's vision is first. It is designed around people, not cars. Achieving that vision will mean making long term investments in infrastructure to keep everyone safe. Things like protected bike lanes, safer crosswalks, and even car free areas to put pedestrians first. Lyft fully supports these interventions and looks forward to working with you to make these types of infrastructure improvements a reality in the neighborhoods across Denver. Live supports adding more options for how people get around our streets and using our technology to make choosing the healthiest, greenest and most efficient mode of transportation as easy as possible. Bikes, scooters and transit can serve a lion's share of short trips in our cities, far more so than cars. And we're excited to meet that demand, even if that means taking some trips from a ride share business. We support reclaiming space on our streets for people walking, biking, scooting and taking public transit. The full promise of micromobility can only be realized if we dedicate enough protected space to these new modes to take to make navigating our streets on two wheels as natural and safe as hopping in a car. With this proposed ordinance, Denver is taking a big step forward by opening and opening up bike lanes and low speed streets to scooter users, instead of forcing scooter users and pedestrians to fight for the limited sidewalk space that we have. We are encouraged by the city's efforts in adding more bike lanes throughout Denver, which we look forward to supporting. And we also look forward to additional program enhanced enhancements that will allow mobility operators to serve the city more meaningfully. We're proud to be operators of Dockless scooters in Denver, which is our first market, and we're excited to continue the bigger discussion about how micromobility of all kinds can be can help accelerate the push for safer, more sustainable streets. Thanks again for the chance to comment.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming down to speak at our hearing. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council? Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll share a little more feedback during the comment period about some communications I received about the bill. But while I have the companies here and I realize it's a little unfair because a couple of your representatives and one of you is with the company, but I'd like to ask if you could talk about what you believe. We, you, we city or we community could be doing in terms of the culture of users. There's still concern about youth on sidewalks and high, high traffic networks where we're prohibiting them from being in the street. And still a lot of concerns from particularly disabled members of the community who've had interactions with scooters being left blocking sideways and sidewalks and things like that. So I understand there's, you know, a role for government regulation and there's this question of culture change. So what are your companies doing? Or what could or should? What are some best practices about how we create a higher level of responsibility among users?
Speaker 13: I think I can kick that one off. I think the number one thing that we can do is just continue to educate users and that that onus is on us to make sure that we're communicating through our app and any communication that we have with our users that they need to park at, park the park the units properly, use the units on the street or in the bike lanes properly, and really educate the user on on the proper way to to ride in park. I think that as we continue to evolve the program, a lot of these things will come naturally. One of the approaches we've taken early on is we have a very high touch and operational model where we touch every scooter every day, and so we're constantly going throughout the city, picking them up, dropping them off, rebalancing, etc.. So that's one of the things that we're doing right now to overinvest operationally, to try and get ahead of that. But at the same time, it really does. It's on us to really educate the users. And can you continue to push that narrative forward?
Speaker 2: Well, the only thing that I would add is we have been having monthly meetings with public works and all of the operators where we have been talking exactly about that. So how do we communicate directly with our users, get feedback from the community of things that are working, not working, and specifically the communication and how we can immediately update those changes to our users through the app and then also through other communications methods. So we have been having those types of conversations with Denver Public Works as a group. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I had a constituent contact me because he was concerned that only a reflector is required on the rear. And I promised him I would make that point here tonight that we should consider putting a light in the rear. That's it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Black. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to piggyback on the question that was asked by Councilwoman Kennedy. It was my question as well. But what I have observed is that. And we've received a number of of calls and emails from people as well. But I have observed people just not stopping at stop signs and at stoplights. And, I mean, these people are putting their lives at risk by not following the street rules. And so I would just hope that part of that education is helping them to realize that. You know, not everybody is painful attention when they're on the road and a car is a lot more dangerous if they're taken a right hand turn and they think they have the right away and then somebody just blows right beside them. It's it's concerning. I know we've seen accidents that have occurred and whatnot. I think the the rules of, you know, where people are at and paying attention to when somebody is, you know, in a wheelchair that's navigating the same corridor, that's an important part of solving the problem. But I just want to make sure we're not seeing people killed because they're not paying attention to the rules. And so I appreciate the fact that you all are meeting and the companies are working with public works to try to figure out the best way to address and educate the users about that. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Patrick, I just wondering if is there a next generation scooter coming along and improvements that that are in the works?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think I probably speak for the industry when I say we're all continually iterating on our hardware. We're already working on our third and fourth generation. We've only launched our first generation hardware here in Denver. So we're continually making improvements to make sure that they're more robust for commercial grade use, making sure that battery life is longer, they're more sturdy. Just a lot of hardware enhancements that make these safer and better for us as an operator, you know, lower break rates, etc.. It's good for us longer battery life, good for us and for the users. So I think as an industry we're continually iterating on hardware.
Speaker 4: Yeah, my main take I get when I'm on one is they're they're really they are lightweight. They're a first generation product. And I'm glad to hear you're moving forward. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, Councilman Flynn, thank you.
Speaker 5: I don't know who might be equipped to answer this. It might be the attorneys who worked on it or Councilwoman Sussman or Cashman. But does this also apply to new, new types of these personal mobility devices, like like the electric unicycle and the one here called a ninebot or a hoverboard or as such devices as I saw a fellow in my district when I was headed home from Bear Valley down to Marsden. Who? Practically beat me all the way to my neighborhood on a device that was like a skateboard, but with a single wheel on it. So would the same rules apply here to those devices? Do we now?
Speaker 1: Your neck. Good evening, NICUs Williams Public Works. No, this is just going to apply. So we tried to narrowly define these vehicles, so it's just fine.
Speaker 12: It's just applies to the scooters. You see it on the street.
Speaker 5: Okay. So it applies basically to the business operated shared scooters, correct? Not to somebody who might just own their own unicycle or hoverboard.
Speaker 1: So you can excuse me.
Speaker 4: You can personally own.
Speaker 1: One of these scooters. Yes, that too. And that it would be. That would apply to that.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Can I thank your microphone, Councilman?
Speaker 4: The bill talks about two tandem wheels.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Newton. Yeah. Those are discussions you'll have monthly with everybody. Oh, you are talking about penalties for repeated bad behavior related to this culture issue.
Speaker 1: Yes. We communicate with the with the operators in this. And we certainly always communicate that the permit is a revocable permit, that if they are not complying with the rules of the with the rules of the program, the permit can be revoked from that.
Speaker 12: Generally, we.
Speaker 1: Found them to be responsive when we find things, vehicles not set up, right, vehicles deposited in trees, things like.
Speaker 12: That, we found them to be.
Speaker 1: Responsible. But yes, we stress that it's revocable and we try to have very open line of communication about any challenges we're seeing out there.
Speaker 0: Well, what about incidents where a rider is affecting somebody on a sidewalk? You're tracking those kind of.
Speaker 4: Incidents as well. Yeah, we're we've been.
Speaker 12: Working with the police department on that as well as we're working with hospital systems.
Speaker 4: To look at.
Speaker 12: Injuries. And then we've got kind of a comment line, and I've taken my fair share of.
Speaker 1: Phone calls from from residents. And that's, again, we try to have an open line of communication with the operators and then also with the police. As this ordinance, if passed.
Speaker 12: That clarifies the laws around this, the police would be better able to enforce those laws.
Speaker 0: Or the companies taking any action at all.
Speaker 1: So I think that kind of goes to the communication.
Speaker 12: Aspects of it. And maybe I should let them speak for themselves.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that. Are the companies taking the action getting repeated violations by an individuals or you're taking say.
Speaker 13: So for Lyft in particular? We do have a customer experience and safety team. So when we do receive reports of this, we can track down, you know, who was using the scooter, what was happening. So in cases of repeated bad behavior, there are cases where we have disabled accounts, that kind of stuff.
Speaker 0: And they're liable for that.
Speaker 13: Correct?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Kels. Manu. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: In the case of sort of bad behavior, I'm assuming you have to track that down by by location and time. Or is there an easier way to do that?
Speaker 13: So we track every ride so we know who's writing and we have the details on that ride. So when something is reported, we can we can track that down specifically. So. So does that answer your question? Yeah.
Speaker 12: The reason why is because it's more a question for the city attorney, which is, you know, did we talk about I don't recall us talking about any sort of clear identification, so why not have a three digit, you know, alpha numerical license plate, something very clear on on the vehicle itself. So because we already can report bad drivers on the road, you know, why not be able to just if something happens and somebody, you know, rolls off, we just you just give the three digit code and you know which company that is. And they can easily track their their rider that way.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I think from from our perspective, what we have is unique scooter ID numbers on every scooter and I think all the operators do so in the event where we somebody can look at this video and tell us the scooter number, then we're able to track that down. We don't have, you know, license plate or anything that's directly visible by somebody, you know, this far away between you and I. So in that instance, I guess, you know, there's certainly, I'm sure, bad behavior that we're not catching and enforcing against. And it'd be really hard to be 100% right there. But in the cases where we do have the scooter number and the ride information, then we're able to track it down.
Speaker 12: Yeah, because I would like to see more of this, not less. And so but I'd also like a real reliable and easy when the incident happens. If you can think, you can glance, you can see that number because we're already doing the badges, right? And we talked about somehow issuing a number for each one so that we sort of quantify where, you know, the number or system. So if we're doing if you have the ability to already you have multiple now we already built the infrastructure to sort of quantify on our side. And you always have been able to track your own devices doing something where it's identifiable. We have the same on our PC trucks, right? In other formats. How am I driving? Okay. So then the one thing I have for Lyft is. You know, I can't I can't stream a news article without having to be forced to watch 15/2 ad of something, you know? So why not? I'm sure you probably do this. And why not compel? Why not produce sort of public service messages about those different things? Don't leave your vehicle here. That is sort of a generic scooter vehicle that actually goes cross-platform with your colleagues at Lyft and I mean, at at Lime and Bird. So you're only producing the the content once. Is that something you guys are talking about or.
Speaker 13: I don't think we're discussing that right now. We can certainly have conversations around that, but it's something we haven't done here in Denver at least. So perhaps we can take that as a take away and and chat as a group.
Speaker 12: Yeah. And then even if you don't want to force your riders to, to endure that, you know, you could offer a discount on a ride. Hey, watch this quick video and you get the next ride and half, half off or something like that. Yeah.
Speaker 13: I think we're all pretty aligned on, on messaging generally. So I think, you know, it's certainly a possibility, something we can consider.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Well, my question, I guess it's just.
Speaker 0: Kind of piggybacked on the question earlier about private ownership. This is just scooters that we're talking about. Right. So if it was like a motorized. Not that I would ever survive the ride, but like a motorized.
Speaker 1: Unicycle or I mean, I could whip out the vans and I could cruise in a motorized skateboard, which I wish I had in my day. Those was the policy with those.
Speaker 0: Those types of vehicles, if you will. I wouldn't, because there's a lot of skaters and probably.
Speaker 1: Especially Generation X.
Speaker 0: That would disagree that their toys. But what would they. What would you do if you saw somebody cruising around on one of those in a bike lane or on the street or sidewalk?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to do anything other than what's right.
Speaker 12: Well, you the.
Speaker 0: City and county do.
Speaker 1: I think kind of the reason we've needed to make this regulation or this ordinance here was because there was existing law, but it didn't really apply to what was going on on.
Speaker 12: The street. So, you know, I think we talked about it before.
Speaker 1: When when when the toy vehicle ordinance was written, it was appropriate for the scale and the types of vehicles that are out there when these new generation of scooters came and then when they came at the volume, they did became necessary to go back and kind of clean up and find.
Speaker 12: A better way to regulate.
Speaker 1: Those. So I think with the other vehicles like the the powered unicycles or the hoverboards or things like that, I don't think there is currently a desire to change the law as it.
Speaker 12: Is written right.
Speaker 1: Now. As it is written right now. Could you get fined?
Speaker 0: For using a motorized skateboard.
Speaker 8: I mean, I'm not sure.
Speaker 12: As far as how the audience's. I imagine there are. Reckless endangerment. I'm not a Colorado lawyer, but I would imagine there are some police actions that could be taken. But I'm not familiar with any others.
Speaker 2: Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel I think Nate Lucero is probably more familiar with the code, but right now I don't think that that sort of thing is covered by our regulations in this manner at all. There was a lot of discussion about would we try to adopt a provision that anticipated treaty change in transportation? And we decided that we couldn't capture everything and we just wanted to narrowly tailor for the situation that needed to be regulated right now. Now, I don't know if you have anything you want to add to that.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Kirsten. It was her assistant city attorney. I think Miss Crawford addressed appropriately that I don't think.
Speaker 9: In this situation we we as she stated.
Speaker 8: We want her to capture this particular.
Speaker 12: Device that that.
Speaker 9: Really just sort of inundated the city at.
Speaker 12: A particular time. I think we had over 800 scooters dropped on on a Friday.
Speaker 8: Afternoon that.
Speaker 12: No one was really ready for.
Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Mr. President, I just.
Speaker 1: At some point, I understand. I wouldn't want to see somebody who's.
Speaker 0: Using this motorized skateboard cruising.
Speaker 1: Down to were ticketed. I think that, you know. I like the.
Speaker 0: Scooter. The 13 year old in me loves. You know, it's free.
Speaker 1: And I feel the wind in my hair. But then I finally realize that I'm a middle aged man in a.
Speaker 0: Suit, a little bit overweight, cruising around on a scooter. And I probably look ridiculous. So I'd rather be on a skateboard.
Speaker 1: If I had a choice.
Speaker 0: I'm glad. But I like. I like either one. They're fun. I'm glad that you did not pose that last part in the form of a question, even though we are in question. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Kathleen Ortega, do you have.
Speaker 7: I just want to clarify if we still have a cap on how many each of the companies can have and just kind of where are we with that? I know we started out with sort of a pilot and and does this now take us to just a full blown program? And then as you see violations, the the permits could be yanked. And I would think that the companies are doing what they can with their customers to try to prevent any of the violations, whatever those might be. So can you speak to that?
Speaker 1: Sure. So, yes, we are still in a pilot. The pilot started at the beginning of August. It'll go through until August, 12 month pilot. On that point, as far as caps, yes, we still have caps.
Speaker 12: We are. This was the big hurdle to get over before we wanted to raise fleet sizes. We didn't feel comfortable raising fleet sizes before this was handled.
Speaker 1: And assuming this is handled this evening, we've been working.
Speaker 12: With the operators and internally and we would expect to release fleet size adjustments within the next week.
Speaker 7: So that would change from what it is today. Correct. Do we know what that might go to?
Speaker 1: That's those are the final details that we're ironing out.
Speaker 7: But what the anticipation is, we will see more on the street.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. Lot more. Few more. Just sort of generally, I'm not asking you to give me a number.
Speaker 8: I mean, I understand negotiations or. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: I guess it depends on your definition of a lot more.
Speaker 7: All right. But you will inform us.
Speaker 12: Absolutely. Yes. No, we will communicate with you all.
Speaker 1: Okay. Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1476 is closed. Are there comments by members of council? Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 0: But I think.
Speaker 7: Like, it's not like.
Speaker 11: I want to thank everybody for showing up so late at night. I also want to thank Nick Williams and Jason for all the work that you did to help us with this. I appreciate it. I looked up in the some history and you should have heard the outcry when the car was introduced into into the pedestrian way . And this from the Smithsonian. An outcry arose aimed squarely at drivers. The public regarded them as murderers walking in the streets. That was normal driving. Now, that was aberrant, a crazy new form of selfish behavior. And that a New York Times story nation roused against motor killings, decrying the homicidal orgy of the motorcar. Although some of this is kind of true, the that's Bruce Cobb said the slaughter cannot go on. The mangling and crushing cannot continue. Interestingly, there were cities that tried to outlaw cars because they were taking over what was a pedestrian walkway. And so it is very interesting to me that we have, you know, whenever new kinds of technology comes along, it's like, oh, well, now we can't have that. I mean, what are we going to do? We're going to have to change things around. This is, again, a reason why I really think we need a mobility department that takes a look and is ready for these kinds of things. The questions we have just about what's coming next. I, I, I read a lot about this stuff. Yes, there is already a new thing for scooters and that is that they turn into computers. You can put them in another mode and when you finish and get off of them, they will follow you. And so you can go into the grocery store with your scooter following you like a little puppy dog, and you can put your groceries into whatever basket is on there and then go, you know, go through there and then ride your scooter home. We need to have somebody that's always looking out for this. What are we going to do about the hoverboards and the and the motorized scooters or the motorized whatevers? You know, what are we going to do about the drones when they are already made, one that can hold a human being? And I think it's really important for us to try to stay as far ahead of this as we can, just so we don't get surprised and get and start scrambling. And I also don't want to forget my colleague, Paul Cashman, who also started like I did, like we got to do something about this at the very beginning. And so appreciate working with him on this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Cashman as one of the sponsors. Would you like to go next?
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah, sure. Thank you, Mr. President. The only thing I wanted to add, I think the the real silver lining of this whole scooter experience for me is, is that it is pointed out how much work we have to do that we have to do to build out our. I know Councilwoman Sussman, I believe, calls them ABC Lanes, anything but cars. You know, we have such an intermittent system led to the complexity of this ordinance where they got to be on the sidewalks part of the time and in the street and then the bike lane. So the more work we can do on that, the more ready we will be for the next generation, whatever it happens to be. Although I don't know about lanes in the air for the the drone that. But that's all I've got. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Councilwoman Sussman, I think I need to check the Internet source on that. Are you sure that's not David Sachs at street level streetsblog back in the.
Speaker 11: Smithsonian dot com?
Speaker 12: No, I just wanted to thank first Lyft and then Byrd for pushing the issue and a little bit of civil disobedience on this front. You know, that's sort of near and dear to me. This was, you know, the technology of Dockless Bikes was out there for a long time. And we weren't we were in Stacy's watching City Public Works Not Act. And with one Friday, you know you you changed the whole discussion. And I think I think these rules were necessary. But we wouldn't have gotten here unless we if by talking about it, you know, trying to be preemptive in this regard and proactive. You guys were the proactive ones. And so, you know, so thanks for creating the market and hopefully we can actually use this sort of to pressure more multi modal lanes in the city that we can use for everything that travels at these speeds that are safe and outside of vehicular lanes, which do have some dangerous outcomes, as Jill is well aware of. So thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first thank the sponsors, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Cashman, for taking this on. It was one of those things where I bet there were probably 13 calls going to the city attorney saying, this is insane, how do we fix it? And she she was on it. And I appreciate Kiersten for for working with folks and the others who are from the departments. So thank you. I wanted to follow up on the question I asked because I do support this ordinance. It's a step in the right direction. But I do have some feedback that I've gotten from folks with disabilities who are really concerned about the sidewalks and thoroughfares, because in many cases those are the worst sidewalks so shared in boulevards, sidewalks right next to the street, narrow Monaco. So Colorado Boulevard, many of the streets that we're prohibiting the scooters from, from being in the street in their back, on the sidewalks, are the ones that would be the most dangerous for folks who have a disability, who are trying to get along. And so I do think that I appreciate that you're having meetings and talking about accountability, and you can put this in the record book. But the comment that Councilman Espinosa made, this is exactly I feel the same way that you have to be doing more of the on the rider education front. And I don't think that it's just through the app. You know, when I think about the other social campaigns we've had, whether it be seatbelts or whether it be trash, you know, don't litter. There has to be an ubiquity to a message for it to penetrate. And I frankly, I mean, I'm imagining you having even clips of folks with disabilities getting blocked and what it's like and what what them then going into Colorado Boulevard or into Monaco to try to avoid a scooter to them get to their bus stop or get to where they're going. And just to show the impact of the behavior, and I think that's got to be more than just in the app. So it's got to be in advertising. I mean, by sponsored ads on social media, I'm confident you're promoting these technologies in social media. With sponsored ads, you should be, you know, promoting their responsible use. So. So I think you've got to be looking for for more assertive ways to get the social message out. And I also would say to I mean, this is where I would engage your writer community. One of the things I appreciate most about the cyclists community is the way that there is some self-policing. So, hey, if we want to be on trails, for example, and have multi-use trails and I'm talking more about mountain trails now than I am urban trails, then we need to cede the trail to the walkers. Right? And we need to, you know, be using reasonable speeds and running, you know? Yes. Sometimes we need to ride next to each other. And but other times we have, you know, the ability to ride in tandem. And, you know, I feel like I've heard cyclists having those conversations among themselves about how to expand acceptance of their mode by being better riders. Now, it's not perfect, right? You know, but I certainly think that that kind of self I mean, run a contest for your riders, for example, to to be more responsible. And I just and I think to I don't know what conversations you've had with the disability community, but to the extent if you haven't had a meeting with them specifically, I would be happy to make some introductions to some of the folks who've been communicating. They intended to be here tonight. I don't want to use their names because they obviously weren't able to stay this long, but but they did want to testify and share some of their concerns firsthand. So I'm out on a limb a little bit without using names, but I'd be happy to make some introductions. And so all of this is to say, yes, it's important to have emerging technology, and, yes, it's important to move this law forward. But I want to see the level of social responsibility go up, and it's got to be more innovative than what I heard tonight. So thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Lopez. I'm good, Mr. President. You're good. All right. Thank you very much. All right. I will just say thank you to the sponsors. Thank you to the administration, thank you to public works. Thank you to everybody who came to speak on this. I'm glad that we are taking these positive steps forward. And with that, I'm secretary roll call the.
Speaker 3: Sussman.
Speaker 11: I. I.
Speaker 2: Brooks.
Speaker 1: I. Espinosa, I.
Speaker 3: Flynn I. Gilmore. I.
Speaker 1: Herndon, i.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Lopez I knew. Ortega.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 3: Assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting announced the results.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 0: 1513 I as comfortable 1476 has passed on Monday, February 4th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1482, changing the zoning classification for 4650 and 4698 Central Park Boulevard in Stapleton and a required public hearing on Townsville 1483 Changing the zoning classification for 2625 Walnut Street in five points.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance governing the operation of Electric Mobility Scooters (“EMSs”) in the city and county of Denver.
A bill for an ordinance governing the operation of Electric Mobility Scooters (“EMSs”) in the city and county of Denver. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-11-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022019_18-1266
|
Speaker 0: . No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Miss anything. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilman Ortega, you can go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill that it's actually an agreement, a consent agreement with National Jewish Health that will be doing some air monitoring at a number of city sites in the global Elyria, Swansea and neighborhoods and Exhibit A in the agreement has one of the names of the parks. That is not accurate. I did talk with the mayor's office and with Environmental Health today, and we're going to allow this to move forward tonight. They will file an amendment that changes the name of the park to correct it, and that should solve the problem. This was actually brought to my attention by one of the residents in the community. And so I think to honor the park name change that we did a few months ago, we wanted that to be consistent. So that will happen and we can allow this bill to move forward.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Consent Agreement for Voluntary Access between the City and County of Denver and National Jewish Health to conduct air quality monitoring studies in the Globeville, Elyria, and Swansea neighborhoods.
Approves a non-financial access agreement with National Jewish Health (NJH) through 12-31-19 for continued access to city property for purposes of conducting an air quality monitoring study in locations in the Globeville, Elyria, and Swansea neighborhoods in Council District 9 (ENVHL-201845753-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-7-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022019_18-1437
|
Speaker 3: This was actually brought to my attention by one of the residents in the community. And so I think to honor the park name change that we did a few months ago, we wanted that to be consistent. So that will happen and we can allow this bill to move forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Ortega. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And Councilman Brooks, will you please for councilor as resolution 1437 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. A move, the Council Resolution 1437 series of 2018 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments from members of Council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a contract amendment to our conduit, conduit, local, state and Local Solutions Inc. contract for the operation of our four speed photo speed vans and the photo red light program. And it was an expansion of the of the photo red light program as well. And I held this over on December 17th because I had some questions. And once I got the data, I and looked at the contract. There's actually had some errors in the contract. It listed the wrong intersections where we were going to put in the cameras. So that alone would would call for us to kill it and ask for a new or a new amendment to be brought forward. But in the meantime, both traffic engineering and Denver police came down to visit me at the office today, and they looked at the the information that I presented on Monday to to the members here in an email. And and they agreed to evaluate the yellow change interval, the timing of the yellow light, and to see if that would eliminate red light running better than a than I can't a ticket camera can do. I pointed out, for instance, that in the city of Loma Linda, California, a camera had been giving out an average of 249 tickets per month until the traffic engineers adjusted the yellow timing and it ended up issuing one ticket every six days . And that's the kind of results in the kind of safety we want here. And so they've agreed to to ask us to kill the contract tonight. So we're asking for a no vote on those. Based on those two factors, they're going to reevaluate the yellow change interval and other countermeasures and the fact that the contract amendment has the wrong intersections in it. And so they'll come back to us after this evaluation of all the other locations in up to maybe nine months and present us with with a different proposal. I do not oppose the expansion of the photo radar, a speeding van, and this contract would have added an additional van to that program. And so I've asked the administration to consider coming back to a sooner with a contract amendment that would add that van regardless, because these have been budgeted this has been budgeted for 2019 anyway, and I would support that. But I'm very grateful and thankful to DPD and traffic engineering for undertaking this because as I said before, the laws of traffic will always be trumped by the laws of physics. So if we give folks the requisite amount of time to come safely to a stop at a red light, I want to do that rather than just photograph an accident. So we asked for a no vote on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other comment, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn. No Black? No Brooks, no. Espinosa, no. Gilmore, no. Herndon.
Speaker 0: No. Cashman, no.
Speaker 2: Carnage, no. No, no. Ortega No. Susman No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Council Resolution 1437 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like to do with this item?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing Monday, January 7th, 2019. On second reading or final consideration of Council Bill 18, Dash 1476 regarding governing the operation of electric mobility scooters.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment to Management Program Agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. f/ka Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. to reflect the contractor’s name change and increase the contract maximum amount to provide expanded Photo Radar and Photo Red Light Services.
Amends a contract with Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc. by adding $1,177,460 for a new total of $7,807,421 for expanded photo radar and photo red light services including the relocation of one photo red light, the addition of two photo red light locations and one additional photo speed van. No change to contract duration (201627552). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-7-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-5-18. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, December 17, 2018 Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 2019.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022019_18-1507
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. If there are no objections from members of Council on Monday, January 7th, there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing on second or final reading for Council Bill 1476. All right, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman, can each go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really exciting bill 1507 And it's about a program that often isn't known by our residents, and it's really something for them. So that's why I called this out. This is first reading on the senior and disabled property tax rebate that used to just be for low income seniors and disabled folks . It was progressive and that included both renters and owners. But we actually didn't see very many owners who were able to take advantage of the program. We have about 3 to 4000 households each year, though, that apply to the city and get assistance. And so this bill tonight really is going to help us reach more owners who are struggling to stay in their homes as our property taxes go up with the values of our homes to support both our schools and the city. So the program itself doubled in 2012, but owners were unable to use it. And today's changes are going to increase the limits for owners. For example, for a single senior to be that you needed to earn less than 16,000 for a single senior or disabled person. Going forward, you can earn up to 20,500. So a pretty significant increase in eligibility for owners who are seniors or disabled folks. And then I think one of the most important changes is that it will now start to cover families with children. We have, you know, a couple thousand of these owners in the city who are lower income. Maybe they bought a home and then experienced a disability or a divorce. Maybe they inherited a home from parents. But for whatever reason, they own a home but have a very low income. And these families with children, they will be able to earn up to $27,000 for a family of two, for example, or 33,000 ish for a family of four. So we're going to really be able to help more single senior and disabled low income homeowners. And we're going to be able to, for the first time help families. So lots of kudos and we can share more of those on final reading. But just to help ask folks to help us get the word out, these programs are available starting May 1st for the prior tax year. And so all of the department's materials will be upgraded and reformed in the next couple of months. And so it's a super exciting set of changes and we'd appreciate the public's help and to spread the word. And thank you to everyone who worked on the bill. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Clerk. I am happy to support this on first reading tonight and you know, thank my colleagues, Councilwoman Kenney each and Councilman Espinosa for pulling together the Office of Economic Development, the Office of Finance, Denver Human Services. And, you know, this really came forward because residents in the Montebello community, the community that I live in, were very concerned about anti displacement tools that we could start to look at to make sure that we are allowing our seniors to age in place and others to stay within our community. And this was a low threshold where we as the city already had the senior and disabled property tax rebate program, and we would be able to expand this and get it out further and wider to our residents. And so I just want to give kudos and a thanks to the Montebello leadership cabinet because we've been working together with them for over three years, identifying different policies and initiatives that we could work on together as a community to mitigate involuntary displacement and the negative effects of gentrification in our community. And this is going to be a huge win for them as well, because they put a lot of time and effort and work into making sure we were able to push this forward. So thank you. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman, can you just go ahead with your comment?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article XI (Refund Payments to Elderly or Disabled Persons) of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (Taxation and Miscellaneous Revenue).
Amends Article XI of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) relating to the Refund Payments to Elderly or Disabled Persons program to expand eligibility including to low-income homeowning families with children, citywide. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-19-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022019_18-1508
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman, can you just go ahead with your comment?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Two bills up tonight. So my apologies to my colleagues, but it's an exciting night. This Bill 1508, is about banning the practice known as conversion therapy. It isn't easy to be someone different than the world expected you to be, to love or want to be with someone that you were never told about in the fairytales that were read to you. To want to be a different gender, to be a different gender than you were raised. I know a little bit about this path because I had to come out to myself and to the world in my early twenties. Loving someone does not make you sick physically or mentally. Being a man or a woman or living outside those labels if you don't fit them neatly, does not make you sick mentally or physically. But shame and rejection make people sick. Shame and rejection that teach you that if you fail to meet the expectations that your religion or your family or your community has, then you are wrong and you don't belong. Each human being among us, we all need to feel like we are accepted by our families, by our communities, and we all need to be loved. And when the message someone receives is you can't get those things unless you change a fundamental part of who you are. You make someone sick. You put them at risk for depression, anxiety, for wanting to not live anymore because there's no way to reconcile something in you that can't change and an expectation that makes you wrong for being that way. Conversion therapy sometimes uses harsh and punitive techniques to try to reinforce this change that it seeks to make people go through. And many people, including folks who led the movement and founded the practice, I did a lot of research over the last few months, and many of the people who started this practice have since denounced it after seeing the harms it has caused the long list of folks who've lost their lives after going through this practice. So when it fails, the consequences are very real. So today's bill ensures that no minor in the city and county of Denver will be subjected to this practice in the form of therapy. Just like we protect minors from other things that could hurt them physically or mentally. We will be protecting them from this practice going forward. I'm very proud to be a part of the conversation that was really led by our LGBTQ commission, which is all volunteers. These are folks from every walks of life some straight, some gay, some transgender, and they all work together to raise this issue and bring it to Councilman Clark, myself, the mayor's office. I want to thank the mayor's office for embracing this and really putting a lot of work into making sure that we could get it done as quickly as possible. And even though we're only on first reading tonight because it's such an important moment, I just wanted to acknowledge the folks who may not be able to be here to tell their own stories about how shame and rejection and attempts to convert them may have. We have harms them, but we're here tonight for them. And I think this is a really important way for our community to affirm that we do love and accept people and we're here to support them through their journeys, not to reject them. Thank you. Council President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Can you thank you for your words. I can't say it. I can even approach saying it how you said it. I just want to add an amen and then also a thank you to the commission, to the administration, to the office of the city, the city attorney's office for all the work going into this . And I'm so excited to have this on first reading. I'll be even more excited next week when we get to put it through on second reading. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That concludes the items that have been called out. All other 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilman Brooks, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. President. I do move that all the resolution be adopted in final session, be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the following orders. 1445 1412 1447 1448 1449, 1481 1327 1413 1415 1451. Sloan up here 1452 1453 1454 1485, 1487, 1498, 1266, 13, 14, 1446, 1462, 14, 18, 1434, 14, 64, 14, 28. All series in 2018.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. Hi, Brooks.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi.
Speaker 0: When I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can teach. I knew Ortega I. Susman.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Secretary. Please close voting announced the results. 1212 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no public hearings. And if there are no objections from members of Council, we will not take a recess.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article IX of Chapter 28 of the Revised Municipal Code concerning “Prohibition of Conversion Therapy.”
Amends Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) by adding Article IX concerning the prohibition of conversion therapy for minors. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-19-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1511
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, seeing no other announcements. We're going to move on. There are no presentations. There are no communications. But we do have one proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 1511?
Speaker 6: I would be happy to. Proclamation number 181511 is recognizing Donna Altieri, founder of Altri Instrument Days in the City and County of Denver. Whereas Donna Rae Altieri started her business, Altieri instrument bakes in the early 1980s, making musical instrument bags and case covers out of her home in the Baker neighborhood, beginning with a tuba bag with back straps. And we're as she expanded her product line, two bags for French horns, flutes and nearly all symphony instruments and developed a customer base around the world. And. Whereas, she designed bags for traditional Japanese instruments for musicians in Denver's sister city of Takayama, Japan. And. Whereas, Altieri, instrument bags have always been manufactured in Denver using American components first in the Baker neighborhood, then in Curtis Park for the last 15 years, and again in Baker. And. Whereas, Altieri bakes, instrument bags have employed a workforce made up mostly of women, including people working from home grazing families, those struggling to find employment parolees and at least one relocated refugee, all making high wages for for the sewing trade. And. Whereas, ultra instrument bags ultimately grew to export half of its instrument bags internationally. And. Whereas, Altieri adds, Fruit Bags was recently acquired by JL Smith of Charlotte, North Carolina, in a transaction intended to keep up with the growing demand, expanding the workforce and committing to keep the business. This in Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of City and County of Denver, Section one, that Donna Rael Terry be honored for producing the first backpack for professional musician for developing the industry standard known around the world. For instrument bags. For her business acumen in professional music. For her insistence on making the instrument bags locally using American components. And an underserved labor force for exporting these Denver products around the world. And for working to keep all Terry bags in Denver and section two that the seal of the city and county of Denver be affixed to this proclamation and then a copy be transmitted to Donna Rail. Terry.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman are taking your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: A move for the adoption of proclamation number 181511.
Speaker 0: It has been moved can I get a second? And seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. As you know, this is a business in your district of the Baker neighborhood. And I had an opportunity to go to this site and see where these bags were actually produced. And at least one of the women who was one of the employees that helped make these bags also got to see some of the personal bags that Donna had made for herself, that I was encouraging her to make these and put them on the market because they're they're unique in in not only in their design, but they are so efficient in terms of the kind of bags that women normally want to carry where you're having to, you know, take a an iPad or a laptop. And most of them, you know, have the straps. You carry it like a backpack. But just the commitment that Donna had to keeping this business in Denver, working with local workforce and just seeing how this. What started out really is just providing a bag for somebody that that needed to figure out how to carry their instrument around and seeing how it grew to becoming an international business where people were reaching out to her from around the globe, saying, where can I get one of these bags for my instrument and where they didn't exist for certain instruments? She created a new bag for the different instruments that people were needing them for. And so when I was contacted asking if this was something I would be willing to do. Obviously the Baker neighborhood was part of my old district, and Donna's got long presence in that neighborhood, and I was just honored to be asked to do this. And so I just want to encourage my colleagues to support this tonight and just join me in congratulating Donna for her commitment to working with our local community in this way. That hopefully sets an example for many of our other businesses in the city of Denver. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Ortega, I really appreciate this proclamation. But what are what are bigs? Oh. Bags.
Speaker 6: Instrument bag.
Speaker 0: I'm just kidding.
Speaker 6: Are you making fun of my nurse?
Speaker 1: There's a West Denver accent and a Northside accent, and we never, ever get to highlight it. I need to get.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: But I love hearing it. And I love hearing it from my hometown right here. So I would be happy. And I appreciate you. I do. I do know this. And three, were there another friend of mine and I and I really appreciate seeing this product innovation come through. I've never met her, but I, I do know of this business. And I do appreciate you bringing in a proclamation about the banks to the city council.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Kellogg, Colorado.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And I know. And thank you, Councilman Ortega, for bringing this forward. I am excited to support Madam Secretary Oracle.
Speaker 3: With. Ortega. I black guy. Brooks. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can teach. I. Lopez. I knew. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 1212 hours proclamation 1511 has been adopted. Councilwoman Ortega, is there anyone you'd like to bring up to accept provisional?
Speaker 6: Terry is in the audience and I wanted to invite her to come forward. You're welcome to bring Mike with you if you want to.
Speaker 2: Do.
Speaker 6: This right up.
Speaker 7: To the microphone.
Speaker 6: If you want to pull the mic down just a little bit.
Speaker 3: I just feel so honored that you're doing this for me. It's been, you know, half of my life endeavor creating this and that. When you have a small business, it's hard to get the word out.
Speaker 8: Locally.
Speaker 3: Even though the rest of internationally you're known and it it this will bring it. Forward to the to the people of Denver and people of Colorado and the fact that Altieri instrument that has brought put Colorado on the music market around the world. But thanks.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing Donna Altieri, founder of Altieri Instrument Bags in the City and County of Denver
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1437
|
Speaker 0: 11 days. Council Bill 1409 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your question. Or is this the one that.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I ask for under rule 3.7 for a one week postponement for this resolution, which is the amendment to the photo radar and photo red light contract. At Mayor Council last week, both I and Councilman Lopez asked for additional information. And at this point, we have not received any answers yet. And so failing that, give them one more week to answer the and provide the information we asked for about how the intersections were chosen for the new red light cameras, what the accident rates were, what the yellow change interval timing changes might have been, and what other countermeasures might have been taken before putting up cameras that photograph accidents rather than prevent them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to chime in with that. I do support the the the postponement to January 2nd for the same reasons. You know, when I was in committee, I asked the same questions that I asked in mayor council, and that is regarding the intersection at 14th and Federal Boulevard. It's still very unclear and I haven't got any kind of answer yet whether we whether CDOT indeed studied that intersection or not, and that they studied 14th and federal and said no formally. And the other question I have is whether the city even asked whether they to study the intersection. We still haven't I still haven't received adequate information or any kind of response as to whether that indeed took place. It is a very dangerous intersection. It's an intersection, I think, that would benefit from a tool like like our photo radar, especially when it comes to pedestrian and auto accidents. I know that typically photo radar is intended for folks that are running red lights and auto and reducing auto auto accidents. We all can agree that a lot of you know what would remedy the situation would be more officers. But since we do not have the budget and we've actually came down in the number of folks on patrol, these questions are important. And it's important to know, especially when as a city, we've signed on to a Vision Zero philosophy and goals. So I would love to have some kind of response to those two questions. Definitely.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Generally, I am supportive of photo radar in our community. Photo red light that helps us look at keeping our intersections safe. The one thing that I was surprised and if this was already mentioned, I apologize because I was out in the hall. But when we had the presentation to our committee and learned that the data that is collected on accidents does not include pedestrians that are struck by a vehicle or fatalities that involve pedestrians, that is not part of the data that Vision Zero looks at. It's only car accidents, cars against each other. And I think we need to be collecting that data because we already know, for example, Federal Boulevard is one of the most unsafe pedestrian corridors. We've had a number of fatalities in Councilman Flint's district by Loretta Heights. We've seen a number of serious injuries. I'm not sure the stats on fatalities at 14th and federal where we have a rail stop, but people cross that to catch a bus and they'll dart across traffic. I've seen that multiple times because I'm in that area on a regular basis. And it's not to say this is the only corridor and the only intersection in the city. But I think it is important that we begin to collect the data that helps us to be more accurate in targeting the resources where we need to address them. And we know that 14 in federal is, in fact, one of those intersections that has had a lot of challenges and problems. So I support the postponement so that we can have more discussion about this and be able to bring it back. And hopefully, I don't know what the the lever is to get us to start collecting the pedestrian data, but I think around the city that is really critical. I don't even know if it includes bikes, but if bikes are not included as well, that that should be in terms of the accidents and potential fatalities as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, adoption of Council Resolution 1437 will be postponed to Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019. No formal motion or vote is required. Madam Secretary, please, with the next item on our screens. 1407 Councilman Espinosa, do you want to go ahead with your comment?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment to Management Program Agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. f/ka Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. to reflect the contractor’s name change and increase the contract maximum amount to provide expanded Photo Radar and Photo Red Light Services.
Amends a contract with Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc. by adding $1,177,460 for a new total of $7,807,421 for expanded photo radar and photo red light services including the relocation of one photo red light, the addition of two photo red light locations and one additional photo speed van. No change to contract duration (201627552). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-7-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-5-18. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, December 17, 2018 Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 2019.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1222
|
Speaker 0: 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. The 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 Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 1 to 2 two on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill eight are a series of 18 but discombobulated. I move that council bill 1220 to series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing of Council Bill 1222 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President, and council members. My name is Christopher Johnson. I'm a senior city planner with community planning and Development, and I will lead you through the staff presentation this evening. My colleague, a barge will also assist. He'll fill in on a few slides specific to the affordable housing requirements that are part of this zoning text amendment. Obviously a topic of strong importance and a lot of interest on all of your mind. So we will get to that shortly. So I think it's important to start by saying that what we're talking about tonight in terms of the text amendment to establish these new zone districts for CPG area is really implementing nearly 20 years of plan guidance that we have for the downtown area. It all goes back to the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000. That speaks to the Central Plan Valley as an area that is poised to become an example of both urban environmental protection and sustainable economic development. Blueprint Denver, that's in place, currently speaks to downtown more broadly in terms of the centerpiece of the city and truly of the region with the highest intensity of uses. And then the downtown area plan from 2007 spoke to the Central Platte Valley. Again, and specific to this area about opportunities that are beginning to emerge to densify these areas as parking is becoming less important and there is mode shift towards transit resources and the downtown plan amendment and the area plan amendment that was passed earlier this year and sorry, in June of 2018 really dove into a lot of detail about this area specifically. And then the future blueprint Denver, a draft of which the next draft will be coming out here later in the early part of 2019, continues on this discussion about downtown being our area of the most intensity and greatest height. So the downtown area plan amendment, as I mentioned, focused in specifically on Central Plat Valley or area. This is the district that's bound by I-25, Speer Boulevard on the north in an area parkway to the south and east. It builds upon that 27 downtown area plan and provides very specific recommendations in the same framework as the original downtown area plan to create and support a prosperous, distinctive, walkable, diverse and green city. And specifically, it addresses and establishes a vision about this area to become a neighborhood that is more integrated with the adjacent downtown and residential areas and matures into its own diverse and dense and distinctive neighborhood that connects the city to the river and really brings enhanced amenities to the existing and future residents. One of the most important things about the plan amendment is there is a very specific implementation section towards the end of the document that speaks directly to how do we move from vision to reality through a series in a system of regulatory tools, particularly, how do we calibrate the intensity of this area appropriately to be higher near the rail stations, the existing transit stations that are there, and then lower intensities near the river and adjacent existing buildings and neighborhoods. How do we promote a variety of building height and density to create some energy and excitement? How do we support diverse and desired architectural form and streetscapes? How do we start to break down a downtown environment to something that feels more comfortable at the human scale? How do we encourage those vibrant, mixed use streets in a neighborhood that's truly mixed use? And really, most importantly, how do we promote a diverse community with incentives for affordable housing? So how do we create a mechanism in a system that rewards higher development intensity with greater affordable housing? And then finally, to get to some of the more qualitative aspects that are really challenging to address through zoning. How do we use a system of design review and design standards and guidelines to really get to that rich architectural quality that people are interested in? So the regulatory framework that we're going to cover is fairly complex. There's a number of different mechanisms that we are using, four of which we are going to be talking about this evening. So the first is the text amendment to the Denver zoning code. That's what establishes these new zone districts to apply to the CPA area location. Part and parcel with that directly related is the amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code, which is before you as 18 dash 1407 that was just discussed earlier. This is what creates the actual affordable housing mechanism that's directly tied to the zoning. There's also design standards, the guidelines that I mentioned that will eventually be adopted as rules and regulations through our department, and then on a project by project basis, individual properties would come forward and request a rezoning, the first of which we're going to talk about this evening. And then there's a development agreement that is associated with that rezoning that will also be discussing that puts in place a process to develop. This other item is on the screen called the Infrastructure Master Plan that gets into much, much more detail related to the actual utilities and infrastructure, roads, connectivity, those kinds of things that Councilwoman Ortega was talking about in terms of how do we address some of the capacity issues when we're talking about a large development? So we're not at that point yet, but that is part of the development agreement that that will talk about in a little bit more detail this evening. So the sponsors of this text amendment to the Denver zoning code are Councilman Brooks and Espinoza. Portions of the Central Platte Valley Area District fall both within portions of District one and District nine. The Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment itself, as I mentioned, establishes new zone districts for this particular area, implements the objectives of the plan amendments , and the individual property owners need to come forward and request that rezoning. So the text amendment itself establishes a zone district, but they are not being legislatively applied. That is the individual property owners that are approaching us to request the rezoning. And then as I mentioned before, there is the related Denver Revised Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 27 that's being sponsored by our Department Community Planning and Development and the Office of Economic Development to establish those affordable housing provisions that are related to the use of incentive height. That's all part of the zoning package. The public process for this regulatory implementation has been a robust one. We we really dovetailed right on the heels of the adoption of the plan amendment. We began right away in July with a series of planning board information items to talk about the zoning tools that we can use here. We had a series of community open houses as well, culminating then and on two months ago to the day here to our planning board public hearing where it was recommended to move forward by a vote of 9 to 1. We through the process with the ludie committee and then noticing of course in public hearing tonight just as a look forward, the design standards and guidelines are in process in our department currently. They're in draft form, they're under internal review and we're hoping that those will be completed in the early part of next year. We're targeting a March 6th hearing and planning board for that. Ideally, the public comment on the text amendment itself has been fairly limited outside of the the community open houses and discussions that we've had there. We've received seven emailed comments prior to the Planning Board public hearing. There were five speakers at that hearing, four directly in support and one in support that had a few other comments for us to consider. And then a letter of support as well has arrived into our offices. So I'm going to dove into a little bit more about what's actually in the zoning for these CPD or area districts . And I'm going to try to relate the specific design standards and items in the zoning back to those plan amendment objectives that are described and particularly address the zoning and design standards and the quality of of this area. So the first one is how do we calibrate development intensity? As we mentioned, this is a 120 to 150 acre site overall is the district. And so how do we calibrate that development intensity appropriately across that entire area? So the text amendment this evening would establish three new downtown context zone districts. That would be the downtown Central Platte Valley area. So that creates the DCP prefix, and these would be the transition river and center districts. You can see by the by the diagram here that generally those three districts then relate to an overall intensity. The two on the left, the transition and the river district are somewhat lower in intensity. And then the center district, which would be the highest intensity district, is shown there on the right. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about each of these individually, because we've approached this notion of lower intensity in two slightly different ways, according to those transition in those river districts. So the first one in the transition district is really intended to be just that, a transition from this area to existing structures that would be within the overall area of Central Valley or area or existing buildings that perhaps are on the other side of Speer Boulevard or existing neighborhoods like the Jefferson Park neighborhood that's on the west side of I-25. So here, because there is some existing context for us to respond to. There's existing structures, existing buildings. We have taken the approach that intensity should be limited through a height limit so that we create an appropriate transition and contextual relationship to those existing buildings. So here there is a building form that is allowed to go up to 12 stories, and that transition district is appropriately located within about a block of those established neighborhoods and buildings. You can see on the screen highlighted in yellow that generally the appropriate areas for that transition district would be near that intersection of Speer in an area and extending up each of those streets slightly. And then also on the western side, particularly along Water Street. The River district then is a little bit different in that it is also lower intensity. But we've addressed this through instead of a height limit, we have addressed it through restrictions on the bulk or the girth of the buildings. So basically what happens here is there's building forms that are allowed to have a much shorter street wall. So the as you're walking down the sidewalk, the building that you might experience is in that 3 to 5 story range, but then would allow for much taller buildings. But they must be very thin in relative profile and widely spaced. There was a lot of guidance from the public and from the community through the plant amendment process to preserve something like porosity or permeability, a kind of a connection to the river, both physically and visually. So we did that appropriately through allowing these taller buildings, but much, much smaller footprints as you go taller. And then finally the center district, which is the most intense district. This is really intended to have the widest variety of not only uses, but also building forms. We've introduced a third building form that allows for a slightly larger building that would accommodate a larger commercial office tenant. Typically, they need a larger footprint in terms of their architectural building to meet their requirements. And so we've introduced that here. So in the center district there, the height limits and the limitations are basically address through the various building forms. There's the general building form that has a height limit. There is what's called the standard tower, which has a little bit more flexibility, a little bit more size, but has a floor area ratio cap on it and limitation . And then there is a point tower form that has the most restrictive design requirements as you go as you go taller. So the next item here in terms of objectives that we're trying to address through the zoning is how do we promote this variety of context sensitive buildings? And I sort of alluded to that in terms of these various building forms. So these are used in combination where in different zoned districts there are different building forms that are allowed. And you can see as you move sort of from left to right on the screen, the height or the floor area that's allowed the overall intensity of those buildings increases as you move from left to right. The upper storey design requirements or the limitations on the overall size of the building also get stronger and stronger as you move from left to right. So there's a there's a connection there between the allowed floor area and the allowed intensity with the limitations and the restrictions on the architectural form. And one of the most important things I think, to note here is that all of the street level and the lower storey design requirements, the things that we as members of the public walking down the street would really experience things like street level activity, uses, transparency, those kinds of things. Those are exactly the same across all of the building forms. So this is just another summary. The general is 12 stories allow is allowed in the transition or the center district it's much shorter it's only five story high limit in the river the standard tower, which is sort of that office, commercial office building type of building form that's only allowed in the central district, our highest intensity district. And then the point tower has the highest design restrictions as as you grow taller. So this is just sort of a visual summary of how these might be applied across these various zone districts. Transition only allows the general, the river district includes that general form at a much shorter level and the point tower, but it has a much shorter street wall of five stories and then the center district allows all three of those. So then how do we support this desired architectural forum? I've talked about these limitations, these upper storey limitations. As you get taller. We've developed a series of new rules of measurement for our development services and project review teams to use as they're evaluating future projects. So really the tradeoff is as you grow taller, you must grow smaller. So we're we're really trying to shape taller buildings to make sure that we are protecting access to the sun sky, limiting the impacts of shadows and really trying to relate taller buildings to a more human scale at the street level. So there's a tower floor plate area restriction on certain building forms as the overall square footage or size of a of a floor as you go taller, a linear dimension that speaks to the relative proportion of the building. So we're trying to avoid very thin and very long blade like buildings that tend to cause really strong shadows and block views. And then also the floor separation. So if we're going to allow tall buildings, we want to make sure that there's enough space between all of those two to allow for views and sun and sky access . This is just a summary of these things, and I don't necessarily expect you to go through each of these in great detail, but I think it's important to note that you can see the on the floor plate area, which is about halfway down here on the chart. The point our allowance, the maximum floor plate allowance on the point tower is half less than half of what the standard tower would allow. And the tower separation, particularly along the river, is upwards of 120 feet. And I think it's important to note that currently in our downtown core zoning there is no separation requirement other than what would be required for fire protection, which can be as little as 20 to 30 feet. So we're talking about a very significant increase in a required tower spacing to open open this area up. I should also mention before I move on very quickly, is the standard tower, which is the middle tower form that I've mentioned that relates to more commercial office type projects. We want that tower. We want that building form to only be used for those types of projects. And so we did actually also include a use limitation so that in that tower portion you must be less than 50% residential for those. So that the so that the sort of the the largest of those buildings is used for those commercial tenants that really need it. So finally, how do we encourage active and engaging streets here? We've talked a lot about big, tall buildings. What's that going to feel like down on the on the ground floor, on the street level? So all of these lower story and street level standards apply to all the building forms and all the districts. They really attempt to create that richness and human scale that we've been talking about. So how do we use things like setbacks and reduction of mass? How do we create an enhanced setback for residential units? So when there's a residential unit that comes all the way down to the street, how do we give them a little bit of extra room so that they can there there can be a more appropriate transition between that private and public realm. There is an open space requirement on larger lots. And then how do we activate that street? So again, this mixture and these requirements for build to transparency, requiring street level active uses and also on a few key streets, we've included some standards related to requiring nonresidential uses so that we can ensure that some of those key streets that were identified in the plan amendment actually have that higher intensity of commercial retail types of uses. It's also important to note that within each of these zoned districts, all of the streets that are going to be created will be classified as primary streets, and that includes the South Platte River frontage . So if you're familiar with other areas of the zoning code, we typically have a primary street and a side street designation where the side street has lower requirements and lower standards for transparency and things like that. Here we wanted to make sure that every street was held to the highest level. Parking. Parking is a big deal. And activity, the effect of parking and particularly parking structures on the activity on the street is really dramatic. And so one of the things that is also included here is that there is a requirement for an active use to be wrapped around that parking structure for the majority of the facade along the street. So the visibility of that structure is very, very limited. We're also implementing a parking maximum. So I think that that's a very important step for the city that has not been done yet in that there's a limitation on the amount of parking that is going to be allowed as part of a project here. And so there's no minimum parking requirement that's consistent with other downtown zoning districts. But there is a parking maximum. And then just a subtle nuance here in terms of the way parking floor area is calculated that is incorporated now into the way the standard tower floor area is calculated. So in the downtown core, parking doesn't count against you in terms of in terms of your overall floor area. But here in these districts, it will finally some other quick notes on permitted uses in the parking maximums. So the permitted uses in this district are what you would imagine for a downtown type of district, a very wide range of residential and commercial and entertainment types of uses. They generally follow the current allowed uses within Arapahoe Square. We did make the additions in the center district, the most intense district of a hospital use and also the arena stadium use. We wanted to make sure that those were both available to to future projects potentially in the Central District. And then in terms of the parking maximums, most of those are based on a total floor area calculation. But in terms of residential, we based that on the number of bedrooms, we we wanted to make sure that we were not somehow disincentivizing larger residential units if we were to set a parking maximum that was strictly set on the number of units. So we we are digging in a little bit deeper and basing that on the number of bedrooms. And another key important aspect is that the bicycle parking requirements here, the minimum requirements are approximately double what we see elsewhere in the city. So we're really trying to move the needle in terms of focusing the development in this area and within the zone districts away away from the car and more towards bicycle and other active modes of transportation.
Speaker 5: I think that's excellent. Excellent.
Speaker 13: Mr. Barge.
Speaker 11: All right. So I'll shift gears for just a moment. I'm a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I apologize. I wasn't able to identify myself on the earlier question. As Christopher mentioned, this is a really important aspect of the system to implement the plan for this area that the the plan amendment for CPV or area says more about affordable housing than other any other area plan that's that's been adopted, to our knowledge, in Denver. And one of the important concepts in the plan is that this this great higher density active downtown neighborhood, that the value that's created by that development potential through the through the zoning be leveraged to obtain specific community benefits. Denver has a lot of needs. The primary one, you know, that we're all talking about now is affordable housing. And so we've proposed a system that's linked to the zoning that would share the value of that increased development potential by requiring additional affordable housing for the projects that that use that use that and that they meet the plan objectives for affordable housing at low and moderate income levels and to ensure a variety of unit types and sizes and that there be affordable housing that's for sale and for rent, so that the zoning sets a five storey height threshold beyond which these special requirements would apply. And so there's no special requirements for development up to five storeys. But in at least two of the districts, there's a lot of development potential beyond five storeys. And the special requirements would would then apply. The way that it's set up is that that five storey threshold is in the in the zoning text amendment and that allows from seven stories of additional height in the transition district, which has a 12 storey height limit to potentially unlimited additional height with with a lot of design requirements in the other two districts. And then the Municipal Code Amendment, which will be before you as a separate vote, then provides the specific housing requirements that would apply when using the incentive height beyond five storeys. And the way that it's set up, the basic structure is similar to that of the thirty-eighths and Blake incentive overlay that city council approved earlier this year that ties back into the citywide linkage fee system and sets requirements a little differently depending on project type. So for residential or residential mixed use projects that are that are primarily residential, it would actually require the provision of on site affordable units, whereas the citywide system says that's just an option or you can pay a fee in this system, residential projects would actually have to provide units and then provides a higher level of unit requirement for the square footage that's in the incentive high area for primarily commercial projects. There would still be multiple options available, including the option to pay a fee or to build units. But either way, the requirement based on the square footage of height or the square footage that's above the five storey threshold would be much higher than the citywide requirements. And we'll run through some examples and then a requirement that all large phased projects that will define in just a moment that are using incentive height, height above five stories, that they actually meet those incentive requirements by preparing an affordable housing plan that would be approved. And I'll give you some details on that in just a moment. But first, some examples of how the basic incentive system would operate. So this is a really simple example. It's a it's a building that doesn't use incentive height, just a five storey building. So on the left, that building built anywhere in the city would have the option to pay a linkage fee based on the 75,000 square foot residential total. The fee would be about $116,000, or it would have the option to build units instead. In this case, the requirement would be just one unit. And so just for example, in if approved and one of the new central Flat Valley area districts, the requirement would be exactly the same because this building isn't using incentive. Fine. However, in this example, we now have a 12 storey building that is using incentive height. So if this building on the left were somewhere else in the city, let's say. See our Max 12 zone district where it was just operating under the citywide linkage fee system, would have the option to pay a linkage fee of about $280,000, or if it exercised the option to build units, that would be three units. However, in the one of the new Central Valley area districts, the special requirements would apply. Number one, it's a it's a primarily residential building. And this example, 100% residential. So the fee option doesn't exist. There would only be a unit option. And then the way the number of required units is calculated is to first take the the citywide requirement on all of the square footage in the building. So that's the three units, same as the example on the left. And then the special incentive requirements based on the square footage above the fifth floor are a multiple of six times of the citywide unit requirement that generates 11 affordable units. So that gets added to the three units for a total unit requirement of 14 units. So just to summarize on the left, if that 12 storey building were built somewhere else in the city, $280,000 or three units on the right, if it were built in a CPV zone district, there would be a requirement for units and it would be 14 units in this example. And then one more example is a big mixed use project that is in this example, primarily residential, although there's also a hotel component. So if built elsewhere in the city, this this large project would have the option to pay a linkage fee of over $1.2 million or build 15 affordable units . And in one of the DC PV zoned districts, it's primarily residential. So again, it would have to provide the affordable housing units on site or in the immediate district, and that would be calculated by taking those 15 units, the citywide requirement.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to create new zone districts in the Downtown context.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to establish three new Downtown Neighborhood Context zone districts and other associated amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1225
|
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1111 I is council bill 1407 as amended has passed our rate. With that, we're going to move on. Councilman Lopez, will you please put council vote one, 2 to 5 on the.
Speaker 1: Floor and get to that page? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill one 2 to 5 series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration to pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 1 to 25 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members again, Christopher Johnson, senior city planner with community planning and development. So now that we are through the first half to establish the zone districts themselves and the affordable housing requirements that run with those, we will now address the first proposed rezoning to these new zoned districts for 1901 seventh Street, known as the River Mile. It is generally the area of the current U.S. Gardens amusement park. So this this particular property does fall entirely within Council District nine represented by Councilman Brooks. It falls also within the area, overall statistical neighborhood. Here you can see in red, it's generally the the property that is in between the consolidated mainline railroad and the South Platte River. The request for this map amendment is to rezone to two out of the three new zone districts that we just talked about, the DC, PVR and the DD CPC. So the river in the center districts. You can see on the screen there's a dividing line that essentially runs as an extension of the current Ilitch circle right of way that is right there, that runs sort of to the southwest and then makes a jog before connecting. A little bit further down towards the river. The existing zoning for this property is currently skimpy. E.A., which stands for Campus Entertainment, which is a very open ended and broad zone district that was created when the news the zoning code was adopted back in 2010. There's very, very little in terms of any kind of design standards and regulatory items. There is a height limit for this area that's currently 200 feet to the north is kind of a mixture of of open space that runs parallel to Cherry Creek. There's several PUD zone districts related to the Union Station area and also some downtown lower downtown zone districts and a small area of Sierra eight there to the east, the Pepsi Center side of the property. This is mostly old code zoning. It falls under CMU 30 with and there's a number of waivers that are attached to that. There's also some existing CMCs five and eight zone districts that are also on that eastern side of the consolidated main line. You can see as you get towards the area parkway, there's a number of existing, both residential and office properties there that fall within that zone. District to the south is primarily CSX five. That generally follows the I-25 corridor. And then on the west side is a is a mixture primarily at least directly adjacent to the property is is open space. The obviously the open space that is city owned that is adjacent to the South Platte River, Centennial Gardens, which is up at the far northern end, and then on the western side, Fishback and Crescent Parks. And then there's also a number of old code zoning, CMU ten zoning that's over on that side and a few C-Max five and 12 zone districts as well. The Old City Hall Mountain View plane that was raised earlier. As you can see here from this diagram, it does extend and cross over the southern portion of this property. As mentioned before, the height limits related to that view plane are in the 95 to 100 foot range in that in that area. So regardless of what the zone district might be, as long as that view plane is is in existence and in effect, it would limit height of buildings to that 95 to 100 feet. And as mentioned, the the the state capital view plane also extends over a small portion, but is essentially overruled by this particular view plane because it's more restrictive. The land use is, as you might imagine, it's entertainment and cultural uses here. On the property itself, there's also a lot of surface parking that is a very similar situation on the eastern side with the Pepsi Center and the surrounding parking lots related to that. On the northern side is is a mixed use and multi-unit residential the characteristic of course of of downtown and all the development that's happened around the Union Station area to the south is kind of a mixture of industrial and mixed use. And then to the west, as I mentioned, parks and open space and a number of other entertainment and cultural uses, including the Downtown Aquarium and the Children's Museum, is also there on the on the western side near Water Street. A few photographs to get a sense of kind of the built context of this area. The first photo that's on the right is from the opposite side of the river, looking back towards downtown, across the English Gardens amusement area, and then a few onsite photographs in the in the middle and the lower right, showing some of the existing parking lots and a few larger buildings and structures that surround the area at the far right. And that middle photograph is the confluence building, confluence residential tower, and then the Pepsi Center, of course, on the other side of the railroad tracks, as is feature there in that lower photograph. And then this is sort of Google Earth aerial photographs that is is able to provide a little bit more context of the overall area and some of the surrounding context related to some of the structures and its relationship as being part of downtown. So we've started talking about this a little bit already. But one of the most important things that runs with this proposed rezoning is that because of the scale and the complexity of this project, there is an associated development agreement. And so the development agreement is is a legal contract essentially entered into between the developer and the city. And we're using this development agreement and then a future infrastructure master plan that I that I referenced before, really as a substitute to the general development plan process or the GDP. And that's partly just because of the scale and the complexity and the longevity of this project. Things are going to evolve. And at this moment of of getting the rezoning, we don't have all the answers. And so part of what the general part of what the development agreement is requiring is for the developer to continue with a number of various studies to look more closely, particularly at some of the infrastructure requirements and some of the traffic needs. So in the development agreement, which is in the staff report, it includes a requirement for a process to complete this infrastructure master plan. So that's going to involve all of the major utility infrastructure, water service, sewer service, streets and roads, right of ways, the relationship and the character of what those roads look like, bike lanes, number of traffic lanes, parking, all that, all those kinds of things will get vetted and worked through a process that includes not only our department , but also our public works department and the Parks and Recreation Department and others within within our city agencies. So another aspect is for the the developer to develop a comprehensive transportation demand management program. So this is really over and above any parking maximum requirements that are already built into the zoning. This is a system of more programmatic elements that can be used to to limit the amount of of vehicular traffic and try to shift people towards other modes of transportation. Much further study on the vehicular and the pedestrian bicycle and transit connections here. As you're probably aware, this particular parcel is fairly isolated in terms of its connectivity to the greater street grid and and part of what would be required to allow the level of development that we're talking about here and that we've mentioned there's going to need to be a number of additional new connections, and those could be vehicular connections. They could be multi-modal transit connections, pedestrian bridges, other things like that. And so we don't know exactly how many or where those need to be. There's ideas and a vision for those things that are that are described in the plan amendment. But these future studies are going to help the developer and the city come to a more resolution about exactly what's required. There's a very specific requirement for the amount of open space within this project, a minimum of 12% of the net developable area. So after all, public right of way and other items are subtracted out of that overall 58 acres, then 12% of that must be identified and specifically set aside as a public park and open space. There's been a negotiation with our Parks Department as to the the size and the character and the amenities that are provided in each of those different parks. So that's all, again, included in the development agreement that a minimum number of specific park types and amenities would need to be provided and including a few other community benefits, including a corn shell, actually the developer paying to build the core corn shell, improvements for a recreation center and also a new Parks Rec maintenance facility that is desperately needed in that area. One of the most critical items that's going to be really first on the docket for the developer as they move forward is there are significant floodplain issues with the current property. And so the first thing is going to be how to address the floodplain and the river improvements that are associated with that. So that's really the first step towards actually in conjunction with the course development of an infrastructure master plan working through and determining what all of those mitigation needs are going to be and then actually executing those before moving forward with the project. Same thing with environmental remediation, as you're well aware of. The history of this site is very industrial, very linked to the to the rail history there. And so there's there's a significant amount of remediation to be addressed. And so the development agreement sets forward a requirement to enter into a process to determine how that's going to be dealt with. And then also in the development agreement and the reason why it's being presented to you tonight is that there is a vesting of certain zoning requirements, particularly including some of the height and the. They are allowances and standards that are in the zoning. So the piece that everybody wants to talk about that's also part of the development agreement is this affordable housing plan. So as as Abe has described, the amendment that was just made and and approved to the revised municipal code establishes this requirement for any buildings that are above five stories that that actually execute on that incentive height. One of the ways to address that and one of the ways to qualify for that incentive height for a large or phased project is to develop this affordable housing plan. So the the specific affordable housing plan that is that is tied to the river mill development and to this rezoning here tonight, as Melissa has mentioned, requires 15% of the overall number of housing units to be provided as affordable. There's minimum dedication of units as being affordable for the number of years. Minimum here is is 40 years. If there are any city subsidized, then that would trigger the six year duration that was just recently discussed and passed here by council. As Melissa also described, the requirements for a dedication of a number of those units or a certain percentage of those units to meet various levels of of ami portion of those units being affordable up to 100% if they are for sale minimum percentages to be a certain size so that we can encourage larger units, family, affordable units , minimum percentage for for sale, for rent differences. And also this includes a mechanism for nonresidential uses to also contribute to the affordable housing requirements. So the revised municipal code amendment that was just passed that has a requirement for both residential and nonresidential types of projects, both of them have to meet a certain increased affordable housing standard. This does the same thing. So any kind of commercial development or nonresidential development also has a requirement to contribute funding towards additional units or to community serving uses. And the last note here is that there are compliance milestones that are built into that affordable housing plan. So hopefully we can avoid the situation that happened at Stapleton, where a lot of that affordable housing was put off to the end. Here, there are compliance milestones that as the project is developed phase by phase, time by time, that there will be certain compliance requirements to be met as the project moves forward over a 20 to 25 year time frame. So the standard map amendment rezoning process has has carried forward. The property has been posted. Similarly, as as we did tonight, we went to a planning board with a combination text and map amendment and also this was recommended for approval by the planning board by the vote of 91, went to the land use Transportation Infrastructure Committee and then posted the property again for a city council hearing. And we are here this evening. And the the only public comment letter that we received specific to the rezoning was the same letter that was submitted by by Tim Bors related to both the text and the map amendment. And that was in support. So the review criteria for rezonings is very similar to what we just discussed for the text amendment. There's a few additional at the at the end that I'll refer to, but making sure that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans and as we described, the text amendment itself has taken care of a lot of these things. And so it's it's very clear that now the rezoning or the request by the property owner to rezone to those districts will be similarly consistent with those adopted plans. I talked through the comp plan 2000 strategies and some of the vision statements that are in in that comp plan. It's summarized in your staff report. One of the other items that is noted here was a legacy strategy here to identify areas within the city where increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Blueprint Denver 2002. Same thing here. It's in the downtown context. It's part of an area of change. All of this is consistent with the text amendment and the zone districts that were just adopted into rezone to this would would follow that pattern. Blueprint Denver also talks about future street classification. There's very little road infrastructure at all that's internal to the site. Speer Boulevard and Area Parkway, way down at the very southern end is adjacent to the property. Those are identified as mixed use arterials. And then the only other street is Ilitch Circle, which is identified in Blueprint as a non designated local. So again, the need for that infrastructure master plan as we move forward with this to define new streets and the street grid and the connectivity to the rest of the city is is going to be very important downtown area plan identified this this particular location is as an area for a future opportunities to densify and then same thing with the downtown area plan amendment which dove into again much more detail and spoke about how the regulatory tools could apply to to implement the plan objectives and move this forward. So those those were all speaking to the consistency with the adopted plans. The the rezoning would also result in uniformity of district regulations. And between both the DCP River and center districts, it would further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and enabling this walkable urban neighborhood. And then the two additional items for rezonings. One of them is that there needs to be a justifying circumstance to help trigger and justify the change. And one of those justifying circumstances that would qualify is that the city has adopted plans and policies or changed the direction since 2010, which obviously this has happened. So this has been met through the adoption of that downtown area plan amendment earlier this year. And then also another justifying circumstances is the changed or changing conditions. And I think we're all very aware of how much significant development has really happened in this particular location adjacent in the Union Station areas, Riverfront Park in the Commons area and even up into the into the Lower Highlands neighborhood, and then finally making sure that the rezoning and the request is consistent with the context and the zone district's purpose and intent. So in the text amendment that was adopted, there is clear language about the intent of these zoned districts and where they should be applied. The downtown neighborhood context itself consists of a mix of multi-unit and residential, commercial office, institutional etc. uses in large buildings containing one or more uses. That's the description of the downtown context that's in the Denver zoning code. We're obviously consistent with that. And then the the river district as described in the new text amendment as appropriate, located within approximately one, two, one and a half blocks of the river and in the map. That is what's being proposed here. And then the Central District being located within approximately 2 to 3 blocks of those existing transit facilities, the consolidated, my main mainline and a few other specific locations in the overall CPV area district. So with that, CPD recommends that City Council approve the Map Amendment Application Number 2018 i00131 which before you is council bill 18 1225 and based on finding that all of these review criteria have been met and then we also recommend that City Council approve the related River Mile Development Agreement that's in front of you as a resolution 18 1287. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five up. I would ask you to come to this front bench if you're in the first five, because as I call your name, your time will start. So step right up to the podium and begin Doug in, Jeff Shoemaker, Mary Ann Thompson, Kim Colley and Jesse Parris will be our first five priests. The microphone is yours.
Speaker 2: Thank you all. My name is Reece Dugan. Three, three, two, four, two, one. Street in Denver. 3 minutes is not a lot of time to describe this project, but I think we've talked about it not only tonight at length, but also for the past two years. I really, really want to thank everyone who's been a part of this process for the past two years. A lot of people think that city is just happened by accident, but it takes a lot of work and this has been two years of work. So for those of you who keep coming out night after night, month after month, thank you all. Really quickly, I think we've hit the high points. I just want to run through some numbers. I'm going to give you the river mile by the numbers. You all have a book in front of you that talks about the project. But here's the high points. The numbers, 62 total acreage of the site, including the ME. I will cite contaminated downtown adjacent one mile of riverfront, historically, historically neglected disconnected from the city due to historical and current land uses 205 yes 205 meetings with the Public Neighbors Council and city staff resulted in a surprising and encouraging shared vision for this area of downtown. 15 as we've heard. Percent of residential units that will be affordable the most comprehensive, affordable housing plan undertaken in the city to date, another 15% of the site area that will be allocated to parks and open space, exceeding the 10% mandated by the city staff, said 12. Our site plan currently reflects a 15% $600 million of infrastructure spend $6.8 billion in total development costs at full buildout. 16,450 possible future residents across a wide socioeconomic spectrum. 25,730 possible future workers, many of whom will have an opportunity to live in the community where they work for 25 years . The estimated time frame for total buildout. We're planning for the future of Denver today. Zero. The amount of dollars being sought from the city developer funded. 2500 rainbow trout stock to date in this stretch of the river, proving the untapped potential of this stretch known as the river mouth. In closing, on behalf of my team, our partner, Mr. Cronk and his family, we're excited to be in front of you tonight to share our vision. We hope you share our excitement and that we can move a step closer together on this 25 year journey. We're available, as is our as are our architects and consultants to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 14: Good evening, members. It's great to be back. Jeff Shoemaker two, three, four, five, six. East Cornell of New Denver, 802 ten. It's an honor to stand before you. I'm honored to have Devin Buckles and Ryan Ades of my staff here throughout the journey this evening. I also want to take a moment to this body and thank you for your support of Measure to a back in July. I'm delighted that 61% of our voters agreed with your leadership and in particular, Mr. President and Councilwoman Black, I want to thank you for your particular leadership in seeing that movie, that motion go forward. It's at moments like this when as the 38 year director of the Greenway Foundation, I get to witness a true and full realization of the Greenway Foundation's 45 year goal to allow the South Platte River to one day become the best place to work, live and play in Denver. This was if there can be anything such as the worst of the worst of the worst of what this river and the adjoining area used to be. This is it. The best thing we've found in this area is coal tar, and it goes downhill from there. And look what this is going to become. Look what this is going to become. And it is an opportunity to maximize the very birthplace of Denver. I'll conclude with this. I have engaged with numerous land owners, numerous developers, numerous visionaries. And I have not come upon an organization or group of partners that has engaged to maximize this river any stronger than this group has. Two examples. They are exceeding the minimum amount significantly of affordable housing within their site and they are exceeding the required amount of park space, open space and river space. This does not happen. This does not happen every day. And it's an example of who they've been over the last two and a half years, and I'm confident who they will be moving forward for the next 25 years. I'll finish with I enthusiastically refuses to ask you to support this measure. This is one of very, very few moments where I'd like to be on your side of the aisle. Thank you all very, very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mary Ann Thompson.
Speaker 6: Ladies and gentlemen, I guess I am the pink.
Speaker 3: Elephant in the room as an activist with the homeless, with Denver.
Speaker 6: Homeless out loud. I want to.
Speaker 8: Take the time right now.
Speaker 6: To.
Speaker 8: Say the.
Speaker 6: Word.
Speaker 8: Affordable is deceptive.
Speaker 3: Hmm. Affordable? To whom?
Speaker 6: Ladies and gentlemen, if I came from San Francisco like my daughter did, and I am now have I am now living the good life here, I am now able to travel the whole world. What about the Denver ites? What about the.
Speaker 8: Gentrification that happened.
Speaker 6: Up by points? People that got pushed out to Aurora OC? Right now, ladies and gentlemen, in this city tonight, there are at least 6000 homeless people of whom 23,000 are children in the Denver public schools. Homelessness is increasing yearly due to rental increases and many other systemic problems. Again, you are failing to build housing for the homeless. Denver Rights are being swept away out of our city and state because people who are being transported here are able to afford all this. I am not cutting down development. As a person from Arizona. I watched the same thing happen where I could never buy a house I could never afford and be able to afford all the stuff that's coming in. So, again.
Speaker 8: With all this.
Speaker 6: Are we are we being inclusive here? Do we again, I'm saying where is the Colorado coalition? I don't see I don't see any representatives here in this chamber. And this is about we the people. So I'm just closing and saying, no, I disagree with this. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Could you please state your name for the record?
Speaker 6: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Mariana Thompson. Thank you very much. Next up, Kim Collie. Kim Collie. All right. Next up, Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 14: Jesse Paris Black Star. It's a moment for self-defense. Denver Homasi out loud and positive action commitment for change. And I'm also an at large candidate for 2019. Like was previously stated by Mariam. We are against this. This is not addressing the need at all. Yeah. You're planning for five, ten, 20 years from now. This city is already being frantically, rampantly gentrified, so it's no telling what it's going to look like in five, ten, 20 years. The bottom line is, if you don't have any money, you are not going to be able to live in Denver. Period. It's already are already currently seeing this already in these rebel mile districts and all these other zone districts is not going to solve that problem. Like was already stated, there is nobody here from the coalition. There is nobody here from DSA. There is no guarantee any of this is going to actually be affordable. What we really need to be talking about is attainable and accessible housing. Housing that actually starts at 0%, areal minimum income. They like to talk in codes, so I have to break it down to you. That's what the AMA is and that's where it needs to be starting if you really want to address the housing issues in the city. So yeah. Then we're almost out loud. Blessed are some movement parties have actually come in for changes against this. Like I said earlier, we need to sweep council into sweep the mayor like he's sweeping the homeless every night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I will call the last three people who have signed up to speak for this. If you could come to the front. Michael Duties Chairman, say Q and Ronnie Crawford. I'm sorry if I got that name right. It I'm not sure how it came through in the system. I apologize. Go ahead. The microphone is your.
Speaker 11: Good evening. I'm Michael Gates.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council members for.
Speaker 11: Allowing me to speak.
Speaker 2: I'm president of Jefferson Park United Neighbors whose.
Speaker 11: Boundaries are superior to 17th.
Speaker 2: And federal to Water Street, where the closest neighborhood to the west of the.
Speaker 11: These zoned districts. For over a year we've had a dialog with the city and developer.
Speaker 2: Of this area. Part of this dialog.
Speaker 11: Was about improving the connectivity for.
Speaker 2: Residents of Jefferson Park. Sloan's Lake was Colfax and West.
Speaker 11: Highlands to these new zone districts into downtown.
Speaker 2: Specifically all for a multi-modal transportation.
Speaker 11: Solution on 23rd Avenue.
Speaker 2: The 23rd Avenue Bridge and Water Street. This area has a host of transportation problems, ranging from the lack of sidewalks to speeding cars exiting the highway. It impacts not only residents, but those who attend nearby attractions such as Denver Aquarium, Children's Museum and Bronco football games. We'd like to thank Councilman Espinosa and.
Speaker 11: Community Planning and Development for listening to the concerns.
Speaker 2: Of residents and expanding the language.
Speaker 11: Related to the 23rd Avenue Bridge. From just two.
Speaker 2: Paragraphs in the initial draft to two pages in the final version of the downtown area planned amendment. We'd also like to thank.
Speaker 11: Reece.
Speaker 2: Dugan for being available to answer questions and.
Speaker 11: Collect feedback from residents.
Speaker 2: At several of our well-attended.
Speaker 11: Neighborhood meetings. There was concern about the ferocity of the development and how the city will work with CDOT.
Speaker 2: In regards to transportation projects around this area.
Speaker 11: Our RINO's asked the city to be.
Speaker 2: Cognizant of these issues as as we move forward in this. Lastly, I'd like to.
Speaker 11: State that our Land Use Committee and.
Speaker 2: General membership voted.
Speaker 11: Unanimously to support these new zone districts.
Speaker 2: Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 2: Germans say Ku Klux. Our movement next May come in December 2019. But first of all, I don't want folks who are watching this on television to misunderstand the process. President Clark was proper and admonished me from the chair so that this thing could take upon a certain context with understanding. There are children who are looking at this on TV and that's not a good thing to do. So. That's one, too. To get to the subject matter. I. Stand firm with the words in which I expressed, not necessarily in terms of exactly those particular words, but exactly those meanings. So I do not apologize for the meaning of what I said. I apologize for the manner in which I expressed that. This again required me to go to Google and look up some words that may be appropriate for kids looking. So here we go. This. Here is some more poo poo. La la. Legislation. And it's poo poo la la because it doesn't really get to the essence of what it really is. It's kind of like if you step on some poo poo lala, that's one thing. But if you bring it into the house, it's another thing. So here we go with this again, self-interest. Poo poo la la. All about me. Myself and I. All these years. Born and raised here. 67 years. Yes. You should clean it up because you did it. Take responsible what you did. I didn't do it. But people didn't do it. We didn't pollute it because we got in the water. Would it turn bad? Come on. You did it. So you clean it up. Yeah. You're supposed to. And after 1500 meetings in the last 15 years of coming down here, I have the moral authority to say it. And I'm here when you ain't here after you gone. Well, you had other dates, but it ain't about you. I'm here every day for the city, not just me. So I'm not that impressed. For real? You should be here every day. Because you benefit from it every day. So start showing up every day. Otherwise, this is more poo poo. La la. And you deserve nothing more than what you get.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ronnie Crawford.
Speaker 2: Wow. Ronnie Crawford. Excuse me. Overland Park neighborhood. I'm here to talk about the river, not the construction or the height of the buildings or any of that. I am on the board of Denver Trout Unlimited, and I'm here to talk about the fish and things along the edges and below the waterline. Are we trout? Denver Trout in a little bit is glad to be at the table with you. Principles of this project would be giving input all the way along on how to make the river better, more effective, and a good place for all the creatures and the fish to live this point, I wish I had another 25 years to see how the heck all this is going to turn out. It'll be. It'll be interesting. Anyway, I represent Denver Trout Unlimited. I'm here to speak with for the fish stay. They are always the overlooked critters and the critters below the waterline because nobody thinks about them. And we'll be at the table to represent them. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Present your closest to the microphone. I just want to ask the question about discussions you've had with the city, about the interface with the adjacent railroad line.
Speaker 2: Yes. As I think you referenced, nothing we've talked about preliminarily at least about raising the grade about 20 feet along what we call the back of the site. But the site that borders the CML rail line where the meat of that is going to come in is through our E&P discussions with staff as we further refine and refine the engineering for the site. But that's our intention right now and I think it does a couple of things for us as it relates to the railroad. I think it gives us that extra 20 feet of separation and safety as we think about raising the grade and then thinking about another two or three or four layer layers of parking above that. And so you kind of get to 50, 60 feet of grade separation from the rail. We also have some horizontal separation on our site plan. We have a service line in the back that further sets the buildings back. So I feel like we're doing the best we can there.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I appreciate the attention to that as well.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 6: Thanks. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: The one real trivial question, is it? Am I seeing this correctly? Is the fish logo play off of the map area?
Speaker 2: Previously someone did a drawing depicting the site as a whale. But we didn't. We didn't steal the urban trout from the site. Plan to close it. It's a whale.
Speaker 4: So I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but it was it was actually driving around this week in this the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan contemplates a view plane. Jefferson Park is is unique, sort of like Zuni Park in that it has at least seasonally it has some amazing views of downtown. And part of my history was sort of battling developers to sort of maintain little vignettes of our views from Jefferson Park to downtown. Do you guys has anyone in there? There are views that were preserved with development along that along Crescent Drive and River Drive. Have you guys contemplated those vignettes when you when you've laid these things out? Because there are there are some buildings that actually would would be framed. I mean, potential plot layouts that would be framed by those views.
Speaker 2: The short answer is we haven't gotten that granular on our site, plenty of the individual sites. It's interesting because when we started this process, I thought height and encroaching in to that neighborhood specifically might be an issue. And I don't want to put words in Michael Gates's mouth or Japan's mouth, but it really didn't come up in conversations. I think what the conversation was about was creating a new downtown view for Jefferson Park, one that might have some more interesting architecture attached to it. And I think going all the way back to the area plan amendment process, there was a really conscious conversation and and a decision about trading height for amenities. And I think the neighbors got that and it was a very conscious decision for them.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. Our biggest issue is, you know, we didn't in the area plan, we didn't incorporate parts of Jefferson Park in the boundary for even the ability to sort of consider this porosity. But I think it would actually be welcome. It's a welcome tool and at least we just codified it. So it's something we can now explore. So could you you know, if this zoning is if this map amendment goes through, could you at least, you know, maybe charge your design team to at least go back to through Jefferson Park, look at those vignettes, sort of one more sort of, you know, relationship to other parts of the city to consider. Sure.
Speaker 2: Sure. We're happy to do that.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yup. I'm going to call a breeze. But first, let me let me ask Abe a quick question. Or Chris, it doesn't matter. You guys are like brothers. Quick question, just on overview real quick. Planning board, do we have any anybody in our position.
Speaker 11: At Planning Board? I think Mr. Elliott also voted no on the map amendment just for consistency with the fact that he thought the zone district shouldn't exist in the first place.
Speaker 5: Okay. I was about to say make sense, but to him make sense. Good consistency. And then real quick, again, letters of support from community folks saying we didn't have any letters of opposition at all. Okay, great. And this question is for Reese. Reese, in the community, we had a lot of conversation on mobility issues. And one of the things that hasn't come out, but I know you have in the plan and I want you to talk about a little bit, is you have some autonomous opportunities. So can you kind of talk about that a little bit and maybe some implementation around that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think as a general comment, we're going to be back in front of you with our MP and there's going to be a lot of conversation around parking and single occupant vehicles and ways to get people out of their single occupant vehicles. And hopefully we'll have a bunch of good ideas for that. But specifically to your question, yeah, that's been my. As we look 25 years down the road, it's hard to plan a new downtown neighborhood, of course. But one of the things that I love the idea of as autonomous technology starts to get credible and starts to get real, how do we implement that here as a way to solve that first mile, last mile connection between this site, for example, and Mile High Stadium and Union Station on the other side? You know, can we can we put together a system of autonomous shuttles that connect us all as a more expedient way to solve that first mile? Last mile, but lots more lots more ideas where that came from, I hope.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. So is it is it more aspirational or as.
Speaker 2: I'm sure most of if you've been out to Panasonic, out in Panasonic is the head office of a company called E-Z Mile, which is a European company who decided to bring their own North American headquarters to Denver, Colorado, which is great. And that's what they're developing. If you go out there, you can take a ride on one. For those of you who haven't been on it, it's it's real. It's happening. And I think one of the things that we have to wrestle with in this building, in the building across the street, is how do we have how do we have the regulatory environment? Keep up with that because it's coming and we need some changes to accommodate it.
Speaker 5: But then the last question, you know, typically maybe 15 years ago, we built cities and we didn't really think about families. Right? We thought about young professionals. It's the Richard Florida model rise of the creative class. Let's get all the creatives now. We're in a downtown. We're talking about there's there's no schools. There's no, you know, child care. There's no things like that. Have you contemplated that in this kind of development?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Those of you have heard me talk about this project. You've probably heard me talk about what a great place Denver, Colorado is for a certain demographic that we built it for. I moved here 20 years ago when I was 30 years old, and it was a great time to be a 30 year old in Denver, Colorado . I think it's a great time right now to be a 30 year old in Denver, Colorado. I think what we haven't focused enough on is exactly your point is how do we start to accommodate families downtown? I grew up and watched Vancouver grow up as a city, and one thing I really noticed is that the downtown didn't start to thrive until I would wake up downtown and I'd see families pushing a stroller downtown on a Saturday or Sunday morning. So how do we do that? Families aren't going to come downtown and live in a studio apartment. They're just not. So our plan is to build a diversity of housing product that can accommodate families that's at a market rate. And also, as we heard earlier tonight, on an affordable level as well with larger unit sizes. But I think as importantly is the infrastructure that you need to build a school. And we've been in conversations with DPS. I'd like to do a a grade school in this area, which they say will be required. They say we're good on a high school with north and West servicing this site, but a grade school for sure . We have committed to build a community center, a rec center for the citizens of the city and exploring opportunities for daycare and the like, amenities that families really need.
Speaker 5: Thanks. Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman New Reese.
Speaker 9: Thanks again for all you're doing. There's going to be a credible project for downtown and you're bringing the river to downtown. It's just going to be wonderful. I can't think more highly of what you're what you're doing with the project, especially innovative ideas. You have a transportation and it's very impressive. One real quick question I note after this, we're going to be improving the development agreement and just that's all been finalized and agreed by all parties, right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yes, it has. I know there was a lot of conversation about Section 27 that I think was the last related issue. But yeah, it was it was definitely a hard negotiation with the city, but I think we got to a good place in the end.
Speaker 9: Great. Congratulations. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. Some we've had this conversation before and you know, to understand the future use and the need that's out there is definitely there. I hear a lot. From folks in the community that are. Villages will have to move again or. Is this the end? So my question is, what is the future plan for the current use? And I want to preface that by saying, as we grow and as we expand as a city and as it's great for 30 year olds, we need to make sure that it's also great for our young people who need a safe place and affordable place for them and their families to be able to enjoy this city. What happens to the current use? What happens to those cards?
Speaker 2: Thanks for reminding me. I can't give a presentation without reassuring people that dealerships is not closing anytime soon. So come to the park. Come to the park. We have a phased plan for development that sees the park stay in place and we make better use of the 17 acres of surface parking that we have. And we do that by building a centralized parking garage on a portion of that 17 acres for the Ilitch patrons. And that allows the park to operate as we build out phase one. So the carefully chosen phrase that I use is the park will be there for the foreseeable future. So if you're not, it's going to be there for a long time to come. Your comment about giving kids a place to go. I understand that. And, you know, changes change is hard for people right to let go of something and they let go of villages once already at 38th and Tennyson. So I'm not sure if that makes it easier or harder to let go of this. But I can tell you two things. The ownership group is committed and actively looking at feasibility on a relocation, as we've talked about in the past. They won't be for years to come, but it's definitely in the forefront of our minds. And number two, I hope we can replace the glitches when that time does come with this 15% parks and open space that we have planned along the river. And that takes a bunch of different forms. That's passive space walking that separated bike and pedestrian paths. That's active sport court type uses and then a lot of active river use as we've talked a lot about fishing. We haven't talked a lot about the river work that needs to go on on the floodplain. But what that can result in is a bunch of recreational opportunities in the river, aside from fishing, such as stand up paddle board and perhaps a standing surf wave, things like that. So trying to be inclusive and also by bringing what I call the new model of entertainment for young people, Meow Wolf to the site.
Speaker 1: Which is in what council district began.
Speaker 2: And the a really good one.
Speaker 1: Then the third council district. Mr. President, I'm if I may continue, I'm flirting with with commentary here, but I just wanted to ask that question because I want it to be on record and I want it to be clear. I think it's it's what we're doing in creating the open space and providing this opportunity and maximizing what could be on this site is a good thing. My concern is that we make sure that it's still available for folks that don't have to pay too much. And I'm not talking about freebies and free tickets and handouts. Working people can pay. However, it's some of those amenities that make Denver what it is. And I keep thinking, Mr. President, of the Ferris wheel and saying not to see this is not.
Speaker 2: To see Denver.
Speaker 1: And it just keeps ringing in my head. Any uses for the old carousel or the Ferris wheel, perhaps?
Speaker 2: You may have a book in front of you that may have a rendering in it of our central square. One idea that we've toyed around with that is depicted in the rendering of relocating our carousel into the central square that may have, may or may not have been a direct result of one certain councilman's suggestion. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for that answer.
Speaker 0: Are you all done with your leading questions, Councilman?
Speaker 1: I rest my case.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing four counts. Bill 1 to 25 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa and then Councilman Brooks again this time around.
Speaker 5: Or we know this is unfortunately all in the side of my district.
Speaker 0: Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah, just off. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this rezoning enthusiastically for a number of reasons. But, you know, I believe this is consistent with all adopted plans. It's uniformity of district regulations. It furthers the public health and safety and welfare, and it meets all the justified circumstances listed below. And it also is. Consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district and purpose and intent. And for the major reason, reason is I've been a part of the entire process from the beginning and there, you know, in a time when Denver is going through the most growth and there's so many questions about that growth and there's so much perception and you heard it tonight, we come up with this plan. Reese comes to us with his partner, with this plan to blow it out of the water, to say that there's going to be no zoning requirements and we're actually going to go further into this urbanist ideology. And the neighbors in District one, you know, put District one on the spot here who probably came in a little tidbit and I was a little timid, actually fell in love with the project and because the process was right. And so I'm so excited about this and it was not easy. I think both the city I think the council folks that were at the table, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Quinn, each Reece's team, there were some long meetings that we had. But we're here. And this is how you build a city. It's it's it's being inclusive of all ideas. It's it's, you know, really embracing multiple values. And that's what inclusivity is all about. And I really believe that we got to that place here. We embraced everything and we fought a little bit and we came out with a beautiful project and so much props goes out to Reese for staying in the foxhole. Much love to to Abe and Chris, who were also in the foxhole as well. All the OED staff, Melissa and Laura was working really hard on this as well. And I'm really excited to see what we become. And I think this just goes out to, you know, people talk about developments and I think this is really smart, thoughtful, considerate development. So I hope that we have more of this in the city and county of Denver. And I think this is this is more putting a stake in the ground of saying this is what we want to be about. We want to be about environmental responsibility. We want to be about inclusivity and affordability of all income ranges. We want to be about mobility options that single occupancy vehicles in a downtown neighborhood is not the right idea. We've got to have multiple options and that's not a bad thing and shouldn't be. I shouldn't be feel bad for saying that. Right. And matter of fact, we're going to do it boldly. And so in the the last thing families you are welcome in downtown Denver. We want you downtown because it's going to make us an incredible city and a sustainable city. So with that, Mr. President, I'll be supporting this. And I just want to thank everyone who put in all your hard work to make this a reality. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council said council president. I thank you for every council present. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, because in your comments, you sort of put me back into a place that was so long. One of the weird things, if you want to if you want to see four years of your life go by an instant, get elected to District one and I'm sure District nine sort of the same way. I can't. But it puts me back to when we first got here. And I remember I remember when I when you sort of introduced me to to the property, to Reese and how timid and reluctant you were to even have me engage with developers that you're familiar with. And I, I wasn't, you know, because I yeah, it's a lot of fear. That was what kind of what kind of ideas that I was generating at that time. And, and. And what came from that discussion is it turns out Reece is a constituent of mine. Right. And he's it's it's it's it's there's there's been relationships that have sort of flourished. I mean, not not relationships among us, necessarily, but things that are precursors to what has now occurred here. Great partnerships in the community, putting people together, putting ourselves together. So thank you for you didn't have to include me in the Central Valley rezoning. I mean, master plan update. But you you committed to it and you made it happen. And that was a forum where, again, that was largely your constituents sort of interjecting with my ideas and things like that. And and what what came of that. You know, we talked about previously and it was really a great thing when we had Central Park there and you made that happen. So thank you for for for sort of including me in this whole process because back to my previous comments, I do think this city benefited from that collaboration . And I in a sort of goes back to day one, that is I think you were reticent that I was willing to go there, but I always was, still am and look forward to doing that continuously in the future. This is what implementation looks like when the text amendment hits the ground. So we talked about that sort of before this rezoning seeks and commits to the regulatory tools. Long wanted to be I wanted to use I don't mean I can't write tools long wanted not just to generate revenue but to create vital, inclusive and sustainable city focused on the well-being of our citizens. What is being considered is adoption of the biggest. Ask this we as a city have made on our in our based zoning code. Thank you, Reese, for your willingness to both engage with us and to compromise to do what was right for all of us together. You and the city have managed to incorporate so much of what the citizens were asking for and affordable to citizens and affordable housing champions we're asking for. I won't rehash everything you just said in response to Councilman Lopez, but it's all there on tape, in the recording and in the attachments that we have online. How sort of far reaching everything is the tools that we created, the agreements and and the adoption of this rezoning. Thank you again for your commitment to introduce housing for all income levels in Denver living together. There is data about co-location of different income levels and the creation of truly vital, thriving communities. There are social benefits for all. Mixed income development has long been seen as an important tactic to strengthen neighborhoods. At the same time, it improves prospects for low income families. Mixed income facilities often soften the negative perceptions of concentrated, subsidized housing by removing obvious geographic and visual indicators of class. This is what we this is the way we want and need the city to be heading. So thank you. It's it's it's a great for to a mind to be able to to to what Jeff Shoemaker just said, to be on this side of the dais and to be able to vote. We'll work on getting this done and to vote for it being adopted. Thank you. With that, I'll be voting in favor.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, folks, for for working on this and keeping us abreast of what's what's going on. Council District three borders the southwest corner of this site and Mile High Stadium, and that property just to the west, the other side of the river. I hope and I have a lot of faith, but I hope that the future council and future councils make sure that this doesn't just happen in a vacuum, that it's more than just design. But and and it's more than the commitment to affordable housing here. There is such a thing as a community benefits agreement on the vertical development and on future development agreements. And I think it's it's important and it's critical that we continue to keep our eyes on the ball to make sure that that diversity is not just reflected here spiritually, but economically. If you want diversity in neighborhoods, there has to be economic opportunities. You want diversity in the city. There has to be economic opportunities for that to take place. This is one of those engines that's I mean, it's one of those economic engines. It's a very powerful one. And this idea of overdevelopment or gentrification and in this case, you're basically pushing out parking lots. You want to you want to utilize those kind of tools. It's a process that can be interrupted and it's a process that can be diverted. And I think it's something that we as a city have to be mindful of and intent for when we implement the recommendations of this plan, when this council continues to do that years in advance. Having said that, I think it's you know, I meant what I said, but some of the leading questions. I think it's important that we think of Denver in terms of an opportunity for all and making sure that we still have those places that are affordable. You ask our young people now without having to be charged an arm and a leg, there's really nothing for them for folks to do. We have one skate park in the whole city. Not much space. Anywhere you go where there's public space available, it's like skateboarding is a crime. It's illegal, you know, you really can't do it. And on some of these structures and it's not you. I'm not just speaking up for the skaters, but I'm speaking up for our young people and making sure that they have those opportunities. There's also work opportunities as well to those are also jobs and it's some people's first job and it's some adults only jobs or secondary jobs. And I think it's important as well as we do what we think, we think in those terms. Just to the West, this council will see and consider a plan a masterplan for Mile High Stadium and the future development of Mile High Stadium and the properties that surround it on the Metropolitan Football Stadium, Stadium, Football District. I think it's something that we are in negotiation with and talking to. We have folks in Sun Valley on across the West Side that are looking at this and taking some cues and filling in gaps. It's not necessarily. An ideology, but it is a necessity in a city, and I think it's a necessity for folks to be at the table and continue to be able to call the city home and not have to break the bank to do it. So I look forward to seeing this pass. I'm not a neighbor that's far away to this side. There's a lot of history associated with these with these neighborhoods. And I hope that's reflected as it moves forward in future votes of this council to be able to consider those kind of opportunities, those kind of benefits for the community . So with that, I definitely will support this moving forward. So thank you and thank you for your hard work. And if I may add one more plug. Yes, to the carousel. Keep that Ferris wheel there. It's the skyline. It's the skyline. It's those things that make Denver recognizable. All right. Keep it.
Speaker 0: There. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, everyone, for being here so late. We appreciate your passion for Denver and your willingness to sit in those hard pews bleachers. I don't know what they're called in 60 seconds or less. I'm going to tell you two personal stories and tell you why I'm voting for this. My dad, along with Joe Shoemaker, was very much involved in the great Wayne Foundation 40 years ago. I was at the dedication of the first park there when I was a little kid. I have a painting of it in my office. And wouldn't my dad and old Joe Shoemaker have their minds blown by this? This is amazing to imagine that we're going to have a mile long park on the river where there are trout swimming instead of it being a dump. I just think it's incredible. The other thing I have to share about Ilitch is when I was seven years old that the old elegies, I knocked out my front tooth on the Wildcat. Today I have, like I called it, $1 million tooth. I've had so much done to preserve it. I will be supporting this. It meets the criteria, but it's also an incredible opportunity for our city to have a master planned urban center, to incorporate all those things that we like about great cities, and to think about it ahead of time and make sure we have all of those things. There is no gentrification there. There's nobody living there. There's a bunch of parking lots. We're creating housing. We're creating affordable housing, one that we do affordable housing with a partnership instead of using a stick. I appreciate that you're putting green space there. We very much need more green space in Denver. Thank you for that. I already mentioned the mile long river. Over by the mile long park by the river. You're putting in the infrastructure that we need. This is density where density should be. And you're providing all those connections. So when there people are living there, they can get out and not have to be in a car. I also really appreciate the architectural standards. There is so much ugly new architecture in Denver. The whole Denver process that was one of the big themes that came out of there is yuck, ugly. These are not going to be ugly. And the fact that it's all planned out, we also have a lot of mishmash in our city. Some of it is in my district. I know a lot of it is in Councilman Espinosa's district. So really happy that you guys are doing that. And thank you. I will be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I can remember when the Downtown Denver Partnership took a trip to Vancouver and everybody came back really excited talking about density in the city of Denver. This goes back, I don't remember like maybe 20, 25 years. And that became part of the discussion of looking at building out the core of our city with higher density, attracting more people to our downtown, making sure that we had a thriving downtown. And fast forward to today, we have a Vancouver former resident assisting us in looking at how we continue to build in our city. And I want to personally thank Reese for coming and meeting with me in my office on several occasions, but really more so for the work that you've done with the adjacent communities. I used to represent Jefferson Park Highlands, lower downtown, Central Platte Valley, and these are active communities. And if there was concern, the opposition would fill this room and the fact that. There were no letters of opposition. The fact that you had two folks from Jefferson Park and Highland speaking in support of the project really is a testament to the work that you've done and your entire team of people that worked with you, including our city team, to bring forward something that exceeds city goals both on housing and open space. And not not only is looking to address parking maximums, but also has a commitment to a team. The 44 neighborhood meetings, not including all the ones with city and the rest of us, really. I mean, just highlight your commitment to want to do this right and to do it in a way that not only you would be proud, but I think the rest of the Denver community would be proud. Denver doesn't have an ocean, but we will have riverfront property that will serve the entire community. It won't just be for the residents that will live within this development, but it will serve adjacent neighborhoods and beyond. And that's exciting just to know the kind of improvements that will happen on the river, taking that area out of the floodplain as well. The infrastructure masterplan for this site is critical and it's important for it to work. I would really like to see our city get to a place where we're connecting your project to Mile-High Stadiums, project to Sun Valley and to all the others along this river corridor, because I think it's something that we have to collectively do to make sure that we're doing it right for our entire city. So with that, I will be supporting this tonight. And I want to thank my colleagues. Councilman Burks, Councilman Espinosa, who were very engaged in this process, and Councilwoman Kenney to plugged into the affordable housing part of this as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 15: Thank you, Mr. President. As Denver continues with the mantra of density, density, density, I can't think of a more appropriate place anywhere in the city than to drop this density with to add a couple of light rail stations on the property, a couple of more in spitting distance. So that's extremely extreme. Is it wrong to use that word, Councilman? I didn't mean to offend you. I didn't say bags. I don't.
Speaker 1: Feel easily entertained.
Speaker 15: By that. I also like the the CPV districts that were pros approved before that seemed to promise the ability to build this density without overwhelming the skyline. I like the river work. I mean the possibility of what's being talked about. I love the fact, Mr. Dugan, that you're talking about 15% open space rather than the 12 the city is talking about. I don't know that 15% is enough considering where the city is now. But I appreciate that the 1200 units, if that's what it turns out to be of affordable housing, is somewhat heartening. I just wonder if we have our numbers right on what we need to be building. I think the under 60% might be a little bit light for that much acreage. I don't know how we get our under 30 taking care of at 120 units on that bigger property. It's going to be interesting to see what actually gets built there. As Councilwoman Kennedy alluded earlier, what's being planned to be built now on the Gates site is fairly dramatically different than what was planned for that site ten years ago. So we'll see where the economy goes and how Denver fares and how your plans actually are manifest. I the one thing I hate about this is I hate to hear about 20 to 25 years. I would love those 8000 units tomorrow. It would take an enormous amount of pressure off the rest of the city because I do see some density in other parts of the city that I think is inappropriate. And so I'd love to see the Central Platte Valley buildout more quickly, but as I said, we'll see how fast this actually actually happens. And the other thing I didn't mention. I very much like as far as the affordable component, that there are benchmarks, that it doesn't wait till the end of the project is if I understand that as this evolves, the elements of affordable will come along with it. So I wish you the best and I wish all of us the best. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Neal, because.
Speaker 9: I look forward to voting for this. And thank you again, Reese and the cranky family for making this major investment. Our cities is incredible. What you're going to be doing and and especially the dedication and I can remember the early discussions about this, about affordable housing and how you were dedicated then as well as you are as much as you are now. So thank you. Thank you for that. Really appreciate that, Councilman. Espinosa and Brooks really led the effort with you. And I'm proud that it came out to be a such an agreeable proposition and development for you. I'd also like to thank you. Probably all the council people would like to thank you for addressing the Council Councilwoman Ortega's railroad issue. We really appreciate that. So the the buffer, this makes us really pleased, especially for her. So thank you again and look forward to a great project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kels. Menu. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 16: Thank you, President Clark. I want to definitely think Councilman Brooks and Councilman Espinosa for working together on this. And, Reese, your entire team, I mean, you guys worked really hard on this. And, you know, I know folks will miss Elegies someday, but before we had Elegies, we had nature in the outdoors. And so that one mile of river that you're going to reactivate and create a wonderful riparian habitat is so important because that connects young people and their families to actual careers. There's careers in science, technology, engineering, art, math. And so all of those steam components are so important. And on top of it, we've got the affordable housing, we've got additional park space. And this project I can really see as a model project and when you talk about adding density, but then also adding nature and greenspace to it, that's the way that we've got to go . And so I share my desire that that Councilman Cashman has I hate to have to wait too long to get something like this because it's going to be so important and transformational to the families and residents who are going to live in this area. And so I'm happy to support this. I see that it meets all of the review criteria and great job and look forward to see what comes next. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Seeing no other comments, I just want to thank everyone for coming tonight, for sticking so late in those chairs for all of your engagement in this. And, you know, I will echo a lot of what everyone else said without saying it. I just I'll just add that I think the first time you and I met, I said, you've got the best piece of riverfront real estate in the city. And it has been really cool to watch that process of the vision emerge for that. And, you know, to, to, to have the history that we have with our.
Speaker 2: River.
Speaker 0: And to see and hear tonight, I wrote down that the river is a main street. We are literally treating the river as a main street, the river as our front door. And that is not the history that the city has with that river. And really, this project is, you know, that that we're really living that vision up to to as far. So I'm excited to support this tonight. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 8: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Hi, Cashman. Hi, Mitch Lopez.
Speaker 11: All right.
Speaker 3: New Ortega. Hi, Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting in those results.
Speaker 3: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 hours counts, Bill one, 2 to 5 has passed. Councilman Lopez will put council resolution 1287 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1901 7th Street in Auraria.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from CMP-ENT to D-CPV-R, D-CPV-C, located at 1901 7th Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12102018_18-1267
|
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Bill 1267 is a moving of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Public Health and Environment. And it also makes a few other changes. And I just felt it was important to call this bill out for a comment because there is some risk involved in the changes we're making. It's it's maybe worth doing, but I think it's important for us to all hold ourselves accountable. So the bill was, you know, the Crime Prevention and Control Commission was started when the jail was being proposed. And some of the council members in community that were concerned that if you just built a bigger jail, we'd just fill it with more people and really wanted to keep the pressure on the city to do diversion and to keep people out of jail and have alternatives. And so the the commission in this ordinance had somewhat of an autopilot of funding, which was up to three and a half million dollars to be able to fund programs like mental health court, to keep people out of jail or to fund other types of diversion programs. And a lot of the programs that the commission had had started have been very successful. They help keep people who don't need to be in jail in their communities, maybe with their families and their kids, maybe at their jobs, and helping to prevent people from, you know, reoccurring by maybe helping them get the substance abuse treatment or other treatment that might be connected to their criminal activity. And so it's been effective. I understand and I agree that there's a point at which when you put something on autopilot, you might not be as thoughtful as you could be about what funding is needed and how to do diversion. So this bill is is going to take away the automatic funding and create a more traditional budget process where you talk about what you need and you debate it and you propose it to the mayor and it goes through the budget process. And and I think that that, you know, hopefully will create a similar amount of funding for, you know, equally effective programs in the future. But I do think that a committee I think on Wednesday, we're going to have the jail present about what our population looks like. And we still have, I think, a very high jail population. It's it's leveled at times, but it's generally, over the past few years, exceeded the expectations of where the jail capacity would be. And so I do just want to say that, you know, I appreciate the department worked really hard to make some adjustments to the language to make sure that the commission still has a role in making recommendations, even where they're perhaps not going to fund a diversion program or a program that keeps people out of jail, that they're making recommendations to the Department of Safety or to the sheriff's department. But I want to just it for our community, because I think that it is really critical that we continue to try to keep incarceration down in our community. Families, you know, are torn apart. And and you have a situation where people can't work and you end up with cycles that are difficult to break. So we have to keep a focus on this commission. Several of our colleagues serve on it. I want to thank those of you that do serve on it, but I just ask us collectively, I guess, to watch this closely over the next few budget cycles and make sure that this commission is still moving the ball forward even with these changes. So I'm supporting it tonight, but I'm asking us all to just be vigilant. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to say I don't disagree with most of the comments made by Councilwoman Kimmich. And as you indicated, there are three of us that serve on this body. We will be having a retreat right after the first of the year to really kind of hone in on the work plan moving forward and to look at how successful we have been with the programs that have been funded and to evaluate whether, you know, those are all the right things that we should be spending all of that money on. So I think the the commission is going to play a very big and important role. And the fact that the Office of Behavioral Health, the Crime Prevention and Control Commission are all together at Environmental Health that looks at things from a health disparity. Health equity lens is also equally important because we have many of our neighborhoods. If you look at the maps that we've looked at around marijuana, around the. Data that we did on the the jobs priorities. They're all the same neighborhoods. And so just knowing all of that as we move into this process, I think is going to be very important. And I will be voting for this tonight, too. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. That concludes the items to be called out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published, and we're now ready for the block vote on proclamations, 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 an item for a separate vote. Councilman Ortega, will you please put resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: Happy to do so. I move that the following bills following resolutions and bills on final be moved forward in a block for adoption. Resolution number 1354 1384. Make sure I'm not calling out the ones we've already done.
Speaker 0: Could you also add in proclamations and catch 14? So.
Speaker 4: Yes, I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. So Proclamation 1475, Resolutions 1354, 1384, 1392, 13, 93, 13, 94, 13, 95, 13, 96, 13, 97, 1398. 1399 1402. 1411 1415 1359 1371, 1372, 1375, 1379, 1382, 1385, 1386, 1388, 1389 1403 1414 1287 1404. For a witness.
Speaker 0: I don't see 1287 on here, but.
Speaker 4: It's at the bottom of page ten. Sunderland use.
Speaker 0: I'm going off the one that our secretary has on the computer. So why don't you continue on? We'll just check on.
Speaker 4: That's what we mailed out to the public and it's what was given to us. So. 1287 is the river mild?
Speaker 0: That was the reason. If you look on the screen, that wasn't was the one that council Sussman postponed. So that one is not in our block vote. Okay. So not too.
Speaker 4: Visible that removed. 1287 So go on to 1404 1226 1340. 1351 1357 1377 and 1378 now. And those are all for adoption. So we're now going to bills for final 1360 214, 2013, oh eight, 1324 and I believe it is all of them.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. All right, Brooks.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Gilmore. Hi, Herndon. I Cashman can reach Lopez.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: New Ortega, I Sussman.
Speaker 1: Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and notes.
Speaker 1: Results 13 nice 13 Eyes.
Speaker 0: The proclamations and resolutions have been adopted. The bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, council was scheduled to hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1013, changing the zoning classification of 2929 West 10th Avenue in Sun Valley. However, there is a proposal to postpone final consideration of comes Bill 1013 with its public hearing to Monday, January 14th, 2009. So since we may be postponing tonight's only public hearing and if there are no objections from Council, we will not take a recess. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1013 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that council bill 1013 be placed on final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Lopez, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 dash 1013 be placed upon final consideration in past.
Speaker 0: Years is the motion to postpone. It's on the floor.
Speaker 2: Oh rats.
Speaker 6: I just thought I get for a reading off of the script on your script.
Speaker 4: Sorry to postpone. Yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1013 series of 2018 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, January 14th, 2019.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This postponement is at the request of the mediator and parties of interest to the rezoning. Requesting of the postponement does not indicate any decision on the rezoning.
Speaker 4: And that was 1934, correct? 2019? Yeah.
Speaker 6: January 14th.
Speaker 0: 2019. 2019.
Speaker 6: Did I say 2018?
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez and I should have clarified between comments or questions. Councilman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: I just have a question.
Speaker 1: I guess, from someone in the administration about this.
Speaker 5: This is the.
Speaker 4: Second time we're.
Speaker 5: Postponing this.
Speaker 4: And I'm just wondering if it's impacting the contract we have with the mental health center of Denver.
Speaker 5: In any way these delays, are they jeopardized.
Speaker 1: Jeopardizing that?
Speaker 4: Sure. Sky Stewart mayor's office. Thanks for the question. While I think it would have been our preference to move forward tonight, we are okay with the second postponement, but we are anxious to move forward. The rezoning would facilitate the solution center, which we've been talking about for a number of years as a crisis stabilization center for people experiencing homelessness or in danger of homelessness. And it's a it's a missing gap that we need to fill and we are anxious to move forward. Council will consider a contract with MH KD as the provider, so there are additional actions coming the council. We've made tremendous progress with the neighborhood. I think we're very close and I'm fine with the postponement tonight, but anxious to move forward in January. We really are looking forward to getting this facility up and running since it is a gap we've been missing.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I think we're all happy that.
Speaker 4: You're all.
Speaker 5: Working with the neighbors.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: As want to thank the administration for being okay with the postponement, because I believe that we're waiting as if as I was briefed by the applicant the that we are waiting because for community comment final community comment. And I think it's absolutely crucial that we actually do get these good neighbor agreements executed before we have, you know , before we consider these things. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez, you back up. Um. Shouldn't be. Okay. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Oh, wait. Councilman Brooks, you got in there?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Councilman Lopez, quick question. Is there a dispute between the neighbors and the actual applicant?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilman. No, it's just a matter of due process and making sure that we ensure the due process and of the rezoning, the rezoning requirements.
Speaker 2: So there's no dust. There's no issues.
Speaker 6: Well, there's issues, but I'm not I mean, as a as a person who's going to be as a councilor, who's going to be quasi judicial on the rezoning, you can.
Speaker 2: Still talk about if there's issues and you want. I'm just I just want to be clear. I mean.
Speaker 6: Let me finish why we're postponing. Let me finish. I think it's important that we capture that due process and folks who are at the table just at the request of the mediator and some of the interested parties, or Steve Charbonneau, who's doing the mediation and has been doing this for quite a while for the city council and for the city. And, you know, I think it's important that we give folks that time. There has been a lot of time since this has been proposed from day one. There has been plenty of time to work out and iron out a lot of issues. And so I think it's important that we ensure due process for all the parties who are in affected or a party to the rezoning that includes community.
Speaker 0: Any other questions, Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 2: No questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. See no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 1: Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Gillmor, I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, Art.
Speaker 1: Cashman. All right. Kenny Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I.
Speaker 1: Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 1313 ies Final Consideration of Council Bill 1013 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, January 14th. On Monday, January 7th, 2019, Council will hold a required public hearing on Constable 1346, changing the zoning classification for 219 to 20 1 to 20 3 to 20 5 to 20 7 to 30 5 to 45. South Holly Street and Hilltop and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1387. Changing the Zoning Classification for 4675, 4685 North Fillmore Street 4401 North Milwaukee Street in Elyria. Swansea. Any protest against Council Bill 1346 or 1387 must be filed with Council officers no later than noon on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Division 11, Article VIII of Chapter 2 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to update procedures and transfer governance of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Public Health and Environment.
Amends Article VIII, Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to update procedures and transfer governance of the Crime Prevention and Control Commission from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Public Health and Environment. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-28-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12032018_18-1337
|
Speaker 0: The items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Is there anything that I missed? All right, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Resolution 1337 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution. So there's a council bill or resolution resolution. Okay. Council resolution.
Speaker 8: 1337.
Speaker 4: 1337 be approved.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved. Can get a second moved and seconded questions and comments by members of council. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Per the request of Denver International Airport, I am requesting my colleagues to vote no on the defeat of this resolution. Not quite ready for this bill just yet. So. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Jersey Councilman Sussman, you're still up from before. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments. Council members, this is just a reminder to please vote no. Council secretary call.
Speaker 2: Black Knight. Espinosa. No. Flynn.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. No. Herndon.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Kinney. Lopez.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: New? No. Ortega. No. Sussman. No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. No. Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Council Resolution 1337 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. And, Councilwoman, you go ahead with your question.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and ITW GSE, Inc. concerning ground power units and air units for jet bridges and gates at Denver International Airport.
Approves a purchase order with ITW GSE, Inc. for $1,762,410.16 for 16 ground power units and 11 preconditioned air units for jet bridges and gates at Denver International Airport (PO-00052525). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-17-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-21-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12032018_18-1308
|
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Council Resolution 1337 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. And, Councilwoman, you go ahead with your question.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if someone from the courts is Terry Langham here, perhaps? Thank you. So 1308 is a bill proposed by the courts, and it has a wider ring of changes in it. But in particular, the community has had a lot of interest about people who might be in jail just because they're indigent and unable to pay fees. And I was wondering if you could tell us about the piece of this bill that addresses that particular issue? Certainly. 1434 requires that we collect a $50.
Speaker 8: Bond fee on every bond that is either posted to a professional surety or a cash bond.
Speaker 9: Last year, we had 10,500 of these, and we feel.
Speaker 8: That it's a step in the right direction not to require this fee. And so we're asking that 1434 be repealed so that we're not holding people.
Speaker 9: In jail just because they can't pay the fee. Thank you so much to the courts for making this change. And when will it go into effect?
Speaker 8: It will go into effect as soon as.
Speaker 9: The bill is passed. Great. Thank you so much. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. All right. That concludes the items that have been called out. 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. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Guzman Flynn, will you please put resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and the bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass for the following in a block for the following items. And I have 13 all series of 2018, 1337, 1353, 1338, 1352, 1355, 1341, 1278, 1310 1328.
Speaker 10: 1342 point of order. We already voted on 1337.
Speaker 0: Yeah, 1337 was the one that we voted down. So I take that one off there and then think you still have a few more left.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, still showing on the list here on the computer.
Speaker 0: My list does not show it either.
Speaker 4: In motion, in progress. Let me redo that motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. Working off and.
Speaker 4: Also be the last time you're asking me to do this. I move that the following resolutions be adopted and the bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 1353 1338 1352. 1355 1341 12 7813 1013 2813 4213 1813 1913 2013 2313 zero three 1321 1322, 13, 25, 1331 All series of 2018.
Speaker 0: That looks fantastic. Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Raquel Black.
Speaker 2: Hi, Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lynn. Hi Gilmore.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 2: Hi Cashman. Carnage Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 0: As secretary, please close voting announce the results. 1212 eyes. 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 1163 Changing the zoning classification for 7900 East Colfax Avenue. A required public hearing on Council Bill 116 for changing the zoning classification for 8315 East Colfax Avenue and 1500 Valencia Street and required public hearing on Council Bill 1075. Changing the zoning classification for 4201 East Arkansas Avenue. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Articles I and III, amending and repealing Articles II and IV of Chapter 14, and amending Article I of Chapter 54, Denver Revised Municipal Code of the Denver County Court rules and procedures for hours, bonds, fees, records, reports, clerk’s duties, ministerial and administrative functions and traffic regulations.
Amends Chapter 14 and Chapter 54 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to repeal the bond fee assessed by the courts, clarify regular court session hours, eliminate the bond requirement for the chief clerk and deputy clerk, and other changes concerning traffic regulations. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-14-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12032018_18-1163
|
Speaker 0: Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council 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 council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time. On the presentation mounted 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 the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1163 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1163 series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded and the public hearing for Council Bill 1163 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Good evening, Liz Wagle with Community Planning and Development. I will be providing the staff report. We do have two applications before you today for city owned property on East Colfax and Rezonings from M.S. three times five. The first application is at 7900 East Colfax Avenue. This is in Council District five in the East Colfax neighborhood. The site is located at the corner of Trenton and Colfax Avenue. It's approximately 3000 square feet and it's currently vacant, as I mentioned, is owned by the city and county in Denver. And the intention is to redevelop it with affordable housing. And the proposed rezoning is from Urban Edge Main Street District of three stories to Urban Edge Main Street Five Stories. The Main Street districts are intended to allow a mix of uses that promote safe, active and pedestrian scaled commercial areas. The subject site is currently a three story district. It's surrounded by other three story Main Street districts, and there are pockets of five story Main Street in this area of Colfax. To the south is a two unit district, and then there are additional single unit zoning around it. Here you can see the subject site, which I mentioned is currently vacant to the north along Colfax to have a mix of auto repair and commercial uses to the south, you have some single multi-unit and duplex residential in a similar mix to the north. On the other side of Colfax, this shows the subject site. Here you can see the predominantly low scale uses along Colfax with surface parking and the residential uses. Here you can see the site on the top right corner and which has surface parking on it. To the north you have a medical use and auto repair use. To the west, a restaurant and surface parking to the south, low scale residential to the east, another auto use and then additional residential uses in the area. The planning board heard this application on October 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend approval. We're also two public speakers in favor at that hearing this mentality on October 23rd and is before council tonight. And we have a position statement in support from the East Kovacs Neighborhood Association and from the Facts Partnership, registered neighborhood organization. And we did receive one comment in opposition from a neighbor of the property who's concerned about height adjacent to her property. And in addition to this process, the Office of Economic Development did attend three community meetings in the neighborhood as well. We will I will review the five criteria and the Denver zoning code for Rezonings. The first is consistency with adopted plans of which I will cover. Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan and our housing plan, which is not adopted as a supplement to the comprehensive plan, but it was adopted by City Council earlier this year. First, we do find that the application is consistent with a number of planned 2000 strategies. Most most of these speaking to encouraging mixed use development, supporting our business corridors and encouraging intel development. Blueprint Denver calls out this area of Colfax as a commercial corridor, which are linear business districts and also an area of change where we're looking to direct growth. Colfax itself as a mixed use arterial in Trenton is on designated local east. Colfax is an enhanced transit quarter, which are areas that we are also looking to direct to mixed use development. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan from 1994 is still in place in this area. It envisions an improved Colfax Avenue with more business opportunity. More reinvestment of this area is called out as the business area, and it shows multi-family residential adjacent to the south. This neighborhood plan does not provide direct height guidance in the area, but the neighborhood plan does have general statements, again, encouraging redevelopment at intersections along Colfax, bringing buildings closer to the street, which is consistent with the main street zoning, recommending better compatibility with residential and commercial uses and encouraging less dependency on the vehicular road trips. A more mixed use development that people can walk and bike to. Again, the main street districts are consistent with this vision and they do also include building form regulations that ensure that compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Lastly, we have our Housing Inclusive Denver plan, which was adopted earlier this year, which specifically speaks to leveraging publicly owned land for affordable housing and also creating affordable housing in an opportunity areas. And this rezoning would facilitate additional housing units in an area of opportunity and the leveraging of that publicly owned land. So CBD staff does find that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans and further will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. It will implement our further public health, safety and welfare by implementing our adopted plans and facilitating building forms and site designs that will improve the pedestrian environment of application. Notes and CBD staff agrees that there are a number of changed and changing conditions in the area. This includes the closure of the bar in the current vague condition of making condition of the site, the city's purchase and intention to increase housing opportunities in this area. Our growth in job centers along the 15 and 15 hours, a new housing that has continued to develop in Stapleton for similar mixed use, affordable housing development at Pontiac and Colfax. And our planned investment both in a bike lane on Syracuse and the Bus Rapid Transit Project on Colfax. Staff finds that this reasoning is also consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent, and that the means specifically the Main Street districts, are intended to promote this safe, active, pedestrian scale environment and that the M5 district is intended to be applied to collectors and arterials. So with that, CPD staff recommends approval based on finding that all the review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: I do also have Megan Yankey here from the Office of Economic Development, who can say a few words if that's an appropriate. Hello. Megan Yang from Office of Economic Development. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. The city of Denver purchased this parcel in 2017 for the purpose of creating an affordable housing project, specifically as permanent support excuse me, permanent supportive housing. We intended to develop affordable housing on this site associated with the goals of the five year housing plan, which call for permanent supportive housing is one of the goals. The city is focused on developing housing near transit and the parcel is located within a quarter mile of the planned bus rapid transit station at the corner of Winter and Colfax. This location obviously offers some excellent opportunities for affordable housing and transit oriented development. And finally, the city has issued an RFP to identify a partner to develop the site in accordance with the city's vision and needs expressed by the neighborhood. The city is specifically looking for an experienced developer to provide permanent supportive housing on the site to meet the goals of the plan. Some available to answer any questions you have on this topic.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if we could make a little bit of room in this front bench and if you're speaking, it'd be great if you could come up to the front bench, because when I call your name, step right up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. First up, we have Susan Leahy.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I am standing up here.
Speaker 12: As a citizen and resident of East Colfax, not as.
Speaker 9: An employee of OED. For just a moment, I'm normally sitting over here.
Speaker 12: As a city employee, but I wanted to take just a moment to put my my $0.02 worth in of support for.
Speaker 8: These two projects. I've lived in the East.
Speaker 12: Colfax neighborhood for more than nine years, and I want to thank Chris Herndon and Mary.
Speaker 8: Beth for their tireless support and.
Speaker 12: Championship of East Colfax.
Speaker 9: What I call our little.
Speaker 12: Stretch of heaven. Between Lowry and Stapleton, our neighborhood is undergoing an awful lot of.
Speaker 8: Change, as many are.
Speaker 12: Housing prices, of course, going up quite a bit of transition. One thing that.
Speaker 8: Doesn't change is how neighborly and caring we are. I think it has something.
Speaker 12: To do with being low income and traditionally.
Speaker 8: High crime. We are very.
Speaker 12: Connected to each other, my neighbors and I and my experience in life. I've never been through the kind of positive neighborhood spirit that exists out on East Colfax. And I do want to say that we're grateful for the city's investment in these two projects.
Speaker 3: It's going to make a huge difference.
Speaker 8: It's been at.
Speaker 10: Least.
Speaker 12: Six years since the PHENIX on the facts and the Ace hardware store, which are back west.
Speaker 9: On Pontiac and Poplar, have been.
Speaker 8: Built. So we're we're excited about this. It's refreshing. And I'm proud to say that we don't have a lot of NIMBYism in East Colfax because we.
Speaker 12: Understand low income. Our neighbors live in transitional housing in the motels.
Speaker 8: Neighbors that we interact with. We already understand their challenges and we empathize.
Speaker 12: So there there is not likely to be a.
Speaker 8: Lot of speaking against these projects. We're all excited about it. We feel like.
Speaker 12: We know these people already and perhaps some of them are our neighbors now and will remain so when these projects are complete.
Speaker 8: As a transit corridor, of course it can't be beat. And finally again.
Speaker 12: The projects will lift up residents and the neighborhood as a whole.
Speaker 8: We look forward to.
Speaker 12: Both the groundbreaking and the subsequent ribbon cutting.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And could you officially state your name for the record?
Speaker 3: Sorry, Susan Leigh. Leigh, 16 seconds.
Speaker 0: Is for saying your last name wrong.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 8: That's okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, David River.
Speaker 3: Hello. David Roybal reside at 742 West Ninth Avenue. Also a city council candidate for District three. Awesome plan to hear about affordable housing and I hope it brings a safe haven, you know, for people get moved out and to let them know that East Colfax belongs to them, they don't have to move to Aurora. And I wish this example was played in West Colfax because I know that when I go to East Colfax, that's the last Denver that I know that I see my people, my friends in West Colfax Day, so much so, I hope with this affordable housing plan that, you know, it could set the example of how how much variety and keep low income and middle class. And somewhere we have to bring bring the divide and bridge the gap and bring Lowry and those neighborhoods together. And, you know, when you go there at night, it's not a nice place to go at night. It's probably the only place I go in Denver that I get messed with. And I just want to put that in there because you might see it on the crime and safety in the stats. But no, you know, it's the it's the last of the last of the affordable hotels, you know, the cheapest hotels in Denver. And I hope we brings more opportunities for for the low income people that are there, more programs, more nonprofits I used to go to and made a CD out there on Claremont. So, you know, there they have the access to that. And then the 15 that connect straight to the Sun Valley to human service. So, you know, it's a good place for it, for access and services and hopefully, you know, have some family to stay there. Sounds like a good place. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman CQ.
Speaker 11: Yes. Good evening. Thanks to colleagues and citizens representative here at city council. I represent the Black Star Action Movement. Who are the voice and. Action folks that represent poor working poor homeless senior citizens use. And the handicapped, the oppressed, the ones that are most likely not heard or considered, especially in the steam body where we have no seat of power or influence. Nobody up there among you are poor. No one is homeless. And yet I know from the character and the sense of folks here, you have a sincere desire to make this city work for everybody. So this one right here is important because we're talking about affordable housing. And we've got to be real clear about what that means to poor people. That means housing that we can't afford housing that well, except section eight. And families of one parent. I was born and raised here in Denver, 67 years. We're all familiar with Colfax and the owners it has on it that when you bring poor people in there, we bring problems. We bring crime increase. We bring folks that are not necessarily considered socially acceptable like addicts. But women of distinction who are using the only tools they have in order to feed their family and the kids that you'll call illegal prostitution. Return my folks who have to survive. And it's a life and death thing every moment of the day. And you have nothing for them in this ordinance. And why? Look inside this audience. There's no diversity here. There's all white supremacy. White exclusive folk who want a deal on what they're doing. Yeah, we pay taxes, too, but we get no bang for our tax money. Why? They get a bang for whatever they do. And it's not fair. And they don't care nothing about us. Nothing. So when jobs are done and all the rest of that, black people ain't even cool, you know? See no black people working in this town.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Members of Council. Council President Clark. My name is Jesse Paris. I was born at 2842 Josephine Street in Albert Brooks district. And I'm representing for Denver Homeless out Loud, Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Community Action and Commitment for Change. And I am also an at large candidate for Denver in 2019. As has already been stated, I am very familiar with this area and question myself being a native as well. Colfax I'm no stranger to. It seems like this city is in concerted effort to keep concentrated poverty along Colfax Avenue. Yes, I am in support of this. But at the same time, I remember sitting in here many times hearing that the city was going to try to stop with the concentrated poverty. But it seems like this is just going to continue in this whole revitalization. That's just another way of saying ethnic cleansing. You have to get out. You are not desirable. And we're going to make it seem like you can stay because we're going to make it seem like these are units are affordable. So I have two questions. I want to know the amount of units in question and I want to know the am I level? Because, again, people are not familiar with what affordable is. A lot of times all those that are listening when I say affordable housing, what they are really saying is anywhere from 60% to 120%. Am I level? That is not affordable. Affordable for who? The city is in a crisis right now, along with the opioid crisis. There's also a homelessness crisis in the city and county of Denver. In saying that units are affordable at 60%. Am I is not is the solution. Barely making enough units for the need is not the solution. We need attainable house so we need obsessed with housing. That is 0 to 30%. Am I across the board? If you are really concerned about the suffering of the people in a city and county, then you would suggest, I would suggest that you and members of this council make that their focus and their make that their best interest. But it's clearly not. People that are black and brown are being completely marginalized as usual. It's just business as usual. And we're being displaced. And you think by making a few units affordable, that's doing something. So like I said earlier, sweep council, like they're sweeping the homeless just for council 2019 cycle for mayor and David Roybal for District three. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Luis, would you mind coming to the microphone? I have a couple of questions for you. You mentioned that there was no guidance on the height in the area. How is it that the adjacent height levels have no implications on the height for this particular site?
Speaker 8: We do not have the the neighborhood plan from 1994. It does not have height guidance in it. That was what I was speaking to directly is there's not a height map that you might see in other neighborhood plans. And there were when the main street zoning was put in place back in 2006, 2007. And there were places of Colfax that got the five that have five storey zoning. So we evaluated based on the planning guidance that we have, and that specifically is must five districts are intended for arterial streets and we do feel that that's appropriate for this area.
Speaker 10: Is that generally the max of what we've seen along the Kovacs corridor.
Speaker 8: For when you get east of Colorado and there's really only three and five story districts?
Speaker 10: Okay. Can you give us an idea of roughly how many units we might see on that site with the five story swing?
Speaker 8: I'll call up Megan Yankee from OED to answer that question. Councilwoman. We did a zoning study based on the five stories, and we anticipate that the project could support between 60 and 70 units of average sizes. Of course, we expect that that will be determined based on financial feasibility.
Speaker 10: And does that include parking? That does. I know the developer would get to reduce the number because it is on a transit court or correct.
Speaker 8: And because of the army levels proposed for this property.
Speaker 10: Can you remind us what those are again?
Speaker 8: But. Were you asking for the am I level? Yes. Oh, because this is a permanent supportive housing project. We're anticipating those that are formerly homeless would be housed at the site. So certainly less than 30% of very median income.
Speaker 10: Whoever the developer is that would be selected would. Be expecting to secure traffic tax credits in order to serve that EMI level. Correct? That's correct. Okay. And have you already issued that RFP and kind of where are you in that process?
Speaker 8: Yes, we have we issued it in October. It is the responses are due December 13th.
Speaker 10: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: LS Ortega seeing no other questions? The public hearing for Accountable 1163 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'm very happy to see this come here tonight. It's a it's.
Speaker 9: Been a long process. If you read the.
Speaker 8: 1994 neighborhood plan for this group, it talked a lot about the development of Lowry and the development of Stapleton. And so much has happened that met that plan. But all of the things that were related to the East Colfax neighborhood, hardly anything has happened in terms of helping that neighborhood. And to put it in perspective, this particular property is only four blocks from Lowry and only five blocks from Stapleton. And we've seen so much development, great development at those two places, but very little right there in our island of Colfax. And I want to echo Susan Leahy's feelings about her neighborhood group. They are just wonderful. And and the city did a great outreach to and myself and and Councilman Herndon to the neighborhood to talk about this. We had had other developers before that were interested but couldn't get the tax credits. And so the neighborhood was very aware that this kind of zoning would might come to be five stories instead of three. And they're just except for the one letter, there wasn't opposition to that five stories means that we can provide more affordable housing and activate this area and just do something for the area that will help the street, that will help the people that we are going to house and not house, but to provide homes for people who otherwise might not be able to afford them. The neighborhood is actually altogether east. Colfax is the lowest economic, has the lowest income levels in the city, has the lowest education levels in the city, has the highest unemployment in the city. It's a neighborhood that needs this kind of investment, that needs this sort of this kind of attention that we're giving to it. And I couldn't be more pleased than what we are doing, and I couldn't be more pleased than how the neighborhood feels about it. But it is also a neighborhood in danger of of gentrifying as well, of housing prices going up as fast as possible. So that's why I was glad the city stepped in to buy property when it would be possible to buy it. Because as as Colfax develops, we do want to make sure that we keep it what the neighborhood said its gritty character, but also make it a place that's.
Speaker 9: Livable for.
Speaker 8: Different people of all different kinds of income. That's something the neighborhood once they want to keep the diversity of the neighborhood, both economic, ethnic in every regard. And so I think this project is one that is going to help doing that's not going to solve everybody's issues about needing homes. But it's going it's it's an important step forward for us. And I'm very excited about this one and the and the project that's coming up next. So I urge my fellow council people to vote with me and to pass this zoning. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call we. Romney with.
Speaker 2: A black.
Speaker 6: Eye.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. I Flynn, i Gilmore, i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 0: Cashman, I.
Speaker 2: Can I.
Speaker 3: Lopez I.
Speaker 2: Knew Ortega. I. Susman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I I'm secretary. Please close voting announced the results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 ayes countable. 1163 has passed. Guzman Flynn, will you please put House Bill 1164 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 7900 East Colfax Avenue in East Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-MS-3 to E-MS-5 (main street, 3 stories to main street 5 stories), located at 7900 East Colfax Avenue in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-23-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12032018_18-1075
|
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 1164 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1075 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dash 1075 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1075 is open. May we have.
Speaker 3: The staff report?
Speaker 14: Good evening. Excuse me. Andrew Webb here from Community Planning and Development to present this proposed rezoning of property at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue from two existing zoned districts c MPI two and S-Max 5ur1 you oh two to a mix of or to s-max eight you oh to s-max 865 S-Max three and SMU three. This proposal is in Council District six. It's in the Virginia Village neighborhood near the intersection of Louisiana and Colorado. This is a an approximately 13 and a half acre property. That is the was the former headquarters of the Colorado Department of Transportation, which vacated the site last year and has moved to a different location in Sun Valley . It's currently has a3124 story office structures built since the 1950s. The proposal here, as I mentioned, is within the suburban neighborhood context and it is for several Emacs or mixed use districts in a range of heights from 3 to 8, and then another zone district within the suburban neighborhood context, the multi-unit district for the property down at the at the southeast corner of the site. This is a this is was project was begun by the city which took an opportunity to to participate in the acquisition of and transfer of the site to a developer. When Scott announced that they were planning to vacate it, a purchase and sale agreement was approved by the council in late 2017 and the goals of the project were to establish or obtain 150 units of affordable housing on the site, 150,000 square feet of commercial space and employment opportunities, among other objectives. The rezoning is recommended by CPD in combination with the development agreement. This was recommended as an alternative to a general development plan. In this case, it actually achieves similar and in some cases additional objectives than a than a GDP would. The development agreement was approved in late October. It does require language. Language in the development agreement requires 150 units of affordable housing on site available to residents earning up to 60% of area meeting. Median income requires provision of open space, either publicly accessible private open space or dedicated spark parks based on a minimum of 10% of developable developable land on the property and that is consistent with the GDPR standard requires multiple traffic and transportation commitments, including a traffic study on and off site infrastructure improvements to go along with development, transportation demand management strategies for individual developments on the site, etc. It requires a drainage master plan and an open space plan. It requires the assignment of a construction manager as a single point of contact to address issues with the community or with the council offices as as issues come up during construction, and it requires a public meeting to present drainage, open space, concept, site plans and the traffic study. So as I mentioned, the existing zoning primarily for the core of the site is CPI two. That is a campus zoned district intended for educational and institutional uses. There's also a parcel up at the northwest corner of the site that is zoned Smc's find that suburban mixed use with the uo one and uo two overlays you will one is the adult use overlay you oh two is the Billboard overlay. The Billboard overlay is proposed to be retained at the site surrounding zoning ranges from a mix of Smc's and SMU zoned districts to the north west and southeast and southwest of the site. Transitioning to SMU and our three former Chapter 59 multi-unit zoned district and said a single unit zoned district as you move to the southeast part of the site and into the Virginia Village neighborhood. So the existing zoning, as I mentioned, is intended for education, institutional or office campuses. And I've tried to highlight a few details here to to get out in front of some of the questions that I've received through this process. The copyright item zone district does permit residential, including multi-unit uses, it permits office uses and eating and drinking uses. It does not allow retail sales, the CPI to permit the maximum height of building, height of 150 feet or 12 storeys, and does have provisions limiting height to 75 feet within 170 feet of a protected district such as a single unit zoned district. And then heights are further limited by the bulk plain standards, which limits height along a 45 degree angle plane that begins ten feet above the street, any adjacent street. Mid midline setbacks in the CPI to district are 20 feet at the at the primary street and 7.5 feet for side streets and side interior. In comparison to the Smic's district, the SM zone districts have a minimum setback of 0% or of zero feet at the primary street, but and 7.5 feet similar comparable for side streets inside interiors. SMU zoned district has a five foot side street setback. I didn't noted here, but it also requires a seven and a half foot setback adjacent to a protected district. And I would also highlight one detail here is that in the two zones and for residential uses, the off street parking requirements are 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit compared to the in the suburban neighborhood context, 1.25 spaces are required per unit for off street parking for residential uses. Existing land use is on the site. Our data shows them as primarily office, obviously, as you can see. Here. The the parcel at the northwest corner of the site is undeveloped and has been used to train Citroen employees on water quality techniques. And then the personnel at the far southeast corner at the. I guess that's the northeast corner of Arkansas on Birch has been used for parking and container storage and other uses. Surrounding uses include a mix of office, commercial and multi-unit residential and some of what our system refers to as industrial. That's an auto body shop directly north of the site. There's more intense uses are generally northwest and southwest of the site with multi-unit and single unit residential uses as you get south and east of the site. This this land or this. Another land use map here shows the site somewhat zoomed out so you can get a feel for how the how this development integrates in the scale the site integrates with the neighborhood and with the Colorado Boulevard corridor. And so you can get a feel for some of the other land use types in the area. You can see Glendale there at the top, the interchange of Interstate 25 and Colorado at the South End there, and Ellis Elementary as a landmark just to the southeast of the site. This aerial photo shows gives a feel for the intensity of of development along the Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 3: Corridor.
Speaker 14: And for the scale of buildings and density of development in the area, these photographs show. These are images of of development on the site itself. At the top left there is the water quality training site at the north west corner of the site, the main headquarters, a former headquarters office building for CDOT, is shown there at the bottom left behind. It is the Hyatt in Glendale. In the middle there, at the bottom and top right are the smaller office buildings on the east side of the site, as well as the existing microwave communications tower. I should note that the the communications tower and approximately 8000 square foot parcel of land surrounding it are not part of this proposed rezoning and will remain under the ownership and operation of CDOT. And finally, the bottom right there shows the the parking lot at the northeast corner of Birch and Arkansas. These photos show development to the north and east of the site, including higher density, residential and commercial uses to the north. Lower intensity multi-unit residential units uses to the northeast and single unit residential uses to the to the east. These photos show development on the at the top left here, development directly west of the site abutting Colorado and then directly across Colorado. At the bottom left there is the is Arkansas street and the middle photo is sort of the current kind of front door to the property from Arkansas. And finally, the the photo at the bottom right there shows multi-unit development to the south of the site. As I mentioned, this proposal is for two different zone districts, the SMU three district, which promotes higher density housing in a suburban context and smacks three, five and eight, which is intended to promote mixed use developments that allow for the convenience of walking to and from services, jobs and residences. These districts are appropriate along corridors for larger sites and at major intersections. As I mentioned, the applicant proposes to retain the you o to existing you o to overlay district at the Northwest Parcel. Staff has no objection to that. There are no adopted plans that we're aware of recommending removal of the you or two overlay in this area. There are two existing billboards in the area which would have to be taken into consideration under the Denver Zoning Codes Cap and Replace program. Were new Billboard B to be proposed for the site. In terms of process, CPD sent out the informational notice of receipt of this proposal in early June. Since then and actually proceeding that, the applicant has held seven meetings with community members to present the project, starting with kind of a visual preference surveys early on and then moving forward into getting more specific about proposals, providing information about how feedback has been incorporated. And I believe the applicants are here this evening and will be able to speak more to that process. The CPD written notice of the planning board hearing went out in late August and the planning board hearing was in September. There was a recommendation of approval with the further recommendation in this case that a development agreement be approved or executed concurrent with this MAP amendment to guide future development at the site. Ludy considered this proposal on October 9th. The first reading was November 5th, and here we are at the final hearing on December 3rd with regard to registered neighborhood organizations and public comment. As of application, there were two neighborhood registered neighborhood organizations that considered the site to be within their boundary. The Virginia Village Ellice Community Association is currently not operational. It's our understanding that they have they have dissolved due to lack of membership and other issues. The Inter Neighborhood Cooperation or I.N.S., also considers this to be within its boundary. Both have received notice multiple times throughout the process, but prior to the Planning Board hearing, we did receive written comment from the Virginia Village Ellice Community Association indicating that the the R.A. was neutral about the proposal. We've not heard from that organization since. In terms of written comment from stakeholders, we've received approximately 60 letters, emails and other documents from community members and other stakeholders as of the deadline, which is last was last Thursday at noon. Of those 18 were opposed to the proposed rezoning and 42 were in support. With regard to stakeholder concerns, I'm going to highlight just a handful of the key issues that the key themes that came up and and note some some ways that those might be mitigated. A major concern is is increased traffic at the site. The applicant's kind of baseline analysis of existing uses and existing zoning and proposed zoning found that under existing or under or under the proposed or potentially under the existing zoning, there could be an estimated 10,000 trip per day increase. This is proposed to be mitigated by several things in the several components of the development agreement, including requirements for the traffic study, infrastructure improvement and transportation demand management, which aims to reduce the number of individual trips in motor vehicles and encourage other modes of travel, such as use of transit. Additionally, staff would note that mixed use developments can help spread trips throughout the day and reduce the impact on peak hour congestion versus a single large office or residential use. Another key concern that was raised was was height and transitions into the neighborhood. The original proposal that came in from the applicant did propose to keep some of the current 12 storey entitlement on the site. They did later revise that to a maximum height of eight storeys in the sort of northern northwestern part of the site. They also proposed a unique system of. Right zone districts. To illustrate a step down into neighborhoods with building heights with which do result in lower heights at the edge of development and what could be done under the current zoning. Other concerns we've heard about are the potential for gentrification with new development, environmental concerns and others. And many of these are addressed both in the development agreement and in the purchase and sale agreement and further detailed in the staff report. In terms of support for the project, we've heard quite a few neighbors speak to the opportunity for creating a sense of place at this location along Colorado Boulevard, which is mostly in this area, especially characterized by auto oriented strip development and excitement about the possibility of destinations and retail that people could walk to. We've heard support for 150 units of housing, which, as we heard from the principal of Alice Elementary, could help stabilize the student population at that's at that school by allowing families to stay in the neighborhood as housing prices increase and then generally sustainability, you know, infill development as an alternative to sprawl, to meet housing demand in places where there is already existing infrastructure, re-use of an underutilized site and addition of new residents and households along transit routes which can help increase ridership and thereby support improvements to the transit system. With regard to the criteria for rezoning, as you know, the Council must find that a proposed rezoning meets these five criteria from the Denver zoning code with regard to consistency, with adopted plans, to plans. In fact, this site, the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, this proposal would support multiple strategies and objectives aimed at redevelopment of underutilized land and obtaining or encouraging quality, infill development and providing a variety of housing opportunities. With regard to Blueprint, Blueprint identifies the parcel at the far northwest corner of the site as commercial corridor for a as a as a future concept of land use and identifies it as an area of change. The majority of the site, the core of the site is identified as for a future concept land use of single family residential and is that identified as an area of stability. Future street classifications include the commercial arterial and enhance trans enhanced transit corridor designation along Colorado Boulevard. All other streets in the area are des own designated locals according to Blueprint, although I should note that Public Works does consider Louisiana to be a collector at this location. And all of these all of the local streets here in Louisiana and Arkansas do provide Signalized access to Colorado Boulevard without passing through residential neighborhoods. And this is comparable to block design along Colorado and other corridors where side streets from the kind of major arterials serve several blocks in some cases of of commercial and mixed use development . This the land use the future concept land use designation did present some challenges for the analysis of plan consistency. One of those is that it's not clear how this designation came to be in the first place. These images actually show a comparison between the existing land use on the site there on the left and the blueprint concept land use map. From Blueprint. As you can see, there are commercial and multi-unit, residential and other higher intensity uses not only at the site but surrounding the site that have been designated as single family residential in in blueprint. Despite the fact that those developments existed at the time of Blueprint's adoption when it was adopted, the former Chapter 59 or five institutional zoning on the subject site didn't actually permit single unit residential uses. This was a key topic of the planning board discussion as the board grappled with whether, you know, too broad a brush had been applied here with Blueprint. And as we considered it, we we looked at several factors, including the low likelihood of single unit development at this location. Given the surrounding context. We did look at the existing zoning. We considered the developer's commitments to address some of the traffic concerns via the development agreement. And then finally, we looked at other tools in the plan in blueprint, which does provide language to address unique situations like this, including the designation or the identification of committed and reinvestment areas in areas of stability. Acknowledging that there may be cases where, even in an area of stability infill, a redevelopment project may be appropriate, especially where it can provide services and. Employment for neighborhoods. And then the blueprints toolbox for areas of stability also identifies several tools that are consistent with this proposal, including ensuring that commercial development is not impeded but provides appropriate transitions into neighborhoods. And this proposal does attempt to very graphically illustrate the transition into neighborhoods and then the use of public private partnerships to to obtain affordable housing. Redevelopment of brownfield sites. And to promote business growth and job retention. And finally, leveraging redevelopment opportunities to obtain new open space and improved pedestrian realm and other amenities for neighborhoods. With regard to other criteria, with regard to the uniformity of district regulations, this request will result in the uniform application of the Max Zone District's building form, use and design regulations. It will further a public health, safety and welfare by providing jobs and housing near high quality transit. It will result in a pedestrian friendly mix of uses at the site and a clear transition of building scale. With regard to just justifying circumstances. The applicant proposed several, including the growth of population in the city and the well documented need for housing, as well as the closure and vacation of the site. And finally, with regard to the fifth criteria and consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent, CPD finds that this is. This proposal is consistent as further detailed in the staff report, but specifically as mixed use. Districts are intended to enhance the convenience of walking, gathering and shopping within and around the city's neighborhoods and are they are appropriate along corridors and for larger sites and ensure that new development contributes positively to nearby residential neighborhoods and character. So with that, CPD recommends approval in combination with the development agreement that will address certain issues relative to the redevelopment of the site. Based on a finding that all these review criteria have been met, I am happy to stand for any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have 53 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to ask if everyone sitting in this front row could please move to another seat so that we can make room for the speakers as they're coming up so that we can effectively and efficiently get through this. So if you're sitting in the front row, if you could please find another seat. But until I call the first five. So we're going to call five at a time to sit in a front row. Mr.. CQ Dan, could you if you could clear out that front bench? Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, so I will call five at a time. I do apologize if I get your name wrong when I call you, if you could come up to this vacated bench so that you can be ready to step right up to the podium as soon as your name is called. So our first five are Jimmy Bill Office, Stacy Weekes, Stuart Anderson, Chris Vickery and Sean Maley. If you want to come up and Jimmy gloves, the microphone is yours.
Speaker 3: Good evening, City Council. My name is Jimmy Office and I'm principal and co-founder of the control group, the local real estate development company chosen by the city of Denver for the Mixed Use Project we're addressing tonight. My parents immigrated from Greece to Denver more than 50 years ago. We gave our company the name Cointreau because it's the Greek word for center, referring to the core of the community, the intersection of families and culture, commerce, the place where we live and grow and raise our children. The Castro group is a company of firsts with a 15 year track record from seeing early potential on Colfax to bringing the first Trader Joe's to Colorado. We also hope to be among the first to create a livable, walkable, vibrant community in southeast Denver, not far from where I grew up. The Colorado Boulevard corridor has always been exciting. As kids, we saw movies at the Cooper Theater and ball at Celebrity Lanes. Today, I take my kids to the IMAX theater on South Colorado Boulevard, and then we hit the Dairy Queen. Restaurants, retailers and friendly neighbors make the corridor a lively north south artery. We plan to create a walkable main street environment where people can live, eat, shop and enjoy the culture, community activities right outside the front door. Together. We need to build a city that's equitable, affordable and attainable. Since the start of the project, we heard from teachers, moms, social workers and others who reported they were being pushed out by increasing prices, home prices and rentals. Rental car rental places. Please know that we are fully, fully committed to 250 units of affordable housing associated with development. Recently, the city announced the 150 units are the reason the city announced a goal to build 2000 affordable units over the next six years. This project alone meets 45% of anything, any single year target. We recognize that the city's affordable housing now is now, not in six years. We have listened to the neighbors, have shared their have shared with us throughout a series of community meetings. As a result, we reduced the building heights and provided a better transition to the adjacent neighborhood. In a development agreement, we recommitted to to the affordable housing units, set aside 10% of the property for open space and so much more. We also developed a good neighbor agreement to address additional community preferences relating to building design, mature tree retention and traffic data. In the last 11 months. I shared more pizza with Virginia Village neighbors than anyone else, and I'm pleased to consider members of the community as friends. And it's these neighbors that I like to think. First, they offered invaluable input in the face of community changes which appear intangible and foreign. We hope to continue to earn their trust and maintain just as we hope to meet the city expectations moving forward as we ask for your support for the project tonight. Also, thanks to many people who worked diligently alongside to get us to the vote. Council Member Cashman All the city agencies are interesting, ranging from CPD Public Works in the Division of Real Estate to the city's attorney office. Thank you for your cooperation. I have colleagues follow me to address other. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Thank you. All right. Next up, Stacey weeks.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Council members.
Speaker 3: I'm Stacey Weeks with North Design 11 zero one Bannock Street. I'm serving as the planning principal for the project, and the redevelopment of this property is an exciting opportunity for the community, community and city, an important property to bring reinvestment to the city along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor and Virginia Village, redevelop the city fabric and connect the neighborhood. We envision an integration of multifamily, housing, retail, commercial and office in a suburban mixed use context to make a place a place to grab coffee, have lunch and dinner, provide housing for teachers, for retail employees, for medical test technicians and families to become part of the Virginia Village neighborhood. The planning process started with the acknowledgment that there's change for this property. See that transition from this key property that they occupied for 65 years? Blueprint the zoning code. The comp plan provides strategies and tools to accommodate change and reinvestment. Our application is before you with staff and Planning Board recommendations for approval after extensive review, review and the rezoning does meet the city adopted plan criteria for rezoning with suburban type uses in the surrounding area location near Transit City served by two active bus routes and adjacency to Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor. The request builds on three powerful tools and blueprint regulatory tools, public infrastructure tools and partnership tools provided in the toolbox of areas of stability. And Chapter seven Shaping Growth in Chapter three, Blueprint provides guidance and strategies in the areas of change in Chapter three is high density reduces land consumption. Blueprint States for redevelopment has transportation benefit when it's paired with a land use mix that provides destinations with convenient walking in areas that have access to transit and transportation corridors and areas at St Patrick's that are interconnected with developed sidewalks. In addition, the rezoning is consistent with the city's zoning code for all of all criteria rezoning, including 12 .4. ten seven day consistency with adopted plans. The proposed official map is consistent with the city adopted plans or the proposed rezoning is necessary to provide community need, which was not anticipated at time of adoption of the city's plan . We say yes to both and after 11 months, eight public meetings in attendees and support this evening, it's clear demonstrated community need including affordable housing. The neighborhood neighborhood transition. We proposed three stories, which is a sizable benefit adjacent to the single unit residential. There's also the existing residential that's that's adjacent to the protected district, which we have currently 75 feet and five storeys allowed. But we are proposing three stories. We also have the upper story setback with the zoned districts and we eliminate 12 stories from the site entirely. Goods and services integrated greenspace and streetscape improvements for north south connections and pedestrian amenities. All this is a reduction of down zoning from the current CPI to. It started the process to move to a Suburban.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Stewart Anderson.
Speaker 13: Hello, I'm Stewart Anderson, 1041 Marion Street, Denver. I am the executive director of Transportation Solutions Foundation. We are a not for profit that has been operating for 21 years in southeast Denver. Our primary goal is to create an environment that supports multimodal travel and minimizes the use of the single occupant vehicle. We were obtained by the control group to look at developing a transportation demand management concept level plan. And and we have gone through that effort and have spent the last four months working on a variety of strategies that will make the pedestrian the priority and the bicyclist a priority. And to make transit users our priority, there will be cars. They always come. But we're going to try to maximize a multimodal environment and try to create a sustainable environment that will last over time. Some of the strategies that are included in the concept level plan are a neighborhood mobility hub that will be located on the east side of this property, which would centralize a variety of transportation options, including car share, bike share and connections to the rail station at Colorado station. Also, we are looking at enhanced pedestrian facilities and in particular safe crossings. We are also looked at connectivity to the bike network. Currently they're working on a bike facility along Florida. That would be the closest facility that we would connect to. Also, the fact that there is mixed use zoning built into that, that's one of the best production elements that we have. It not only spreads the peak travel over time, but it also will capture trips by providing different types of amenities such as stores, dry cleaners and others onsite to eliminate that. One of the things that we also discussed was how can we make this a part of that community, not an island, but actually one that is fluid and would allow people, pedestrians and cyclists to take advantage of this facility? We do not take a position on any development project, but I can say that the control group in good faith has worked with us on this concept level plan. They have made commitments that we feel are core to reducing trips and maximizing multimodal travel over time. We also found that they are willing to discuss innovative transportation strategies and new technologies that we think will be part of the future of our transportation here in Denver. We feel that this development will complement that over time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Chris Vickery.
Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Chris Vickery, director of development for the Control Group at 1509 York Street. Since the beginning of this project, we are looking for another tool to go along with the rezoning application. Since we're so early, we're at step one of the redevelopment. So as Andrew mentioned, we put together a development agreement that put in city priorities and neighborhood priorities to make it a better place. We held a public meeting on November 14th with the neighborhood to really discuss any questions they may have on that, as it's been posted to our website and the city's websites. Those top priorities that I really want to focus on tonight is, one, is affordable housing. I think with all their outreach we've done is the most important thing here on the site is units not paying a fee. So we've committed to build those units 150, 60% and my or less on this site. We have selected a partner. They're actually here. Luxton McDermott. We're moving forward with a chapter we've made. We're going to make our application in February just to Jimmy brought up this point, but just to bring it back is this is making up 45% of the annual goal of the 2000 inclusionary plan, which is a good step. The next one I think that everybody has heard about is traffic. Traffic is going to change on this site with the zoning or the proposed rezoning as it's going to get developed. We understand that and we want to minimize that impact as much as we can to the surrounding areas. The zoning helps with that. We're looking for potential heights. We're going to bring retail, which has passed by rates that are higher than multifamily. Also, it will encourage live work play development agreement. We're doing a full traffic study. We've already done current counts, level service. We've expanded our scope as per all of our neighborhood meetings. We're being proactive. We've had two traffic public meetings that are outside of the eight that we've had. We've already got a protected left turn on Louisiana and Colorado heading southbound. We're going to provide a North-South connection which will reinsert the grid, which will allow more options for people to get in and out of the site. We're going to do the TDM and implement those as a part of our development plan that Stuart discussed and we felt like we hired the best guy to come up with that concept. Other notable items is containment, continued neighborhood engagement, construction manager, open space requirement, drainage study and subdivision requirement. Along with this, if the neighborhood priorities that couldn't be put into the development agreement, it's not a city related item. We were open to a general agreement, which is a good neighbor agreement. The R.A. isn't currently functioning, but we've had countless neighbors that took time out of their days, came up with great ideas, and we're going to commit to doing those items. And those are design. We said the metro district to enforce those design criterias, additional neighborhood meetings, tower, beautiful location, which is the microwave. If that if that remains, if we can't get it beautified, we're going to keep the line of sight as outlined in our contract for it to have continuous operations.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. And then, Sean, if you want to come up, I'm also going to call the next five. So if you guys could vacate that and I apologize, I'm not sure how this is over. Fox, Curtis Row, Sarah Murphy, David Browning and Denise Cheeky. If you could make your way up to this front row. And Sean, you have the microphone. Good evening.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, and members of council. My name is Sean Maley, Sierra Associates, 1660 Lincoln Street.
Speaker 3: I wanted to speak about the 11 months of outreach control group has been formed as I believe it sets a new standard and pioneers some new ground for how an owner and developer engages with the neighborhood. The eight public meetings that we've held on the site sets a high mark for me personally, and adding to these eight meetings, we've convened dozens more special issue meetings with the community regarding traffic, environmental cleanup, with the City Task Force, the.
Speaker 0: Neighborhood Zoning Committee.
Speaker 3: Who sent us written memos and exchanged neighborhood priorities, and countless other individual meetings, coffees and house visits, and referring you to the letter control group sent City Council on November 27th. That's included at the front of the packet we handed you tonight. I wanted to draw your attention to the first page in a short list of agreements that Castro has made throughout this process. For an important site like this, with a lengthy process with the neighborhood. We want council to know that this process has yielded a lot of positives that go beyond the existing zoning scenario. Affordable housing, as you've heard tonight, open space, ongoing public engagement. We've included in the DEA a process and structure for ongoing public meetings tied to key project milestones after the rezoning. If at this past lowering heights and neighborhood transition, the application lowers heights on the interior and exterior of the site and goes below the city's zoning regulations for development adjacent to protected districts like the Sue and. Zone districts. TDM As you've heard from Stewart extending the timeframe, we've pushed our application timeframe as much as possible to allow for maximum dialog with the community. And at first reading we agreed to push back our hearing by an additional two weeks to allow for more time for the Community and Council to review the development agreement. We held our eighth public meeting during this time frame for public notice. We distributed fliers, posted signs on the property, create an email database with over 300 neighbors who were repeatedly sent emails asking for their questions and concerns. Built a custom project website where we posted all neighborhood presentations, information and key documents. And there are countless other items I could list, including, but not limited to preserving the mature trees along the Arkansas Avenue, closing Arkansas Avenue, east of Birch Street, and many more. I believe this hard work is reflected in the amount of support that is included in the staff report and package before you. If you see these letters, they're in tab four of the binder we prepared. In closing, I would like to thank city staff for their dedication, time and effort. Councilman Cashman and all of City Council, but in particular, Councilman Cashman for appropriately and persistently pushing all parties for a robust and productive dialog. And most of all, the neighborhood great projects require the community's voice and input. Great development is a two way street. We are inspired and honored by the amount of time, dedication and intelligent and thoughtful ideas that have been given to this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up for Fox. That's what came through on our system of there. A zoo. Last name Fox. Okay. Last name Fox seems correct. I'm not sure what happened to the first name here. Go for.
Speaker 3: My name is David Fox. I'm a staff representative here for. I'm just here to answer any questions about the transaction if those come up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Curtis Roe.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Curtis. True. I work with Kimberly Hahn Associates. I'm a traffic engineer and I am also here to answer any questions regarding traffic engineering.
Speaker 9: That may.
Speaker 3: Come up.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Sarah Murphy.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Denver City Council members, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Sarah Murphy and I reside at 4622 East Colorado Avenue in Denver, Virginia Village neighborhood. I've been a resident there for 12 years. I'm a licensed architect in the state of Colorado. I hold a bachelor's degree from the Frankfurt School of Architecture and a master's degree from Montana State University. I was on the Virginia Village board from 2011 to 2013, and I'm here to say that I think that the current zoning change pushes that the mass update stories across from residential homes to the sidewalk edge. I think that we have the opportunity to create a party for the site that would prescribe, form, use parking as well as other standards across the site. The images that the developer has presented show a generic form and does not mention parking or how it's meeting at street level. And they see that it's walkable, but it's not greeting the street in a certain way. And I think that's critical. This is a prevents a little bit to no transition. And like they've said, they've scaled it down. But that transition goes to straight to some single family homes on the southeast side. A beauty for the site would help address the concerns raised by the community. This unique zone would allow the district to maintain a maximum flexibility during the planning stage, an assurance that what's proposed is actually being developed. The site is going to impact our community for decades, the community, the city and the site itself. And we deserve the best solution. Not necessarily. It was proposed in the zoning change. An example of this is on the eastern edge of my street, Bel-Air and Colorado Avenue. There's tall, multi-story office buildings at the street level. They are 20 feet setback from the street level. But there are trees and lush landscaping that brings that scale down, which is the current zoning for the site that's being proposed. I think that this would match a similar context and allow us to keep the zoning as proposed or something different. I'm an architect, so I understand that the development is going to happen and that we are going to have to have this for generations. But it's smart development that we need to look at and how it affects Virginia Village as a whole. We want something that will make us proud, and that's something that's rushed through. I understand that there's been a lot of public meetings, but some of those meetings have been open house style, where there's not a general progression of comments coming forward to the council or to the council, to the developer, so that the community is not hearing what other concerns on that is going to be. It's just dialog. Another concern that I have is that the communication has been very digital and a lot of the people in our neighborhood have historically been there from the time that the homes are built in 1950s, those people do not necessarily have communication by email. I personally do not get fliers on my door notifying me of the meetings, and I know that my neighbor next to me does not have email or, you know, internet access in his home. So that's one of my concerns as well. I'm against the rezoning as requested, and I ask that it be denied, tabled or continued until a more appropriate plan can be developed. Thank you for your time and I'm here for any questions, if you have any.
Speaker 0: Thank you. David Browning.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's Dave Browning and.
Speaker 7: I live at 933 South Milwaukee Way, which I understand to be in the stakeholder area. I'm also here as a residential realtor. Four or five years ago, I was on the Mayor Hancock's Affordable Housing Task Force Committee with Councilwoman Kanis. And during that.
Speaker 3: Time, boy, we struggled with the affordable housing.
Speaker 7: Inventory in Denver. We lost a lot of affordable housing units to foreclosure and the 2007 to 2010 period. I think this project just seems like a great way to start to back up that affordable housing.
Speaker 3: Inventory.
Speaker 7: Again. Also, as a residential realtor, I've been on the board of directors for the Realtor.
Speaker 3: Association for more than eight years, and we.
Speaker 7: Are always in favor of projects that put people closer.
Speaker 3: To man mass. Mass transit, as it's just more as it's environmentally friendly.
Speaker 7: Gets people closer to the city center and the light rail. I also want to talk about in my career as a realtor, I have worked in the past in residential real estate with the group that's proposing this project.
Speaker 3: And I worked with a.
Speaker 7: Lot of people who did a lot of redevelopment. And I always told people that this is the group that you want to be buying homes from just because of the pride.
Speaker 3: They took in their work. Just being earnest and.
Speaker 7: Talking when they didn't need to talk to you about how proud they are of the community and how they want to do a good job and have the people who live there be prideful and the product that they were producing. So just to sum up, I love the affordable housing aspect. I like the environmental impact of it to the point where it's close to light rail. And I think anyone who may be worried about the group doing this, I don't know what the alternative would be, but it would be hard to find a group that would be I would think it would be just about impossible to find a group that would take pride in the development that I know this group would. What's not to like? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We are to our last person in this group. So if we could free that bunch. And Denise Cheeky, you're up at just a second. Let me call the next five. Diane Walter, Nancy Schuetz, Trustee, Frank Pinkerton, Bill Berger and Kristen Jones. If you could make your way to the front and I'm sorry about the last name. That's all right.
Speaker 9: Go ahead, Kelly. Denise to Kelly. Hi, I'm Denise, too. Kelly, I live in the neighborhood at your door in Mexico for the last ten years. And what drew me to the neighborhood was community appeal, the connection that Susan, who spoke earlier about her neighborhood, was talking about. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight. I thought we could yield our time and found out when I got here, we could not. So please excuse me. I'm terribly nervous. Let's see. On my immediate block, as someone else had just mentioned, most of the homes have been owned by my neighbors for ten, 20, 50 years. Three immediate neighbors are in their nineties. We have an amazing neighborhood. It's so great. The Castro project does scare me a little. The only information I have seen as limited and I recently received a flier from a neighborhood committee. So I know how easy it is to get information out because this was like neighbors put this together. So and I do want to say that our association didn't that I know of didn't it wasn't a membership problem. What happened was it was hijacked by real estate developers and they didn't pay attention to the bylaws that were necessary through the state. And because of that, it's disbanded and it's currently being rebirthed. So hopefully we'll get that to help with this situation. Well, okay. So the Castro project seems to be very dense with multiple large structures. The project also seems to lack conformity with the existing neighborhood. Although I did hear some of the things you mentioned and they did sound very positive, but that's the first I've heard of it. And the project will create an enormous traffic and profit and parking problem with no current provision for resolution. I heard the not for profit person who also was impressive, so those actually were a little hopeful for this project. The court was only a 1 to 2 story building with a lot of parking and a lot of availability. That didn't create any traffic problems that I'm aware of. And I live south of what we're talking about. And so even though there are large structures to the north, everything to the south, if you looked in that picture . Was single dwelled dwelling units. The redevelopment of the project is acceptable, but I would like to see it tabled for the moment until more neighborhood representation is considered. You know, 30% to me is kind of a large percentage, which was the 18 people that the person spoke about earlier. I'd really like to see a really good committee put with a lot of the neighbors participating. I think they would like to participate. I think I, I just wanted to also mention that, as I mentioned, elderly and and younger children, there's lots of younger children with those 25 mile an hour signs. And, you know, I'm.
Speaker 0: Sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Diane. Diane. Walter.
Speaker 12: Hello. I'm Diane Walter. Good evening, counsel. I must ask you, where is the proper justification for this particular zoning legally? You must look at the evidence presented tonight and during your quasi judicial and this 18 page comprehensive analysis that was submitted to you all by Tim Karr last Monday points out at least 20 ways in which the rezoning request does not meet specific criteria. This is an attempt to shoehorn in something that is oversize and largely inappropriately zoned for this residential neighborhood. Our neighborhood is one of front lawns and quiet residential streets. Yes, we all want cute retail shops and the affordable housing to be built. But this plan is to dance for the area. Staff has selectively identified plan objectives, strategies and recommendations to support justification for the rezoning. But there are six areas of noncompliance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan listed on page three. Additionally, staff has ignored at least six of the basic principles and recommendations identified in Blueprint Denver. The proposed zoning districts will have adverse impacts on adjacent single family residential development, primarily one story, and will increase traffic congestion, noise and the quality of living in the surrounding area, thus conflicting with the intent of a rezoning that protects the public health, safety and general welfare, staff's assertion of a justified reason for the rezoning is subjective at best lacks foundational facts that demonstrate either demand or need within the community. The idea that this rezoning will be down zoning from the current permitted uses fails to consider the impact of large retail uses and high density residential development on the site of again, quiet neighborhood residential streets. Colorado Boulevard has been mentioned an awful lot here tonight. This is two blocks off of Colorado Boulevard and it's a mile and I'm 1.1 miles from the light rail center. So this is not an actual hub of multimodal. This it's a hub of residential homes. Impacts to the existing road systems will be substantial. A proposal on Louisiana Avenue, for instance, which they're deeming a collector street, is a stretch. It's a two lane street, residential, just like the other streets surrounding this on three sites. And it only runs about three quarters of a mile from Holly over to the other side of Colorado Boulevard. So I'm asking you tonight to either table this or vote no. It just doesn't have all the requirements needed to protect the neighborhood. Again, the neighborhood's not against it. It just needs to be better.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Nancy. Q t I'm sorry.
Speaker 10: It's sushi. Sushi. It's Hungarian. So I'm Nancy Sushi and I live at 1395 South Grape Street in Virginia Village. And so Denver is changing. It's changing very quickly. And for some of us who have been long time residents, it's hard to say. It's hard to sit in traffic. It's hard to just look around and see things that are so unfamiliar than the way they used to be. But I'm here to speak in favor of this new development and this new zoning, because I believe that we need to embrace change and do what we can to ensure that all Denver residents, the new and the old, have safe and affordable places to live. Now, I believe affordable housing means 30% of am I not 60%, but it sounds like the plan is for more like 60%. But affordable housing reduces stress. Toxins and infectious diseases leads to improvements in physical and mental health. Children in stable housing do better in school and are less likely to drop out. Parents who are less likely to worry about foreclosure and evictions lead to more job and income stability. Affordable housing is critical to Denver's success on a global economy as Denver becomes more economically powerful and essential, the demand for housing increases. We need to support the local workforce so people can live closer to their jobs. Shorter commutes allow workers to spend time with families rather than on long commutes. Construction of affordable housing stimulates economic growth, and a healthy mix of housing options ensures opportunities for all individuals to improve their economic situation and contribute to their communities. Having housing and commercial interest close by the walkability of the neighborhood. Canning. Chris, and make it a more attractive place to live. For me, the bottom line is we need more housing in Denver. People who work here need to be able to live here. My expectation from what I've read and from the presentation tonight is that Cantrell will keep their commitment to make affordable housing along with commercial. And I really fear what would happen if this was opened up to the highest bidder. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Frank Pilkington. Pilkington.
Speaker 15: Thank you. My name's Frank Pilkington. At 1375 South Claremont Street, my parents bought a house at 1580 South Bel-Air in 1954. I've been a member of this neighborhood since then. I still own property in this neighborhood. My heart is there and I really like this neighborhood a lot. It's been a great place to bring up kids. I was raised there myself. I'm not against the project. I'm not a NIMBY, but I'm literally right behind the SMU three. If you could refer to the map that was presented, it's a small section at the southeast corner. Which is zoned to be 35 feet high. My single-family house there is 12 feet high, eight foot ceiling and a 12 four roof. And when I go out the back door and look up at 35 feet and see three stories, it's going to be a little shocking. I can get over it. But the point that I want to make about that small parcel of land in the southeast corner at Arkansas and Birch, is that as proposed, there are 120 low income or affordable housing units built in that specific spot. Now, as Castro has introduced their plan, they are going to have 450 housing units here. If 120 of those, or approximately one third are located in that small section of SMU three. That's affordable housing segregation. I'd like to propose that those affordable housing units are integrated throughout the entire project rather than separated into one small section at the corner. I don't think the affordable housing should be distinguishable from the rest of the housing and the development. So many points to make in 3 minutes. You know, when the investors come in and a lot of these other 300 units are going to be bought up as rentals, and that does not fit the model of homeownership . At least we can have 150 homeowners right there. So are we going to want all of those low income people to be located in the same exact little corner of this development? The control group has done a nice job presenting some good plans and it has great potential here. This piece of land is really a gem in the city of Denver, but I would hate to segregate the low income people from the rest of the housing development.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Bill Berger.
Speaker 13: Thank you. I'm Bill Berger. I live at 1585 South Grape Street. I moved to Denver in 1972, so I've been here for 46 years. That entire time I've lived and worked in the city and county of Denver, and now I live in Virginia Village. I'm against this rezoning for a number of reasons.
Speaker 11: Mostly, I believe.
Speaker 13: Overwhelming negative impact to our neighborhood. I've observed.
Speaker 11: Much a great deal of positive.
Speaker 13: Growth in Denver for the 46 years I've lived here.
Speaker 3: But in the recent.
Speaker 13: Years, I've I've observed some really negative development taking place. I've observed, in addition to a lot of this development, being just plain ugly. It's been ultra-high high density minimum, minimum building setbacks, lack of adequate, adequate parking, no new parks throughout the city, negative impacts on the character of neighborhoods, and worsening traffic congestion, especially on Colorado Boulevard. And this rezoning has every.
Speaker 3: One of.
Speaker 13: These negative characteristics associated with it.
Speaker 3: So I ask, who will.
Speaker 13: Benefit from this redevelopment? Certainly wealthy developers.
Speaker 3: Wealthy consultants working.
Speaker 13: For the developers, wealthy attorneys working for the developers, and local.
Speaker 3: Politicians seeking higher.
Speaker 13: Office. And who will pay for the costs of this redevelopment? Well, the Denver taxpayers, the citizens throughout the city and county of Denver, homeowners like me.
Speaker 3: Normal working men and.
Speaker 13: Women throughout the city and neighborhoods through additional congestion, traffic and all of these other negative impacts.
Speaker 3: I believe that someday all of this crazy.
Speaker 13: Redevelopment throughout the city with all of these negative characteristics.
Speaker 3: Is going to.
Speaker 13: Go too far. And I think this development is going too far. I think we've reached that point. This is a rare opportunity for a large.
Speaker 3: Parcel of land to be turned into a park.
Speaker 11: The city has not added park land for ever.
Speaker 13: And this is our opportunity to do this. And I think it would be a much better use of this space. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And Christine Jones, your next if you want to get ready. But hold on just a second when I call the next five up Liz over Bo loyal Merrick Jacob Graham James or Donny and Bill James. If you could make your way up to the front row, go ahead.
Speaker 8: Hi. My name is Kristen Jones. I live at 1798 South Eudora Street in Virginia Village. I'm also part of a neighborhood task force that reviewed Kendra's proposal earlier in the year and gave feedback. I'm supportive of this proposal because we need more affordable housing in Denver, and I think this is our best shot to get it in our neighborhood. I'm proud to be among the neighbors who pushed Kendra on affordable housing. We wanted them to commit to building 150 affordable units on site, not to pay to set the fee and not to put it somewhere else. And I'm gratified that they agreed to do that. I also think that 150 affordable units is not enough and 60% AMI is not affordable enough. Like my neighbors, I'm concerned about preserving the character of the neighborhood. To me, the character of the neighborhood that's most worth preserving is diverse, welcoming and family friendly. It really is a beautiful place. It's it's been very welcoming to me and my family. We have two small kids. We have a beautiful park, a community garden. Our elementary schools is a place where you can walk down the hall and hear kids talking to each other in Arabic and Spanish and English. But Denver's housing housing shortage has made Virginia Village whiter and wealthier. Our school is emptying out because families are getting price down. And that, to me is not family friendly. The stress hurts our neighborhood kids, and it's bad for all of us who want our community to be welcoming to everyone. I know that that affordable housing here means increased density, and that doesn't worry me at all. In fact, I would have liked to see Castro go for more density because that would have meant more housing. I also don't like the idea of a lot of big, unsafe parking lots that are going to be difficult for me and my family to navigate. I would have liked to see urban zoning here, not suburban zoning. I don't like sitting in traffic any more than my neighbors, but I also know that if we don't build density in the city, we will have to sprawl out. And that's going to be mean worse traffic for all of us at the same time. When my neighbor Diane said that that it's not a transit hub, that's true. It's very hard to get on a bus from Virginia Village to downtown. It takes forever. It's not back close to the light rail and there aren't nearly enough bike lanes. So keep working on that. Guys. I also want to point out that the demographics of the people who are speaking tonight don't match the demographics of our neighborhood. You're hearing from a lot of white homeowners, and that is not our neighborhood. We are. Our elementary school is about 80% people of color. And so I want to urge city agencies to do a better job in reaching out to the entire community. This is a great place to live. I look forward to welcoming our new, new neighbors, and I hope Kintore will build something we can all be proud of. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Liz. Over both.
Speaker 9: Good evening. I'd like to share a letter that my neighbor Margaret Bob wrote to Paul Cashman on November 18th, and she's be unable to be here tonight. But I thought it was well-written and certainly represented. It represents the concerns of our neighbors on 1533 South Dexter Way and perhaps the neighborhood at large. Dear Mr. Cashman I'm very concerned about the direction that the redevelopment of this court property has taken. A flier received, received on my door alerting me to this shows that the redevelopment is not what was was is not what was presented to the community at a meeting at Elm Ellis Elementary School. My address is about one quarter mile from the crash site, and having walked the streets of this neighborhood for 35 years, I value the character of our modest neighborhood. I live at 1557. South Dexter Way have lived here since 1984 and try to be a responsible, participatory citizen. Within the past year, I attended one of the developer led meetings about the redevelopment. The meeting I attended was at Ellis Elementary. I paid close attention to the description of mixed use, business and residential. The drawings of the proposed development, the impact on traffic. The amount of open space, and the requirement for affordable housing. At that meeting, I was very satisfied that the redevelopment seemed balanced. Certainly it would bring a higher density of housing and certainly it would bring more traffic. But population growth is inevitable and development is inevitable. And a plan presented seemed balanced and responsible. The drawings presented showed significant open space. The buildings in the diagram seem to be at varying heights, with an attractive profile and diversity. I am all for affordable housing. Thumbs up on that. I received more notices of more meetings but chose not to attend as I was satisfied that the redevelopment was responsible and balanced. Now the flier I've received showing exhibit number 14 S stack de. S Stash mix and s stash m building envelope study does not match what was presented to me at the community meeting I attended. I am shocked and dismayed. I see an illustration of a massive block of three eight story buildings. I see all of the buildings squeezed together with no open space. The flier I received indicates that a rezoning vote is required. Honestly, I don't know what zoning changes are specified. Maybe the original plan I saw months ago requires the same rezoning vote that you will discuss at the December 3rd public hearing. I simply want to convey to you that I feel horribly misled by the developers. As their city councilman who must balance development and quality of life, mitigate and hold this developer, mitigate this and hold the developers. But your time is presented.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Loyal MCC.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your time. City Council. My name is Lyle Merrick, and I live in Virginia Village. I'm one of the new homeowners, and my son spent years sitting over there. He's a little guy that likes riding his bike in the neighborhood and doesn't like to get run over by cars.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 3: We don't like our homes getting broken into. And that happens a lot because in fact, there is a lot of affordable housing that totally surrounds our neighborhood. And this is just going to add to that problem. And speaking of traffic, it's had about 10,000 trips a day. He is kidding me. 10,000 trips a day. Like how many people are going to go on their bikes? Like five people are going to use a bike. Traffic studies, traffic studies going to do, that's not going to fix anything. There's way too much traffic on Colorado Boulevard and through our neighborhood right now.
Speaker 12: Right now it's intolerable.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't walk more than five blocks. I'm afraid of getting run over all the time. It's already ridiculous. And you can add 10,000 more trips. The scale is absolutely ridiculous. This this does not make sense for our neighborhood. It doesn't make sense for a neighborhood. Things are already. Ridiculous. And no traffic studies are not going to change the basic fact that there's so much space on the road. No new roads are going to be made, no viaducts are going to be made, no underground subways are going to be made. Everything's going to be basically the way it is. We're just stacking tons of people on that spot and we're all going to have to live with them and we're all going to resent them forever. That's it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jacob Grimm.
Speaker 3: My name is Jacob Grimm. 1750 South primary way I actually hold a not that amount of people hold a master's degree in real estate and. Real estate and development from University of Denver. So I kind of understand the complications of development. It's got to make sense for a developer to in a way, we can believe that things are going to be easy, that you can do it. However, everybody needs to make sense financially in a way as well. So I support this. I also want to add that I, I am from Norway, so I'm actually one of those minorities we talk about, but I might not look that way. Growing up in Oslo, Norway, we have the best public transportation per capita in the world. But also being a European, I understand that for public transportation to work, you have to have density. Consider a popular belief in this country. Sprawl is the enemy of traffic, not density. Density does the opposite with density. We can figure out how to transport more people efficiently than the way we've done for the last 50 years in the United States of America. We drive. The reason why we're coming back to cities is because people are tired of spending two to 4 to 6 hours on the road to get home. And by building more units, I don't care if you call it affordable or whatever. More housing and a more diverse housing stock. We provide homes for people that don't want to live 2 hours away because that's where they can afford to live. We have to have more diversity in our housing stock to have more diversity in our city. And that's I think people fail to see being a European again. I know that we have density, more density in most places in the United States. I lived in Manhattan. The traffic in Manhattan doesn't come from Manhattanites. That comes from everybody else that travels into Manhattan every day. Manhattanites take trains for public transportation. It's the only way to get around. Anybody who's been there will know that. So if you want public transportation to work, we need density. If you want more affordable housing in Denver, we need density. So. I think this is a great way to solve parts of our problems in Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you, James or Danny.
Speaker 16: James Zanoni I live at 1568 South Fairfax. I've been a member of that community, Virginia Village, since 19 early 1969. The question before the council this evening is one that I think involves the issue of virtue, and by virtue I mean knowing the difference between good and bad and choosing what is good. And I'm asking you, council members, whether or not this proposal before you, in approving this massive change that occurs in southeast Denver is good for the people who live there. I've heard any number of speakers this evening address the issue of affordable housing. And I ask the question, what is affordable? Affordable to whom? Millionaires. Those that have only $100,000. Or those that have only $5,000. The issue is never addressed. Really. There is an immutable law of physics and there is an immutable law of economics as well. And the law of economics applies to some of the issues before us this evening. Subsidies. Subsidies are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. City councilman or any politician and elected officials in any case cannot call themselves charitable by giving away someone else's money and think that that's compassionate. It isn't. That's taxpayers money who you're giving away. Subsidies are wrong. And we, the city of Denver right now is on a long and dangerous path, in my opinion, providing subsidies to all different kinds, both commercial as well as individual subsidies. We're not headed in the right direction, folks. And I wish you would evaluate your stands on some of these things. As for the citizens who live in Virginia Village, there's a double, double whammy that's put upon them today, because no one is mentioned thus far this evening about the other development of C Dart along South Hawley. That's going to monumentally increase the traffic on that already overdriven thoroughfare. Colorado Boulevard is the most heavily traveled the road in the in the entire state, I believe. I see my time is expired.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up in this round is Bill James. And if you hold for just a second what I call the next five up, Kate Adams, Kelly Dufner, Karina Santini, John Strafford and Nicolas Lundberg. If you could make your way up to the front, draw them like volunteers. Good evening, council members. Excuse me. I'm Bill James. I live at 1145 South Glencoe Street in the Virginia Village neighborhood. I'm here to support the application for this reason. As you know, a few years ago I was on the board of directors at Regional Transportation District, and since then also I've been elected to the board of the House in Colorado. And since 1997, excuse me, I've been a board member of Stuart Anderson's Transportation Management Association, Transportation Solutions. I'm here as a citizen of the neighborhood, but I have a perspective from my practice of as a commercial real estate appraiser and consultant and who specializes in transportation oriented development and affordable housing properties as well. The most dramatic change which may result from the application is as approved as reduction of the maximum building height of the interior of the property from by four stars, from a maximum of 8 to 12 storeys to the on the edge of the site to a maximum of two stories from 3 to 5 stories. So there's a significant reduction in the.
Speaker 3: Density that.
Speaker 0: Would be with the proposal from what would be permitted by other developments. So the.
Speaker 3: Density is.
Speaker 0: Actually being reduced from a as a potential. The as you know, the control group has engaged transportation solutions to conduct a transportation demand management study for the site. I know from my many years on the Board of Directors of Transportation Solutions that such a study can significantly reduce the signal to see the single occupancy vehicle trips, and that will reduce the traffic congestion considerably.
Speaker 3: In addition to other transformational changes.
Speaker 0: That are happening in the transportation industry of which you're aware, I'm excited about the potential this site holds for multimodal transportation opportunities because of its proximity to Florida station. Colorado Center station. Sorry, I believe the requirement for the reason application for affordable housing will also benefit the area, particularly if substantial senior component is included there, and make it so that those who are growing older in the neighborhood can remain in the neighborhood. It is clear that many in the community agree with the developer that affordable apartments on the site will benefit the neighborhood. I applaud Cointreau's commitment to this area be another element of the. The reason that will take place is the permission of retail use, which is not permitted by the existing zoning. The the opportunity for placemaking to make the this site has the opportunity to be a center for the community and with it takes a neighborhood oriented retail type uses in order to make that.
Speaker 3: Sort of thing possible.
Speaker 0: For developers and to create combined with the open space. I'm sorry, the place your time is equal to two hour lift. Thank you very much. Next up, Kate Adams.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Kate Adams and I live at 1392 South Edison Way. I'm asking each of you to vote in favor of the Virginia Village community, which, in my opinion, means to.
Speaker 10: Oppose.
Speaker 9: The rezoning of 4201 East Arkansas. It seems the city has allowed or made up a process, so we don't know what will actually be developed except density and an increase in traffic, which seems to be a theme without a soul in Denver these days. As was observed at Planning Board, this is a process turned on its head. If this were a GDP, the community would have had input on areas of open space, streetscape roads, access points, connection to surrounding areas, character and building design. As I have said before, we are being asked to sign a blank check not only by Castro but by the city of Denver. The zoning request does not follow current zoning code or current plans. Arkansas birds in Louisiana are local streets. Only MH three is permitted. If Louisiana is considered a collector, it would be Amex five, not Amex eight. In current plans, this is an area of stability. This is not modest infill. This is an area large enough to qualify for a GDP. As part of this transaction, it appears the city has made exceptions to the documented rezoning process. I cannot find a process in the code that does not offer a conceptual plan, site development plan or active community involvement in a rezoning to know what will be developed. This is not a small impact on Virginia Village. It is major. The fact that there is a development agreement that may possibly will try to address some neighborhood concerns after rezoning. It should not take the place of a GDP. This is the final buzzer in this lead them to believe game planning board and the land use committee were led to believe the full community participated in the development agreement. In fact, it was four people on the zoning committee with no community meeting for discussion. The divide and conquer approach and the community meetings will be continued. A public review for the conceptual site plans will be within 45 days of the submittal, not allowing community input before submittal and the construction manager will address concerns and.
Speaker 8: Questions on a case by case basis, just like.
Speaker 9: They have done in the rezoning process. Tonight we get the answer to Planning Board. Statement Council may say this doesn't meet plans, but do it anyway. How is a Denver neighborhood supposed to participate in major change when the city has rules but makes exceptions to benefit its desires over the well-being of a community? I quote Councilwoman Ortega from Denver, right? If we can keep the density downtown, hopefully we don't have density overtaking our neighborhoods.
Speaker 8: We will hear this very loud and clear.
Speaker 9: In the next election cycle. Neighborhoods fighting to protect their residential community. Please protect Virginia Village. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kelly Dufner. Kelly Dufner. All right, Karina Santini.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name is Carina Santini. I live in Virginia Village and am a longtime resident of the city of Denver and have several concerns regarding the proposed rezoning request. The last time I had to deal with an issue like this was when I lived close by in the Hilltop neighborhood. In January of 2016, macKinnon proposed that the zoning be changed at the existing church lot on Colorado Boulevard. They initially proposed a five storey building with retail on the ground floor and a 105 unit apartment complex. However, when the neighborhood R.A. fought the plan, developers in 2017 scaled the project back to just 54 units or about half the size. However, even in that case, they were turned down by city council by an 11 to 0 vote. As of January 2018, the project had been scaled down to 22 duplexes with a maximum height of 35 feet. Developers obviously needed to work with residents on getting the project to a workable scale, which illustrates how community involvement should work. And how it is a critical component of successful rezoning. Why am I mentioning this case? This has nothing to do with Virginia Village right now because there are common denominators between these two neighborhoods being they both are connected to and located directly east of Colorado Boulevard. Both neighborhoods deal with the transition space between commercial development and a quiet residential area. One difference is that the area mentioned in Hilltop is actually designated an area of change for Blueprint Blueprint Denver. While the area being considered for rezoning and Virginia Village is designated an area of stability, taking into account that areas of stability include stable residential neighborhoods where no significant changes in land use are expected over the next 20 years. How is the proposed rezoning? An enormous development project may have no issues being located directly in my neighborhood. Why was the much smaller development at Hilltop opposed until further refinement? While the much more aggressive development of Virginia Village may go through in a post, the central plan is a much more aggressive development aimed at slipping by the neighborhood in order to move the project into the area without proper procedure and disclosure. And I'd like to state that I tried to contact the Virginia Village registered neighborhood organization on three separate occasions since mid-summer and received no emails or calls back in response to questions I had, or about my request to know when any R.A. meetings would be held. There was zero information. In short, there is no way to get in touch with the answer. R.A. And it was very clear that neighbors neighbors did not know how to get involved. This is a far cry from how the transparent to the press.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, John Strafford. Good evening, Mr. President and council members.
Speaker 3: My name is John Stafford. I live at 1907 South Leighton Street as a part of the.
Speaker 0: Virginia Village neighborhood. I'm a professional civil engineer, and I've been.
Speaker 3: Involved in a significant.
Speaker 0: Amount of redevelopment projects in the Denver metro area. I'm excited.
Speaker 3: For the opportunity to finally be speaking in support of a development as a.
Speaker 0: Neighbor within the Virginia Village instead of as a.
Speaker 3: Professional. To start, I'd like to commend the transparency Kentaro has provided.
Speaker 0: Like a lot of neighborhood, like a lot of the neighborhood over. I have a young.
Speaker 3: Family and a busy job that has hindered me from attending any neighborhood meetings. A simple Google search led me to the East, our Kansas control.
Speaker 0: Website, where all the neighborhood meeting.
Speaker 3: Notes, development agreement, neighborhood agreement, among.
Speaker 0: Other documents, were available. I'm excited.
Speaker 3: To hear the reason reduces the potential height and density of what is.
Speaker 0: Currently zoned, as well as ADD retail and.
Speaker 3: Restaurants as a potential use. I'm glad to hear Castro has committed to it conduct a transportation management demand study, which is different than your typical traffic impact study. Transportation Management Studies. Demand studies provide recommendations on.
Speaker 0: How to provide.
Speaker 3: To make a development more pedestrian friendly and how to take vehicles off the road.
Speaker 0: This is this particular area. Virginia Village is not very.
Speaker 3: Pedestrian friendly and I.
Speaker 0: Suspect after this redevelopment.
Speaker 3: It will be. I also commend control for.
Speaker 0: Going above.
Speaker 3: And beyond with working with a neighborhood on a.
Speaker 0: Good neighbor agreement. I assure you.
Speaker 3: This is not a typical offering from most developers. I understand the multiple concerns any given development presents traffic, utility capacities, esthetics to name a few.
Speaker 0: It is important to note that all of these concerns are required to be addressed throughout the rezoning.
Speaker 3: And entitlement process, and any deficiencies found will require improvement.
Speaker 0: I trust the City Review Engineers will work with the redevelopment to ensure the infrastructure well will accommodate.
Speaker 3: Bottom line is this.
Speaker 0: Parcel is going to get redeveloped. I just assume it be redeveloped by a local developer.
Speaker 3: That's willing to listen to the neighborhood, which I believe Castro is willing to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Nicolas Lundberg. And but before you start about to call the next five up to the front row, both Beth Fine, Silver, Florence Seaburn, Gerald Walsh, Wil Carpenter, Nancy Barlow, if you could come to the front and Nicholas, my crunchers.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Council president and honorable council members for the opportunity to speak at this this meeting. My name is Nicholas Lundberg and I reside at.
Speaker 11: 1595 South Claremont Street. I have lived in Colorado for 23 years of that 15 in.
Speaker 13: Denver and of that 1511 in Virginia Village where I bought my first home as a home buyer.
Speaker 11: About myself, I have a bachelor's degree in.
Speaker 13: Accounting from Brigham Young University, and I, most of my career has been in the waste management and recycling industry.
Speaker 11: I'm here to present on an aspect of the rezoning process. The aspect is the process which affords affords real property owners within 200 feet of the property to have a unique, unique voice in this process, a voice that would require a city council supermajority vote on this Rees own matter, the voice that may or may not have been known to available to them excuse me, a voice in something that will directly impact them as they live or own property.
Speaker 13: Right on the perimeter.
Speaker 11: Of the zone site. The purpose of of a circulation of the signature gathering process was twofold to inform the property owners within 200 feet of their only opportunity address City Council. By virtue of this meeting tonight, many of the property owners and ranchers we contacted were not aware of this December 3rd opportunity second to present a petition for signatures to sign if they so choose. That would for city council in a supermajority vote on this rezoning matter. The signature properties process had a very short window per the rule as the clock started on Tuesday, November 6th, the day after the the the city council first reading and ended on noon on Monday, November 26th. Coupled with the Thanksgiving holiday, the actual window of opportunity was much shorter than the 20 calendar days, as the signature process is a face to face in-person informational discussion process, many property owners were simply unreachable on multiple attempts. The rules of the signature gathering process required getting signatures of property owners totaling 20% of the square footage within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning property. We successfully gathered 20 signatures from 14 properties, a mix of single family homes for plex's and commercial property, but fell short. The 20% threshold was 100. 78,000 square feet. We reached 150,000 square feet with our signatures, a 3.1% shortfall, a 16.9% success rate. Everyone in the Virginia Village community should be afforded the opportunity to have their voice heard, whether it is in support or opposition. We are not against development. We are not against rezoning. We are against this rezoning as presented. Either deny this rezoning proposal has presented or consider tabling or continuing this matter so that Virginia Village community can. Cooper elaborate to support the right type of.
Speaker 13: Job from this site.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Beth finds over.
Speaker 10: Hi. I am Beth. Fine. Silver and I live at 1445 South Elm Street as a third generation Denver. I am 36 year resident of Christina Park. I have a vested interest in my neighborhood and my community. I love my neighborhood. That's an. I take great interest in the redevelopment of the court property. I am in favor of the rezoning. It is a given that this large parcel of land will be redeveloped. It is my hope that the community will continue to play an active part along with Centro and the city of Denver, in how this large parcel of land will be zoned and redeveloped. I have attended many of the community meetings held by Cantrell in the last 11 and half months. I appreciate Castro's willingness to have these meetings almost monthly and to be proactive in staying involved with the neighborhood as this project begins to take shape. I have also met with them to voice my questions and concerns, and in both instances I have found the members of the Centro excuse me, the Centro team to be communicative, open to answering all questions, willing to consider suggestions and ideas, and to talk about their visions for the redevelopment of this property. I understand that it is still very early in the process and that not all questions can be answered at this time. It will be impossible to please everyone. I have had many questions, as have many neighbors, as to the size and density of this project. What I understand.
Speaker 8: About the proposed.
Speaker 10: Rezoning and the reason I am in favor of it is that in addition to other elements, it will decrease the height of some of the buildings, establish setbacks, establish open space, add retail to the mixed use, include lower income housing, and that there will potentially be a decrease in the amount of traffic overall compared to that of current campus zoning because the traffic flow will be spread out over more hours. The development has the potential to benefit both the surrounding neighborhoods by creating walkable meeting areas, including retail shops, restaurants and open spaces for which the neighbors have wanted for a long time. I am hopeful that with the development agreement and the Good Neighbor Agreement in place, comprised in part from over aforementioned meetings, the city of Denver, Kentaro and involved and concerned neighbors will be able to work together into the future on the design and development of this property. Castro has a huge and exciting opportunity to make their mark locally and nationally in creating an innovative, exceptional and neighborhood supported development. Kentaro has gone beyond my expectations.
Speaker 8: To work with our community.
Speaker 10: As.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Florence Seaborn.
Speaker 8: Good evening and thank you very much for hearing all of our comments tonight. My name is Florence Seeber and I'm at 1140 South Fourth Street. I was born and raised in Virginia Village, and for the last 26 years I've been raising my own family there. A total of 47 of my 57 years have been happily spent in Virginia Village. My background is in administration and parliamentary procedure. I'm a former multi term officer of the Virginia Village Ellis Neighborhood Association, and I very much appreciate objective foundational processes which allow for analytical discussion. My main concern for this proposed rezoning is the lack of compliance with existing norms.
Speaker 12: The Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint.
Speaker 8: Denver. I spent countless hours giving input into both of these documents because I believe the community in part is important. I believe that we who live in the neighborhood know the neighborhood best, and I believe my elected council members. When you assure us that adopted plans will be properly applied and adhered to, fully three quarters of this area to be zoned is a defined area of stability. The defined goal for an area of stability is to identify and maintain the character of the neighborhood while accommodating some redevelopments. Only a small part of the of the area to be rezoned lies within a defined corridor area which is used to support higher density.
Speaker 12: The proposed rezoning.
Speaker 8: Would drastically alter the character of our neighborhood and destabilize it with traffic, light and sound pollution and unwarranted density. Colorado Boulevard is already gridlocked in that sector. The anticipated tens of thousands of car trips per day does not make logical sense. The 60% am-I affordable housing that is being touted requires a $23 per hour wage. That doesn't sound very affordable to me. I echo the statement of the councilman from District one during the Ludie committee meeting. This is a radically different from anything in Blueprint Denver. It's far more intense. It's a huge ask and a slippery slope. Please assist our neighborhood in maintaining what generations have worked so hard to build. As quoted by the councilman from District six in a 2015 Denver Post article.
Speaker 12: About Virginia Village.
Speaker 8: He also noted that the neighborhood has been almost immune from the development craze sweeping the city. He said the neighborhood architecture mostly has been maintained. Virginia village else is kind of one of those largely undiscovered jewels in the city, he said. It hasn't been swallowed up by gentrification. Please deny or to table this particular rezoning request. It's simply not a good fit for the neighborhood. Thank you again for your time and kind consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Gerald Walsh.
Speaker 3: My name is Gerald Walsh. My wife and I live on South Elm Street between Louisiana and Florida.
Speaker 7: About five blocks east.
Speaker 3: Of the current city property. We enthusiastically support this rezoning request and the proposed redevelopment of this site. The proposed zoning is not only appropriate for this site, but is vital for the redevelopment project planned by Castro. Castro's proposal will deliver the new housing, retail spaces and amenities that are much needed on the east side of Colorado Boulevard . For those of us that live in this neighborhood, Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 7: Has always been a physical barrier.
Speaker 3: To the amenities.
Speaker 7: We need.
Speaker 3: Almost always requiring a car to traverse the proposed new retail. Mixed zoning will allow for Castro to create a space in our neighborhood that.
Speaker 7: Is accessible by foot.
Speaker 3: Or bike, with many options for dining, entertainment and other services that we are currently lacking. I've been particularly encouraged by Castro's willingness to engage and include the community through their many neighborhood meetings and outreach. It allowed us as a community to share our concerns and make sure Castro are aware of the things that are important to us . As they finalize their proposal for this site. For example, as an avid cyclist, I talked about the importance of creating cycle friendly development with safe entry and exit points and secure bike lock and parking areas. Kentaro has been very receptive to this feedback and have been very honest with respect to what realistically would work for this site . I was very encouraged when I learned that he had engaged a multimodal transportation firm to consult on the overall trend transit strategy for the development and its potential impact on the neighborhood. Finally, I'm heartened by Kendra's commitment to build affordable housing on this site. The lack of affordable housing is a nationwide problem that has become more and more acute in Denver over the last few years. We all say we want to be part of the solution as a community. The way we show that support is by supporting developments like this. If not in our backyard, then where? Control is a local company that has clearly demonstrated their interest in creating vibrant and engaged communities that all levels of the socio economic divide get to participate in. I want the entry level teacher to be able to live in the same neighborhood as the kids they teach. I want the service industry folks that I engage with every day to be invested in the community in which they work. Please approve this zoning request.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Will Carpenter. Good evening. My name is Will Carpenter. The house on the corner of or excuse me, on the street of 1365 South Claremont.
Speaker 3: My next door neighbor is Frank. I would love to hear this proposal being either tabled or turned down, at least at this time.
Speaker 0: Again, my name is Will Carpenter. Nick or excuse me, Jimmy from Castro.
Speaker 3: I'm right here.
Speaker 0: I've never met anybody from Central. My backyard is about to the.
Speaker 3: What's currently the storage container area. I was informed by Florence who was able to find me. I'm not hidden anywhere. She was able to find me so that I could come and participate and listen to what's going on. I'd love to have more information so I could be more informed as to how this process.
Speaker 0: And how it's going to continue to go.
Speaker 3: At this time. Like I said, I'd just like to see it tabled or denied for this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Nancy Barlow. And well, Nancy, if you're holding for I can also I can pull the next five up. Rebecca markham, Russell Welch, Annette Carpenter, Mark Sharon Maker and Tim Karl, if you could make your way to the front bench and go ahead, Nancy. You can go ahead.
Speaker 9: I can go ahead. Good evening. My name is Nancy Barlow. I live in southeast Denver. Within this corridor that this development is in.
Speaker 8: Most importantly, I'm here tonight because I'm the president of the East Evans Business Association. And I would like to.
Speaker 9: Read a letter that the board drafted for our membership and our.
Speaker 8: Membership approved. The RBA board would like to express its support of the rezoning application for. From control group.
Speaker 10: For the vacated set up property located.
Speaker 8: Located on East Arkansas. In the past year, control group has been proactive about connecting with the EPA to.
Speaker 10: Ensure that they are including.
Speaker 8: Business owners from the community in their outreach.
Speaker 10: Efforts. They have led to discussions with the.
Speaker 8: EPA members in which they shared their proposal for the redevelopment of the now vacated set up property on East Arkansas. These conversations provided opportunities for our members to ask questions about the proposal and to consider.
Speaker 10: The broader implications.
Speaker 8: On the business community. Based on these discussions with Control Group, the EPA Board is in support.
Speaker 10: Of the rezoning because it is in.
Speaker 8: Alignment with our mission statement. We aim to recruit, retain and grow the local businesses as well as bring investments into our community. The approval of a mixed use zoning code.
Speaker 10: Would open up the possibility to completely.
Speaker 8: Re envision a commercial retail space that could provide net new business opportunities for owners looking for.
Speaker 10: Alternatives to the limited real estate.
Speaker 8: Available in them in our corridor today. It also has let's see, it has the potential to create a strong sense of place.
Speaker 10: That could rival other well-established.
Speaker 8: Destinations in other parts of Denver, and it would potentially provide affordable housing.
Speaker 10: For the employees of the businesses.
Speaker 8: Within our corridor. We hope to see the City Council approve the zoning application so that our members can continue their discussions with Castro and to shape the development into an asset that supports.
Speaker 10: The stability and growth of local Denver business owners.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Rebecca Markham. Rebecca. Mark, I am. Right. Russell Welch.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Russell Welch. I'm a 1964 South Pontiac Street, and I'm speaking tonight in favor of the redevelopment. I really think it's a thoughtful solution to the redevelopment at this property. And I've set back over the past year and really watched what Kentaro has done and I'm really impressed, quite frankly. We've had eight separate meetings to get the public's input and it's been very thoughtful. There's been concerns about massing and density, and I've seen the density drop from for the size from from 12 storeys to eight storeys. And it's really refreshing, ideal pretty regularly with developers in the commercial construction world and in the ever increasing desire to increase densities to meet performance, they're doing exactly the opposite. They're trying to be thoughtful. And I'm really struck by the affordable housing component that is extremely important to me and my family. We want to.
Speaker 11: Have a well-rounded community.
Speaker 3: And I really think that does that 150 units. That's incredible. And so, you know, the other piece is the retail. There's so many great components, which, of course, somebody mentioned previously the existing zoning doesn't allow for retail. So again, I think what Cointreau has done here has has been really thoughtful. And again, these guys are local and that means a lot to me. I face a lot of out-of-state developers and they don't necessarily care about my needs, about my family's needs. They're into to develop their project and move on. Ken chosen the neighborhood. Kensho has done several developments on Colorado Boulevard and in the surrounding community. I fully trust that they'll do the right thing and they have my unwavering support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Annette Carpenter.
Speaker 12: Good evening. So thank you for listening. I am a property owner at 1365 South Claremont and I'm reading from it because it's actually a rental property. My husband and I who spoke earlier, purchased the property four years ago and I happen to live in kind of a blocks district now, but a rental property is there and we made a thoughtful purchase of a property because we know what Denver what's happening in Denver with housing prices made a thoughtful price. So I'm nervous. We made a thoughtful purchase when we purchased in that neighborhood thinking that our kids could move back to that house when they graduate from college or when my husband and I retire. We mow, we fertilize, we do all the right things. We try to be a good neighbor. We've owned a rental property in the city and county of Denver for the previous ten years. We rented to only Section eight tenants. That was tough. We did it. We support affordable housing. We decided as we were getting older or careers were getting broader, that we would scale back and rent to one family, not four. So again, we take care of the property. Are property in that map that was up there, we sit within the 200 foot, what is it called, proposed amendment. So our neighborhood or excuse me, our backyard backs directly to that area where they're holding the storage containers. Again, we have tenants in the home. They communicate with me regularly. I had no idea until 45 days ago when Florence and Nicholas stood on my front porch and talked to my 17 year old son and then came back two weeks later to track down my husband and I that this development was happening. Right. I knew I'm not dumb. I knew that Scott had moved out, but I search city pages trying to find out what the development plan was. Couldn't find anything. Like I said, didn't know anything, hadn't received a flier, hadn't received anything in the mail until the two stood on my front porch. So I'm in support of affordable housing. I said that earlier. I'm in support of a rezoning because I know that that space is not going to sit empty. Not that silly, but I think there could be more thought. And so I'm asking for it that we deny or that you deny or table this rezoning application. Again, I haven't had enough time to research. My husband hasn't had enough time to research. The last plans I saw show the building sitting right on the sidewalk. I don't understand where parking is. They're promises that Castro's made about mass transit are driving accessibility to mass transit. I know we're.
Speaker 0: The. I'm sorry about your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Marc Schaaf and Acre.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Mark Charpentier live at 1302 South Harrison way. Last ten years. First thing I want to do is thank Councilman Cashman for all his facilitation of all these discussions between the neighborhood and the developers. It's been very impressive. I'm here to support the vote to rezone. I had things I could say. You've heard them all. Thanks for your patience. Vote for it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Tim, Carl and Tim. If you'll hold for just a second, I'm going to bring up the next five. Nick Troiano, Jesse Paris, Eric Everett, Mike McDaniel and Don Gorsuch. If you could come to the front row and Tim.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. I do have a couple of slides that I'd like presented as part of this discussion, and they were given to the Secretary, as I understand. With that in regard, let me introduce myself again. I am Tim Karl. I'm a resident of Virginia Village and have been so for 23 years. I am very privileged to also tell you that I have a strong background in planning. I worked as the planning director for Jefferson County for several years, was the development director and have spent 30 years of my life in planning. And while I appreciate very much all the comments that have been shared and they are very passionate and a reflection of our community, I really want to make sure that we understand for everyone that's present that this is, in fact, a discretionary decision that you're making. That means that ultimately when you make your decision, you have to look at a series of components before you ultimately decide if this is appropriate. And if you consider the facts of the comments that have been made, you think about the adopted plans that we're looking at, a comprehensive plan blueprint. Denver And the fact that as a community, we took our time and presented to you a 20 page document that outlines specifically where there is noncompliance. We ask you to take that into consideration. I want to thank council member from District One who identified in context of Blueprint Denver that the impacts on traffic, on character of area in terms of the zoning are substantial. While we certainly support the effort that staff has taken. Ultimately, in the end, if you make a decision to approve this, this is vested with the land it runs in perpetuity. We as a community will not have a say once the land use is in place. We must rely on the fact that the zoning will exist, and what we ask of you in that situation is to consider the impacts that this has on us. The character of the area. You've heard discussions around traffic impacts, studies indicating that up to 11,000 average daily trips on top of the already 58,000 average daily trips that exist on Colorado right now will have a significant impact to all of us. I don't think there's a person in this room that couldn't tell you about the challenges we face on dealing with traffic on Holly or Florida, etc. The impacts are substantial, and when you consider some of the statements related to the fact that we are single family, low density residential development, looking at the potential impact of three storey rowhouses, that's a considerable impact. Please, as a community, we ask you to be clear, specific, and do the right thing, either deny or if appropriate, table, or continue the matter. Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Nick Troiano.
Speaker 13: Good evening, everybody. Nick Troiano at 1798 South Eudora Street. I was speaking in favor of this rezoning for three reasons. Number one, I think the switch to to the mixed use gives us greater flexibility to adapt to economic changes that are sure to occur as more and more people move to the Denver area. Number two, affordable housing is critical for schools like the Alice Elementary, where I plan on sending my two boys to be able to to not only retain students, but also retain the funding that is so vital for that for the schools that attempts its turnaround. Number three, that the the greater density and public transportation, in my opinion, will actually facilitate improvements in traffic over the long term if we're willing to undergo a little bit of short term pain to get there. So to my first point about flexibility, I point to the big box retail model. It's clearly under threat from e-commerce that exists all over Colorado Boulevard. You got these huge retail stores with giant parking spaces. It's an eyesore to look at. It's not safe for children. I took my kids over there and tried to get across to the Safeway. It was the last time I attempted any type of walkability with my family in the neighborhood. I now I guess my better judgment and I'm driving. So I think we need a new type of retail model that emphasizes open spaces, walkability, access to public transportation. I think it's vital for the future of this community as we as we transition to the next level. Comments about Alice Elementary. As I mentioned, it's the place that we're probably going to send my two boys. We visited. We love the diversity that's in there. You hear the kids speaking different languages. It's an open and, well, welcoming community. I love it. I think the principal is doing a wonderful job. They're trying to turn it around. But in order to turn it around, they're going to need the funding. And if we keep losing students because they can't afford to live in the neighborhood, we are we are going to lose funding. And and families like myself are going to send kids to other schools in the neighborhood. So I think it's vital that that that we have this affordable housing and that to keep people in the neighborhoods where they're working. Lastly, regarding transportation, in order for for in order for public transportation to take off, we need greater density because we're going to need the demand that that requires. And so I am willing you know, I'm not speaking here from the ninth on the golf course. I'm sandwiched in between I-25, Colorado Boulevard and Evans. I know all about traffic, trying to make that right on average to get over the highway to drop my kid off at school is is challenging but I'm willing to undergo some short term pain to get longer term benefits. And I think we need greater density as Denver becomes a destination for families across the nation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 7: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Paris. I reside at 2842 Josephine Street and Albert Brooks District District nine, and I'm also now large candidate for City Council at large in 2019 and I speaking for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud in Community Positive Action. Commitment for Change. We are in favor of this. I actually started my academic history, if you will, at Alice. That was actually the first school I attended back in 1990, 1991. So, yeah, I'm familiar with this area. My whole concern is the people of this neighborhood and the people of the city in general are upset and fed up with the ways in which council goes about ushering in these zoning rezoning classifications. You claim that you have reached out to people, but I've heard many testimony today this says otherwise that they were not approved and they were not notified of this in time. They were not given an ample amount of time to decide if they wanted this for them. I support affordable housing if you didn't already know. But 60% AMI is not affordable housing. We have a housing crisis in the city. 60%. am-I is not addressing that at all. 150 units out of a need it. 26,000 units is not addressing the problem at all either. This is just a Band-Aid, and it's going to cause more traffic congestion in an already highly traffic congested area. And people that stay on this street in Arkansas were complaining about traffic already. It's only going to get worse. So I think you need really you need to take their best interests in mind and do further study on this project. I see that you have mentioned that you are going to do a traffic study, a drainage master plan. I had two questions. I wanted to know who were the 18 people, 18 letters opposed to this and. Exactly the amount of people that will be residing at this property. Thank you. And what the demographics of that would look like, because I heard earlier that Virginia village is pretty diverse. But when I look into this audience and see the people that have spoken and the testimony of this, it is all whites. So I'm tired of being the only fly in the sea of buttermilk. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up. Eric ever.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Eric and I live at 4702 East Arkansas.
Speaker 14: Two blocks east of this development.
Speaker 3: I want to speak in favor of the rezoning of the property at 4201 East Arkansas. This is a property in a project that directly affects my family and the families that live in my community. Our neighborhood needs goods and services, including restaurants that are within a walkable distance. We do not want to always have to get into a car to get to our goods and services. I have been an active participant in the meetings concerning this rezoning application and attended the planning board meeting. I'm a member of the Virginia Village R.A. Zoning Committee now dissolved. There has been a lot of hard work in meetings, in discussing the wants and needs of our community with control through these discussions and meetings. I believe Cantrell, along with the city of Denver, will be able to create a true asset to our neighborhood. Though there are items that the city did not want added to the development agreement, Kendra has written and committed to a good neighbor agreement, making this rezoning project something that will benefit this community for years to come. I cannot ignore in the recent days a group of people who have decided that now they want to make their voice against this project. It is our privilege as Americans to disagree and voice our opinions. However, I do not believe in doing so. Using false information and bullying tactics are the given rights. I have spoken with many people who do not agree with the redevelopment, but I have done so at public meetings and were able to have productive conversations with all parties. However, to have people deliberately trying to sabotage the hard work of community members and not want to participate in open public discussions is wrong. I hate to think that deceitful and intimidation tactics will be considered as true testimony and use as a voice for my family. I am a husband and a father of two great young children that are also active in our neighborhood. My family deserves the ability to live in a community that is prosperous, vibrant and active. This is what I. This is what I believe this rezoning can offer. And because of this, I am in favor of the rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mike McDaniel.
Speaker 3: My name is Mike McDaniel, and I'm here as a close neighbor of the project. I appreciate the opportunity to lend my voice in support of this rezoning application. From my perspective, the opposition to this project generally has little to do with what is currently allowed on the site under existing zoning and even less to do with what Cantrell proposes to do under their proposed zoning. Rather, the opposition is based on a more visceral objection to the realities of a growing Denver. But growing it is, and I see no practical options to halt that reality. Nor would I want to. I'm of the mind that Denver is already too crowded for its current infrastructure. Anyone traveling on Colorado, Colorado Boulevard would likely agree. However, we seem to be not quite big enough to justify the bold steps that would make it more livable for all residents. For example, back to Colorado Boulevard. What would travel look like if there was a streetcar or a bus? Rapid transit and dedicated lanes connecting the same at Colfax and Evans, etc.. I would use it in a heartbeat, as would many others. Others would still drive, but every one of us who did not drive would be one less car on the road. Currently, this site is on the RTD 46 bus route, which offers a short ride to the Colorado Light Rail Station. Similarly, from an affordable housing point of view, every worker who can afford to live near their jobs in the city has likely one less single occupancy vehicle traveling in and out of the city from the more affordable suburbs. The future demands that we move away from our current car sector. Drive it til you qualify. Paradigm as a chicken and sweetheart. Arkansas represents a rare and valuable opportunity to do exactly that. In regards to the affordable housing component. What I'd like to see more and a lower AMI Absolutely. But I recognize under our current economic systems that people willing to build things need to be able to make money. And there are far less sensitive ways for a developer to make money on this site. Additionally, many of the commercial options being considered at this site, such as grocery, daycare, restaurants and the sort add to the already underappreciated but surprisingly strong walkability and bankability of this part of town. All of this adds to the potential of creating an excitingly more human friendly and rich pocket of Denver. Finally, I wanted to share that I find the outreach by Councilmember Cashman, Centro and various neighbors to be quite thorough with every single resident of the area, asked personally for their opinion on the issue. No, but such is the nature of this sort of process. Over the last many months, many attempts to bring the voice of the neighbors were made. It's unfortunate that not everyone stays informed or chooses to not engage, but subterfuge is not to blame. Besides offering a really compelling opportunity to explore lighting powered by canine generated methane, there are options available to developers under the current zoning for the site, which create more problems than solutions. Then the project proposed by Cantrell. I would prefer more density and less parking. I believe it would be a shame if that's what we end up here as another.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you, Don. Don Garcia.
Speaker 13: Don Gorsuch. I live at 473 East Arkansas Avenue, approximately four blocks east of the site. First, you know, I've never attended a council meeting before. Thank you for what you do for us. As an 11 year Virginia Village resident, I am in support of the proposed redevelopment zoning application of this site at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, as presented by the control group. I appreciate the thoughtful approach and concern for the impact on the neighborhood I have experienced through numerous meetings these past few months. I want to thank Kensho for working with See Dot. I feel like we're already seeing benefits of that affiliation. I look forward to saving trees along Arkansas. They know that's one of my perspectives, but I really appreciate these guys. I understand this is a rezoning.
Speaker 3: Process and specifics.
Speaker 13: Are not yet determined.
Speaker 12: People purchase homes in our community because they're relatively affordable.
Speaker 13: And they're close to convenient services and quality.
Speaker 12: Schools. There's transportation and we.
Speaker 13: Have a really strong sense of neighborhood. I feel the 4201 East Arkansas, the redevelopment and proposed zoning changes have been thoughtfully presented and envisioned and they honor the interest of the neighborhood and the greater Denver community because we are part of the community. It is a priority for me that we have affordable housing and that it's included in the plan. I look forward to all the retail, the restaurants, the services and the transportation, and I'm proud to say I do use the transportation, both light rail and the bus system.
Speaker 3: It's not that far a walk.
Speaker 13: I remodel my home because I'm going to retire here. So this is a long term investment for me. The Virginian Village neighborhood is already walkable, and we have such a mixed and interesting mix of people. Our diversity is based on age, income, race, ethnicity. There is just so many things that work in our community. Denver is growing and I smart. I really support smart growth to meet the future needs of all of us and we can't predict them. So we need to present something that makes sense over time. I want to quit driving my car. I'm really proud of Glendale. I think they're doing a good job, and I want us to do a better job than they are. I think that we have a lot of potential on this proposed site, and I think it's inevitable that we're going to do a good job because of your leadership. And I want you to approve this rezoning process. And I've attended probably five of the last eight meetings. I was notified numerous times and all of us talked at our at our neighborhood picnic. There has been so much information. Thank you to all of you for doing this and listening.
Speaker 0: But I think you next five or Debra Powers, Montee Powers, Adam Astrof, Sujit mudd, Jude Ma and Robert Fisher and Debra Powers, you are first up.
Speaker 9: Hi. I'm Debra Powers. I live at 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. I'm a Denver native. I was born at Denver General. My best friend in junior high lived on East Wyoming place. I spent weekends at her house enjoying movies at Century 21 and Continental movie theaters. We hung out at the Celebrity Sports Center. We cruised Colorado Boulevard with her older sister. You could say that I have some history and fond memories in the neighborhood. 31 years ago, I purchased my house on the corner of Claremont and Arkansas, just around the corner from where my best friend lived. It's a short plot to the side up property from my house. Development is not new to the neighborhood. Nothing has remained the same. Change is constant. The control group made communication a priority. I have attended seven out of eight meetings. They asked for feedback. We talked. They listened. Sometimes spirited conversations took place. Of utmost importance was the character of the development. Overwhelmingly, neighbors wanted a main street feel with walkability to amenities that are included in the rezoning application. We understand it's going to be offices, commercial, apartment and retail. Affordable housing is very important. I've learned what an envelope drawing is, and I've watched these drawings change over time. I've seen the height of the building envelope drop from 12 storeys to eight. They listened when we asked for a step down in height. As the development neared our single family homes, my husband and I were approached by a group to sign a protest petition. I had a problem with that. The information that we were given said that 800 cars per hour would be driving by our house from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. I know a traffic study hasn't been done. They also said we could lose their property to eminent domain. The value of our property would go down as a result of this development. These are a few of the statements they made and quite frankly to me, they're outrageous statements. The conversation was divisive and a subtle form of intimidation. I understand that this is a complex project with complex processes and multiple phases. It will take several years to develop the property. The city will require development reviews. My understanding of the next step in this process is the rezoning hearing today, and then the planning framework can be executed around what is approved. It's a partnership with the City Council Control Group and the people who live in this neighborhood. We can define a neighborhood that considers the people who live and work here and make conscious decisions for quality of life that will outlive all of us. Please vote for the rezoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Monte Powers. Hi.
Speaker 11: My name's Marnie Powers over there. My address is 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. Uh, my neighborhood is becoming more vibrant and diverse as time goes on. I believe this development will serve to enhance that vibrancy and diversity. Over the past year, I've attended eight meetings hosted by the control group. I've learned a lot about the redevelopment process at these meetings. The control group is proposing to rezone former secret headquarters at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue. I believe the control group will give my neighborhood an awesome development. Given rezoning permission by city council, I embrace a change of zoning from Campus 12 to suburban mixed use. I don't want a hole in the ground because construction stopped. I don't want an empty parking lot. I don't want Campus 12 zoning approval that will leave several 12 story buildings on a 13 acre lot. I understand dissension is voice with a project like this. Some of my neighbors have legitimate concerns. However, false information given to me by fair developer Virginia Village makes me question their motive and not trust anything they say or do going forward. Please vote for rezoning 4140 201 East Arkansas Avenue from campus 12 to Suburban mixed use. Keep my neighborhood vibrant and diverse. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Adam Astrof.
Speaker 3: Hello, counsel. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Adam Astrup. I live at 1801 chestnut place in District nine, and I am here as part of the Yimby Denver Group. I support this project, particularly because of the affordable housing that is going to be a component of it. And I want to credit council the neighbors in Virginia Village and Castro for putting it on site and not taking the opt out with the fee. And I also believe that this neighborhood, Main Street and adding retail is going to be very forward thinking. There are a lot of other great mixed use areas in Denver. South Pearl, 12th Street through Congress Park. And I believe that this can be another great art for a really great neighborhood, Virginia village. The additional density will also enable, you know, better transit options and connections. The Colorado Light Rail Station, which will allow people to get into downtown more easily. And I think all of these things will just be a great part of the project to keep us moving forward for the next 50 years. I know that Denver I'm a Colorado native. Denver didn't have a lot of population growth from 1960 to 2010. The last eight years have been very striking. And so I really hope you guys will approve this rezoning and continue improving our city for the next 50 years. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much, madame. Sorry if I got that wrong.
Speaker 3: We're very close. Thank you, everybody, for your time. Good evening. My name is Sushi Majumdar. I live in a Cary Merrill neighborhood, approximately point four miles from the proposed development project. I want to speak in favor of this rezoning application for a variety of reasons. Number one, Cointreau.
Speaker 14: Is a local developer.
Speaker 3: Trust, integrity and transparency should be part of any developer's values and based on the process and communication that control group has proactively undertaken. I feel like they've embodied those values. I have known Jimmy Bill Office, one of the principals of Control Group for the last nine years, and I believe that they want to be successful not only on this project, but multiple projects in the future. And they have a vested interest in making sure that this is done with excellence. Second of all, secondly, objectively and practically the components of the rezoning application and development agreement that are part of this deal, namely affordable housing, retail development, open space reduction of height on both the interior and perimeter of the project and a proactive neighborhood partnership are key characteristics of winning a deal for neighborhood residents in the city of Denver. I also want to point out that while I know everybody does not have access to high speed Internet or technology, when you Google for 201 East Arkansas, the results that come up are two MapQuest listings and the third is a PDF. With all of the information related to this project, the rezoning development that is on the central website. So I believe that there's plenty of information available to those that want to be informed. The combination of having a local.
Speaker 14: Developer.
Speaker 3: With its principles, having longstanding Denver routes, and a very fair deal that appears to offer terms and conditions far superior than the alternatives make me strongly supportive of this zoning proposal. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Robert Fisher and I'm going to call the next five to the front row, Maureen Welch to see Denny's. Caitlin Murray, chairman, say COO and Bill Parkhill, if you could work your way to the front. Go ahead.
Speaker 16: Yeah, hi. My name is Robert Fisher and today I am representing the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition to Seek D.C. office is located at the corner of Louisiana Avenue and Colorado Boulevard to see CDC supports the rezoning of the old headquarters because Denver needs density and Denver needs housing. The 2017 Un-Habitat three conference, the Urban Agenda, states the population of the world's urban areas will double by 2050, the HUD Habitat three report says. By 2050, 75% of the population growth in the U.S. will be in urban areas and urban sprawl. HUD is calling this the century of cities. Denver's population is expected to reach 1 million by 2050. Where do we go from here? Denver needs to embrace overpopulation. Denver needs housing. Almost all the housing in Denver being built or for those above 60%. Am I 100%? 120%? Am I? According to a 2018 Urban Institute report, I've been speaking to Mr. Sean Maley and he assured me that Cantrell will be building the 150 affordable units that will be for families at 60% AMI for a family of two, that's an annual income of about $43,000. And for a family of four, that is an annual income of about $54,000. Control group has done what it can to be a positive community neighborhood partner. They have held eight public taskforce meetings and they have listened to and addressed concerns of the neighborhood control group has reduced the allowable height from 12 stories to eight stories and they have adopted a good neighbor agreement. I have spoken, spoken with Mr. Sean O'Malley and I have given him some ideas on how to improve his neighborhood. Good neighborhood agreement. Please vote for this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Maureen Welch. Maureen Welch. All right. Until I see Dennis.
Speaker 13: Good evening, counsel. My name is Attila.
Speaker 3: Denis, my wife, Amy Rubin. I live at 1360 South Broad Street.
Speaker 13: And her parents.
Speaker 3: Actually purchased that property initially in 1947. So as a family, we have 70 years of investment in the community. We're here in support of the rezoning. We're probably more directly affected by this application than many others in that our lot not only is directly across the street from the court complex, but also directly abuts the parking lot of the northeast corner of Arkansas and Byrd. So we've faced the redevelopment on two fronts. The we've attended several of the control group's meetings from the outset and have been very impressed by their transparency and willingness to engage with the community. I know that emotions are very high around this issue and we certainly respect that. But at the end of the day, something is going to happen to the property in question. We believe that Kendra's proposal is reasonable and appropriate. There have been questions raised about the transparency of controls proposal. A lot of these questions have been raised by people who are, I believe, very well intentioned and very passionate, but frankly, live several blocks away. And I'm not sure.
Speaker 13: That they have quite the level of involvement that those of us.
Speaker 3: Directly across the street would share. We simply do not agree that control has been anything less than completely transparent in this process. You know, to be quite honest, we'd prefer, as you get down to the nitty gritty, that we not have a three storey apartment complex directly next to our property. But that's probably more fine detail than the council is really considering this evening. We believe that the proposed development will, on balance, be positive for the city and for our neighborhood, and we would recommend approval of the application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Caitlin Murray.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Caitlin Quander Murray. I live at.
Speaker 8: 1967 South Locust.
Speaker 9: Street.
Speaker 6: In the Virginia Village neighborhood.
Speaker 8: Initially, I want to disclose that I'm an attorney. That's not the disclosure. But I'm aware that my law firm, Brownstein Hyatt, Farber Schreck, has performed work on the proposed project. It's a large firm.
Speaker 9: I did not.
Speaker 8: Perform any of that work. And tonight I'm here to testify and support as a resident of the neighborhood. My husband, Dan and I have owned our home in the Virginia Village neighborhood for over a decade. We're raising our two young children here. We love the neighborhood parks and playgrounds. We ride our bikes with our kids regularly in the area. My husband helped organize the annual neighborhood 4th of July parade at Cook Park. We've seen the neighborhood change in the last ten years with a number of redevelopments and existing homes being sold. We believe that this changes.
Speaker 6: For the better, bringing a greater sense of community and encouraging.
Speaker 8: Interactions between neighbors that didn't previously occur. The proposed rezoning and redevelopment at 4201 Arkansas Avenue is another example of this momentum. The prior set out site has had little to no interaction with the neighborhood itself. This redevelopment has the opportunity to enhance the neighborhood and bring a mix of uses, incomes and backgrounds to an already thriving community . The current campus zoning restricts potential development and leaves the neighborhood with a lot of unknowns. The City of Denver and Country Group have worked closely with the neighborhood to reach a mix of zoning designations that acknowledge neighborhood concerns about overall height down from 12 storeys, maximum to eight storeys, with some areas limited at three stories on the neighborhood perimeter. And we also believe it promotes a mix of uses and multimodal neighborhood center that's appropriate in this location. We hear the outcry for more affordable housing throughout Denver, and we've seen home prices explode in our neighborhood, too. We believe that our neighborhood needs to be part of the solution to this crisis as well. We support the opportunity for good urban design and inclusion of affordable housing at this site, and we encourage you to vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 11: Yes. My name is German Sekou, representing poor. Voiceless. Oppressed. Broke. Disgusted. And don't trust none of your. As the next mayor of the city, county and. These are the challenges which our city is going to be faced with in terms of what are we actually committed to? And then do that. Stop playing games. Stop using words that you don't mean and just be, do you? Because I'm telling you straight up. This has always been a white, only segregated neighborhood. Tell me. I'm like, I grew up here. We come from over, man. You go play at that night court behind the police station in Glendale for $100 a game against the team that played for Thomas Jefferson. Them and then come back and do that every day for the summer. And that was our summer jobs. We made money on segregation. We got no problems with it. We went back to our neighborhood. We had a life. We had a community. We wasn't interested in being around folks that didn't want to be around us without full self-esteem going in our neighborhood. Well, let's do some training. We can work it out. I don't want to be around. No. Folks that don't want me in their neighborhood. I don't. I want my own neighborhood. I don't want to develop the way we develop with peace, harmony and diversity among my own people. I've got white.
Speaker 0: Folks that are black folks. Chairman Sekou, if you could just adjourn Caldwell, could you please address the council, not the audience?
Speaker 11: Well, why didn't you? So as we go through this thing, let's stop playing. I want fair trade. I want jobs. I want housing. I want my people to be invested. That means we want ownership of the housing and we want all of it because we not.
Speaker 1: And we've got nothing to lose to go head to wear and tear it down.
Speaker 0: Mr. Sekou, please check your language. Now you can play.
Speaker 11: And there's the go explore and you grab another Ferguson. And the more you cut us out, we come and go. The last.
Speaker 0: Word. Chairman Say, do you have some? Thank you. Good work. Next up, Bill Parkhill. And then I'm going to call. We're almost there. Thank you for sticking with us. We only have three more to call up instead of five Aaron Varnum, Frederick Mackey and Jeff de Hardy. If you could come up to the front bench. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name is.
Speaker 13: Bill Parkhill and I reside at.
Speaker 3: 631 High Street. I am the principal of Tributary Real Estate. We are a real estate asset investment company and we own the property at 4100 East Arkansas. At 4100 Arkansas, East Arkansas, which is directly south of the subject property. It is the triple play of Colorado building that it was there for 60 years and that's what you probably know it as. We purchased that building in 2017.
Speaker 13: We transacted a 20 year lease. We intend to hold that property as it is.
Speaker 3: For the next 20 years.
Speaker 13: Our tenant currently has 225 employees with six full time employees on the site and 665 employees.
Speaker 3: That rotate through once a quarter. We are here in support of the Cantrell project. First of all, we think it's an asset to our building and to our employees. We think it actually will cut down on traffic because it will give them opportunities without having to get in the car and drive for lunch, for breakfast, for dinner
Speaker 7: . As real estate professionals, we find that the.
Speaker 3: Thoughtful approach that they've used to combine the tools of several zone lots development agreement and a good neighbor agreement to create bulk plain density step downs. Add in a retail mixed use component, creating onsite and open space. All has been a creative use of tools.
Speaker 13: Finally, what I like to say is.
Speaker 3: We have known the control group and the office family for many years. We consider them both peers and competitors. And we are here to tell you tonight that they are the highest character and one of the best partners that the city can have, one of the best partners the neighborhood can have. They do great work. They do exactly what they say. And we're proud to have them as a neighbor. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Eric or Erin Varnum.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Aaron Varnum. I live at 1500 South Street, about two blocks south of the property. I'm here in favor of the rezoning. Most importantly, I think we we need new and updated retail in the area that's walkable for the neighborhood. Currently, we'd have to cross Colorado Boulevard by foot, and that's not really feasible with the traffic on the highway there. So what we end up doing is driving or taking Ubers to other Denver neighborhoods like the Gaylord Street, Cherry Creek or the Highlands. So we're really excited about something within our own neighborhood. I also think that the control group has been very helpful throughout this process. We we've attended several meetings with them. I think as a local developer, they're they're committed to the neighborhood. And I think with the affordable housing, that just demonstrates that commitment. For those reasons, I think the council should vote yes in favor of this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Frederick Mackey.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Frederick Mackey. I live at 1650 South Albion Street, apartment 207. I'm a renter and I live three blocks away. I'm here to support this project because I think it's a great opportunity for the city and county of Denver to kind of right some of the wrongs of the past 56 years in.
Speaker 10: Zoning.
Speaker 3: And get this.
Speaker 10: Opportunity to.
Speaker 3: Make. Some improvements. I've watched the control group do several projects over the years and I've seen them improve each one by listening to their neighbors. And I believe they'll do the same at this project. One of the things that the city has stated as a goal is to improve transit ridership, and this project is basically on Route 40 and 46. And I believe that actually being such close proximity to those two bus routes will actually help lessen some of the traffic impacts of this potential project. I also think.
Speaker 12: This is just a.
Speaker 10: Unique opportunity to help a local.
Speaker 3: Developer because we all know that if a out-of-state company came in, they would go with whatever the zoning is already there and build something that we would probably think is even worse. So for those reasons, I support this and I urge your your support as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker tonight, Jeff Tardy.
Speaker 17: Good evening. My name is Jeff Hardy. I was at a 1970 South Clayton Street as a fellow resident within District six. I am speaking with you tonight in support of the proposed rezoning for control group at the former secret headquarters. The Castro group has a solid reputation and that is a local developer and owner of commercial real estate that is critical to my support. Alongside with his successful track record as a willingness to engage multiple community meetings alongside implementing a good neighbor agreement. I think any good developer will say that the development process is iterative and that in nature and only with critical input and thought, well, the development output truly maximize the benefit for the community. Specific components that I am encouraged by are the fact that Castro group was selected by the city and county of Denver with strings attached to adhere to some of those in the development agreement, which I am encouraged by specifically are the ability and the requirement to add jobs, 200 permanent jobs, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail. Increasing our sales tax base. Furthermore, when we look at what the property tax revenue is for this site, c docked is sometimes exempt in their tax base. If there is a ticks tive component to this project that is utilized, that phases out. Keep that in mind. So we're building revenue base for our public components to utilize beyond reduction from the current zoning. They've been thoughtful and tasteful in their development approach. I've been at these community meetings with them. While I do emphasize emphasize with the adjacent neighbors who are concerned about increased traffic in construction. I believe a successful rezoning for the former C. That site will provide thoughtful redevelopment that greatly enhances the community experience in the neighborhood by providing a wonderful gathering space. In my opinion, a wonderful gathering space is the core of creating vibrant neighborhoods. Please consider an approval vote for the rezoning request of the rezoning request. But let's not stop there with this critical step.
Speaker 3: Forward.
Speaker 17: And let's hold the Castro group accountable, accountable for the development agreement and the good neighbor agreement. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I just want to thank everyone for taking time to come down here to the building and to come speak and to stick with us on this late night. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Virginia Village Neighbors, for being here until 9:00.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 6: I know those benches are hard and uncomfortable and the lights are really obnoxious. So thank you for being here. I have three questions. My first is for OED, someone from OED. I'm curious about the development agreement and the 150 units of affordable housing that they are going to build. I'm curious about you may not know this offhand, but maybe, you know, a ballpark of of the new developments.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 6: That have been constructed since we passed that affordable housing linkage fee. How many of them have paid the linkage fee versus actually building the units?
Speaker 8: Hi. Hi. Melissa Tardy, denver, oed.
Speaker 10: I don't have that on hand, but i could find out for you.
Speaker 6: Okay. It is my understanding that that the majority of the projects have actually paid the fee and not built the unit. So I would be interested to hear that. But I think it's great that as part of the development agreement that they are going to build 150 units and that is actually quite a lot of units compared to other projects that we've seen up here. Also, I'm interested if anyone knows if if there wasn't a development agreement, what would the linkage, Phoebe, for this project? Does anybody know that? No. Okay. All right. So my next question is for maybe you, Chris Vickery. One of the things we're hearing from a lot of the neighbors is that they don't want density there at all. But the zoning that is already in place actually would allow for much more density than this proposal. So it's my understanding that this application is actually a down zoning. So can you explain to me why you all are doing it down zoning? Why didn't you just use the zoning that was in place and not have to go through this lengthy, yearlong process and have to come to a city council meeting? Why didn't you just use that existing zoning? Yeah.
Speaker 7: So Christmas party control group is a reminder. So as a part of our PSA, it laid out that we need to go through a rezoning process. I think as we've kind of gotten under the wing of the redevelopment and looking at what potential could come here, we were retail specialists. We think retail in this area is going to be great. And as we mentioned earlier, campus doesn't allow retail. So I think for us, it's a balance between getting the retail that we know will help make this a destination and be great for the neighborhood and help with units and affordable housing and creating this neighborhood in itself and balancing out reducing the density. We think there's a balance between those two things and that's where we felt we pushed down as low as we could with the economics that we're paying in and the city while still providing a great amenity for the area.
Speaker 6: So the reason you did it was because with the existing zoning, retail could not have gone in. Correct. But you could have done 12 stories with office and residential.
Speaker 7: Those two uses. Yeah, that is primary for office. But you can do a residential there. 2 to 12 stories in those steps down to like a pyramid as you step in.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. My last question is for Stuart Anderson. So I have the pleasure of knowing Stuart Anderson and I serve on the board of his organization called Transportation Solutions and Paul Cashman. And I had the pleasure of working with you on some other Colorado Boulevard issues, mainly around the Colorado station at Buchtel and Evan's. And I can attest to your knowledge and your expertize, expertize and the results that you got from that study. So thank you very much. So I'm really excited that you're involved with this. It is so centrally located, but it is a little over a mile to Colorado station. I know the Cherry Creek probably is maybe just a little over a mile to the north. You know, Cook Park is a little bit to the east, you know, wash parts a little bit to the west. So if. I think about living there myself and I like to ride my bike. Those are the places where I would want to go. So when you are thinking about what you're going to propose there, are you going to be looking at enhanced cross crossings across Colorado Boulevard and as far away as Monaco and getting people to car station and getting people to the Cherry Creek Trail?
Speaker 13: Yes, Stewart Anderson. Yes. That that project actually falls within the realm of the of a study that we did a year ago on the stationary master plan for Colorado's station. And we are looking at access to that station. Currently, the 46 bus is on the east side. The 40 is on Colorado Boulevard. We have been in conversation with the city of Glendale of potentially adding services that connect to the station that would go by this property. We're looking at other methods to connect to the station. The the issues right now we're connecting to the bike system is that there are the facilities are pretty poor east of Colorado Boulevard. And while there are improvements along Florida, we feel that there is a need for greater improvements from a safety perspective. We also feel that the pedestrian environment really needs to be improved, the area especially connecting to Colorado Boulevard. Currently, if you look at where this property is located and imagine yourself walking to Colorado Boulevard, crossing the street and taking the 40 bus, it's not very appealing today. And so one of the other elements we have is an upgraded bus, a bus stop along Colorado Boulevard that would provide shelter and information for the users in looking at a variety of different modes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Thanks. That's all right.
Speaker 10: Next up, we have Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. Oh.
Speaker 10: Nope. We've got you up next, sir. Councilman.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Andrew Webb.
Speaker 10: It's okay.
Speaker 5: Andrew, let's start with the plans and the development agreement. I think a drainage plan and open space plan, etc.. Remind me all them, all of the plans. And at what point do they go for public comment?
Speaker 14: When when the planning manager essentially determines that they are that they are complete is when the requirement for a public meeting is triggered.
Speaker 5: So complete. That means there that the application is complete, not that they've been accepted or finalized. That's correct. Okay. And what what is are there multiple meetings, one meeting? What's that process?
Speaker 14: It could vary depending on whether all of these were done at the same time or if they were produced in a in a staggered fashion. But it could be it could be one meeting, as is the case with the general development plan system, which requires one. A single applicant led meeting upon completion of the application.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: And explain what is allowed. Some. Some. Some retail is allowed on that site. Right. Food and beverage. And what what all does that include?
Speaker 14: Food and beverage services. So sold for consumption on site prepared food and beverage sold for consumption on site, which is a complicated way of seeing restaurants.
Speaker 5: Restaurant, brewpub.
Speaker 3: That's right. Bar.
Speaker 5: Fast food.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 5: All that's possible. The way we've heard from a couple of people that controls engaged a traffic demand management study. Is there anything in any document that requires any implementation, not not of any particular item, but of transportation demand management principles.
Speaker 14: So the the development agreement does go into some detail about how transportation demand management principles or studies and implementation need to apply to each component of the development. But I think I may suggest you ask the applicant a little bit more about, well.
Speaker 5: First, I'm interested in what the development agreement actually says here. You.
Speaker 14: So it essentially requires that a master transportation demand management study be provided to the city for review and approval early on. And then each concept site development plan for an individual parcel of development within the property shall submit a letter identifying the transportation demand management practices utilized and let's see which. And then each each development within the property has to provide a traffic memorandum to the city showing conformance to the master traffic study. Okay.
Speaker 5: And those. That's all for you. Someone from Kentaro. I'm wondering, as far as the 150 affordable housing units, 1 to 3 bedrooms studios, what are these envisioned as? What do you know at this point?
Speaker 7: Christmas card again. Right now, we're still working through those details. I think there is a focus on family. We obviously know that, you know, the community and the schools population is decreasing and family is very important to this area. So there's going to be a component of family and then a mix of ones and studios. But the big key to this is we know it's a family year and we need to deliver family units and we're still working out the unit mix at this point.
Speaker 5: Okay. And one more, if you don't mind, Mr. President, and not for you. Have a seat. Melissa's still there yet? Misstate, I presume, Melissa, since they're still in the planning. What what would you normally expect? What's what's a normal mix for the affordable programs that we've seen recently? Can you shed any light on that?
Speaker 8: Yeah, sure. So, Melissa Tardy, Denver, OPD, it really varies depending on the projects, the different financing terms that are used throughout the project. And I do want to make one clarifying point that hasn't been made tonight, which is that the development agreement says a maximum affordability restriction of 60%. Am I. So it means it could be lower. We're not saying all of the units would be at 60%. In terms of bedroom sizes. You know, some weigh heavily on the on the family size units. It sounds like that might be something that would be considered here.
Speaker 5: Okay. That's all for right now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa, you're next stop.
Speaker 3: All right. A question probably for OED and I apologize because this just struck me tonight, the lowercase p versus the capital projects and previous readings of the developer agreement in item 12 of the developer agreement is the affordable housing section. It states the project shall be exempt from the link from the project shall be exempt from payment of the linkage fees in connection with the issuance of any building permits for structures in the project. Small P in the first project. Large P in the second, meaning that linkage fee will not be generated from any of the structures developed on these parcels, not just the affordable housing structure. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: That's my understanding.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Questions for Andrew. Thank you. Andrew. Sorry, I don't know. There's this thing. What is the numerical designation called that differentiator between SMC'S eight, five and three? That last number. What do you guys call that? Oh, gosh, I'm.
Speaker 14: Not sure if it if it has an official name, but it refers to the number of stories permitted. So it's essentially the the height limiter.
Speaker 3: Height number. We'll call the height, as you know, as as you know, I was both confused and intrigued by this notion of banding heights within a particular zone district using that height number. Yeah. Is it fair to say that this banding effectively results in deeper upper story settlement step backs than would be required by Smc's eight zone district alone?
Speaker 14: That's a that's a great question. So let me if you don't mind, I'm going to pull back to the map really quick. That actually shows the banded zoning here.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 14: And so I have my zoning code here.
Speaker 3: So let's see.
Speaker 14: In the Smc's eight zone district. There is a. If you're adjacent to a protected district, which can mean which essentially is as a single unit zone district or a low intensity residential zone district. I'm just want to make sure I'm giving you the correct answer here. There is a 20 foot upper story set back above 27 feet. So these bands of zoning are essentially within the actual property itself. The Band of Smokes three begins, of course, at the street at the midline of Arkansas, but has an impact on the actual property back of curb of approximately 20 feet. And then the second band that is illustrated there also has a impact of approximately 30 some feet.
Speaker 3: Perfect. And that's just the Arkansas side, which wouldn't necessarily be it's only partially a protected zone district. That's correct. But you have an effective upper story, deeper upper story. Step back on that east side, do you not?
Speaker 14: On the east side, yes. The the proposed smokes three there where it directly is across the street from some some zoning is closer to 200 or so feet there.
Speaker 3: Is this being done to transition the mass and scale from the commercial environment of Colorado Boulevard to the lower scale single family neighborhood adjacent to the eastern half of the property?
Speaker 14: I think that's a that's a fair assessment of what the intent is here.
Speaker 3: The depth of this transition area on the East End is approximately a half a block. Is this an appropriate amount, a step back for a transition from an eight story down to a three story?
Speaker 14: Well, the I mean, you there are places in in the city and even near here where there is eight storey zoning directly adjacent to single unit zoning. And so in those cases, the the building the upper storey setbacks would apply for four, six, eight, four, eight storey or above. So effectively, more transition is being provided here or proposed here than would be required by something that is directly abutting or a giant across the street from an SUV zone district.
Speaker 3: I know. It's more bummer. I was hoping you'd say yes, but thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Neal. Mr. Stewart, can you come up? I know you've been dealing with that with different transit alternatives, trying to improve, you know, the whole situation on Colorado Boulevard and the immediate effect of this property. Can you describe a little bit about, say, the New York City shuttle that myriad that how it seems to be testing out and and how it's work to do you and how it could be also be an application maybe for camera?
Speaker 13: Yes. Stewart Anderson, we recently launched a micro transit service between Cherry Creek and downtown, and we're monitoring that service we launched. Want to do you station as well. The one at Deuce Station has been there since July 9th. It's exceeding its expectation as far as performance. This property actually sits right on one of the proposed lines that we have for micro transit. That would be a first and last mile service into Cherry Creek, the going up birch and cherry through Glendale and into Cherry Creek. So this would be a service that would benefit this property significantly in connecting to the station. But right now, that's speculative. There's there's no basis for that other than let's watch what happens with our first line.
Speaker 0: Compared to other transit opportunities is much less costly and probably easier to implement. So if it works out favorably, it could be something that could be helpful.
Speaker 13: Yes. When fully implemented, it would come out at about one third. The normal cost of transit and the current bus line that's there is the 46. It has one of the highest public subsidies in the city right now. It has low ridership. It needs to be replaced with micro transit, it would say dollars, and it would be more efficient in getting people around. I have talked to a control group about this and I've asked whether or not they would participate if we did create a line along there and they are very interested in that. I actually even took them out to see the electric driverless shuttles and talked about how that might work. No commitment in that. It was just come and see. So we actually went out and it last week rode one of those.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Traffic engineer, if I could ask you questions. I notice on the map that maybe there's a connection of the street going across the property. And I guess it is the the exit and entry ways to the to the site will be the affected by that maybe. Can you describe how that traffic is going to flow around that area? And and if there are any kind of improvements that you're thinking about?
Speaker 12: Yes. Hello again, Curtis Roe with Kimberly Horne.
Speaker 3: You're correct. The plan is to connect Belair Street through the property. However, any access or anything else with the specific development hasn't been planned yet. You know, obviously, this is in a preliminary stage right now, so we don't know exactly the access. However, you know, the connection of Bel-Air through the property will provide a good connection to the North because Bel-Air connects up to Mississippi and so it'll provide traffic in and out of the development from that direction.
Speaker 11: We have good connection to Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 3: Through both.
Speaker 12: Arkansas and Louisiana.
Speaker 3: And so those will be the.
Speaker 5: Primary directions of travel.
Speaker 3: There will be some traffic, obviously expected to travel Louisiana to the east. Over to Holly.
Speaker 0: Okay. And you'll be working with with the public, with the residents as you're going forward with that mitigation plan, right?
Speaker 11: Yes, absolutely. And I have.
Speaker 3: Enjoyed working with the public thus far on this process.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Andrew. QUESTION One question. There have been several issues tonight about some kind of zoning violations or maybe some misunderstandings about the zoning or something. Do you know anything about this? Zoning is can you discuss it or address it at all or.
Speaker 14: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I quite understood the question. I was sitting my code down.
Speaker 0: Several residents have mentioned that this project was violating zoning or or blueprint in or in Ridge. Can you sort of clarify who?
Speaker 14: Sure. Thank you for for clarifying. So as as mentioned in the in the presentation, the the future concept land use proposed for this site by by blueprint is single family residential. And we we noted in our analysis that, you know, it's hard to understand exactly why that was applied in this area because this site and multiple surrounding sites all had higher intensity residential, commercial and mixed uses at the time of blueprint's adoption. And yet many of those did receive that same that same future concept land use designation. So the analysis had to take that into consideration and, and look at how blueprints, language addresses, unique situations like this where you may have a redevelopment opportunity to, you know, in a or abutting, in this case, a residential neighborhood. But I believe that is what some some commenters.
Speaker 0: Were, which is just more and more of a change in zoning rather.
Speaker 7: Than.
Speaker 0: Do you think that's inappropriate?
Speaker 14: Well, you know, I think we we leave it up to the discretion of the council to decide if, you know, if they find that the proposal meets the criteria. The staff reports the staff report sets forth CPD's argument for for why it does meet the criteria.
Speaker 0: So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for Jeff Steinberg, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium. So, Jeff, if city council were to pass this tonight, what would be the next steps with this property?
Speaker 13: I'd have to say that that depends. The fact of the matter is that there is a contract in place. Control could elect to develop the property under the existing zoning. They could sell the property to another developer that could develop it under the existing zoning. The city would not close on the property if control did not close on the property, and that at that point said it would likely go out for a sale to another developer.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 10: So my next question is for Mr. Bill office, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. To be able to do the affordable. Are you looking at accessing Colorado housing finance tax credits to be able to meet the emission levels that you're looking at?
Speaker 3: Yes. So we're going to put an application in February with Schaefer. And so we we.
Speaker 7: Understand that affordable.
Speaker 3: Housing needs to work with subsidy subsidies. And so we you know, we're not an expert in it. And that's why we're doing a joint venture with McDermott. And so they're going to be our partner. It's a 5050 joint venture, and they're kind of kind of lead the way with us and teach us the ropes. And we hope, you know, from this project we can become an affordable housing going forward.
Speaker 10: And is that application intended to be phased out, or are you looking at submitting an application for the entire 150 units you're looking at? You know, we.
Speaker 3: Want to deliver 150 units.
Speaker 7: So I feel, you know, we're going to try.
Speaker 3: We're going to try to do it all together.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you for that. And then, Andrew, I had a question that was similar to the one that was asked earlier. So the site today has the campus zoning. That's right. And. You know, as as if the development moves forward, what are the protections for the single family character of the adjacent neighborhood? You know, looking at the zoning, we do have some sites directly across the street from the site that are not single family zoning. They may be single family properties in some cases, but the zoning is not entirely single family all the way around this site. But as you get, you know, further into the fabric of the single family character of the neighborhood, what are the protections that would kind of ensure that we don't see development just begin to happen as we've seen across the city with so many of our neighborhoods? You know, my neighborhood being one of those in the Highlands community.
Speaker 14: And are you thinking about this in terms of development on the site itself or development?
Speaker 10: I'm talking about the development that would happen here would then attract more people to want to develop in the neighborhood. We saw that occur in Cherry Creek. You know, as we started seeing single family homes being acquired, we saw duplexes going in. We've seen that in the slow slate neighborhood in my neighborhood of Lower Highland. So what are some of those protections for the neighborhood, which is really kind of independent of the project, but may be a result of the investment in this site?
Speaker 14: Sure. So the the pseudo zoning, which is what the. Which is the primary single unit zoning that exists to southeast the southeast of the project site does have does have standards for, you know, site design. The in the suburban neighborhood context, you have higher lot coverage or lower lot coverage allowances. Deeper residential setbacks. So those are the types of, I guess, development standards that would would control development in the neighborhood resulting from change on this particular site. One thing I would note is that the study zone district does have a 30 foot maximum height. So there currently is not something that would prevent somebody from adding another story or or a story and a half on to the, the, the onto their home or to build a new home that is of that height in this zone district.
Speaker 10: So let me ask the question in a different way. One of the criteria that is used by the planning department is changing conditions that justify a. New rezoning application in the single family fabric of a neighbor.
Speaker 14: Okay, I.
Speaker 10: See. And so I guess that's sort of the impetus behind my question about how do we protect the single family character.
Speaker 14: Okay.
Speaker 10: And just one point that I think is really important to make is that as we see the changes coming forward to the Denver Rite process, we completely get away from the terminology of neighborhoods, of protection, of stability and changing neighborhoods, neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: So that would be an analogy.
Speaker 10: But but my concern is that as we see the verbiage changing, does that create the I don't know, the sort of assumption across the board that if we no longer have neighborhoods of stability, that they're they're all open for, you know, three free games, if you will.
Speaker 14: Understood. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question the first time around. So I can't speak specifically to the proposed new blueprint plan because it's, you know, not adopted yet and still under review. However, under the existing system, it would be very difficult to to change the zoning of a single unit, of a property that has a single unit zoned district in a neighborhood where there is not an adopted plan of some sort, calling for a major change in youth types to a, you know, row house or something like that. So in other words, the current blueprint and I expect the new blueprint under development right now will contain those types of protections where neighborhoods can work as part of a community effort to to consider things like accessory dwelling units or or other perhaps targeted changes in density. But there are, you know, blueprint and and neighborhood plans and other kind of policy documents would make it very difficult to do a radical up zoning of a single property in a single unit zoned district.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman or Councilman Herndon. Mr. President, I'm good. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr..
Speaker 4: President. Andrew, I have a bunch of questions for you, and maybe I'll break it up and get.
Speaker 0: Back in line.
Speaker 4: But short answers, please. Just real quickly, what happens to the parcel that has the communications tower on it? That's not part of the rezoning that would remain then campus? That's correct. Which seems a little ridiculous, too, because it's not a campus at that point. Is that acceptable to CPD? That that that that remain?
Speaker 14: Well, you know, because they didn't apply to change it. I don't believe CPD really takes a position on that proposal.
Speaker 4: So it's just sort of an oddity that's leftover of the. Okay. Is it.
Speaker 3: Necessary.
Speaker 4: For a rezoning application to be consistent with every strategy and comp plan 2000? Or is it possible that because we've dealt with a lot of rezonings and obviously we don't address all the strategies, does that are we to read into that that the applications are are benign as far as how they relate to all the other strategies and we're just picking out the strategies that justify the rezoning.
Speaker 14: Typically in early review, we might look at it, take a wider look at at all of the strategies. You know, it's usually obvious pretty, pretty quickly if something is completely inappropriate with regard to adopted plan policy. But generally speaking, the goal is to to further or be consistent with policies relevant on a case by case basis to the proposed rezoning.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 4: What happens when CPD identifies an inconsistency with a strategy and income plan or or one of the items in blueprint with an application?
Speaker 14: And if there were a preponderance of of of that type of scenario, then we would work with a potential applicant kind of in the Pre-Application stage to look at a more appropriate proposed zone district.
Speaker 4: Okay. So you do deal with inconsistencies that that you identify?
Speaker 0: That's correct.
Speaker 4: How does the density that's available right now with the campus to zoning, how does the density that's possible there now compare with what's requested here?
Speaker 14: It is it's challenging to make a like for like comparison. But generally speaking, the the the height allowances under the CPI i2 zone district are taller than by several.
Speaker 4: Hundred and 50.
Speaker 14: Feet. That's that's correct. And what is proposed here are 12 storeys versus a maximum of eight stories. And then. Density is also driven by a number of factors, but they can includes required off street parking on a site because that takes up space on a site and the CMP zoning has less park off street parking required than the Smc's eight and SMU three zone districts. Okay, so I let you draw your own conclusions there. But but I think generally speaking, there is perhaps less possible overall density allowed by what is proposed than what could be possible.
Speaker 4: But then here's here's a real, I guess, the foundational question I'm trying to deal with as I listen to the testimony from the public and from the applicant. And that is, you know, under blueprint areas of stability, areas of change. Much of this site is within an area of stability. That's right. Does an area of stability imply that if that parcel is underutilized as far as its existing entitlements? If it fully developed those entitlements and greatly increased its density. Does that does anything in Blueprint say that that changes our consideration? And that's you know, that's not an area of stability anymore. If if an owner has developed his full entitlements.
Speaker 14: Not specifically. Not in so many words. But the but blueprint does provide in in in the text as talked about as discussed in the staff report and more briefly in the presentation, where situations like this arise if the property were to be redeveloped under its existing zoning in a future past. At assessing future concept land uses and current land uses the we would hope that the that the existing land use at that time would be taken into consideration.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well so in other words, developing a parcel with the existing entitlements in an area of stability is consistent with the blueprint. Denver not inconsistent.
Speaker 14: If it has existing entitlements. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Mr. Read. I'll ask a few other questions afterward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 10: Thank you. President Clarke. I think my first question will be for somebody in the control group. So there were some residents who were here tonight who spoke and said that maybe their property were they were abutting the new development and didn't know anything about this process. And so I just wondered if if somebody could come up and share a little bit to their outreach and education process, please.
Speaker 3: Certainly. Councilman Gilmore, Sean Reilly, Sierra Associates. We're helping Castro with the public outreach.
Speaker 0: You know, we tried extremely hard to reach as many.
Speaker 3: Residents as possible.
Speaker 0: Like like we said, we.
Speaker 3: Held eight meetings. We flier the neighborhood three times at a radius of 2000 feet from the site. That is ten times the city's mailed requirement, which I believe is 200 feet. We posted signs on the property. We know that city council sent out e blasts we sent out. I don't know how many emails I sent out a lot. I walked the.
Speaker 0: Neighborhood within the legal protest area. We delivered.
Speaker 14: A dear.
Speaker 3: Neighbor letter that we posted on our.
Speaker 0: Website.
Speaker 3: We made a lot of attempts, and we apologize to anybody that did not find out about this, and we'll pledge to continue working with them.
Speaker 10: Thank you. My second question is, and it might be for Stewart Anderson, folks that also testified were very concerned about traffic and the increase in traffic. Could you talk a little bit about, you know, if this is approved tonight, what that would look like with trips spread throughout the day versus morning and evening?
Speaker 13: It's adjacent to Stewart Anderson. It's adjacent to a very heavy traffic corridor. Recall, Erato Boulevard. So there's extensive traffic there. This would definitely increase the amount of cars that would come from the facility. But we're trying to mitigate that through mixed use first, as well as promoting all forms of transportation, looking at getting car share, bike share on site, looking at capturing trips within the site, improving the pedestrian environment, the general areas characterized by what I would call Hollywood sidewalks. It's not the easiest place to walk around. And I think that this project will actually improve this. We've looked at three places where we want to install enhanced crosswalks. That would be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood, in particular with the students. The school students would be walking. Louisiana is not a safe street to cross currently. And what we've talked about is, is creating that broader environment, including going beyond this property and looking at connecting the Florida for the bikeway.
Speaker 10: Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Park.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just thought maybe it might be helpful to for folks to understand what am I is and the 150 units. But if I could ask you questions, can you tell us what am I stands for? Area median income. Area median income and what is the area median income of Denver? Oh, gosh. Put me on the spot D $2,760. Yes. So that's 100% of the area median income. So at 60% am I your target audience is people who make. We want to know that number to $37,600. That's your target. You have 150 residences for people that make $37,000. Do you know what the average fire fireman's pay is in Denver? More than that? Actually, no. What? It's $34,860. And do you know what the average server in a restaurant makes? Much less. $30,000 is the average median income. So this this probably means that those homes are for people who work nearby or in the city. Right. Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. I thought to be helpful to talk a little bit about what am I means and what 60% of I am. I mean, thank you for doing that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Cashman and Councilman Espinosa. Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Kennedy because she hasn't had a chance yet. All right, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Just to follow up questions, the first was Councilwoman Ortega was asking about protection for single family areas. And I didn't catch a mention, but I thought we were pretty close to the Christina Park Overlay District, which has some design standards and things. So can you just tell me if my geographies correct in that? There is. There is. And it's not just that, it's some zoning. There's also a pretty significant overlay protecting some of this area.
Speaker 14: Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. There is an overlay district to the to the east of the site. It doesn't directly above the site. It's a it's it begins a couple blocks east.
Speaker 9: But if you think about the question about what's happening, what how does a development change the next sets of areas, which I think is an important question. Absolutely. There is some protection in one of those outer rim circles. Okay. The second question was, and I think this may be more for the team, but for anyone, I guess is about I heard a number of residents say that they saw images and were concerned about buildings that went right up to the sidewalk, right up to the sky, you know, with the full height. And I wanted to ask if someone could talk a little bit and I don't I guess we're beyond the math point, but about the residential neighborhood transition area that looks like it goes along, Arkansas and Birch, all of Arkansas, a good portion of Birch. And just talk a little bit about what that is.
Speaker 14: Sure. And I will I'll ask the applicant perhaps to add to this. But any any zone, district or higher intensity zone district is bound to the requirements of the protected the protected district standards and the zoning code, which typically impact any development within 175 feet of a protected district, which essentially in this case begins at the midpoint of Arkansas South and at the midpoint of Birch and for a short distance east. And in that area, heights are typically limited in the code. It's limited to 75 feet in this proposal there. So that's about roughly five stories in this proposal. They're further lowering that at the street edge or at the edge of development to three stories. But what is being illustrated as a neighborhood transition area is, I believe, a response to the protected district standards in the code, and I think perhaps some additional efforts to try to address community concerns that have been expressed.
Speaker 9: Great. Oh yeah.
Speaker 7: Please, can I add one thing? Christmas party with Control Group. If you go to the exhibit that we provided you, if you go to the the page right before two, it kind of shows the the massing that in the envelopes that we kind of talked about, we never really got into buildings because we're just not there yet . So we're really talking about these massing. But I think this does a good job to show existing campus the transition from our first proposal, which was in May, and this was after getting shaped many times for a public meetings and then our final application that you're looking at today, so you can see the progression as you get closer to that single family housing. We really tried to push that house down as much as we could. And then I think one more thing. When you when you start developing and we start going through our type process, we're going to be delivering amenity zones. So it won't be right to the edge of the property. It'll be you've got an eight foot tree line and a five foot sidewalk that's going to be installed that isn't there today. So it's going to really help that street presence and it's not going to feel like the buildings on top of you if we build right to that sidewalk.
Speaker 9: Great. If I may ask one more follow up question, which is I heard mention of some tree saving and I didn't know if those trees were on the perimeter.
Speaker 7: Yes. So it's on the south side of the site along Arkansas, mainly in front of the main building. There's there's many trees that are along that side. So it's a part of our development agreement. Public works was willing to potentially flip flop the amenity zone. Typically, it's that eight foot tree line I talked about and the five foot sidewalk. In this circumstance, we were able to flip it because those trees are actually about 13 or 14 feet away. From the street where it lies today. So if the goal is to preserve, preserve.
Speaker 9: So I just want to just close this out by saying, to the extent someone saw a picture that had a building up to the street edge with no greenspace, no, you know, no alterations, that that picture was probably not an accurate representation of what would be required.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we haven't we haven't gotten deep enough in detail to show what that street level experience would be.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor McKinney. As we head to a second round of questions for folks, I'll just remind us that it is nearly 10:00 and ask those asking and answering questions to be as clear, concise and quick as possible.
Speaker 5: Councilman Cashman I think I'd be frivolous for a little bit to say I'm enjoying sitting here. Let's see. I'd like to ask either Jeff Steinberg or Roe mine. The question being, I need you to opine. This is a 14,000,000 million piece of property, I believe. I'm assuming whatever is done on it will be millions of dollars in site preparation. What I'm asking is what might happen to this site? I mean, could it be a park? Could could it be single family homes? Give me your thoughts.
Speaker 13: Jeff Steinberg, director of real estate for the City. The what you come back to is at this point in time, Seawright owns the property and they have an obligation to sell the property at the highest value that they can. The way we got into this deal to begin with was they have the opportunity to offer qualifying government agencies to have a first crack at it. And since we had an objective of creating jobs and creating housing, we took that. It's been a two year process since the court put the market put the property on the market. My sense is, is that they would probably go out and get a new appraisal of what the value of the property is and market it at that number, which I would assume would be a higher number, number one. With regard to the question of a park, I mean, it comes back to this. If there were monies available where folks would come in and pay that value for the property and decide to make a park out of it, they could do that. I know that in working with parks, when we were looking at another area of a one acre parcel, so forgetting the cost of the acquisition of the real estate, but the cost to activate one acre of land to have it become a green area park, it was about $5 million. So when you talk about making it into a park, it depends on how you make it into a park. But the land would have to be acquired first and then everything associated with the irrigation and activation of the real estate to make it a park would have to be funded as well. Then the next question, I can only answer it on the basis of 20 South Holly. That site was looked at. It was a similar site in size, but it was about 40% of the cost. And when the MRI levels were looked at that were natural for the neighborhood and single family residences being developed on the site versus multi-family, it turned out that you couldn't build a multifamily site on that property even at 40% of the cost because the numbers wouldn't work for the development. So if you apply some of those principles over to this property similar size, but about two and a half times more expensive, it would be very difficult for single family residences to be built on this site at the price that is being proposed.
Speaker 5: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Office, real quick, if you don't mind. Two questions for you, sir. My understanding is you've delayed closing on the property till the end of February. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Yes, we we were planning to close the earlier the later of demo.
Speaker 7: Completion.
Speaker 3: Or March 29th, which has a hard date that they need to sell the property by.
Speaker 5: Okay. And why the delay?
Speaker 3: Why the delay?
Speaker 7: We just the demolition has taken a little bit longer.
Speaker 3: We are we started specifying abatement a little bit later than we thought. And we need a debate about this before the building comes down.
Speaker 5: Are you doing the demo or is that c.
Speaker 3: C that's doing the demo.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so the next question is, so if this zoning fails, what are you going to do with the property?
Speaker 3: Right now we're thinking of this plan A, we've focused on just, you know, buying it and going with the the proposed zoning. We we have a lot of time and resources spent in it. But right now, it's plan A and plan A includes the zoning.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Quick question for you just on assignment. It says The assignment of the I mean, my question is, the assignment of the agreement of obligations involves only Castro transferring the obligations and providing a copy to the city. We have recent history of not monitoring obligations such as these. What mechanism is in place to assume, I mean, is to assure that Castro or any of its societies are following will follow through.
Speaker 13: You know that that's something I need to happen to the city attorney's office with. The reality of the matter is, if there's a contract in place that deals with the acquisition of the real estate and there is an assignment done, all the provisions of the contract would go along with that assignment.
Speaker 3: Well, sort of. The problem is in that same assignment section, it basically says that if if if the assignee doesn't follow through, we can't hold control responsible for that. So if we don't monitor the assign E, who assumes that we could be left holding the bag? I mean, you know, awkward space again. And so how to I'd much rather us have the mechanism in place to make sure that whoever's developing on these parcels is developing consistent with this developer agreement as opposed to what happened in Green Valley Ranch and finding out sort of after the fact that now we have to litigate or do something else. So is it does anyone have a plan for that? Good evening, Counsel, Navy Services and City Attorney. Councilman Espino, just just to clarify, are you talking about the assignment provision and the development agreement? Correct. Okay. And that particular provision expressly says that the assigning will take over the obligations of this development agreement. So the development agreement only comes into effect if this rezoning passes, otherwise the agreements void. With that being said, the agreement will be recorded at some point after the after the zoning passes. So again, that's that was the problem, right? On our problem, on the northeast section of town was all of those things were deed restrictions, covenants on the title. So they were recorded, yet they were overlooked. So it says specifically in that assignment section that it says and the so it says the express assumption of any of care obligations under this agreement concerning the property and rights and duties subject to assignment by its assigning or transferee, shall therefore be relieve care from any further obligations under this agreement, which is appropriate and shall release the city from further obligation to care with respect to the matter. Soon care of shall provide the city of copy. Okay. Wait. I'm sorry. In no event shall a default by any such as assign with respect to the obligations assumed by this assignee, affect the rights or obligations of care of or any other assigning under this agreement that were not assigned or assumed by such defaulting. Assigning. So. So yes, somebody will assume that responsibility if they acquire land subject to this agreement. How are we making sure that these terms are going to be followed through in real time? So the development agreement will be maintained by city staff and administered by city staff. So there are other provisions within the agreement when it talks about site development plans and the construction manager. And so those things will be put into place and and administered by the city so that those things don't fall through the cracks. Okay. I wish I had some confidence there that somehow city staff, when these drawings come in for a site development plan review, that there is some acknowledgment somehow that there is these there are these obligations that they should be looking for. Because I have recent history where we've put waivers on a on a property. So the zoning has that labeled and somehow a project went all the way almost to to to permitting without anyone recognizing that it was not an allowable form. So this is this is this lives in that gray area. And I don't see anything special being done to make sure that this is followed through. Other than that, a lot of watchful eyes. So. So. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thanks, Mr. President. I have just two quick questions to clarify some of the neighborhood impacts. And the first one is maybe Mr. Anderson or Mr. Tuscany or. Well, maybe those two the adjacency to the single family neighborhood. My understanding is that I want to deal with what is right now. It's largely underutilized and mostly I don't want to say vacant parcel, but not very highly developed. But it has entitlements that allow significantly more development. So I want to deal with what's possible without the rezoning versus the rezoning as being requested, so adjacent to the single family areas on Birch and Arkansas. Right now, my understanding is under campus zoning, a 75 foot structure could be built right across the street from a single family from single family homes with a 20 foot setback from the street. Is that the Zacharek? And Andrew, if they give a wrong answer, let them know.
Speaker 7: This is Chris. Andrew will correct me if I'm wrong. So, yeah, that is correct. In addition, the site to the east, that's also campus E2, so that one could also go 75 feet. So in both of those circumstances, one, the stuff of West Birch in Arkansas that's getting stepped down. The other side would get stepped down. Plus a change in use wouldn't allow commercial.
Speaker 4: That's what that's what I'm getting at now. And especially with that parcel that you say is on the other on the east side of birch although a 20 foot setback on all on on the on all four sides would might mitigate that a little bit. You have a little point tower maybe.
Speaker 3: Now but with the.
Speaker 7: IMU has a 20 foot setback against protected districts and that's different than AMEX.
Speaker 4: Okay. And now with the requested zone, you would that that adjacent parcel could the maximum height would be, what, 40 feet, 35 feet.
Speaker 7: Of 45 feet in residential.
Speaker 4: And residential? Okay. And then last question. What is the process in a development agreement? There is a or there is a provision for closing Arkansas Avenue east of Birch to the alley pending a traffic study. What are the specific? Do we have specific triggers for that? Because that's kind of a very undeveloped little strip of asphalt.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's interesting. That was, you know, one of the the bigger comments that we received from the neighborhood is what was this? Was it an alley? Was it a street? Right. So public works is open to exploring that. That's what you've you've seen in your development agreement. We met with Public Works actually this week to kind of talk about what those trigger points are. Okay. And I think what they're looking for from Curtis and I is some concepts of what that might be. I think we've been talking about really just closing it off for cars and it would be more of a pedestrian bike kind of connection, then maybe you would be able to connect down to Florida on the new bike route that the city did. So the next step, I think, from our perspective, is providing some high level concepts of what that might look like and how that could be designed and then start working through public works.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. That's all.
Speaker 0: I. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 10: Thank you, President Clark. Jeff Steinberg, could you come back up? I just want to clarify something for the public record. I believe you had said that to build one acre of parkland, it was $5 million. And I just want to make sure and clarify with Hugh that that's the correct number, because a lot of the parks that we're getting in the far northeast are between half a million and a million an acre, not 5 million acres.
Speaker 13: So what I referenced specifically was a one acre parcel of land that Parks and Rec was looking at acquiring. So there was a cost associated with that and that property also for it to be activated, to have irrigation dropped in and be excavated, everything that needed to be done, it was going to be $5 million to activate it. I would venture to say that it depends on what irrigation and how it's being activated. If it's being purely done up as as pure grass, that is fields versus mixed different aspects of what it is and where they have to bring irrigation in from. What I can tell you that that one specific parcel which was in the Golden Triangle, the cost was $5 million for the one acre.
Speaker 3: Hmm.
Speaker 10: Well, because in the far northeast, we need all the infrastructure put in, and you're talking about a built environment. And so I still am not totally along with that. But if somebody could follow up with me on that, I'd be very interested because 5 million for a one acre park is just. That's. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: I just have one last question, and it is probably for someone on the development team, and it's about the edge along Louisiana. Just ensuring that you all are looking at it being in the shadows where during snow time, you know, you have ice. And that's always a concern of neighborhoods. So will there be proposed setbacks from the Louisiana side? I know you don't have that level of detail now, but in the conversations you've been having with the neighborhood, is that one of the issues that you've been asked to address?
Speaker 7: Chris again? Yes. In the first few meetings, I think that was a some questions that came up. I think, you know, when we're talking about eight stories, that doesn't mean that's what it is exactly getting built up to the edge. I think for a good development and a cohesive development, people need to be able to get in and out and get in and out safely. So I think actually having a a robust development and, you know, people wanting to come here, we've got to make sure all these components work. And I think in regards to ice, I mean, I think it's a safety issue and making sure there's ice, sand and salt. And we set up a metro district on this site really specifically to not capitalize it, but really for certain things such as design and cohesiveness and maintenance and to really make sure everything's happening on the overall development, not just in little pieces.
Speaker 10: All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1075 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me start by thanking everybody who came out tonight and who has played a role in the evolution of this rezoning process, from the neighbors to the city staff to my staff to the team at Castro Group. While there have been some challenges and some unfortunate community disharmony along the way, it has largely been a positive process with much good debate. For four decades, I have watched similar rezonings unfold and have watched council members sit at this dais struggling to fairly evaluate complex situations in their district with loud voices on both sides trying to gain the upper hand. Tonight, it's my turn. I have never spent more time evaluating any topic that has come before me, either in my career as a journalist or during my time on council thus far. A constituent wrote me recently urging me to stick to my guns tonight and not give in to please people. And I had to laugh at that. And no matter which way I vote tonight, I'm going to make a bunch of people very unhappy. This is about a legal obligation to evaluate this project according to the criteria discussed earlier in the staff report. Pleasing people is a not part of the formula, and b it's impossible anyway. The community is divided on this issue, as we've heard tonight and as I've heard in recent months, I have neighbors on Louisiana, on a handful of blocks from the site on the same side of the street that are diametrically opposed. One one feels this will be a great development that will enhance the community, the other brought to tears by fears of traffic, noise and safety. Some value, the promise of affordable housing and the possibility of restaurants and retail closer to home. Some aren't willing to make the trade for tall buildings and increased traffic. We've got the right developer and we've got the right concept for me. We've got the wrong zoning. The proposed plan allows for a level of density that I do not believe the infrastructure in the area the roads can can handle. We need to take a step down in density and a step up in open space and we need to be more prescriptive in the zoning. Perhaps a peu de style approach. I know we all need to carry a bit of the growth, the load in accommodating our city's continuing growth. But the roads servicing this site are not up to the load and I fear they will lead to cut through traffic on neighborhood streets that the neighborhood can't tolerate. This site is over a block off of Colorado Boulevard, not accessed by the arterial itself, but by local street, Arkansas, and a low level collector, which would be Louisiana . That ends at Holly Street. CPD has been unable to find me another such access challenged property with density akin to that proposed here. This property will develop C that is selling the land. The value of the land would indicate it will become considerably more active and dense than when c dad's headquarters made its home there. Much has been made of the fact that the existing zoning would allow considerably more density than the proposed plan. This may or may not be true. The microwave tower on the east side of the site limits building heights to some degree. The State Office of Information Technology and C++ are currently in negotiations around that issue of what can be built on the site. Now, I have no knowledge of those negotiations. They could limit building height or agreement could be made to pave the way to allow for the full 12 storeys permitted under campus zoning. As has been said at this rezoning fails throw could back out of the deal. They could build under campus zoning. They could close on the deal and sell to someone else. Building under the existing zoning does not have open space requirements, does not require affordable housing, allows for a bit of increased height and areas along the border . My guess is that anyone coming in to this site will need TIFF funding to make their project work, and I can't imagine approving a project without many of the elements. Castro has agreed to. My preference would be that either Kentaro hangs with the project and comes back with a less overwhelming proposal. Where the city takes control of the land, initiates a more formal community, community based planning process, and creates something that would truly enhance the community. I would love to be in a position to enthusiastically support a TIFF application that facilitates a true community partnership. I can write you a script where if this rezoning fails, we get a much better project that is more fitting for a Virginia village than what is proposed here. And I celebrate taking this position and I can write you a script where we get something worse than what is proposed, and I sadly regret my vote. I have run those scripts over in my mind. Night after night till the wee hours. But I am not here to predict the future. Nor am I able to. Or to pick the lesser of two evils. I'm here to evaluate this application according to the criteria. And with that in mind, as I said above, I cannot say confidently that this application meets the third criteria of being protective of the public health. We answer calls daily about traffic concerns. Already, without this development factored in, though, Denver has sworn its commitment to Vision Zero, traffic related deaths in our city continue to rise. Since first hearing about this proposal, I've struggled with this proposed density and in response have struggled to improve the plan as best I could in case it should pass this Council. I unsuccessfully urged a substantive reduction, further reduction in density. What I did achieve was meetings between Denver traffic engineers and control consultants to take preemptive looks at what improvements might be made to attempt mitigation of the expected traffic increase. Further, I urged Cantrell to consult traffic demand management professionals to begin looking at options for reducing the number of auto trips from the site, which, as you've heard , they have done. I have received a written commitment from the Mayor's Chief Projects Officer to facilitate periodic meetings between my office, the developer, neighborhood representatives and the Departments of Community Planning and Development and Public Works throughout construction should the project proceed? I was also an early and insistent voice saying that I couldn't imagine approving a development on the site that included a buyout option in place of construction of affordable housing. As we've heard, the buyout no longer exists. Whatever happens tonight, we are not done. We will be facing years of development, review and construction planning in one form or another, whether it's the Castro group and this iteration or someone else with whom we're dealing. I am ready for either. It is, however, essential that the community pickets are now up off the floor as soon as possible, dusted off and get back to the business of serving the neighborhood and serving the city. I look forward to facilitating that revival in any way I can. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I jotted down some notes during all the comments today, and I just want to address some some of them. So a wise former Denver city councilwoman who was also the director of public works advised me when I first became a council member that all the decisions that I make as a council person should be for the future and should be for the next generation. And I feel like that's what we're doing tonight. We're talking about the future of Denver. And like many of you here tonight who came to public comment, I am a Denver native. I went to celebrity, the Cooper Theater, the ah, the Century 21 theater. And I've lived most of my life in southeast Denver. Denver has changed a lot. It's changed a lot very recently. And it continues to change really before our eyes. It is remarkable. Month to month, it changes. So now I'm going to respond to some of the concerns that people expressed tonight. One is about ugly development. And I agree there is a lot of new ugly development, but there's also a lot of ugly old development. And Colorado Boulevard, quite frankly, is one of the ugliest streets in Denver. And if I have people visiting here from other cities, I avoid Colorado Boulevard. I find it embarrassing. It's a bunch of strip malls and parking lots. I think we're just used to it, but I think it's unfair to imply that somehow we're going to be losing something of beauty on Colorado Boulevard. I don't I don't think that's true. And I'm hopeful that can grow. I think it's great that your local and your design team will design a project that is esthetically pleasing and that is going to include green spaces and preserving those trees. Affordable housing. First of all, I'd like to respond to someone who came up to the podium and implied that people who live in affordable housing are somehow connected to crime in the area. I find that very offensive, as I'm sure everyone up here does. We do have a housing crisis in Denver and it's something we all talk about every single day. Housing is extremely expensive in Denver and we have a lack of supply. And so the answer to that is to build more housing. And I sometimes talk to people who don't seem to understand that basic issue of supply and demand. So we need more supply. And the only way we're going to get more in Denver is through density. Denver is landlocked, and we need density in Denver, and density is the opposite of sprawl. Diane Zuhdi, if you're still here, she had some great comments about sprawl also. Jacob Graham I think that was his name, the guy from Norway. Sprawl is really bad and when you have suburban sprawl, people get in their cars in Douglas County and drive into Denver in one car, in one person. That is the that is what traffic is caused by it is caused by sprawl and people being in their cars, having density in Denver, having less places to shop, places to work. That is how you get people out of their cars. So. I just wanted to clarify that. I, I think a lot of people would like to just see what is at sea that stay that way, which it's essentially some grass in a parking lot and some buildings. That's not going to happen. Beth Fine. Silver, you said it's a given that it will be redeveloped, and I think that is accurate. It's not going to be developed into single family homes. If if they were, they were going to they would be $2 million houses. You can't spend that kind of money on the land and clean it up and redevelop it. They would not be affordable. They would be multimillion dollar houses. I had a similar situation on a much smaller property a couple of miles south in my district where a developer wanted to put lower place duplexes and couldn't get this part of the neighborhood. And now they're putting in eight one and a half million dollar houses, which is not helping our housing crisis. I often quote a bumper sticker. Many of you have heard me say this, but it says you are not in traffic. You are traffic. Traffic is caused by everyone here tonight who drove here in a car by yourself. I did. I'm guilty, Stuart. You probably did it, but Jolan probably didn't. But that is the cause of traffic. We are the cause of traffic. It's not somebody else. And so if more people move to Denver, traffic is going to get worse. And so the way you address it is that you you live in a city and you don't drive. You take the bus, you take the light rail, you take the chariot, you take a scooter, you take your bike, whatever. And multimodal options are those solutions. So I'm really excited that you guys have engaged with transportation solutions. So those were just kind of my responses. I think it's very clear that a more dense development could go here that wouldn't have some of the neighborhood uses that community members would like to have, like the retail. I think this is an improvement over the existing zoning and I will be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilman, New Yorkers, I'm just really so proud of all the residents who participated in this whole discussion and the outreach programs. There's nothing more impressive, I think, to all of us on council when we see active participation by all the resources in a community about a project, especially an important project like this. So all your involvement is very, very important. I'm so proud of Control and the outreach. They did all the meetings and the information they shared and and being willing to to negotiate and improve a project. And I have to say, I'm really proud of my colleague, Councilman Cashman, for stepping in there and and actually helping with discuss this important project and trying to make all of this all those parties working to try to find out what is the best solution for this community. And I think we're coming to it. I'll say a word about, you know, ugly Colorado Boulevard. It's supporters of my district, too. And it's the busiest street in all of Colorado, the busiest street. And we all have our problems with Colorado Boulevard. But I can assure the residents here, somewhere down the road, the transit alternatives for the city are going to be implemented in Colorado. The car boulevards can be at the heart of it. So I think the things you heard tonight about transit improvements in Colorado are going to happen. It's just a matter of time and money and we'll all be pushing to make sure that happens this area. I mean, so as Paul mentioned, I mean, you know, see, I mean, you just know don't the area it looks terrible and so so this development will make a great improvement and also really reinforce to the residential aspects that it didn't have. Now it's just a governmental use now that that now can be really improved. And so I see this as really a positive step in and I can see why Denver said it was stable. They said, oh, well, see, you know, don't never move. Well, I'll just be stable. Well, everything changes. And so this region blueprint, Denver is being updated now. So I think it's going to be a positives, though. And the one thing I'll finish comment on is one thing come is I heard tonight, you know, had several people mention what was important to them was having a local respected developer and we have one and given all of us and control. So I think the residents can be assured that we're going to create that and what will be created here will be a very valuable asset to me to work with you to make sure that it meets the needs and minimum. Ours is the traffic and, you know, all the improvements that are desired. And I think you'll you'll be pleased with the end result. So I'll be supporting this tonight. And I would like to thank all the participation in this whole discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So thank you, Kristin. And the residents for supporting the elimination of the opt out on the affordability that was never acceptable. Tim Karl, thank you for the comprehensive assessment. I wish I had had it earlier because I think there are enough unique circumstances the advancement of a State Department headquarters, a brokered sale of state land through the city. I believe a solid case could be made for a tool that is less blunt than what is being proposed. And I guess I have been told I guess I have been told no to custom zoning enough that I thought never that the thought to recommend it had never crossed my mind. Thank you, Sean Maley, for highlighting how much further your team went beyond the zoning the city's minimal zoning requirements to transition into protected districts and how honored you were to work on this transition because it's a good one. Kentaro, thank you guys for hearing some of the community and council's concerns and compromising with the community in this unique, unique set of circumstances. I will say that I still believe the scale is tipped in your favor, so I continue to maintain that it is on you to exceed expectations. Thank you, Andrew, for your answers to my questions. In my judgment, this negotiated transition is closer to the appropriate depth to transition from 8 to 3, let alone one story. Like many of the homes that flank the property than the base smacks step of her story, step backs. I continue to hope that your agency becomes more mindful of the deficiencies in its current both definitions. In relation to so-called protected districts and where area plans call for transitions in scale. This city needs to recognize that this type of transition, this type of transition is more consistent with the layperson's understanding of the transition in mass and scale. It's critical that this transition was codified in zoning. It is. It's critical that this transition was codified in the zoning. For me to at all begin to find this map amendment appropriate, because based upon reviewing the application, I would have been tearing into the actual 71 page rezoning application that is only a partial page on the consistency with adopted plans and oddly leans heavily on Denver write language a plan five months from adoption and not at all intended to be used this way. I raised this issue because that aspect is bothersome to me and dubious given community concerns about Denver. Right. The Denver right places map and recommendations being used for zoning. I recognize that the bulk illustrated is highly unlikely to be built, but development need not be that massive to be disruptive to our sense of a quality public realm. Many can recall the abruptness that came with a much smaller mass on the west side of Colorado at Ninth Boulevard. I mean, Colorado Boulevard at night. One thing is certain, a full buildout and full buildout. The on street parking and traffic volumes will be far different from the years as pseudo headquarters, where many of the car trips were limited to the workday and had no on street overnight parking need. Once again, this highlights the persistent disconnect between land use infrastructure and soon to be mobility operating in silos in this city. All these concerns are familiar to me because I represent a part of town where projects like those feared are shoehorned into areas with even less capacity than this area to withstand the substantial impact maximum development would have on community and infrastructure. However, like some of the speakers, I'm inclined to support this application because the table is set for a potential catalytic success. Success which would mean redevelopment that would offset hassle with convenience. My reservation isn't a dense placemaking project. My concern is that market forces in the area would result in something far less dense and more transient and lacking any sort of destination aspect. But both outcomes are possible in the zone. And while the fewer car trips associated with fewer units and lower scale may sound ideal, there are considerable downsides to that outcome. The potential positives that have been mentioned by proponents come with the critical mass. The move toward walkable communities require more households proximate to those amenities. This rezoning doesn't compel any outcome, but the combination of the MAP Amendment and the developer agreement respond to real concerns. Should the maximum development be achievable? Councilman Cashman You've done yeoman's work trying to get something workable in an area that hasn't seen anything but car centric development that makes Colorado Boulevard miserable at times. Density along that corridor will create opportunities that can benefit and preserve by supporting the viability of the adjacent single family neighborhoods in the proposed zone district or in some other. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to.
Speaker 0: Just.
Speaker 3: Appreciate everybody that's stuck. Stuck through. I mean, 1030 is not the latest we've been here, but it is rather late. You know, I like.
Speaker 0: Folks who have.
Speaker 3: Spoke before. I'm also a native. I think, you know, I've seen Colorado Boulevard change, but then I really haven't thought too much. I think there's a lot of that that parking lot is a lot of the the strip malls. It's very much like like like like some of our areas just west on South Federal Boulevard. We see that and it becomes a challenge because you don't have that depth becomes a challenge because you don't really have the opportunity for that density to move through without and at the same time have transit nodes. We have to go in and rebuild it. We got to go in and redesign it. And that's tough because you're looking at three decades before you even touch anything, before it actually starts to take place. Denver's growing and we have to figure out how to accommodate that growth before we're all priced out of the neighborhoods that we grew up in. Before. We won't be able.
Speaker 0: To jump in a car and get.
Speaker 3: From point A to point B on time. Problem isn't necessarily the roads is that we haven't we haven't designed or thought anything other than just roads. Right. We really we don't think of Denver as that transit city, but we have to we have to think about how to do that. Congestion isn't going to just go away. It's getting worse. I used to be able to brag that I get here 5 minutes from my place on on on the west side here. 5 minutes. I don't know who told all these folks.
Speaker 0: About these shortcuts.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm not happy that you all told.
Speaker 0: Anybody about shortcuts because there.
Speaker 3: Are no shortcuts in Denver anymore. I used to say 15 minutes. I'm there. Not anymore. We have to accommodate that. There's always something that's missing in zoning and by charter. And by our criteria, we really can't go off of looks about what is that you're going to build? We can't mandate that folks come up to us and say, I want to. Is this going to be brick? Is it going to be nice? Is it going to be a setback? Are you going to build the above plane?
Speaker 0: Our zoning for is prescriptive.
Speaker 3: Is it can be. It isn't right. It's still form based, but it isn't to the point where somebody can show you a rendering and say, this is exactly what's going to happen now. If I was somebody who was in front of this council, I would actually do that. There's nothing to stop you either. And I think in these chambers, I have seen people who just come up and I was not too far away from this site quite actually people to say, well, I'm just zoning it because I can't. And we've to our frustration to the frustration of so many people in in these chambers over the years, they've done that. And it really doesn't create an opportunity for us to.
Speaker 7: To build that trust.
Speaker 3: Establish that trust, however. That's up to a well-organized community. That's up to the councilperson in the area, and that's up to us to follow that lead. I think I would like to see something great for the neighborhoods out there. I look at that neighborhood and I think of Barney the very much it's very, very similar. It's still very working class. I think a lot of people don't realize that these neighborhoods over here, just because they're on the east side or the south side, they're not working class. They are. That's why we got to do it right. At the same time. As we grow and as we look at how we design some of these parcels, it's hard for us to be able to get to get a hold of land like this. Now, I come from the perspective where I do think it's the role of county and municipal government to be able to landbank for the future. We didn't do that when we needed to. So the fact that we have this opportunity is great. That means there's going to be public accountability. Not just somebody who's who, who bought it straight outright, has no accountability to the public, but there's going to be accountability on us. And I say as I say everybody we get the shape that. Winick So I understand and, you know, these neighborhoods, including mine. It's hard to believe. I live right on the cusp of Barnum and Bailey Park. It's hard to believe that there were ever suburbs. They were they were built like it. They reflected it for a different Denver. Those aren't suburbs anymore. You've got to look beyond the city, beyond our boundaries and realize, oh, man. When did all these folks back here come? Where did what you look at that Denver metro area, it's huge. It is sprawl. And they're not growing out there. The fight against density, the fight against vertical development out there is even stronger than it is here. You mention affordable housing and some of these other outside counties and cities outside of Denver. All hell breaks loose. We get it in Denver. We're a little bit different and we are the capital city and we are the center of the metro region. We can't just say over there.
Speaker 11: Every zip code. Every zip code.
Speaker 3: People should be able to live in every zip code and afford to be able to live in every zip code. A teacher, a police officer, a firefighter man, if that's what they're doing on the fire department, $37,000 a year, that's embarrassing. We've got to do better, right? We have to. And. A teacher, a firefighter, a police officer, someone who's who's working on their masters and pouring coffee, trying to make a living, trying to get by an honest living should be able to live in any zip code in our city. And we have to be able to create that opportunity. So with that, I think, you know, I do think futuristic. I do think this is you know, it's a conversation. You this isn't going to happen just overnight. I would encourage folks who those of you who stuck it out late at night, there are more people that are going to care about this. So continue that conversation. Councilman Cashman's, a great representative. He's a great councilman. He's somebody that that I really look up to on this council in terms of his approach and how how he's always listened over the years. So with that, you know, I am supportive.
Speaker 0: Of this moving forward. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez. I'll be happy to show you some of the shortcuts that I still have in my back pocket.
Speaker 3: Don't say it publicly, because they're known for.
Speaker 4: Not not giving it away here. Mr. President, I'm supportive of this application. I find that it meets all of the criteria to justify the rezoning. And in fact, I regard this as a down zoning, because people are so used to seeing that old city property in which I spent many, many hours covering and writing about sweetheart projects , and they see that as all the open space. But the fact is that the underlying zoning allows much, much more deleterious impacts on the neighborhood should it remain in place than the requested zone class. The impacts on the single family neighborhood will be less. The impacts on dense total density are less. And the addition of the amenities that I think some of the neighbors have expressed an interest in as far as additional retail, beyond what ancillary retail is allowed in the campus zone, which is quite, quite limited, are a benefit to the neighborhood. And so I find that it actually meets all the criteria to qualify for rezoning and I'm happy to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 10: Thank you, President Clarke. First and foremost, I have great respect for Councilman Cashman. And I know that this process has been a long road that has been a struggle because we are growing and changing as a city. And it's hard because you're representing your constituents at this point in time and looking at a rezoning such as this . We truly are looking forward to the next hundred years of the site. And it's difficult because we are changing as a city, but based upon what has been presented tonight at this hearing. I think it does meet all of the criteria for a rezoning. The majority of speakers who are here tonight were in favor of the rezoning. And just a quick snippet of some of the things folks said. You know, they're ready to have short term pain for long term benefit, keeping the neighborhood vibrant and diverse. They want to be part of the solution in Denver. Forward thinking, thoughtful, re-envisioning, this area. And then on the flip side, some of the concerns that people brought up were traffic density and affordable housing. But through the conversation and through the questions and the presentations, 150 units of affordable housing that will help stabilize the elementary school that is on this or near the site. And we need to make sure that we're keeping the the diversity that we love as our city. And we're encouraging folks who would have maybe never looked at this site as an opportunity for them to reside and live. They might now have this opportunity. Density creates conservation and sustainability for us as a city. Just last Wednesday, we had a sustainability summit here in the city, and if we don't have that density, we're not able to conserve water, heat, all of the things that we need to do better at as a city. On top of that, having parks and open space, a good neighbor agreement and that retail. What I wouldn't give to have somebody ready to bring in a main street, fill grocery, daycare, workforce opportunities and then layered all on top of that is the multi time mobility piece. This site is primed to be a model project for different transit transportation solutions, multi mobility. What could we do with autonomous vehicles like we're testing right now at Panasonic at 61st and Pena? This I see is really the future of the city. And I just think all of the speakers who were here, all the folks who emailed and the real time and intentional process that I felt this rezoning has taken on. I didn't feel like it was rushed, like it was pressured. It was very, very intentional. And I think we're going to get the best outcome. And so I am in support of this because I believe it fits all of the criteria and I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. What a thoughtful discussion tonight. And my colleagues as well. I really appreciated all of your comments. In looking at the criteria, I spent a lot of time looking at the staff report on the conformance with plans in terms of reinvestment areas and making sure that the conformance to plans was criteria was met. And I felt like the staff report, which did not mention that overwrites, I don't know if that was the applicants or someone else, but the staff report does not mention it. Anyway, I thought it was very persuasive. You know, I had to think a little bit after hearing your comments, Councilman Cashman, about the public health and safety criteria. And it's interesting because just to put my law school hat on for a minute, I mean, the origins of the public health and safety criteria was about public nuisance. Don't put a hog lot next to a water source. Don't put a, you know, a school next to a factory that, you know, had toxic lead. You know, it was about separating users. I mean, we didn't have great sanitation, right? It was just kind of coming into to to to form a zoning. And so I think about that as a really old criteria that kind of doesn't acknowledge the ways that we've created, for example, environmental standards. So why can you have, for example, a mixed use area with with some light industrial? Because we have clean rooms that didn't exist. And so some of the things about that and but does that mean it doesn't matter anymore? I don't think it means that. But I think it's interesting to think about what's the definition of the criteria for public health and safety today. And so, I guess, you know, you think about the idea of of of a walkable space, right? So so we could put in a less dense development that was simply parking lots and that would not encourage walking. And so, you know, so you could have less density and have less health because people would be not walking in and out of the space or using the green space that'll be created. You know, I think about traffic and this is may not going to be a popular statement, but there are less traffic deaths where there's more congestion because when people aren't going quickly, it's harder for I mean, the injuries are less severe when you're going at a low speed. So if this is a heavily trafficked area with a lot of cars coming in and out, probably not going to see as many fatalities as if people are continuing to to breeze through at high speeds because, hey, there's not there's not that many cars. So it's interesting how, you know, one of the traffic calming measures that we we do is to kind of narrow streets and cut out lanes so that cars are a little closer to each other. They got to pay attention. So I guess and the other challenge I had kind of understanding or trying to think about how to apply the criteria, the way you defined it in future cases is if more cars is by definition not supportive of the health and safety. I don't know what rezoning could ever meet the criteria. Right? So if more cars than see. So what's the magic number of cars? You know, if one more car is one more risk of someone getting hit, then I just don't know how you'd ever meet the criteria. So I don't. So I think that there is something about the modern interpretation of health and safety that we have to grapple with. But I just am not sure that I can agree with that application as described because of some of the things Councilwoman Gilmore mentioned and and others. And, you know, in terms of safe and sanitary housing, that was another reason for zoning was to create more safe and sanitary housing. And certainly we have that happening here. And we do have homeless people who are not living in safe and sanitary conditions. So for me, I, you know, thought a lot about it in the last 10 minutes since you said it. But I do feel like I still see that that criteria is met by virtue of, you know, the walkability, the open space, the fact that it's creating safe and sanitary housing and it is not next to or near any dangerous uses. There are some environmental questions on the site and improving and cleaning those up is an is is a safety benefit. So to me, putting something to residential standards that right now may or may not be at them as you go on with your environmental reviews is a net positive. So it meets the criteria. The, the next thing I just wanted to comment on a little bit is the question of what happens if this doesn't get approved. So that's not a relevant criteria. But we're all trying to figure is what what will happen. I mean, many folks know I spent many years advocating for in negotiating with and, you know, some would say squeezing developers for things that they maybe didn't think they wanted to give in the initial stages of their development. And, you know, one of my jobs in that case was to communicate with the community and describe that there's not an infinite possibility. There is a point at which you hit the tipping point where the developer can't do it all. And there, you know, it might not be the community benefit that you've negotiated. It may be the economy in the gates rubber factory. Councilman Cashman. And I remember. Thing about it is a great example. It's not a safe and sanitary condition when in a location can't be developed and it sits there vacant. Someone died in a derelict building and on the Gates site. There were numerous graffiti, all kinds of criminal activity. Vacant buildings are not good for neighborhoods. And I will say that there is you know, there's some costs involved in this project. And there is a tipping point at which if you don't have the density to support the retail, if you don't have the density or the open space, then you can't build it. And I think that tipping point is real and I think the density is relevant to that. So I just got to say that, you know, and this comes from someone who's an advocate for community benefits. I don't think you can get more open space, less density and guarantee that this can weather what is I mean, we're in the strongest economic period we're in and it's not going to get stronger. I think, you know, every economist predicts some form of a slowdown. If we're fortunate, it's not a serious one, but it's going to be harder in the next five years when this project's trying to develop. So I will just throw that out there. In terms of how you're weighing the risks, I weigh the risks a little heavier than you, my, my, my friend, because I feel that I've seen projects not happen and I've seen what it does to communities. Last point I'll make on affordability. I so appreciate the really great dialog we had and from from folks on both sides about how much you value affordability. Just two quick comments. We have more than 3000 severely cost burdened households in this am I level in the city? So is there a need for housing at this level? Our data says yes. Thousands of families are spending more than half their income because they can't find a unit at 60% of am I. Councilwoman Sussman did a great job identifying some of the occupations that those folks are in. So I also am an advocate, though, for deeply affordable housing. And one thing I would like to just share is the fact is that as a condition of any of our housing investments and how these things work, folks are required to accept vouchers from folks who may have vouchers from the housing authority or the Veterans Administration. And so in many of the projects priced at this level, you will find residents that have, you know, 0 to 30% of income because they come with a voucher. So this project, if our rules are in place, Melissa, today somewhere, they would be required to accept those vouchers. And you could, in fact and hopefully will see a number of residents at lower AMI. So I hope that most folks feel a little better that you might see a mix of incomes with that. I'll be supporting the zoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank everybody for their thoughtful engagement in this entire process. I had the benefit of being able to sit through a couple of the meetings. I went to observe the process and hear the concerns and hear some of the commitments that were being made to the community and just appreciate the time that everybody put in to, you know, getting to a point. And, you know, we don't always get everything we want out of a process when we engage in that. But a couple of things I want to highlight. First of all, I've seen some of the work that this team has done across the city, and I know that when they make a commitment, they're going to do something. They will follow through in the fact that they're a local developer. They have a reputation to protect, and I can't see them making commitments to this neighborhood they're not going to follow through with. So I think that's important. This project actually has way more details than this Body Accounting Council normally sees on developments. When we went from the previous zoning that I probably am the only one on this on this day is who actually worked with the old zoning code where before we we changed it to a form based zoning. We used to get all the details on how many units, how many parking spaces we'd see the traffic studies done , a lot of that kind of information as part of the zone application that was brought before this council. So the neighborhoods had a clear understanding of what they were getting. I think there was a little bit more predictability for the developers because now they go back and continue to deal with the planning department on more of the details that have to be put into the project that otherwise were done on meaning. Much of that was done on the front end. So just seeing some of the level of detail and commitments that were made in the development agreement with the community is is a big deal. You know, on the west side of town, we're going to see over 300 acres that are being proposed for redevelopment from the Denver Post site to Elegies to Mile High Stadium, parking lots to Sun Valley. And not before long we'll see the Burnham Yards, which is the railroad land just on the west side of Denver water. And we have to be thoughtful as a city about how we're going to look at the impact to the adjacent neighborhoods, look at the impact to the infrastructure, very similar to what this project was trying to do. And, you know, we'll be seeing some of those rezoning applications coming before us. And I am hopeful that we are as thoughtful with those neighborhoods and those big projects as we are with this one to ensure that we're doing right by all of our communities across this city and looking at the impact and making sure that we are getting some affordability in trying to meet the needs of so many people that are struggling in this city to afford to even stay here. I would just challenge the neighborhood to stay completely engaged in ongoing dialog with the control group around the the additional, you know, details that will move the project forward. I would also encourage you to advocate that in the Denver write process to be arguing, we need to keep the verbiage neighborhoods of stability in there. Because I'm concerned that by removing that, it sort of gives the message that we no longer have stable neighborhoods that are worthy of protecting across this city. And I don't know how many people across the city have really paid attention to the details that are in that document. Lots of people have attended meetings, but that doesn't represent, you know, broadly across the city. The. You know, the depth and the breadth of the people that live within this city. Lastly, I just want to really thank the the administration for their sort of thoughtfulness in looking at taking advantage of this first. Right. Of refusal with this court property to try to. Figure out where across the city we can garner affordability. And it is important that we have affordable housing across the city and not just in certain neighborhoods in the city. And I think this the fact that we'll have 150 affordable units in this development is is really a big deal. And it's really important and for lots of different reasons that have already been articulated. And so the last thing I want to say is. We have neighborhoods in the city that are screaming for some of the neighborhood services that will be at the site for a grocery store, for restaurants, for a dry cleaning facility. Some of these services that neighborhoods across our city get to enjoy don't exist in many of our neighborhoods that are adjacent to industrial areas. And the fact that you already have a lot of those kinds of things in your neighborhood is is great, but you're going to get more that you can walk to. So I think and the fact that we do have some of those protections and we do have an overlay to the neighborhood immediately to the east of this site is important for for the adjacent community. So for all those reasons, as well as the fact that it meets the criteria and all of that, I will be supporting this application tonight. And the very last thing I will say sorry is, you know, just down the street, we went through a very lengthy process with the ninth and Colorado site. And what's going in there is blending in very well with the entire community. And it will serve not just the new development going in there, but some of the commercial that will be there will be serving the entire community. So I'm a yes vote tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So, so many people on the States have said such wonderful things about this project. I'm just so happy about Denver and its neighborhoods and how they engage. I mean, our neighborhoods do get involved very well and they study the thing very well and have come to us and let us know what their perspective is. I'm also very happy to be with this group of council people because you can tell from their discussions how much they study these things. They don't just take it lightly. This is mainly what a council does, is land use to decide about land use and it is so important. And you can hear too that neighborhood neighbors and council have learned a great deal about what density means and what it means to reducing our car traffic and and its benefits to a call to the environment and it, you know, creating walkable spaces and how important that is. I don't think, you know, 20 years ago that most of the people I knew and certainly I didn't understand what that means, you know, how to how to best improve our environment. And I particularly liked the little history that Ms.. Santini brought about the, uh, the church that we had on South Colorado Boulevard. Yes, we turned it down at first, not so much because of the number of homes, but because the number of homes would have created an enormous difficulty of being able to get around that property. I mean, it was it was it's simply the the the density of it. It was like that density would support that one acre facility. So and that was neighborhood involvement. And sure enough, they came back with something that was going to work for a one acre property. And I, I think that what the neighborhood has been able to craft with the developer and what the developer has done is, is in keeping with what we know about providing enough homes for people. If we don't provide enough homes for people, they move to the suburbs. And as somebody has said, that's where most of our traffic comes from. But if we can keep them in the city, then we have a chance to provide transit and reduce our number of cars. But we don't have any other chance but that one. But we also need to keep them in the city for our workforce. If our workforce moves out of the city, we don't have anybody that can do the jobs that a city needs just to survive. I looked up because I was asking about the Americas, the average median income, and you know what 60% am I meant. And that would be a $37,000 income. Well, the median income of Virginia Village is $40,000, so just $3,000 more. These are homes that are going would be affordable to the people who live in Virginia Village and they would be affordable perhaps to.
Speaker 9: The more.
Speaker 8: Children that are just newly married or your seniors that want to look for a new place to live that would be affordable for them. So I also will be voting in favor of this project. Thank you for all of the neighbors, for all the work you did on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments, I'll just end by saying thank you to everyone for coming and for sharing your opinions and sharing your stories. There are a lot of people tonight who talked about either growing up here or how long they lived in the community or, you know, when their parents bought the house and the community. And as someone who also grew up here, it is hard not to be an installed fix for Sunday night or multiple people bring up celebrities or anything is officially the Celebrity Sports Center. Which boy what I would give to bring that back and be able to take my kids to celebrities. They can't even begin to communicate how special that place was for me growing up. And it's hard also not to be afraid of turning around and losing the city that we grew up in or the city that we've been in for how many years in the city that we love. And these things are hard and I appreciate everyone taking time. And as Councilman Cashman said, you know, at the end of the day, it comes down to a yes or no vote. And there can be some people who are upset and and feel like this is not in line with their their hopes and dreams. I'll say that. And in my district, there's been a lot of development and a lot of people who are angry and a lot of people who are struggling with the changes in the. Our community. And the hardest ones of all of those are the ones that are used by. Right. Those are the developments that don't have or notify a neighborhood association. I don't even know about them until somebody says, hey, why this fence go up? Because they don't come through city council. There's no development agreement. There's no design guidelines. There's no negotiations. And they build to the maximum. And, you know, I think that that often we see things and then people say, I want it to be what it is or I want it to be what the you know, the the the plan shows it as as an area of stability in a single unit. But the zoning on it allows for 12 storeys and that is the use by right. That people can build do and there's no no community engagement. I mean buildings popping up in my district where the community has never even notified that they're doing anything. And those are really, really hard. And so, you know, I would say that looking at this, there are there's a lot in here that goes a lot further than what is used by right. Development could be. And I know we can't predict the future and there are a lot of things that go into that. But somebody could develop on the site with no open space, no affordable housing on site to a much higher height. A lot of those things could happen. That's what's happening in my district. And so it's it's often hard to marry those two things of what I wish it would be a park or single family homes with what someone already has a right to do on that property versus what we might negotiate through a process that is messy and hard and takes community work like this. And so at the end of the day, I do think that this is in a much better place than what the existing zoning would allow to happen. And for that, I am glad at the real end of the day, this comes down to the legal criteria for the rezoning and I echo what many of my colleagues have said and thank you to staff for putting together the presentation that I think clearly shows that this does meet the legal criteria. And this is at the end of the day, what that decision for us is isn't about what we like or what we miss or what our vision is, but does it meet those criteria? And I believe that this does on top of that, I think that this is a much better outcome than the use by rate development that is on it. So for those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 6: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Bess Flynn, I. Gilmore, i. Kimmage. Ivan Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, i. Espinosa, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: You have 11 eyes one day.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one knee accountable. 1075 has passed. Thank you all for sticking with us late into the night, seeing no other business before this morning. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201 East Arkansas Avenue in Virginia Village.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, 4040 East Louisiana Avenue and 1380 South Birch Street from CMP-EI2 and S-MX-5 UO-1 UO-2 to S-MX-8 UO-2, S-MX-8, S-MX-5, S-MX-3, and S-MU-3 (campus, various districts, to suburban, mixed-use various heights), in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-9-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11262018_18-1168
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn has called out Council Bill 1292 regarded regarding supervised use sites for a vote under pending. No items have been called out. Did I miss any? All right. Now, Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Ortega, go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Lisa Lumley for providing some information about my inquiry about whether or not this acquisition is within the budget of the plant to Park Hill. She did clarify. It is separate from that budget. And I also want to mention that I requested that we have an update on where we're at with the expenditures and if we're still within that budget to be brought to the Finance and Government Committee. And I believe Councilman Flynn has scheduled that for a date in December. So that's all I wanted to say on that one. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Flynn, anything you want to add to that or you're just affirming that never happened?
Speaker 8: I just ask staff to arrange that. We're looking at pot probably December 18th.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and East 38th Avenue Properties, LLC for the purchase of real property located at 3857, 3863, 3869, 3875, 3881 and 3897 Steele Street.
Approves a purchase and sale agreement with East 38th Avenue Properties LLC for $983,340 to acquire the properties located at 3857, 3863, 3869, 3875, 3881 and 3897 Steele Street in support of the amenity components of the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems project in Council District 9 (TBD). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-17-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-13-2018.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11262018_18-1292
|
Speaker 3: with Winter Park. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, please for the next item on our screens. And Councilwoman Canete, will you please put Council Bill 1292 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill 1218 Dash 1290 to be placed upon final consideration and you pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I called this out as I did last week because I intend to vote no on it again. And I want to just explain a little bit about the week between last Monday and today. And I said last week that this was probably the most difficult vote I've ever faced up here in a three plus years because of the the very serious life and death issues that it involves that don't usually attend to our our normal business. Over the intervening week, I've heard from numerous constituents, some of whom have stopped me, actually, my wife and me at a at a restaurant over the weekend, a woman who just put her son into drug rehab at a cost of $25,000, who begged me not to not to vote for this because of her fear that had there been such a site available to her son, she might he might not have chosen to go into rehab when he did. Whether that's true or not, that's that's that's what she believed. So I voted last week against it and I intend to vote no also. And I wanted to explain a little more. We like to make data driven decisions. And in this, as with a lot of our our issues, there's a lot of data available, but it's raw data. And some of it's not sliced and diced and analyzed very, very usefully. For us, it's not you know, a good regression analysis would really help here to say to help us know whether these facilities around the world are actually reducing the opioid crisis when it's occurring in an atmosphere where there's other factors that are creating a surge in deaths and a surge in usage. It's hard to know what is the right path forward. And so we like to think that data tells us what to do. It leads us in a certain direction. And a lot of times that's just not so. There has to be human judgment. If data alone could tell us what the right thing to do is. You wouldn't need 13 of us up here. You could just feed it into a computer and we'll tell you what the right policy choices. Don't get any ideas about that, by the way, not replacing us with a computer. But there has to be human judgment that that is applied to this data. And so I want to say at the outset, Mr. President, that I have great respect for every single one of my colleagues who voted the other way last week and who will vote that way tonight, because they've applied their judgment as well to the facts and have reached what I consider an equally valid course of action to do. And it's just not one that I can that I can personally support. But I do want to say that I have great respect for the judgment of my colleagues who have applied to this. But I also want to say that my judgment on this is that it's not the path that I think this city ought to be taking to establish a designated area where dangerous drugs, illegal drugs, heroin can be consumed. I don't make this judgment based on any inaccurate reading of the data, nor out of any pretense that it's not occurring on our streets or near alleys or in our parks. I have it in my own district. I'm fully aware of this. And as I said last week, I've had several overdose deaths just within a stone's throw of my office in Bear Valley. So I'm fully aware that this is happening on the streets. I've simply concluded that a supervised injection site isn't the way to combat the crisis. I think it enables it without reducing it. This is a two year pilot program. We end the two years with, let's say there are no overdose deaths, as we fully expect, because I don't think there's been one in any of these facilities around the world. So what's the end game? Does that mean, Mr. President, that we will then put a facility such as this in every district in the city or everywhere where we've experienced opioid deaths? Is that the way to really prevent the deaths is to put these safe injection facilities elsewhere in the city if this pilot program proves successful. I believe, though, if we want to be more effective instead of establishing a safe use site, I think we should follow the lead that the state of Utah has taken, and that is with a very robust distribution, free distribution of naloxone, of Narcan kits to the communities that are affected by this, to the providers, to nonprofits, to family members, family members whose sons, brothers, sisters, daughters, mothers are struggling with addiction, provide them and prevent that. That's where they're occurring. And don't expect them to come down to a single site, but go out to the to the bike paths and the parks and the library and the the public restrooms where we know where we've had these things occurring. And I think that would be much more effective. I could fully support a program like that. You know, it's been stated that addiction is a disease, not necessarily a crime, but the addiction itself is a disease. And we don't criminalize a disease. Cancer patients don't have to do chemo in an alley. But then again, this is in treatment. A safe injection site is not treatment. It's like bringing a lung cancer patient into a smoking room and giving them more cigarets this is not treatment. If this bill offered more in the way of an aggressive path toward treatment and resolving the addiction for the individual client, I could be more supportive of it, but a supervised injection room enables continued addiction and not a treatment. And for that reason, reluctantly, after weighing all of the options, reluctantly, Mr. President, have to vote no. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Rosa. I also love to hear from my constituents as well and all the key issues that we face. A council I normally survey my constituents and I did on the supervised injection. As well, had 665 of my constituents in District ten responded. Just want to share a little bit of their data with you. What was their feeling about reducing drug deaths and combating illegal drug use as a priority for the city? Over 76% of the residents who responded said yes, it is a priority reducing deaths as well as fighting drug illegal drug distribution. Do you support the supervised injection site in Denver? 56% of my Rosas responders said, yes, we do support the drug addiction center. The question is, in addition, should we wait until we make sure the Colorado approves such a program as we submit our program? And that's what the plan is, that Colorado will need to pass that legislation first. And the last thing to mention to in addition that Councilman Flynn mentioned, in addition to the the safe injection site, we need to do more in terms of treatment centers. Treatment is if we are able to help these folks get off of drug use where they do not have to use a self injection site, that'll be a credible goal for for everybody. So we want to make sure that that there are treatment facilities in that. And I have received this assurance from the chief of police that there will be no reduction in in combating illegal drug use. Drug sales will still have a robust effort to make sure that illegal drug sales will be converted in the city. So I'm pleased with that. I still hope that the Denver health will be a part of this program down the road as we as it comes forward and this passes and from a super from a community health standpoint, they are valuable partner. And I hope they'll play a vital role in this program. And I do like the pilot project. Mark Justice has said over and over, and this makes sure that the metrics for evaluating this program are meaningful, that you actually can see how effective this program is. And treatment treatment facility referrals obviously is an important metric to so. So I just want to share that results from Mark decision. I'll be supporting this tonight and I just wanted to let you know how they felt about. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very supportive of this. We're not going to arrest ourselves out of the problem. Jail is not going to be the cure for addiction. And it is anybody who understands this issue and understands the population, understands addiction, understands what folks go through when they're when when they are addicted, the process that it takes , the amount of resources. If we could have it our way, I know that we'd find it left and right. But it's not just up to Denver, it's also up to the state. There are so many systems that are failing that whole treatment model that are not addressing it. The hours are not there for folks. Sometimes their hours are very limited. There are stigmas associated. There are so many different factors outside that that that need to be addressed. In the meantime, while we're debating in government about what to fund and whether we're going to get mental health dollars or treatment dollars for a model like this , people are dying and people are dying. They're overdosing. They're doing it in areas where they're not being found or there's nobody around them to save their life, to give them a dose of Narcan or to even talk to them. This model allows for that interaction to happen because if not, it's not going to it's not going to prevent folks from. It's one of very many tools. One of very many tools that can be employed, that can be used to address the addiction issue and. The last thing you want. Is to not support something like this and know that the person who was ODing in a park in your neighborhood, your neighborhood, store, bathroom, because they're there, that's the only place that they can be. Right. Knowing that that can happen and knowing how you're voting right now, I rather have that option for someone to be there and not be alone. To have to talk to somebody, but then to make sure that they that what they're doing is is being supervised and can potentially save their life. And I think that's that's something and that's also an entry way to services. Right. This is a professional these are area these are people who know what they're doing. And it's an opportunity for folks to interact that way and could save some lives. The last thing I want to say is that, you know, when we think about this and we think of the folks on the other side, oh, all you're doing is enabling. You're not enabling. You're being there as a supervisor to make sure that they're not killing themselves. Oh, well, you're not. You know, why not just treat me? Well, treatment's very expensive. Yes, we rather have treatment, but not everybody has the access to treatment. It's not that simple. And it's not an either or. It's not supervised injection sites replacing treatment. This is just another tool and another tool for a society that still doesn't know how to address addiction. And a country that still is in the Stone Age is when it comes to addressing addiction. We have to look around the world for these models. We have to look at these other cities. And they are doing it right. And sometimes sometimes you just employ that. And by doing that, you've got to remove your fear. You got to you got to deprogram everything you've thought of to be an addict. Remove that fear and look at this person as a human being. And the end goal is saving their life. That's what this bill allows Denver to do. Should the state act? So I. Councilman Brooks, folks at the Harm Center, thank you for your work. Thank you for all for bringing this to us. I know this would be historical if we were to pass it, but I want folks to get out of this mindset that all this is scary. This is just a bunch of folks shooting up and and we're enabling them now. And this is replacing other treatment. It's not. This is another tool that we need to treat addiction. So thank you. I support this wholeheartedly, Councilman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. As I said last week, we know people are dying on the street, letting people die in our restaurant bathrooms and doorways and our parks and our trails behind trees in wherever. It's not reducing the opioid crisis. Okay. I had a letter from a constituent today in email and he said, well, what's what's going to be next? Well, we're going to have government sponsored locations where alcoholics can go to drink their booze. We have it now. They're called bars. Well, think about it. They're called bars. And we license every last one of them. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of places to get alcohol in Denver. We continue to license them. Now, not everybody who walks into a bar is an alcoholic, but thousands and thousands and thousands of them are. And all we do is we keep serving them. We pat them on the back and we send them out into the night. No one gives them a brochure that says, Hey, here's where the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting is. Or here, here, here, here's a place you can go to get treatment if you're having trouble. As I read the bill for a proposed site and all the discussions I've heard is, as is the case with the Harm Reduction Center, when people come in to get clean, clean needles, they're offered help. They're counseled on where they can go. They're not just sent off into the night with a wink. So if we're serious about addressing addiction in this country, at some point we need to look at the fact that the Super Bowl is sponsored by Budweiser and our baseball team plays in Coors Field. You know it I don't know if we're ever going to get the stomach to look at the alcohol industry, but people are. I understand the concern with drug addiction. Absolutely. We need we need to cut it cut it back. We're talking about Vision zero four for traffic deaths. We need a Vision Zero for drug deaths as well. But as a society, we haven't made that commitment and it's about time that we do so. I will also be supporting this wholeheartedly. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all of my colleagues for for their diligence and hard work in this. I want to thank all the folks in the audience for being engaged and supporting this effort as well. This is an ordinance that allows for a pilot in the city of Denver with the General Assembly's approval and for a supervised use site. And how I got to this point, I had a council person say, you know, what's where's the data? Where's the information? How what's the work that you've done? Let me give you a number over 25 years. Over 60 cities, ten countries in over 100 sites. That's our data. We actually have the information that shows us that this. Innovative idea that started over 30 years ago works. But in our context, in this American context, it's so hard to wrap our our mind around. And I understand that and I get that. But the fear mongering and the talking down to our neighbors who are experiencing addiction, I've heard it all day today. I think it's ridiculous and it's actually disgusting. These are our neighbors. These are folks all over the world who are struggling with this, and we have an opportunity to address it. Let me also say, we 100% support the mayor's plan to address the opioid crisis in this city. He released a plan from 2018 to 2022. It's three prongs, guys. It's prevention. It's treatment, and it's harm reduction. And one of the strategies is to supervise you say. So let's not get stuck on this being just the one answer. Like Councilman Lopez says, there are several strategies that we're working on. And so I'm excited to support this. And and I'm excited to to have Denver lead boldly in this area. It's a big moment for our city. And as this. This council approves this and it gets sent to the mayor's desk to sign. There's a couple of things for my heart that I just want to say. This is more than just public policy. This is about enacting justice in the city of Denver. There is a national health crisis in front of us and cities are on the front lines. Philadelphia, New York. Portland. Just heard Portland, Maine. Now, is is starting to move forward on this. Seattle, Los Angeles, there are so many cities that are trying to move forward with this issues. And tonight we act to save lives and repair families. And this is a beautiful moment for our city to form a healing union with our state legislature and governor elect, because this is what it comes down to when we view people simply as addicts, we rob them of their humanity. And it becomes easy for us to stigmatize their struggle and ignore their pain. This ordinance is not about addicts. This is about our neighbors. This is about our neighbors experiencing addiction. When we see people as our neighbors, we see their stories. And they become deeply connected with us. And that is how we save lives. And that is why we are here tonight. And with that, Mr. President. Let's vote on this day.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 5: BROOKS Oh, yeah.
Speaker 4: ESPINOSA All right. Gilmore i Herndon. I Cashman. I can h.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 7: Sussman Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please call the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 10: Are we missing?
Speaker 5: Missing? A couple of.
Speaker 0: Minutes. They were missing a couple.
Speaker 3: Know now.
Speaker 4: We got 12, 12 eyes in one day.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes one accountability 1292 has passed. That does conclude the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published were now ready for the block vote on proclamations, 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 out an item for a separate vote. Councilman, can you please put the proclamations and resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I move that proclamations, resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 1422 1168. 13, 12, 13. 13, 13. 1714. 19 1197. 1268 1301 1302 1305 1306 1307 1286 1289 1315 1329 1207 1269 1270 1280 1281 1283 1284 1263, 1282, 1273. All series of 2018.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Black.
Speaker 1: Hi, Brooks. Hi.
Speaker 4: SBC.
Speaker 1: Hi Flynn. Hi Gilmore. Hi Herndon. Hi Cashman.
Speaker 4: Hi can reach hi Lopez. I new Ortega.
Speaker 3: I Susman.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 As the proclamations and 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 18, Dash 1208, designating 2600 Milwaukee Street, the Henderson House, as a structure for preservation.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supervised use site pilot program contingent upon the state General Assembly passing legislation authorizing the operation of supervised use sites in the state of Colorado.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-7-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11262018_18-1208
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Kathleen Kennedy, will you please? What counsel? Bill 1208 on the floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill 18 dash 12 await be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: In the system is moonlight. And second, it has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1208 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good evening. I am Karen with Landmark Preservation, with Community Planning and Development and we are here for a designation of 2600 Milwaukee Street known as the Henderson House. The landmark ordinance, established in 1967, provides the ability to designate properties. This particular property is brought forward by Councilman Elvis Brooks as the applicant. The owner of the property, Leon Henderson, is in support of this designation. His father, John Henderson, started the designation process earlier this year and unfortunately he passed away this summer as it was going through the writing process. The property is located on the corner of 26th Avenue and Milwaukee Street, across the street from the City Park Golf Course. As you know, in order for a property to become a Denver landmark, it needs to meet the designation criterion in at least two of the following three categories. It needs to maintain its historic and physical integrity, and the LPC should consider how it relates to a historic context or theme. This particular application puts forward that the property is significant under history for having a direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation, and under two criteria for architecture embodying, embodying a distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style and being a significant work of a recognized architect. For the first under history for having a direct association with the historical development of the city of Denver, this house was designed by John Henderson. In 1959, he became the first African American architect who was licensed in Colorado. He worked as a draftsman and an architect for several prominent firms in Denver, as well as for the federal government. When he came out here in the 1950s, there had been a considerable growth of Denver in the postwar time period. But unfortunately, due to redlining, which had further entrenched segregation, there were limited options for the Henderson family. John Henderson spoke in detail with Shannon Stage, who is the author of this designation, about his difficulties in finding a location in a house to purchase because they couldn't find a place to purchase. He worked with Charlie Cousins, who was a prominent African-American businessman, to purchase this particular plot of land. As you can see noted on the screen, it was one of the final plots of land that had not been purchased and developed in 1960. So he owned this and then he designed this property and he designed the house. And in his style, there is what he felt was the his his preferred style, which is a mid-century modern house. So in addition to be being significant as the home of the first licensed African-American architect in Denver and Colorado, it is also significant for its architectural style, which is midcentury modern. It also has strong international style elements. The character defining features of this property include a recessed entrance, minimal ornament, ornamentation, the horizontal elements of the building, the very large windows that are seen on multiple facades, on the southern facade, on the northern wing and on the corners of each wing . As part of the design of a mid-century modern. It connects the inside of the house to the exterior of the building. And this property has exemplifies the architectural characteristics of a mid-century modern building. And finally, the property is also significant under architecture for being an significant example of the work of a recognized architect. As I stated before, John Henderson was the first licensed African-American architect in Colorado. He worked with multiple midcentury firms, as well as going on to work for the federal government, working as an architect for them. The 2600 Milwaukee property is the property most associated with Henderson. Although he worked on the Byron Rogers Federal Office Building on the Denver United Bank, as well as properties for the Colorado School of Mines. This is the building that is most strongly associated with John Henderson and designed in the style that he most and enjoyed. In order for a property to be a Denver landmark, not only does it need to meet their criteria, it also needs to maintain its historic and physical integrity. And so in order to retain integrity, it needs to retain the aspects of location, design, workmanship, materials, setting, feeling and association on this particular property. The Southern Wing was first was first designed and built in the early 1960s, and then after that had been paid off. The Hendersons then expanded the house to include the northern wing as well as the garage, and that was completed in 1971. So although there have been changes to the property, including the addition of the hipped roof that happened within the period of significance, and those properties have also acquired significance. And so the LPC also considered how the structure related to historic contexts or themes in Denver history. And so while the property is related to the discriminatory housing practices through redlining and the segregation of Denver's neighborhoods, it's also associated with a small but growing number of African-American architects. Shortly after John Henderson became a licensed architect, a year later, Bertram A Bruton received his license in the state. And so both men were trailblazers in Colorado. But they also had contemporaries throughout the country. And they followed the careers of other African-American architects throughout the country. After the World War Two. So the Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met the criteria under history and architecture, that it maintained its historic foot and physical integrity, and they considered how it related to historic contexts and themes. They voted seven zero to recommend it for your approval. We have received six letters of our emails of support in this particular designation. Application and staff finds that it meets the landmark designation criteria. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. A few signed up to speak on this matter. Please come to the front bench. When I call your name, please step directly up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. First up, we have Lynne Henderson.
Speaker 1: Okay, my name is Lynne Henderson. I am the son of John Henderson and my dad's wishes. Now, Martin, my father passed this past June, so his wishes were to have.
Speaker 12: This house designated before he closed his.
Speaker 1: Eyes for the last time. And he wanted this. This was written in his will. That's all I have to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Shannon Stage.
Speaker 7: Good evening, council members. My name is Shannon Stage. I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. Historic Denver is a preservation nonprofit that helps the community through outreach, advocacy and education efforts to retain Denver's unique character. Historic Denver is thrilled to be here tonight to show our support at the City Council Public Hearing for the Henderson House landmark designation. Friends of the Henderson family actually reached out to historic Denver to put us in touch with John Henderson earlier this year and hear about his wish to designate his home. We were so excited to hear about this potential designation. We actually took it on ourselves and I personally researched, interviewed Mr. Henderson and wrote the designation of the Henderson House. So if you have any questions about the actual application, you feel free to ask me. In the spring, Mr. Henderson invited us over to his home, which he designed in 1963 and a mid-century modern architectural style. I remember from our first conversation how very proud he was of his home and the design he fashioned after his architectural role model, Mies van der Rohe. The exterior and interior are great examples of the mid-century modern design, complete with large plate glass windows, open spaces on the inside that flow from one to the other, and intricate storage spaces that hideaway into the structure of the building. Mr. Henderson was a fascinating man that I had the honor of personally getting to know through writing this designation. He led an interesting life and always looked on the bright side. He overcame many obstacles not just racism, but also being blind in one eye. He was a determined man and followed his dreams to become an architect. Not only did he become an architect, but the first licensed African-American architect in the state of Colorado in 1959, which he boasted proudly when we talked to him about his life and career by designating the Henderson House at 2600 North Milwaukee as an individual landmark. It will be the first landmark in the City Park North Skyline neighborhood and one of the few individual landmarks highlighting the African-American contributions to Denver's development. The home will also be one of the few mid-century modern homes listed as a Denver landmark. Historic. Denver supports this unique landmark that tells the story of the first licensed African-American architect in Colorado who designed a mid-century modern house in his neighborhood. This home also tells the story of the development of Denver and how the Hendersons had limited options of where they could build a house in the in Denver in the sixties due to segregation. As Mr. Henderson told me in an interview, I feel like I have contributed something to Denver that should be restored and preserved. He wanted to know his home was protected from demolition before he closed his eyes for the last time. Unfortunately, Mr. Henderson did close his eyes for the last time this summer. But historic Denver has been working closely with his son Lynn to fulfill his father's wishes to see his home as the next designated Denver landmark. And it's also been wonderful to work with Councilman Alvis Brooks to help put this designation through the process as well. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 1: My name is Chairman. I represent the. So acts of movement for self-defense. Proud advocate for poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizen youth. The vulnerable, the oppressed. I'm also candidate and will be the next mayor for the City Council of Denver. City County. Denver. Sure. I know this young man. We grew up together. We went to school together, man. These times. We used to help him. It is school. And. Outstanding, Sam. And the information that you are receiving is faulty. First of all, the first black licensed architect was George GREENE, who designed the federal center and the Finance Center, graduate of Man High School, and also a graduate of the University of Denver. Yeah. George. Let's get the record straight. Not only that, but George was actively involved in the neighborhood. Well, we saw him every day in Monroe High School and on the five points. Along with other notable people like album called World and Mr. Causes, all these folks that used to get their hair cut at my father's barbershop. A vicious barbershop. 2626 Wilton Street. I never in my life. 67 years. Born and raised here. Grew up on the five points. Ever seen this man on a bike once? No, never. His home was never open to poor people. Never. Never. So let's get the record straight about who and what is going on down here, because it's no more than a petty bourgeois couple is left of lucky effort to legitimize their class interests like the previous book does about this drug mess and its corrupt chairman.
Speaker 0: Please stay on on this topic.
Speaker 1: And so I'll close with this. I just had a meeting this weekend with Kathy Donahue, who's the first woman on city council of 1975 for 20 years. And she told me about the corrupt. She said, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: It's exactly what you say. Your time is up. You don't give a damn about poor people. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Hmm.
Speaker 12: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing four black star acts of self-defense. Denver, homeless out loud and community actually commitment for change. We are actually on approval of this. This neighborhood, unfortunately, has become rapidly gentrified, as Chairman Sekou said. This isn't right. In the sense that you want to make a historical district, this house historically district and the people that built this house can't even afford to live in the neighborhood. I actually, in fact, live in this neighborhood skyline. I grew up in this neighborhood. I'm a long time resident of this neighborhood. And we can't even afford to live in this neighborhood. But yet you want to make this historic. Historic for who? We're going to let the gentrifiers know. Hey, we had architects that were black that weren't even allowed to live in this neighborhood for the longest amount of time. For us, for all those that are listening, the reason why we have a street called race is because blacks were not prior to 1970 allowed to live past race. That's why we have a race street. If just in case you were wondering. But yeah, like I said, Deborah Hermosillo last a movement. We're in favor of this is very untimely that the brother had just passed, but his son just said it was in his will. So I'm sure he is happy about that wherever he may be. So with that being said, I am an at large candidate for 2019. We need to sweep council at this. We put in the homeless. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Roybal.
Speaker 5: Dave Roy Ball 742 West Ninth Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204 Also.
Speaker 1: Candidate for District three.
Speaker 5: And I'm in favor of this. You know.
Speaker 1: It has a lot of history.
Speaker 5: And the change in has come in here and and, you know, to hope that it stays the same and makes it affordable. And I know what happened. So the golf course, I probably don't see it becoming affordable. And, you know, so I don't. Not only, you know, preserve.
Speaker 1: Historic homes, but preserve the people, preserve the story, because.
Speaker 5: Don't expect Metropolitan to keep your history alive. You know, it's people like us, community activist, family members, grandmothers, people of Denver that keep the story alive and, you know, in favor of the family's wishes, you know, to make this historic and to know and to know how racist our city has become. And it's still going on.
Speaker 1: It's just divided by classism.
Speaker 5: So we'd hoping that we hoping that that that it does a good for the neighborhood, keeps it affordable, keeps the same people around, keeps the culture alive. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Lynn, can you come up? Then just a just a couple questions for you. When was the first time that your father came forward and wanted to designate the home?
Speaker 12: This past summer.
Speaker 5: Before he because I know he passed in June. So was it last year or.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, it was. Yeah, it was pretty much last year. Okay.
Speaker 12: He knew that his days were numbered.
Speaker 5: Okay. And and when we we did do some research around your your father being the first African-American architect, do you have his license?
Speaker 1: According to the Institute of Architects, uh, a his.
Speaker 12: Number was, I believe, 176.
Speaker 1: And Bertram Bruton's number was 250.
Speaker 5: Yeah, which would make him the first. I just wanted to make sure that blasphemy was carried out. Okay. And the other issue is, I just. Tom Morris Yeah. Did you get a chance to that. Did you work with Thomas as well to.
Speaker 12: Yeah, my dad did. I asked him to to appear, but he said.
Speaker 1: He he he.
Speaker 12: He declined.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And then, Shannon, just a quick question for you. I'm sorry if I missed this. So Mr. Henderson worked with Mr. Cousins to build. What year was that?
Speaker 7: So he found the empty plot of land that you could see in Kerry's PowerPoint presentation that at 26 in Milwaukee and that empty plot of land was owned by Mr. Cousins. And then he bought the land from Cousins.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Anything else? Councilman Brooks, are you all done? I'm doing thank you very much. Seeing no other questions. Never mind, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: We want this. I don't know if you want this actual clarification, but I did look up both on Dawes website.
Speaker 0: Well, this is the questions if you want to make a comment about that, unless you have a question about the numbers.
Speaker 1: Just to address.
Speaker 5: From Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Why don't we just switch over to comments and then you can do that. Councilman Flynn, were you in comments or you have a question or a question? Go ahead, Kara.
Speaker 8: I don't know if you can answer this. I look through the staff report and if it's in there, I my eyes must have escaped it. Can you give us other examples of homes or buildings that Mr. Henderson has designed in Denver? Just wondering what the other examples of his body of work are.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So he worked a lot for the federal government, so a lot of his work was with that. But then I don't know that there were any particular homes that I had. Okay. And that may be a Shannon question, but I do know is he worked on the Byron Rogers Federal Office Building, the Denver United Bank in the Colorado School of Mines, where some of the main buildings that were called out as other properties that he had worked at the the housing at the School of Mines has actually been demolished.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Stage, can you.
Speaker 0: Add to that list? Thank you.
Speaker 7: Yes. So he actually, as Kara mentioned, he did work on a lot of institutional, bigger buildings. But in the eighties, he actually went out on his own and was more of a consultant and working with construction firms and just doing the designs of homes. He actually designed one of the homes in Cherry Hills of the Little Rock 9 Million Years House. And actually, there's a photo in the application of him opening up the drawings because he actually had Lynn pull out the drawing from the basement and show me the house that he designed for her.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: You're welcome.
Speaker 8: That's almost.
Speaker 0: Prison. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flint. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Collinsville 1208 is closed now. We're on to comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks, did you want to go first because it's yours or did you want Councilman Espinosa to provide his.
Speaker 5: He can he can come right. Right after. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. And first, for a start, I just want to acknowledge our former judge, Claudia Jordan, in the audience who lives in the area as well. What a historic night. And I think we all should be really proud. Some names, I mean, Dr. Charlie Cousins. I mean Mr. Henderson was a part of some incredible was in part of an incredible part of Denver and I got a chance to meet him in person and hear a little bit about some of the issues going on in the neighborhood as well. He's very clear about what he felt like in the neighborhood, but the history that he had was just incredible. And so I am in full support of this. I was so thankful that we were able to sponsor this. Like Councilman Lopez always says, the one regret is that we always want to give people flowers when they're alive. And that he could not you know, he passed in June. And so but we know he's looking at this and he's excited. I don't know if he's doing the cabbage patch or he's just doing whatever, but he is excited. And he was a lively individual. Very, very bright, very sharp even in his older age, and had a incredible perspective on architecture as well. And so, Councilman Espinosa, you would have been incredibly impressed at his sharp mind. And so today we give honor in the midst of so much change in the city of Denver. This is, again, proof that preservation and revitalization can coexist. And so I strongly support this. And I asked my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: So it's sort of I'm a stickler for details. So when something comes up, I scrambled to try and verify to the best that I can. And so, yes, I was able to confirm that, John. It was very close. And that is not to diminish the work of either. But John was, in fact, 19 October 7th, and his first issuance was October 7th, 1959. The other one was October 7th, 1960. So the. So that was that clarification. So now I want to go into my actual comments. I've been thinking a lot about first, especially because earlier this month there were so many firsts, including the first Native American and Muslim women heading to serve on our U.S. Congress or in the U.S. Congress here at home in Colorado. We are sending our first African-American to Congress, where we also elected the first openly gay governor in the country. We've also elected our first trans woman to the Colorado state legislature. We all know that you can't be what you can't see. So this landmark designation is important not only because the structure is architecturally significant, but because it celebrates the breaking of barriers that need to be broken. Many thanks to my colleague, Councilman Brooks, for championing this important application and an end in case it isn't clear, in the words of Councilman Brooks and the hell yes on this application . Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Guzman. Espinosa Guzman. We can.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, Mr. President. First, I'd like to say to Mr. Henderson I'm sorry for your loss, and my thoughts are with your family. I have the honor of serving as the council's representative, along with Councilman Flynn, on a committee that's looking at the landmark ordinance and the process. And one of the things that I really credit our staff with doing is to take a look at disparities that we have. And I think that for me, this is just an important moment to to talk about how, you know, institutionalized racism works. Because if you look at the landmark ordinance, there's nothing about it that's racially obvious. There's nothing about it that's culturally obvious, right? It's about architecture and history and time. But what we know is that according to the research by the staff, that we have very few historic landmarks from the African-American history of our city and probably an even bigger disparity on the Latino piece of our history, given the number of Latinos that have been a part of the city's history and the percentage of the population. Neither comes anywhere close to a representative sample. And so you have to think about why is that right? So what about laws or ordinances or standards that look neutral on their face has bias built into them structurally. And so it might be that, you know, the quality of the integrity of the workmanship, right. Who had access to certain materials that we consider worthy of material of preserving versus materials that we might not consider is worthy of preserving, who is able to work in what parts of town? Right. So there's a lot of landmark designations downtown perhaps, but maybe fewer in West Denver. What are the the standards that we have and how many of those criteria have to be met? You know, we don't have as much, perhaps media coverage or the documented history of the contributions that kind of support and application, perhaps because the stories that might have been told in a neighborhood setting might not have been told in The Denver Post. So whereas we heard stories today that came from interviews, if we didn't have, you know, the living individual to interview, I wonder if there was coverage in the Architectural Digest rate or some of the prominent places we look for history. So there's all these subtle ways that it's probably more difficult to find, document and meet the standards we have for those who may have been, you know, facing more barriers in the in their work, if they were architects or maybe their stories weren't told, if it was based on the history of the subject, who lived in the home or owned the business. So I just think it's a really important moment for us, not just to celebrate and pass this actual designation, but to think about how we find and honor more of that history. And just to warn us that using the rules that we thought looked so neutral on their surface might not be sufficient . We may have to think about, you know, as equity demands, sometimes you have to take a different or more enhanced approach to overcome the past barrier. And so, you know, we, I think, should think more about this. It may be a little bit beyond the scope of the task force that we're on, but how is it that we find more of these cases right now? For example, we put the onus of all this research on the community to do so, the question of who has the resources to do the research, and if we want to uncover and do more of this historic recognition of, you know, Latino residents or residents who from other disadvantaged backgrounds , do we as a city need to step up more? So I just want to challenge us to think about not just designating this home today, but the ways that we might need to do things differently or with a different approach in order to get to, frankly, a more equitable result. So with that, I'm really excited to to support it today and want us to keep thinking about doing more of this in future. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 6: Councilman Lopez. Thank you. I'm proud to support this as well. I think, you know, Councilman, can I just summed up a lot of what I was going to say. There are architects that go back a thousand years. I'm in this and in this part of the world and never get any credit. I think it's important that as we identify. Opportunities like this to bring them into these chambers and to make it so. Right. Technology to honor that. So I'm I'm definitely a yes. It's one thing to be the first in anything. It's quite an honor to do that. And over the years I've seen a lot of firsts, people being the first. And now. I just can't help but think it's not about just being the first. It's about not being the last. And that to me has been everything that I've worked for and everything that I see now. It's an honor to be the first. We just cannot be the last. And that's what we have to focus on. And the more that we, you know, designate either a structure or a street name in this city or something that reflects who we are. And then I want to say that diversity, but the true culture of who we are in Colorado and everybody that has made it such a great state and city that we can be the last. Right. So these chambers are exactly the vehicle for it. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. Congratulations to many more African-American people of color, Chicano architects.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. See no other comments. I'll just add a thank you to everybody who made this possible and brought it forward. And thank you, Councilman Brooks. I am excited to support this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 1: Brooks. Now.
Speaker 7: So I went out of Gilmore.
Speaker 1: I turned in Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman. How can each Lopez? I knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please. Because voting in those results. 1212 hours council bill 1208 has passed and seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 2600 Milwaukee Street, the Henderson House, as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 2600 Milwaukee Street in Council District 9. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 11-26-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1383
|
Speaker 0: However, since no written protests of assessment were filed with the manager of public works by November nine, 2018, Council will not sit as the Board of Equalization for the proposed Skyline Park Local Maintenance District. Next up, we have proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Black, will you please read Proclamation 1383?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 18 1383, recognizing the 30th anniversary year of the Metropolitan Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities District. Whereas, arts, culture and science play a unique role in the lives of our families, our communities, our state in our country, and enrich our lives by embodying the accumulated wisdom, intellect, knowledge and imagination of humankind . And. Whereas, in 1988, voters in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties voted to create the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, a special district collecting a 1/10 of 1% sales and use tax for distribution to arts, culture and science organization. And. Whereas, CFT was reauthorized in 1994, 24 and 2016 by the voters across seven counties, including Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, securing a place for art, biology, music, zoology, dance, history, nature and botany in the fabric of our lives, ensuring nothing less than culture for all. And. Whereas, in the 30 years of CFD existence, the landscape of arts, culture and science in the metropolitan region has expanded greatly, with nearly 300 organizations spend IT funding from distributed distributed funds in 2017. And. WHEREAS, organizations benefiting from funds from CFD create an unparalleled level of access for Colorado residents, offering thousands of free and discounted activities each year. And. Whereas, nonprofit arts, culture and science organizations drive the Colorado economy by generating $1.9 billion in total economic activity and supporting 11,820 jobs in 2017. And. Whereas, CFD continues to thrive as a national model for cultural funding now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver's Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver State of Colorado does hereby proclaim 2018 as the 30th anniversary of CFD. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the scientific and cultural facilities. District Executive Director Deborah Jordi.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Black. Your motion to.
Speaker 5: Adopt.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation 18 dash 1383 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council. Councilman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm honored to serve on the board of CFD. The 30th anniversary is quite a milestone. It collects close to $60 million a year for the metro region, for our arts, culture and science. Thousands of organizations have benefited, benefited in those 30 years. With that tax, we're able to have a world class arts and culture scene that you wouldn't have in other cities of our size. So it's been a great, great benefit to the city and county of Denver and all of the other counties surrounding us. Additionally, it was mentioned in the proclamation there are hundreds of free events and free days for all of the cultural organizations. And it's not just our big organizations, the art museum and the museum, nature and science and the performing arts complex. But it's also small arts organizations across all of those counties. So it's just an incredible benefit that we have living here in the metro region. And I think the voters of 1988 who voted for it and everyone who has reauthorized it since then.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilwoman Black, thank you for bringing this forward. This is. An incredible asset to our community. And I know cities across the country have tried to figure out how Denver and the metro area was able to accomplish this. You travel to other cities that may have a little bit arts and culture. I know Austin claims they have the biggest music scene, but our music scene is way bigger than Austin's. We just don't quite promote ourselves the way they do. Right. But, you know, it's not just music. It's our performing arts. It's our crafters. We have such a robust creative sector in this city and this metro area that we really have something to be proud of. And there are lots of people who work full time in this industry, but there are many who work part time and do other jobs. And if we could continue to grow this industry, then we could have more people that would be able to do this full time as opposed to part time. But, you know, almost any night of the week, you can go and listen to live music at any number of venues. We have many street festivals where we have music and crafters. So I'm I'm really excited. And for those of you who are not aware, the National Restaurant Stock Show is looking at doing a public market that sort of takes a lot of the work that's already happening to that next level where we have a year round go to place, where we could have a lot of these different kinds of things happening on a regular basis. So great work for everybody who has been part of this. I know this was under mayor pinions days. I remember Susan Barton scout worked for him when this was brought forward. But it was a metro wide effort and continues to be. And it's not just venues in Denver that get to benefit from this. There are venues across the metro area. And so we're we're really a very blessed community to have these incredible assets, not just the physical structures, but the people who make all of this happen. So congratulations for 30 years of some incredible stuff happening in our metro area.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. So, you know their comments. I'll just add a second to everything that was said. We are very lucky to have CFD and to have voters who are forward thinking enough to see what that could be. Awesome organization. And thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward. Madam Secretary, Raquel.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks Espinosa, i Flynn I.
Speaker 6: Gilmore, i.
Speaker 5: Herndon, i.
Speaker 4: Cashman can each i.
Speaker 5: Lopez Hi.
Speaker 2: Ortega. Hi, Susman.
Speaker 4: Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am. I'm secretary. Please close voting announced the results. 12 hours 12 hours proclamation 1383 has been adopted. Councilman Black, is there someone you'd like to bring up to accept?
Speaker 2: Yes, we have two people from CFD here today, Deborah, today, who is our executive director, along with our board chair, Rob Johnson. Rob, please come give Deborah some support. It's an incredible board and an incredible organization. And thank you both for working so hard.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Black, President, members of council. We are truly happy to be here and really appreciate your ongoing support. You know, I remember the days when Susan Vargo, Gail was on council. It really working hard through to every council since. But what's unique is not only the the depth and breadth of what the organizations do, but the reach of collaboration. We have so much collaboration between Denver organizations in Boulder and Douglas County that come together just like we see in other parts of our community and the business sector and others. It's amazing to think that in 1989, the first year of distribution, there were 124 organizations. Today there are almost 300. At that time, the first year of distributing the funds, it was $14 million. And as Councilman Black said, we're on the road to $60 million. The National Endowment for the Arts total budget for the country is around 150 million for the entire country. Our distribution is in the seven county the size of Delaware and Rhode Island put together. So it's pretty remarkable. Remarkable. It's also what the organizations do to create wonder and joy for the children. When you think last year that 4.3 million children attended cultural performances or run outs at their school. So thank you for having us and supporting us. CFT.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Was our only proclamation before we move on. Unfortunately, due to fire code and the signs on the back. We can't have anybody standing in that back aisle. That is the ingress egress. So I would ask if everybody can get real cozy and make room so that we can fit everybody in.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the 30th Anniversary year of the Metropolitan Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities District.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1292
|
Speaker 0: No, no, it's three names. Council Resolution 1300 has been abducted. All right. That brings us to 1292. Madam Secretary, if you could put that up on our screens. And Councilman Cashman, will you please? What? Counsel Bill 1292 on the floor.
Speaker 5: Yes, I moved the council bill 18, Dash 1290 to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Flynn. You called this one up?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I did. In the three years that I've been sitting up here and indeed looking back on the probably 30 years I used to sit over there, I can't recall an issue on which I have struggled. As much as I struggled trying to come to terms with this one, because this is literally life and death. And I recognize that and I respect that. There are just so many moving parts. To the issue of supervised use facilities. And I haven't been able to settle yet on whether I believe I truly believe that this approach will be effective. Or the best way to proceed, as opposed to some other methods I've seen elsewhere. And as I did more research, I came to believe that it would be really good for this city to provide. To its citizens, not just to its first responders, but to family members and to citizens and to volunteers. Naloxone kits or Narcan kits. And to have them volunteer or even in their own family, to go out into the community where we are finding. Overdose deaths. I had one right around the corner from my office in the Bear Valley Shopping Center. A woman in it was found in a car after three weeks in an abandoned car. So this is this hits real close to home to me. I've also had a heroin bust of a dealer right outside my office in Bear Valley. This hits real close to me as well. And while I was considering whether this other approach might be more effective as I'm watching television last night after the news, 60 Minutes came on and detailed the this very program in Salt Lake City , this program of distributing naloxone kits to the general population and the effect it's having on saving lives there, as opposed to establishing a single site here where the government will then sponsor you in in safely injecting your opioids or your meth or whatever substance. And so I'm still so unsettled, not just on the matters of law, the state law, which still doesn't allow that may change in the next session. And I understand that this bill is contingent on that passing, but also the issue of federal federal law and whether this runs afoul of federal law. We know that the Justice Department believes that it does. And so, Mr. President, at this point, I know that there are votes here to pass this, but I intend to be probably the sole no vote on this, because I'm not convinced that this is the best approach for this city. The deciding factor for me was a recent article in Vancouver where they've run a site like this for 15 years, and in the year 2017, Vancouver set a record for overdose deaths after 15 years of having such a facility. The problem in Vancouver was I think it was 48% more deaths in 2017 than in 2016. And this is after 15 years of this approach. So I'm not persuaded that a government sanctioned injection facility is a better approach than having a community full of volunteers who go where the problem is, who go to the Cherry Creek bike path or the central library. In the Central Library, they've had.
Speaker 5: 21.
Speaker 7: Overdoses reversed by the security teams down there since about the last year and a half. And I think that would be a much better approach than to set up a facility like this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I am in support of this bill, and I just think that it's really important for us to take a real realized reality. People are going to be doing this and people are going to be doing this on our streets. If we pretend that it's not happening, it's not going to go away. And we we are known.
Speaker 6: In Denver for doing some very bold.
Speaker 2: Things. And even though it I don't really want to compare them, we win against federal government for marijuana. Again, sort of looking at reality. What is the reality here? And I think with the safe injections, we can at least prevent some deaths. I actually want to sort of like Councilman Flynn was talking about. I'd like to also think about the deaths that that we might prevent that aren't about public injection, but the deaths of people inside their homes, the sort of the invisible addicts, the ones that are taking the pills. And certainly the 60 Minutes article last night talked a great deal about that. Here I am already. We haven't passed this one and I'm piling on. What can we what can we do next to to understand the reality of the situation? We have to be grown up about this and what can we do? And I feel like this is a really important step. If it doesn't work, I suppose we'll learn how to make it work. And we wouldn't never learn how to make it work if we didn't try this this particular path to helping folks who are struggling with this disease. This is a disease. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, everybody, that's here. And thank you for being a part of this journey and teaching this entire city what's going on in the dark. Councilman Flynn mentioned some issues. This is a hard decision for him. If this is an easy decision for you and you are supportive of this, please stand up. Thank you. All of these individuals here are in our community and they have personally witnessed the hard stuff that we've been thinking about for the last. Well, that I've been thinking of for the last year and a half, but that we've been contemplating for the last four weeks. And this is a public health crisis that we're in and we're bringing it to the light. And I am supportive of this. I do feel like we've waited long enough and it's time that we address this issue. Councilman Flynn, let me just address two things that you said that are a little bit inaccurate. One, the government is not sponsoring this. This actually is going to be privately run. A nonprofit will run this. That's in the bill. Number two, Vancouver is one, but 60 cities internationally that have data in context. And so to just look at that and not look at the other cities like a Barcelona, which I've mentioned this many times, the day one that they've opened up a supervised use site. Dramatically. They saw a drop in deaths and they're continuing to see a drop in deaths. And so it's important that you look at the data per the context that you're in. Last thing I'll say is we have no good American data. That's why we're asking for this pilot. And here tonight, we do have a state senator who will help us take this to the next level. And I'd love. Mr.. Mr. President, if you indulge me for about 3 minutes, to have State Senator elect Brittany Patterson come and just share a little bit, because I believe she's for the title for this bill at the state. And I think we need to hear about that at the city. Is that okay, Mr. President?
Speaker 0: Yup. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Hello, everybody. It's great to be here. I've never actually testified, so I apologize if I didn't go. Don't actually do the right rules and I call you by the right title. I am currently state representative. I was just elected to enter the state senate. I have pulled a bill and I just wanted to come here to thank you for taking this initiative because Denver, actually showing that they want to move forward with a pilot program is going to be an essential step in us actually taking action at the state level. I feel very confident with the change in leadership that will actually get a fair hearing this time and that this will be a bipartisan bill. I know that this is an uncomfortable issue to talk about. It is something that we don't want to recognize is happening. But I can tell you that whether or not we pass this pilot program and whether or not we pass this at the state level, people are going to continue to use and inject drugs and they are going to continue to die. In fact, we saw the highest overdose rates last year in the highest death toll that we've had here in Colorado. And we expect it to continue to rise here and nationally. We've been told by experts that it's going to get worse before it gets better. And to Councilman Flynn, what happened in Vancouver is actually because it wasn't because of the safe you cite, it was because right now they're actually having a surge of fentanyl. And so we've met with with professionals. I had the opportunity to visit Vancouver and the the police officers that we were in contact with said that heroin doesn't even exist there anymore because they get such a a greater high from fentanyl. So that's actually where the skyrocket of deaths is happening. So what we have the opportunity to do right now is to make history in making sure that we are treating people with an addiction, with the care that they need, that we're bringing them out of the shadows for people that are injecting drugs. This has been a long journey. You don't just start using heroin. I know my mom was overprescribed. Opioids, like so many people here in Colorado and across the United States, she was a soccer mom. We were in the middle class. She is an amazing person. This is this affects everybody. I mean, I'm telling her story because the greatest barrier that I have found to actually getting people the help that they need is the stigma that exists. And when we talk about even this site, it is it is uncomfortable for people to talk about. So I want to tell you about my mom. She was overprescribed opioids. Like so many people, she had a back problem. We've seen a system that has incentivized overprescribing. That's why right now we are facing a public health crisis. We are facing the greatest public health crisis of our time. And you happened to be elected during this time. And it is incumbent upon all of us to act. And this is one measure in ensuring that we're actually keeping people alive that have gone down the path. 80% of people who use and inject drugs started off with prescription opioids like my mom. So when you think about that journey that has led them to the point where they became wildly addicted, like my mom, so many people are getting cut off of their prescription without access to treatment because right now we're trying to ramp up actually getting them the help that they need. But we need to make sure that we're keeping them alive today. I when you are injecting drug injecting drugs, it's very isolating. So a lot of these people, the point of having a pilot program to have these super supervised sites is actually bring them out of the shadows in front of health professionals that are not only going to ensure that when they're using drugs, they're not overdosing, but also building those relationships, having a room where they can sit, get they're making sure that we are testing them for hepatitis C, for HIV, making sure that when they're ready to get help, that we actually give them the prescription that they need for medication assisted treatment. And then ultimately, when they're ready to move towards our. Recovery, that they have those relationships intact and that we're actually building capacity there to get them the treatment that they need. So my mom has been addicted to drugs for 30 years. She was cut off when her doctor recognized she had a problem. And she, like so many people, was just trying to stay well. It wasn't about getting high. It was about making sure that she was not going through withdrawal. People who are addicted say that withdrawal is they fear withdrawal more than death. So when you think about the physical pain that that must be that you fear going through that more than death. So they will do anything to stay well. And that's why so so many people have moved to injecting drugs, to buying cheap heroin on the street. And we've seen an increase in fentanyl here as well. So you have an incredible opportunity to move forward to show Colorado that we are not going to increase the amount of crime in this area. In fact, it's been proven to do the opposite, that we are going to save lives and that we are going to actually get people to help that they need. This is going to really change. Be an example for Colorado. And I just want to thank thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you for taking this up. This is this is critical for the United States and for Colorado.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, was that all you.
Speaker 3: Had a follow up at the end? Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with Councilman Flynn on a couple of areas. I'd like to see Naloxone much more readily available in the community. I think that makes great sense. And I also agree that I don't know that this is the right solution for Denver. What I do know is that we have no drug treatment beds available in the Denver area. I know that we don't have a functioning mental health system in the Denver area outside our jail system. We have like 98 or 90 beds at Denver Health for both mental health and drug treatment. For a city of 700,000 and a metro area, somewhere around 3 million are allowing people to die in restaurant bathrooms and in our parks and on the street has not slowed the the opioid epidemic. And as Mr. Patterson said, you know, the landscape changes continually. Now it's fentanyl. Who knows what else is going to be appearing for me? And I totally understand the difficulty that many people are have having wrapping their minds around providing a facility for people to inject. Illegal drugs. I get that it's difficult for me to wrap my mind around it, but we need to try something to stem the tide. As as my friend Lisa Revell says all the time, we can't get someone into treatment when they're dead. You know. While while the country is getting off its lazy behind to take care of the mentally ill and to take care of people suffering from the disease of addiction, we owe it to to our community to do something to keep keep things going until we can give them the care that they need. So I'll be voting to move this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I watched I watched the 60 minute piece and what was happening there were an 80 $80 drug was being put to market at $4,000 is appalling. And I hope that companies commitment to bringing that drug price back down is fall through. And I hope that people maybe all of you will write in Visio and make sure that that drug, which there's their mechanism for delivery, is far simpler than anything else on the market and could be readily administered by people, the layperson. There's no reason why in America that isn't the standard protocol for how we deliver this drug. That said, the life saving ability of naloxone is proven. And I can tell you, if one life is saved in the supervised use facility, the facility is paid for. And so that as tangible as that is, the only reason I mean, that isn't the only reason I supported supervised use facilities. From the moment Councilman Brooks approached me on this and I've never wavered on that is because it's not just the life saved in the facility. When you're present and able to address that, it's the other aspects that are tangible from this side of the dais in delivering services to this community is you will get fewer overdose deaths because those lives are saved, you will get fewer ambulance calls for overdoses. When I went on my one ride along with with the FDA and I'm sort of maybe violating hip rules, we went on one of those calls. I've never experienced that. And it was it was eye opening. And and that's midday on a on a on a Friday. That's not the hot spot for when those things are. But it happens on a routine basis in this city. The decrease in transmitted diseases that are transmitted by by dirty needles and things like that, all of those have major consequences to our our ability as a city to deliver services to populations that need them. And so this is actually the step in the right direction. And and so thank you, Councilman Brooks. Thank you all for supporting council in in doing what is is is a bit a bit too progressive for some, but it's the right thing for this city. And and I'm happy to be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I am a yes vote. This is this is very easy to me when the question was asked me about it. And this was absolute. Yes. And for a couple of reasons. And one is in this country, we are absolutely backwards. We are backwards when it comes to drug treatment. We are backwards when it comes to medicine. We are backwards when it comes to health care. We are an industrialized nation and we are an incredibly powerful nation and a wealthy nation. Yet we do not. You have more access to illicit and pharmaceutical drugs than you do to medicine to treat it. And when it comes to when it comes to treating it, we create all these barriers. We don't we don't believe it's a function of government to treat it. We don't believe I mean, we believe it's a it's a privilege and not a right. Collectively, there is something wrong with that. And so we are in we of course, we're going to be afraid of it. Of course we're going to be fearful and nervous about it if we haven't been exposed to how to actually treated. And in order to do that, you have to leave stateside and go across the world to see how they're treating it. And we have to learn from other countries. We have to learn from other, you know, other governments that are doing this right. I do believe this is absolutely worth it. I don't want to see somebody overdose pass away anywhere in a park or in a bathroom, anywhere or even in a facility. And this you know, this is an opportunity to go in that right direction. It's more than just a test. We know that this is proven. And when when we put our our resources and we behind it, and we do believe it is our function. Right. And so finally, I think I would imagine that. If you are in one of these sites, you have access to not just sterile, sterile needles and people there who are supervising you and know what to do just in case, but also because you have someone to talk to. And that person, that interaction could be that interaction that gets them on that right path. So you know what? Maybe I shouldn't do this. You think I should do this? It's up to you. It's a survival rate. I mean, you have those conversations. Think about those conversations. And how those in and of themselves are life saving. And that's what we want. Access to care. Access. That is so easy. Yes. On this one. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I wasn't going to say anything tonight because this is just first reading and it will be back up next week. But since everybody is talking, I thought I should put in my $0.02 worth. I agree with all of the things that have been said for the reasons why we should have this and it is a crisis and there are no solutions. And so for those reasons, I am in favor of it. However, I do agree with Councilman Flynn's concerns. So there are two things that are really important to me. One is that there is treatment available and that it will connect people to treatment. And I said that in committee, someone Cashman said it tonight, we don't have enough treatment, so we've got to work on that. The other thing is the fact that it's a pilot and we need data and we need real data. And I think it will be hard to collect because it's a changing landscape if there's more fentanyl coming in. I don't know how you collect that data, but we need to have real data so that we can look back and see how successful it was or it wasn't. So without those two features, I would not be supporting it. But as of now I am in support of it. And thank you for your work, Councilman Brooks, and everyone, for being here tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I, too, want to thank Councilman Brooks for his not just sponsorship, but leadership on this issue and to the community. That also is leading example of code governing, where you work together to challenge and take on a challenge. I guess for me, I just was thinking about the comments about this being a disease and I think about what if it was kidney disease and people were trying to treat themselves with their own dialysis and they were dying in the alley because they'd done it wrong? Or what if it was cancer and they were, you know, self administering in no other disease model do we leave folks to fend for themselves. And so the difference between this and the other diseases is the stigma, right? That's the stigma and the misunderstanding that the point at which addiction occurs, it becomes medical. It's it's a physical dependency. It's not a weak moral character. And in this particular set it well in some of the drugs, not all the introduction drugs, but in the case of heroin, what we know is that people actually need medicine in many cases because they can die from quitting or they can die from the process of trying to wean themselves off in their tolerance changing. And so I agree, we need more treatment. We also need, you know, medically assisted treatment in the form of replacement methadone or the other the other types of replacements that are available to make this a safer transition, because in this case, the transition off can be can be dangerous as well. So thank you to my colleague for pointing out the medical nature of this situation. And I think the second thing that resonates with me is Councilman Espinoza's point about one life. And so I think that there's, you know, several ways to think about data. And I think that a simple comparison of whether or not deaths are dropping or not is not an accurate scientific model. The way that you have to do this is you have to ask the question of bending the curve so it's not did fewer or more people die since supervised injection, but did fewer people die than would have died without it? And so you will know that from from the the potential reversals or from the community that's being served compared to a control group, for example, that's not being served. So there's a couple of different ways that I believe good, good professors and good researchers could could structure this, but it will never be a more or less situation because, again, it's one site. We can't put the expectation of eliminating addiction in a community on one site. So we have to have realistic evaluation methods. And so if we have those, I think we'll have a really informed discussion. So so with that, I feel like this is the right next step. I appreciate having our state leaders here and I imagine this will be an ongoing dialog with them. The one other thing I will say is the federal government, the appointees who serve in the federal government are not always right in the law. That has been proven numerous times, including cases that this very city has been engaged in regarding their interpretations of federal law where cities have prevailed. So while it's important for us to consider the federal legal landscape, it is not beyond this administration to overread or under read the law. And they have been corrected on numerous occasions. And so I think that it's important for us to do what is right to legally research and evaluate it and then to be bold enough to understand that we won't be threatened by our beds. Beds are not legal opinions from judges. They are the opinions of one individual in a newspaper. And so it's important that we be strong, thoughtful and not shy away from a good, important debate, even if it involves some legal questions down the road. So with that, I will strongly be supporting this tonight, and I wish our community luck with the process of considering this. Should we have the legislation we need at the state to move forward? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, will be. This tonight is, as you all heard, once the state takes action. Then our Board of Environmental Health will engage in this process to figure out, you know, are we looking at one or are we looking at more than one? What are the criteria? All of that stuff that would need to be put into place. And I know that will be a public that will include a very public process. So I'm very comfortable with with that sort of next step phase of where it goes. The one thing I do want to mention, having received a letter from an adjacent property owner to the existing site, there have been concerns expressed about some of the issues around the current site that are related to just safety is one of the things that is being expressed. They have an apartment building that has the highest vacancy rate because of its close proximity to this site. Now, he does mention that there is a homeless shelter close by as well and is indicating that it's just I don't know if it's the individuals that are hanging out outside of the facility and in this alley that they're concerned about. But how we do the operations at any location that is selected is going to be really important to being a good neighbor to the adjacent community, because with any of our operations, whether it's a liquor store or a marijuana facility, these are issues our neighborhoods scream at all of us about and want to make sure that we're helping ensure that we have a safe community for everybody. So we want it safe for the people who are utilizing the facility, for sure. But we also want to make sure it's a safe facility for the adjacent community, and that will all be part of that environmental health process when after the state legislature takes action and we are able to then move forward with the first ever safe injection site in the city of Denver. So I will be supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Clark. You know, the stigma that's associated with addiction treatment and recovery is really is very real. And by us taking a first step to start normalizing the conversation, I think is very important. And we need to make sure that we're protecting the safety of those who are struggling with addiction, their families, and also residents and business owners. And so my ask is, if this does pass tonight, that we have a plan in place to have a robust community engagement, education and dialog with our constituents and with the Denver community. So we make sure that any rulemaking that is undertaken by the Board of Public Health and Environment is informed by the community as well. And so that's my main ask, but also thank you to Councilman Brooks for including in the bill, language distribution of fentanyl testing strips as well. The only other piece that is a little concerning to me, but but I think we can get beyond it is that there won't be any report back or evaluation until after the 24 months that period. And I would ask that if the state legislature does act and pass into law some version that would allow this that we come back because we probably will then need to have bend amend this bill language that we include something that would update it that would have at least an annual report back to City Council Committee just so that we can continue the conversation so that it's not a one and done, but that where are we going and where are those additional treatment options that we're going to need in the city to address this? And I know that this is. It's a difficult barrier, honestly, for some community residents to get beyond. But when I look out at all of you and I look at my community, we're talking about sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, grandparents. We're we're talking about our Denver community. And so right now, we need to make that our first priority, their safety and reducing the harm that they're doing. And so with that, I will be supportive of this, wanting to make sure that we have a robust community engagement and education going forward. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Brooks, you want to.
Speaker 3: Say, you know what, Mr. President, I just wanted to just wrap up. I want to thank everybody for their comments. And clearly, you know, their engagement. I think a lot of the council members have been emailing me, emailing Lisa Revelle, emailing the administer the administration, Kirsten, who's helped us draft this. And I just really appreciate that you guys have gotten in there and you've educated yourself on this issue. Let me just bring up one more point that no one really talked about. And we 100% agree with the opioid plan that the mayor proposed. It talks about prevention, treatment and harm reduction. This is a clear piece that needs to be a part of it, of harm reduction. There are many people who don't understand the full scope of what we're talking about, so they would just focus on this small portion of a pilot. We believe in the entire scope of what we need to do in the city of Denver prevention, treatment and harm reduction. There are tremendous problems in treatment. There are tremendous barriers that we need to remove. But if when we're talking about this, please talk about it in the totality of the vision of what we're trying to accomplish in our city. The other thing, and I know Lisa Ravel from Harm Reduction will love that I'm mentioning this, that their organization received a Good Neighbor Award from the chair neighborhood. So I know that Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. You heard that. But, John, neighborhood does not give those things out lightly. And so these folks with Lisa's group have been in the community connecting with neighbors, picking up needles, really a great neighborhood partner. And so I just want to give you that little shout out with that. Mr. President, this is the first reading. We're going to come back next week for the second reading. But it sounds like we have a good super majority of our council folks support. And I'll also say I have added all of your suggestions into the bill, added the mayors suggestions into the Bears. So we will be receiving his support and signing this bill. And so if there are other conversations that you guys need to have, please let me know this week. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, thank you for taking the lead on this. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 7: Flynn now.
Speaker 2: Black guy.
Speaker 4: CLARKE I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: BROOKS Hell, yeah.
Speaker 4: Aspirin. Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I Herndon.
Speaker 2: I Cashman.
Speaker 4: I can h.
Speaker 5: Lopez All right.
Speaker 6: Ortega Hi.
Speaker 4: Assessment. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: Of a nice one day.
Speaker 0: 11 I as one nay council 1292 has passed. Just to clarify, has been ordered published next week will be passage. I do have a big favor to ask. There are a lot of you in here. If you all stand up right now and go for the exit and start talking to each other, we're not going be able to get to recess. We have about 2 minutes worth of possibly very boring things to do, but just 2 minutes if possible. If you could just hang tight and then at recess I'll get up and go. If you absolutely have to go, please hold your conversations. Even when you're in the hall, we can hear you and we just need to get through a few more things before we can get to recess so that we can get set up for the public hearings and the folks who are here for that today.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supervised use site pilot program contingent upon the state General Assembly passing legislation authorizing the operation of supervised use sites in the state of Colorado.
The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-7-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1242
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech structure comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council is not convened as the Board of Directors of the Rhino General Improvement District District. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Resolution 1242 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 18 dash 1240 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: The motion and a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Resolution 1242 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Oh, good evening, board members. I am Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Programing Division. I am before you tonight to give a staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2019 Annual workPlan and Budget and a 2018 Budget Amendment. The district is located in Northwest and is located northwest of downtown, includes residentially and commercially assessed properties around the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally, the Ideas Center is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 in the north to 29th Street on the south and bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad and west by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line . The G80 supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Reno area, including streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City approved formation of the Reno Denver by ordinance number 309 Series 2015 and established the City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors for the District. The ordinance also created the District Advisory Board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specify that the that the Advisory Board should subject to the approval of the Board of Directors conduct and manage all affairs of the District as authorized agent for the Board of Directors. The Reno 2018 Budget Amendment reflects total expenditures and funds fund transfers of 364,631. Budget Amendment is due to savings due to Denver, due to lower debt repayments, lower reserve transfers and lower capital improvements. The District Advisory Board has created the 2019 budget before you tonight. The Budget proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $1,001,811 and overall revenues of $849,070. Of these revenues, the district will generate approximately 648,700 through the levy of four mills on real property for general operating purposes. And it will generate approximately $175,000 from the imposition of capital charge assessed on a lineal foot basis on properties adjacent to the Brighton Boulevard for the repayment of debt and for the repayment of debt used to fund the capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. Ali Sharpe with Centro Ink is here is also here tonight and available to answer questions. You may have city staff has reviewed the 2019 budget work plan and recommended work paint and budget and recommends it for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if we could make room in this front bench for our speakers, that would be fantastic. If you are one of the three people who signed up, please come up to the front bench because I will call your name and then your time will start. So that ensures that you get all of your time stepping right up to the microphone. First up, Ali Sharpe.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Ali Sharp. I'm here representing the Rhino Denver Guide. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have on the work plan and budget.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 9: Good evening. Members of Council. Mr. President, my name is Jesse Paris. I'm here representing for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense and Community Community Action, Commitment for Change. And I am also an at large candidate for 2019 City Council member. I am against this proposal today. Rhino is. A cancer to this community, to the city. It should not be in existence. It's not even a neighborhood bias. Natives. We do not even recognize it as such. But this is to go through with the promenade that is planned to be downtown in 2020 or and what they're calling our Toronto district. This is in response to that. Yeah, I'm definitely against this. You keep you're going to continue to sweep the people all in this district. This is not affordable by any means. Who is this really going to benefit? And yeah, it's just another another tourist attraction, which you have no care or regard for the natives that have been here for 20 plus years, when this was known as the East Side, an abandoned warehouse during the crack epidemic, when there was no safe crack houses. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 10: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou Found organized the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense candidate for mayor in 2019. Representing poor, working poor homeless people. This. Resolution. It's already going to be approved by all your alter teeth because it satisfies all the conditions that were set up in order for to get this thing approved. Now, a lot of people think I'm Jimmy the Greek, but I haven't been down in 15 years operating and watching this process go down. So I know this is already a dog and pony show. The decision has already been made so we can start playing the game. That's number one. Number two, there is no transparency on this because what you have been doing consistently over the 8 to 10 years I've been down here is to proven an apartheid system of white supremacy right here in this town. Right here in this town. Look in the audience. And what do you see? What do you see? White people with only fires and buttermilk up here consistently for the last 15 years. And yet we've been saying the same thing over and over and over again. You still don't listen. You don't listen. And so you want to do what you do. But I'll guarantee I'll guarantee you, as the mayor of the city to Denver, all of this comes to a halt, all of it. And then for those who have the courage, you have to worry about it. You know how to hide. You're not to vote for things that you don't approve. You cannot stand on your dime and represent this city the way you did from a position of consciousness. If this ain't white supremacy, I don't know what it is. And it's been that way from day one, and you know that. So what do we do with this? What do we do with this? With all the people that are listening and looking at this mess, do the research. Do the research, do the research on the Rhino district and what a compromise. It has no diversity whatsoever inside the organization and never has been, never will and has been the model of success for every R.A. in this town that is opposed to the participation of diversity in this town, where it is totally exclusive for white people only. So I'm going to close this. Will. Because my family told me not to come down here that night. Yeah. Who's down to pass the too serious about this, miss. You know what? I can't quit. I'm addicted to this to be body got one of them overdose things we need an overdose serum but folks to come down here. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry about your time. Your time is up. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I just wanted to ask Michael a question, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. Just to add clarification for the listening audience, does the city have any funding that they put aside for this, or is this primarily assessment against all the property owners who are contributing towards the the cost of the maintenance of the district? Can you talk about that?
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's so the budget is funded exclusively from the property owner assessments and the additional property taxes on the property owners within the district.
Speaker 6: And what was the total amount of the budget for this year?
Speaker 8: Let's see. Did you do 801 $1,001,811? That's the total expenditures and fund transfers.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council 1242 is closed. Are there any comments by members of Council? Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flint.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a point of order. On the screen, it shows that's item 1242. But I believe on the agenda it says 1241. I just wanted to ask if that discrepancy is something that is meaningful and does it need to be corrected?
Speaker 0: You, as usual, are correct.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: 1241 I see. 1241 on the agenda. Madam Secretary, are we? 1241 or 12 4242?
Speaker 5: 1242 1242. Okay. All right.
Speaker 0: So we're all good with 1242, so our emotions.
Speaker 5: Are.
Speaker 0: Good to go. Councilman Flynn, you. You satisfied?
Speaker 7: I don't know if I am. I guess I'll find out tomorrow morning if. If the lawyers come back to us and say you didn't pass it.
Speaker 5: Well, we've got lawyers right here, so we're still.
Speaker 6: Trying to talk.
Speaker 2: Well, excuse me. I did not hear the question.
Speaker 0: There's some debate about this showing up as 1241 on some documents, and we have it pulled up as 1242 in our system. Just double checking that we have the rate bill number on the floor for this hearing.
Speaker 2: Okay. I will look at that while you are moving through the agenda.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. It's.
Speaker 2: The agenda that central staff is looking at has it listed as 1242.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 7: And we have 1241. Interesting.
Speaker 5: Okay. 42. All right.
Speaker 0: Well, well, well. You're taking a deeper dove. Councilman Espinosa, did you have something not related to the number of the bill? Right.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 5: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Just. Maybe I'm not reading the budget summary. So can you walk me through it a little bit on how that number that you just quoted in, I mean, you cited is in response to previous question is represented on here.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you. Comment.
Speaker 8: And I'm not I'm not certain what you were referring to on here.
Speaker 3: You said it was 1.8 1,001,811. Okay, that's different. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Are we all good, Councilman, for this?
Speaker 7: Thank you. I was looking at the bid and not the JID.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Black. All right. BROOKS Hi.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, i herndon. I Cashman. I can h.
Speaker 6: Lopez. Ortega. I Susman.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Secretary. Please close voting and notes.
Speaker 4: Results 12 US.
Speaker 0: Provides Resolution 1242 has passed. Council is now convened as the board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Resolution 1 to 4 or 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 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 2019 Fiscal Year and approving an Amended Work Plan, adopting an Amended Budget, and making appropriations for the 2018 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2019 Operating Plan and Budget of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1245
|
Speaker 0: Provides Resolution 1242 has passed. Council is now convened as the board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Resolution 1 to 4 or five on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 18 dash one, two, four, five, be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for resolution one, two, four or five is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Good evening, board members. I'm Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I am before you tonight to give the staff report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2019 Annual Work Plan and Budget and a 2018 Budget Amendment. The district is located in the northeastern section of the city, northwest of I-70 and Chambers intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border of Montebello. It is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities include maintaining the landscaping of parks within the district. City Council approved the formation of the Gateway Village General Improvement District by ordinance and number 551 through 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 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 Board of Directors annually. The Gateway Village 2018 Budget Amendment reflects total expenditures and fund transfers of $1,000,036.30 $6,913. This change reflects the reduction reflects the reduction in expenditures from the 2019 budget due to delay in the Joey's planned landscape improvement project. The funds allocated for the landscape project in 2018 rolled into the 2019 budget. The Gateway Village 2019 budget proposes overall expenditures of $1,491,803, with total revenues of $619,914. The district will also transfer $500,000 into its Capital Project Fund. The district will assess 20 mils of property on real property within the district. During 2019, the district plans to undertake a major landscape and major landscaping fence improvement project. Landscape improvements are anticipated to include tree lines, entry monuments and improvements to the retention ponds and drainage channels. The district expects to spend approximately 1.37 million on these improvements. City staff has reviewed the 2019 Budget Work and Work Plan and recommends it for approval. Jeffrey Erb of Center and Vandewalle, legal counsel for the District, is also here and available to answer questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. Again, I would ask that you come to the front row as your time will start when I call your name. First up, Jeffrey.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Jeffrey Erb.
Speaker 5: I'm general counsel for the GID, and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 9: Good evening again, members of council. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm representing for Denver Homicide, a loud black star action moment for self-defense and community commitment for change. Community action and commitment for change. I am against this. But again, like Sekou already said, we are just going to go through with this anyway. I don't even know we have a public comment. Gateway Village. This is close to the airport so I'm just is going to make make way for all the new transplants that we're expecting to come to this city more unaffordable house. And this is going to be very expensive for you to live in this neighborhood. Gateway Village. So, yeah, it's just business as usual. Well, like I said, I'm running for office. City Council at large 2019 sweep. Council. Like they sweep in the homeless. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 10: Chairman SIEGEL. Next. It's a movement for self-defense. Positive Action. Commitment for social change. May 2019, city and county of Denver represent the interests of poor working poor. The oppressed. They exploit it. The abused. The disrespected. Just so we're perfectly clear. These general improvement districts. Inherently. Were intended to improve the neighborhood where. Folks came together, pulled the resources together to do projects that were of mutual interest and benefit. For those who lived in that area. When the decision was made consciously. But the business community. The political community. And folks who were pretty much lap dog lackeys of capitalism decided to come in and seize these neighborhood for the economic interests of the few at the expense of the many, and then surreptitiously bang your tax receipt where you didn't even know you was getting charged. But you moved into neighbor and you bought a house or you started renting. But part of your rent was to pay this tax, this mill levy that came from the people who are paying the rent that was too high. So here goes the pimping. Legalized pimping by political.
Speaker 5: Pimps and streetwalkers.
Speaker 10: Who have no shame whatsoever. But it's all game because you're hoping they never find out what you're doing down here. But there's a problem. Somebody showed up and somebody told it to. And in the process, a whole lot of folks didn't really like this guy. But the one thing they can never say is that, chairman, say, who ever came down here for 15 years and lied to the people about the liars and conned and manipulation and the slide, the slick and the wickedness that's happening in this body.
Speaker 0: 13. Are your time is up. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Seeing no questions. The public hearing for Resolution 1245 is closed. Are there any comments from members of council? Council, I'm going to do anything on this one. No. All right. Sing. No comments. Madam Secretary. Oracle.
Speaker 2: Black eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks Espinosa, my friend.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor.
Speaker 5: I Herndon High.
Speaker 4: Cashman. I can h.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Lopez I knew sorry.
Speaker 6: Ortega, i.
Speaker 2: Susman, i.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting in notes results.
Speaker 4: Twice.
|
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 2019 and approving a Mill Levy, and approving an Amended Work Plan and adopting an Amended Budget for the Budget Year 2018.
Approves the 2019 Operating Plan and Budget for the Gateway Village General Improvement District in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1006
|
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting announced the results 12 hours, 12 hours. Resolution one, two, four, six has passed. Council is now reconvene. Council will resume its regular session. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 1006 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I'm working overtime here, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18, dash 1006 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: We appreciate your hard work. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1006 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Good evening, council president and members of council. I'm Liz Weigel with Community Planning and Development and I will provide the staff report. This is an official map amendment for 1901 wasI Swasey Street from IMX 802 to Pdg 19. It is located in Council District nine in the Union Station neighborhood. The the subject site is bounded by 19th Street wasI Street and 20th Street. It's currently occupied by a surface parking lot and a walkway that we will be referring to as Wynkoop Promenade. The rezoning from I am x eight, which is an industrial mixed use district with a billboard use overlay to plan unit development 19 would facilitate development of the site with mixed uses. As I mentioned, it's currently zoned I am x eight to surrounding properties include the downtown lower downtown district. Light industrial zoning over Coors Field and adjacent pods. As I mentioned, the subject site currently has surface parking on it. Surrounding properties include the baseball stadium office, commercial mixed use and multi-unit residential uses. This is an image of the site looking southwest towards downtown. The site is outlined in yellow and these images show the site itself in the center at the top and the mix of buildings and building forms around the site. The purpose of a planned unit development or APD, is to provide an alternative set of regulations to a standard zoning district and unique and extraordinary circumstances. It allows for more flexible zoning than what would be achievable in a standard zoned district without putting in place multiple variances, waivers and conditions. In this case, the Pdg 19 is proposed to address several unique circumstances, including the site's location. In the downtown context, its adjacency is to lower downtown and to the baseball stadium. The site configuration, including the lack of a street connection along Wynkoop Street, the lack of an alley, and the grade change along 20th Street. Given the site's unique conditions, the PD uses the downtown Arapahoe Square 12 plus district as a base district with tailoring and incorporation of Cemex 12, which is our urban center context regulations as appropriate. Key elements include tailoring of the primary building form standards, alternatives and exceptions, including a height transition from 19th to 20th streets. The provision of wynkoop promenade as a pedestrian access through the site. The establishment of primary and side streets on lot lines, including the treatment of Wynkoop Promenade as a primary street. The provision of 20% private open space. Administrative design standards and guidelines, which are largely based on downtown Arapahoe Square and maximum vehicle parking. The public process is listed here on the site on the slide. The planning board heard this application on September 5th and recommended approval. We also have letters of support from the Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Downtown Denver Partnership and the one Wynkoop Plaza Condominium Homeowners Association, which is included in your in the staff report and also in speaking in support at the planning board. The Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts Homeowner's Association also submitted a copy of a memorandum of understanding that they have come to with the developer. In addition, the applicant also hosted a number of community meetings both before and during the application process, which is outlined in the application for the in terms of the rezoning criteria and the Denver zoning code, there are standard review criteria for all non legislator on legislative rezonings and additional criteria that I will walk through for a Pudi district. So first, the standard rezoning criteria of which we have five. The first is consistency with adopted plans, of which we have four in this area. First, staff finds that the application is consistent with a number of comprehensive plan 2000 strategies, and most of which deal with promoting infill development, mixed use and transit oriented development in Blueprint, Denver 22 The land use concept here is downtown and an area of change downtown is described as the centerpiece of the city where we want to direct growth and mix of uses. Also, we're looking for high quality urban design and to have special design standards in place. Blueprint Denver also speaks to the use of a planned unit to. It's generally discouraging them because they complicate administration over time and they are not very flexible over time. But it does say that they should only be used in extraordinary circumstances and in this case. Would you feel that this Pudi meets the requirement of these being extraordinary circumstances of the downtown area plan from 2007 includes this site in the lower downtown district. Most of the guidance in the plan for this area speaks to the historic district itself, but it does call out this site as an opportunity, say it recommends a priority, pedestrian connection through it, and encourages neighborhood serving retail. There are also a number of general recommendations in the downtown area plan of which this application is consistent, including prioritizing pedestrian, strengthening connections, encouraging active ground forces, expanding housing opportunities, improving our design guidelines and zoning to realize the desired character of downtown, and enhancing the public realm to provide venues for outdoor activity. The Central Platte Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment from 1991 also applies to this site, and this plan gave guidance around the redevelopment of the valley itself. This area is called our is general mixed use and specifically called out as an area where light industrial usage should not be allowed. It's also identifies it as part of what's called the mid-rise heights in the plan. There are not specific heights called out in this plan, but it points you to an appendix that talks about a height of about 140 feet that was discussed during steering committee meetings. This plan also calls out a priority pedestrian access point along the wine coop alignment, which is consistent with the proposed pedestrian access in the PD. And then lastly, this area is within what's called the upland area of this plan amendment, which said that new buildings should respect the scale and character of the downtown and provide or improve pedestrian and bicycle access and provide open space. So staff does find that the proposed idea is consistent with adopted plans will also result in uniform application of zone, district, building, form, use and design regulations. It will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing our adaptive plans and also encouraging a pedestrian friendly environment. Open space amenities in an appropriate use list of the application identifies and staff agrees that there has been significant development in around Union Station neighborhood that are justifying circumstances for the rezoning. And also the PD is consistent with the downtown neighborhood context as it uses the downtown Arapahoe Square 12 plus as a base with tailoring to ensure neighborhood compatibility. So now I will walk through the specific rezoning criteria of which there are five. The first is that the Pudi is consistent with the intent and purposes of Pdes, which are stated in Article nine of the zoning code. I'll walk through these. As I mentioned, unique and extraordinary circumstances is one of those criteria. We do feel that that given that the plan guidance for this area recommends the downtown context, but we do not have an appropriate downtown zone district at this pudi is appropriate. Our closest fit would be Cmax, which is the Urban Center District, but this would not address the lack of a public right of way or as an extension of Lincoln Promenade. It would not address the downtown location and regulations that we have in place for other downtown districts. And it also does not address the immediate context of the lower downtown historic district. So the Pudi uses our most recent downtown district, which is D as 12 plus as a as a base, together with urban center regulations as appropriate to address the site's unique features. The next criteria is that it should not be as few do. You should not is not intended to so solely as a veto vehicle to develop a site inconsistent with the applicable neighborhood context or to enhance economic feasibility and staff finds that, as I mentioned, the Pudi G 19 is consistent with the downtown neighbor could context and character and it is actually intended as a mechanism to ensure that development is consistent with our adopted plans. The beauty criteria also speaks speaks to the fact that in exchange for flexibility, there should be significant public benefit, which we do find that the beauty does provide, that first being the provision of one who. Promina and again, that would be a pedestrian public access way through the site. Along that the alignment of Wynkoop Street, the transition from 19th to 20th Street that addresses that LoDo adjacency, pedestrian friendly design and building forms. A provision of 20% of the site is private, open space and maximum vehicle parking requirements. We also find that the PD complies with all standards and criteria stated in Division 9.6 and that the beauty is necessary because there is no standard zone district available that applies downtown appropriate standards to this unique location and addresses the site's unique configuration with regard to Wynkoop, Promenade and 20th Street and not lastly to Moore. The PD establishes permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the subject property. There are no use related changes proposed, so we'll use the D as 12 plus zone district use list. And then lastly, the PD establishes permitting building forms that are compatible with adjacent existing building forms. And again, we, the PD, will be using the DS 12 plus general with height, incentive building form and the CRM X12 General Building form with tailoring to vary heights from 19 to 20 20th Street and apply standards to the Wynkoop promenade to treat it as basically as a primary street in terms of its build to its transparency and its active uses. And the PD incorporates administrative design standards and guidelines that will ensure that it's tailored and addresses the LODO adjacency. So with that finding that all review criteria have been met, CPD recommends approval of the Map Amendment application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. We have eight individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you wouldn't mind coming up to this front bench so we can get through everyone quickly and efficiently. As soon as I call your name, step up to the podium as your time will start to elapse. First up, we have Hal Roth.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. President, members of the council. My name is Hal Roth and the chief financial officer of the Colorado Rockies Baseball Club 2001 Blake Street, Denver. I'd tonight I'd like to explain to you why we are undertaking this project. When we were negotiating with the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District here and after Stadium District on a new lease for Coors Field, the biggest issue was the capital needs of the stadium going forward. We had two separate engineering studies done, both of which came back that we would need $200 million over the next 30 years to keep the stadium in the shape that it is now. This is such things as replacement of steel, concrete seats, a lot of infrastructure, equipment, similar things that you deal with on city business buildings. The issue is that the tax that established Coors Field had expired. So there's still public money left. So one of the ideas of the stadium district was to go out with a request for proposal to developers, got back five proposals from the developers. They offered a 99 year lease from the stadium district and the problem with their proposals were in the first year they'd pay, as I recall, about two and a half million dollars. In year 99, it was 18.6 million. And we said, Well, gee, that's all good and great, except we need it in the first 30 years. So we came back with the proposals, the Rockies. What happens if we pay an amount over the first 30 years that exceeds the present value of what the developers offered? So we have agreed to pay 125 million for this ground lease, which we will then sublease to develop an entity. Many of the members of the development entity will be similar to the owners of the Rockies. So that's how we were going to proceed to provide the capital funding for the stadium. And I would like to thank the city, the city planning department, and particularly to Liz Weigel for all our hard work on the pad. I'd like to thank our neighbors and the neighborhood groups that have worked with us in planning this project. And finally, I'd like to thank City Council for your consideration tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John and Shuki.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Johnny on a shoe ski. I'm with Stantec Architecture, the architects for the project and we are at 1050 17th Street, Denver. When we started working with the Rockies in the neighborhood group we always start our project was trying to define a vision. Where does everybody want to be when we're done? And this was fairly unique vision that the Rockies had because they wanted to know what the neighbors thought and what the neighbors believe was the next best thing for Denver. And we kind of identified four big areas. Denver's next great, next, great place is where the biggest bang for our buck was no different than Union Station in Larimer Square that we wanted this area to be relevant year round. Right now it's relevant 81 days of the year. And every time you go down there, especially now, there's nothing going on. So we wanted it for family friendly and safe, and we want it to be a neighborhood gathering spot. So with all those criteria, we looked at the current zoning, which is IMX eight, 750,000 square feet. You could build within that envelope, but that envelope didn't accommodate the forms that we were looking for to really take action on those relevant goals. So we went the pod pulled out with the city and we kind of set up certain goals within the city that work not only with our design but within the city envelope of what we can create with the PD. One of those goals was to created something that fit into the downtown context but related to lower downtown. And how did we do that and how do you step up from lower downtown to the stadium side? And we did that within the PD with limiting at a setback that happens at eight storeys, which is typical for lower downtown, limiting everything along 19th street to 11 storeys and then working our way up to 20th Street where we can do 13 stories for the hotel and a residential. The project is currently said the way it works now with the neighborhood at about 660,000 square feet, so 90,000 square feet below the use by Wright that we had originally. So all we're doing here is looking for a massing change to accommodate all the goals that we're trying to get. The other goal we wanted to do is activation along line coupe. Right now, there's no activation on wine coop. It's a dead zone in the city. Anything that goes in there usually fails. And so the idea is to activate that no different than a public street. And we've accomplished that within this new duty. We also wanted to create a content plaza no different than Rockefeller Center in the center of this plaza. In order to do that, we looked at open space requirements within the zoning and none existed. This will have open space of over 20% and over 50,000 square feet. When you combine the two plazas, which will be a certain placemaking effort within the city, that it doesn't really exist within that neighborhood. And last but not least, relating back to the ball park and the LoDo context with site specific design guidelines, heavy articulation and masonry. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Next up, Sean Reilly.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. President. Members City Council. My name's Shaun Maley, CRL Associates 1660 Lincoln, Denver. We've been working with the Rockies and the architect on the West Lot PD and wanted to just briefly go over a few items from our public outreach process and work with the community. So starting in August of 2017, we started working with the neighborhood and community and having meetings with the RINO's and Archways was in the area. We held a span of neighborhood meetings, six in total where we talked about the project, its relationship to the ballpark, as Hal explained, and some of our initial goals and visions for the sites, we also presented a number of different public venues, including boards, ah, snowboards, Urban Design Committees, Public Realm Committees and quite a few others. We're honored to have support from the surrounding community here tonight, including the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association, Downtown Denver Partnership, One Wine Coop Lofts and the Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts. Some members of the community are here tonight, and I want to thank them for taking time out of their personal schedules to attend this hearing. The process has been iterative and fortunately occurred at a time when we could make significant changes and include certain items within the party. That's before you. I want to thank all the neighbors for their time they've spent with us and meeting. And their openness to this site's redevelopment in a positive and transformative matter is critical to us being here tonight. Lastly, I also want to thank community planning development staff, in particular Liz Weigel, who spent a lot of time and helped us with guidance on the PD lessons, is an exceptional planner and want to thank her and all her colleagues at CPD. Thank you so much. And we're here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jerry, aka.
Speaker 5: And good evening. My name is Gerry aka. I live at 1863 Swazi Street and I'm the president of the Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts Homeowner's Association. Our building is directly across the street from this project on the 19th Street frontage, and I am here in support of the project and the proposed rezoning. We have had numerous meetings with representatives of the Colorado Rockies for more than a year now. They have consistently sought our input and have responded favorably to the majority of our issues. We have signed with the Rockies a memorandum of understanding which declares that there will be no outdoor speakers on any part of the building or on any of the businesses in the project that front on either 19th Street or Swasey Street. This document, along with the continued good faith efforts of the Rockies to work collaborative with the Neighborhood Lead us to conclude that this project will be of high quality, will be an asset to the neighborhood, and will be well received by those living around it. Therefore, as I said earlier, the Rocky Mountain Warehouse Lofts Homeowner's Association is pleased to support this project and the proposed rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Andy Davis.
Speaker 3: Hi there. My name is Andy Davis. I live at 1801 chestnut place here in Denver. I'm the president of the Lower Downtown Neighborhood Association. Or LaDonna, as many of you know, I'm here on behalf of our organization to lend our strong support both to the rezoning as well as the project as a whole. And a big reason for our.
Speaker 5: Enthusiastic support is, is.
Speaker 3: Because of the process that we've been engaged in. As Sean mentioned, starting back in September of 2017, the Rockies reached out to La Dona, to the surrounding archways and other LoDo stakeholders for more than a year to engage us in an ongoing discussion about their plans. They weren't required to seek our feedback, but they did. They actively engaged all of our organizations, regularly start our feedback and integrated it in meaningful ways. So just to kind of elucidate that a little bit, we would get together. They kind of laid out their original plans. We provided some feedback. We get together maybe a month or two later. They demonstrate how they integrated, integrated that feedback from Here's what we heard, here's how we integrated it and then saw our reactions reacted to that next version. And then two months later we met again. That went on for several months. As Sean mentioned, we met over six times that that collaborative process produced some really important outcomes at the publicly accessible plaza. The cut through that goes from 19th and Wynkoop to 20th. And while C, which better connects the pedestrian traffic from Wynkoop to the stadium and now better addresses the service and delivery truck traffic in and out of the building, which was a concern of our our neighbors, takes into account the 50 to 80 loop and integrates it into its plans and again maintains the context and materiality of LoDo and the surrounding area. As Jerry mentioned, it's important to us too, because we were a cosigner to the memorandum of understanding which addresses the neighborhood noise concerns and requires that any commercial tenants or businesses applying for liquor license that they abide by the same. The Rockies could have pursued a very different project if they wanted to, but it was important to them to seek the feedback of local stakeholders and create a project that all of us could support. They made good on that that commitment with a thoughtful and deliberative process, and the project is better because of it. Not all projects work this way, and not all organizations engage our community in a way that the Rockies did. And frankly, what they did was is a model for community engagement, and they deserve to be commended for it. That active communication hasn't stopped the Rockies committed to maintain consistent communication throughout the construction process, and we've already met once since the construction started and they've put us in direct contact with Hensel Phelps, the general contractor. And we're actually they're providing us monthly updates that we're including in our lower downtown neighborhood newsletters. So given all of that, we lind our enthusiastic support to the project, to the rezoning and the project as a whole. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rick Newman.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Rick Penniman. I live at 1735 19th Street. I am here representing the One Wynkoop Plaza Homeowner's Association. I'm the president of that association and wanted to speak on behalf of the individuals who reside in our building and will be directly affected by this project. If you're not aware, our front door is directly next to Hollow at the moon, which is an auspicious occasion on its own periodically. But as we step out this front door, we are looking forward to seeing the project that is being proposed this evening. We are here. I am here along with the others representing our building and showing our support for the project and specifically for the process. It's been incredibly collaborative, as has already been stated. I think that the organizations involved have gone above and beyond what is normally required to engage in a project like this. The changes we recommended were taken to heart and considered, and if they weren't able to be put into process as part of the project, there was a great explanation as to why this is going to have a tremendously positive effect on our lower downtown community. In listening to the the dreams that the Rockies have for this site, they want it to be the first place that people come when they step off the train from the plains and come to our cities. They want to come to this project and be part of the lower downtown facilities on a year round basis. It's going to maintain, if not improve, the esthetics of lower downtown. They've gone out of their way to make sure that it looks like many of the other buildings in the area. And it's going to be drawing more families to lower downtown. This is going to be a family friendly environment. One of the things that we noticed as after we moved to lower downtown is there's just not as many strollers as there are other neighborhoods. And I think this project will change that. The Rockies in this project.
Speaker 5: Wanted to enhance the value of the stadium and.
Speaker 7: Which has been the cornerstone. And we.
Speaker 5: Believe.
Speaker 7: That this project.
Speaker 5: Will not only enhance.
Speaker 7: But actually propel the lower downtown area to be the number one draw in Denver. And so with that, we give our support to this project and look forward to seeing it develop. Although the dust might get to us for the next three years or so, but otherwise it's going to be a great event in our city. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman A.
Speaker 5: Slapstick.
Speaker 10: I was Chairman Sekou the extraction movement for self-defense. Mayor. Candidate. City County of Denver, 2019. First of all, we want to congratulate the Rockies organization for bringing vibrancy and. Economic viability and also jobs. Two poor people in this town. So we support this because they're one of the few organizations that actually do outreach to help poor people in terms of being a part of the concessions in the town. Also, we're getting vendor space also helps high school teams to raise money for their teams in our neighborhood so that they can buy uniforms and shoes and stuff like that. And so they've been a good neighbor. They've been a very good neighbor. And. I am. I hated that I got gentrified out my neighbor. I live on 25th and Chavis Street and. I'd leave my neighborhood because the rent was too high, went from $600 to 1800 dollars overnight, and my Section eight wouldn't cover. And they told me that I wasn't wanted. And it was a 12 step program brought in by a Christian organization about building who said it wasn't going to do that, but they did it anyway. So it's okay. So I was born and raised here five points, six, seven years. We'll celebrate my birthday on Friday and I would be remiss to say that I forgot. I want to apologize for my tone and manner. My family want me to come down here because I just buried my wife on Saturday. And they think it was a good idea for me to come down here. And I told him that the only thing that helps me deal with my grieving is I get to get back to work. You know, because she's good to go. You know, I'm the one is in trouble. So thank you for putting this on the agenda at this time because I really need a break from the nine. I really did. And this one is really a no brainer. We're all in for it. And I love the city. I love the Rockies. And. Good luck.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 9: Jesse Paris. Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homicide Law and Community Action Committee for Change. And also At-Large candidate for Denver and 2019. We are against this. This is just more planned gentrification in an already rapidly gentrified city. All parts of the city are being gentrified and there seems to be no stop in sight. By allowing this ordinance change, you are just filling the problem and not addressing the crisis at hand, which is homelessness and affordability in the city and county of Denver. This neighborhood in question is no no where by any means affordable. My question is, what is the army level going to be for this plan development? And who is going to occupy this plan and development. Because I've been in a movement profession for the past three years and I've moved several gentrifiers into these properties and into these areas. So I know firsthand this has become an all white enclave with no end in sight. You have to have big dollars to live, play and occupy this space. This public plaza is not public, especially if you are homeless. I would like to see a study done on how many tickets, how many harassments and how many arrests occur in this plaza. Denver. We have a crisis at hand. It's even bigger than the opioid crisis. It's the fact that people cannot afford to live in this once affordable town abode city. You want to turn this into a New Amsterdam? That's really what it boils down to. In the cities in these studies. Are all predominantly white. You want to keep this an all white enclave? There's nothing has changed except a year. This is a modern day Jim Crow. The people are support of this are part of the problem. They have funded and fueled the urban camping ban, which was passed in 2012 that members of this council approved on. So, yeah, this is not helping anybody except to openly rich and those that can afford to live and LoDo around the stadium, around Coors Field. Yes, I am a Rocky fan, but I am not a supporter of this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I first wanted to ask about the open space, and I'm not sure, Mr. Young, to see if you're the best person to address that. What what that looks like, how that will feel to the. Not just the. Development itself, but for the public. Can you just speak to that?
Speaker 5: So again, part of the idea was to have a content plaza. Again, as I said, similar to Rockefeller Center, where it's not a really about the buildings in this project, it's about what's between the buildings. And so in order to get an area of about 25,000 square feet in the center of this block, we carved out an area for this content plaza. And within doing so, we had to reallocate some of that square footage. And the idea for the Content Plaza is to be a counterpoint to what's happening on the plaza at Wynkoop. So we have all this activity. Think of the activity in one as a stream and the Content Plaza ad is eddy off the stream and this eddy is there for neighborhood gatherings. It's there for performances. It's just another way to showcase what Denver has, but do it in a relevant year round format. That'll be a benefit to the city.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'm not sure. Maybe, Mr. Roth, you might be the next best person to address whether or not there is any proposed city resources expected to go into the development. Is there a look at tax increment financing or any other public financing tools to help make this project become a reality?
Speaker 5: We've established a metro district actually to I am plan to use the bonds that will be issued under that Metro District districts to improve the Wynkoop walkway and also the improvements to the sidewalks on 19th NYC.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I have no other question.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Liz, quick question. There was a one lone one no vote opposed. Can you explain their planning board?
Speaker 2: Yep. The concern there was with the height that's allowed in the powder and whether that was consistent enough with the LoDo adjacency. So the PD allows from 110 at 19th street it goes up to 150 and then 165. So one planning board member had concern about that.
Speaker 3: But that's it's consistent with the Arapahoe Square.
Speaker 2: It's so the only high guidance that we have is from the CPV Amendment Plan, which is from 1991, that talks about mid-rise heights that didn't have a specific allotment for that. But we do feel that that is consistent in terms of making that transition together with the design standards and guidelines that come along with the pad of making sure that it's addressing LoDo appropriately.
Speaker 3: Interesting. All right. Can you can you talk about parking demand again? This says this is a parking demand site. What is the do you have the ratio for retail in the.
Speaker 2: So there are no minimum parking requirements. So that's consistent with our downtown standards. But you have.
Speaker 3: Maximum.
Speaker 2: There's a maximum. What we did was establish a maximum number overall for the site, for the ease of administration. You don't have administering that. We do have ratios that are I can pull them up that we use to get to that number. But we felt that for administration over time it would be complicated to put the ratios into the paddy itself and that we established.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm going to ask a couple of other questions for you just to look at those real quick and then tell me and then Sean, may I just have a quick question for you? Obviously, it sounds like a lot of the neighbors concerns were met. There is one around, you know, affordability in the neighborhood. You this is under under the linkage fee. So what is the amount that the linkage fee will contribute to our housing fund?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just checked with how we're off on that and it's approximately 1.13 million. Okay, great.
Speaker 3: Does that give you enough time list.
Speaker 2: So that the ratio that we use to get to the maximum was one space per thousand for commercial uses?
Speaker 3: Okay. And there's 107 condos. I believe so.
Speaker 2: And it's we use 2.8 per residential unit for that. And this maximum though in the PUTU can be used for any of the uses and it's a number overall that they can get to.
Speaker 3: Wow. Okay. That's a good number. All right. Mr. President, I. I just have one more question, Liz. I just want to make sure. Last one. You didn't get any letters of opposition from any neighbors?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: And famous for president. Mr. Roth, maybe you be the best person to address this in capturing the amount of value that you are over the 99 years and your capturing it in the first 30. The stadium, I'm assuming, will need some attention in years 31 through 16. Have has the team or the district thought ahead as to how to capture any value afterward?
Speaker 5: No, councilman. The the main issue is to solve for 30 years. The question is then the stadium will be 52 years old. Will will still be viable, you know, hopefully. So we can point to a couple stadiums. And I know you're a fan that have like Fenway and Wrigley in Chicago that have lasted that long, but those are the only two out of 30. So I hope my successors can keep that going. And but we'll need a new funding source at that point in time.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Because it does seem like we're going ahead to your 99 and capturing that value and bringing it into the first 30 years.
Speaker 5: Yes. Just for the West slide. Yes, it's the 99 years. And then after 30 years, you know, obviously the stadium district, I should say, the taxpayers will still own the land and the stadium.
Speaker 7: Of course. And then you also have the lots to the east and it.
Speaker 5: Right? Yes, sir.
Speaker 7: And one other question that John, maybe you could address this, Mr. Jankowski. What is the what is the plan? And forgive me if I missed it since the last time you're in committee, what is the plan for relocating the artwork, the evolution of the ball? Where is that going to end up?
Speaker 5: Sure. It was complicated. The we have dismantled the arch right now currently and it's stored in at the Rockies lot. What we're going to do next is in order to kind of solve a lot of problems for a lot of people, we had to move it because of the fire access issues that we had around the building and to keep fire all access all the way around the new complex. Since it's just a parking lot now, it's not an issue with buildings there become an issue with the fire department. And then the next thing we wanted to do was put it in the entrance way to the bridge. And so that's where it's going to locate. It's going to move about 20 feet towards the field and be the archway that would be over the bridge. And in order to accomplish that and keep the Rockies mass from coming through the bridge and not necking down too much, we're going to stretch the arch slightly. So it's the same width of the bridge.
Speaker 7: Okay. It's because it was kind of at the threshold of the bridge already, but it was in the it was on your on your property.
Speaker 5: Correct. This is actually going to be in the right of way because it's right right now it's on the property and it's right on the edge of the property. In order to get it out of the fire zone, we have to move it into the right of way. That'll be the right at the entrance to the pedestrian bridge as it goes over 20th.
Speaker 7: I'm looking at it here. Okay. Thank you very much. That's all this president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1006 is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks Yeah.
Speaker 3: I would love to make a comment, Mr. President, if that's okay.
Speaker 0: You go right ahead.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. You look you look good today, by the way, I am excited about this because I feel like this is this is textbook of how you bring a community together and do it right. I think at a time when we are at a height in growth, in activity and people getting really concerned about construction activity all over my district, but especially in the center of it right here. You know, the Rockies had a plan and decided to spend the time necessary to do it right. And I just really want to thank you all for doing that. And I think the neighborhood for engaging and, you know, I think, you know, going to some of these meetings when you're not getting paid to do it is really tough and it's very complicated. And this is not just a, oh, we're going to put some condos up. This is an entertainment development and it's very complex. But talking to the neighbors, talking to the Rockies team, all the suggestions were taken in and really changed. I mean, from the ingress egress of the trucks, which is really important, this the speakers, the lights, all of these folks who've invested a lot of money in their lives right there are all supporting this. And at a time when there's a lot of controversy over Larimer Square with the same neighborhood, this neighborhood is getting behind it and supporting it. And so I'll just let you know that it was a good move and great relationships. I I'm always concerned about affordability in this city, you know, not just not just folks who are low income or or poor, but folks who are working and actually making $90,000 a year. They can't afford to buy a house anywhere around this area. And so it's a real challenge to address this issue. And I'm grateful that in 2016, we passed an ordinance to make sure that developments like this invest into the future of our city. And and a $1.1 million is a lot of money to invest in this area. And so I'm I'm excited about that. And I'm you know, you see the Rockies have presented what this would look like. And I just can't wait to see it, because if you all have not seen the design, you have to, you know, and the other thing I would say is take money for being a part of this whole process. He's not here tonight, but I think that's big. To have the owner at the meetings sitting down with neighbors is really big in his vision. He gets a lot of respect for me because sometimes the vision, the visionary doesn't want to do the hard work to get in the rooms with the people who actually live in the neighborhood. And he did it all. So hats off to everybody involved. This is a successful project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other comments. I'll just add quickly. I think you do staff for the great presentation. I think this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning. And happy to support tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. Hi, folks.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Espinosa Hi. Flynn Hi.
Speaker 6: Gilmore. I Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman can h.
Speaker 6: Lopez All right. Ortega, I.
Speaker 2: Susman All right.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours, 12 hours.
Speaker 0: Total Bill 1006 has passed. On Monday, November 26, the Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1208, designating 2600 Milwaukee Street, the Henderson House, as a structure for preservation. On Monday, December 17, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 122, two to create a new zone districts in the downtown context and
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1901 Wazee Street in Union Station.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-MX-8 UO-2 to PUD-G #19 (industrial, mixed-use to planned development), located at 1901 Wazee Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11132018_18-1013
|
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Black has called out Council Bill 1006, which was also scheduled for a public hearing later this evening. Under pending, no items have been called out. Did I miss anything? Does it look like it? All right. Madam Secretary, if you please put the first item on our screens. Councilman Black, could you please vote council bill 1013 on the floor for passage.
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 18 1013 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Can I get a second? Looks like we got a second. Councilman Lopez, your motion to postpone. Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that that council bill 1013 series of 2018 be postponed to a date certain on December 10th, 2018, with its public hearing. Correct. With this public hearing. Yes. Thank you very much. And your motion to postpone looks like it has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Lopez. Yeah. You know, this has been a process in place for quite a while. I wanted to make sure that we are honoring the community's request to give more time for the community input process. And I just wanted to just let people know that, you know, requesting the postponement does not indicate any decision on the rezoning. We don't make our decision until after all the public hearing testimony is is heard on December ten. Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Hi.
Speaker 3: Black Ice.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Lopez. Sorry.
Speaker 0: New again?
Speaker 4: Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. It is eight is final consideration of Council Bill 1013 with its public hearing has been postponed until Monday, December 10th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item up on our screens and Councilwoman Black, will you please be accountable?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2929 W. 10th Ave. in Sun Valley.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2929 West 10th Avenue from PUD #487 to C-MX-5 (planned development to commercial, mixed-use) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11132018_18-1006
|
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. It is eight is final consideration of Council Bill 1013 with its public hearing has been postponed until Monday, December 10th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item up on our screens and Councilwoman Black, will you please be accountable? 1006 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 3: Yes. I move that council bill 1006 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 3: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 18, dash 1006 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, November 19th, 2018.
Speaker 0: And it looks like that has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments from members of Council Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: This postponement was requested by the applicant and is not a reflection on the merits of the application.
Speaker 0: All right. See no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel.
Speaker 3: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. Eight Eyes Final Consideration of Council Bill 1006 with its public hearing has been postponed until Monday, November 19th. All right. Wraps up everything that was called out, all other bills for introduction or published. And 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilman Black, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final, final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All Series 18 1180 1224 1230. 1097 1220 1221 1228 zero 936 1188 1332 1198 1199 1200 1201 1196. That's it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Black. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 4: Lopez.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 88 ayes. 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 996 changing the zoning classification of 374023850 York Street in the Clayton neighborhood.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1901 Wazee Street in Union Station.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-MX-8 UO-2 to PUD-G #19 (industrial, mixed-use to planned development), located at 1901 Wazee Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11132018_18-0996
|
Speaker 0: 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 personal or individual attacks. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 996 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, I will. Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 dash 0996 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing of Council Bill 19 nine six is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Sarah White with Community Planning and development here to present the proposed rezoning at 3742 3850 York Street. The rezoning is proposed from B2 with waivers and a condition to a puti g number 21 in Council District nine in the northwest portion of the Clayton neighborhood. Like I said, the request is to rezone from the old code B to with waivers and conditions. And also a part is currently zoned you a max three to a planned unit development number 20. The PD is proposed to be based on IMX three and UM x three to facilitate the re-use of existing character buildings and future additional development with a requirement to provide public amenities, including open space. The existing zoning. As I said, the majority of the site is currently zoned B two with waivers and a condition which is in the old code. The condition on the site is related to a recorded plat map that is basically means you can't change anything on the site without rezoning out of this condition. And then a small portion to the south is currently zoned you a max. Three as you can see to the north of the site is generally industrial zoning. And as you move further south, you move into the lower density USA zoning of the neighborhoods. And the existing land use in the area pretty much follows that zoning pattern. Industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south. You can see here some photos that are existing. These are all of the site as you move from north to south. And then these are some photos of the existing contact surrounding. So this is directly across York from the Coca-Cola plant. There's also some vacant, lower scale multi-unit to the southwest. And then the bottom photo is an example of some of the lower scale residential character to the south. So as you know, the purpose of Pewds is custom zoning and it's to provide an alternative set of regulations in unique and extraordinary circumstances. It's more flexible zoning than what would be achieved in a standard zone district that without multiple variances, waivers and conditions wouldn't be feasible. The proposed feud addresses several unique circumstances, including location adjacent to a major city infrastructure project, which is the new 39th Avenue Right of way, and 39th Avenue Greenway, as well as unique structures that would be difficult to repurpose without customization due to their location on the site and the fact that additional development would not be feasible because the existing buildings do not meet the build two that would be required under a standard new code zone district. So the proposed PD is split up into two sub areas. Siberia is the northern portion and the base zoning is IMX three. The deviations that would be included in Saberi a would be flexibility in the phase development reserve area. So this kind of helps us get around those build to issues with the existing structures. It would also require 1500 square feet of publicly accessible open space at the northwest portion of the site to basically serve as a public gateway into the new 39th Avenue Greenway project. And it would allow some flexibility in the build to to be measured from that proposed open space. Some Area B, which is the southern portion of the proposed PWD, would be based on your max three and the flexibility there. We would require higher amounts of transparency regardless of what building form is to be used. So this is one of an example of a public benefit that we get in exchange for the flexibility of a beauty. Again, flexibility in the Phase Development Reserve area to allow development on the site without requiring the existing structures to meet any build to requirements for additional amenities in the parking lot screening. So basically making a better pedestrian environment along the York street frontage and also flexibility in the demolition of compliant structures. Planning Board saw this at their September 9th meeting, and there was a unanimous recommendation of approval. You will see in your packet several letters of support. We have 15 letters of support from individuals, a letter of support from the Clayton R.A., a letter of support from Mile High Ministries, which owns and is planning redevelopment of the large multi-unit across York. A statement of support from the École R.A.. Another letter of support from nearby International Academy School. And a letter of support from the neighboring property owner to the east. Moving into the review criteria in terms of consistency with adopted plans, we have three plans to consider here. We have our two citywide plans, comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver, as well as the O'Leary and Swansea Neighborhood Plan, which covers a portion of the site. The rezoning is generally consistent with several strategies in the comprehensive plan related to infill development and identifying focal points in the neighborhood. Further information on that is in your staff report looking to blueprint Denver so you can see the site here outlined in yellow. The majority of the site is designated as a mixed use area of change and a small portion to the south is considered a single family residential area of stability. The base zoning of the pudi of IMAX three and are max three is generally consistent with the goals of mixed use areas of change to promote a mix of uses. Additionally, Blueprint identifies that in some cases it may be appropriate to change the zoning in an area to create a better match between existing land uses and zoning . So this is applicable to the portion that is designated as single family residential in blueprint. However, that portion of the site has historically been commercial and has not had residential in it in any recent time. So that is better aligning the zoning with the historical use of the site. Blueprint. Denver also gives us guidance for the use of custom zoning and pwds. As you know, previously, parties were used for a lot of different situations and very specific and blueprint when we updated it in 2000 to give guidance to limit the use of PDS to special circumstances and to make them more standardized, which we have done in our paddy practice. And as I said, this is addressing several unique and extraordinary circumstances. So the request is consistent with Blueprint Denver, both its land use recommendations and the use of customized zoning. The earlier in Swansea a plan you can see here. The site is generally outlined in the box in red, so it only covers a portion of the site. But the portion that it does cover designates again as mixed use, which has a sizable employment base as well as a variety of mid to high density housing options. The plan also has maximum height recommendations and for the site it is a recommendation of a three storey maximum height, which the beauty is consistent with. The request will result in the uniform application of his own district within the party. It also furthers the public health, safety and welfare through the adoption and implementation of adopted plans, and also through the provision of additional open space for the neighborhoods. The justifying circumstance identified is since the date of the approval of the existing zone district, there's been a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest. The identified changes here one are the adoption of the new code. So as you saw earlier, the majority of the site is still zoned in the old code. So that is a justification for the rezoning as well as additional development in the area and then consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. I'm going to move into the next set of criteria which talk about PDS specifically and how the request is meeting the intent and purpose of the Pudi zoning. So we have an additional set of review criteria on top of the standard five rezoning criteria for PWDS. The first criteria is that the Pudi District is consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts, as stated in Article nine Division 9.6 of the zoning code. So basically what that intent statement for PWDS is that you need to have unique and extraordinary circumstances where more flexible zoning than what is achieved through a standard zoned district is desirable, and multiple variances and waivers can be avoided. It's not intended solely as a vehicle to develop a site inconsistent with the applicable neighborhood context or to enhance economic feasibility and also must have significant public benefit. So as I've basically covered throughout this presentation, the unique and extraordinary circumstances that are identified is the adjacency to the major city investment of the new 39th Avenue right of way in Greenway, as well as the desire for the reuse of the structures but difficulty doing additional development on the site when those structures would not meet build to requirements of a standard zoned district. It is not intended solely as a vehicle to develop a site inconsistent with the neighborhood context. So the Pudi is consistent with the surrounding industrial and urban neighborhood context as seen through the split of the sub areas and the significant public benefit as I've covered the privately owned but public accessible open space requirement as a gateway to the new 39th Avenue development, as well as a higher standard of street level activation through transparency and additional requirements for parking lot screening with amenities to enhance pedestrian character around York Street are all contributing to the required significant public benefit. The remainder of the Pudi review criteria are outlined in your zoning code, but we do find that the request is generally consistent with those. So given that the request is consistent with all five standard rezoning criteria as well as the Pudi specific rezoning criteria, Steph does recommend approval.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you're one of those four individuals, I would ask you to please come to the front bench. When I call your name, your time will start elapsing. So step right up and go ahead and get started. First up, we have Fred Glick. Hi. Good evening. President Clark, members of city council. My name is Fred Glick. I reside at 1190 Olive Street in Denver, and I am the owner of 3850 York. One of the owners of 3840 York and representing all three ownerships ownership groups here today. Also with me is Craig Burleson, who is the CEO of Inner City Health Center. Should you have any questions specific to their properties? Staff has presented a very thorough report for which we're most appreciative. This is a complicated property, and the proposal before you tonight was developed following what I understand to be a lot more meetings than is typical for a rezoning. Staff worked very hard with us to examine possible conforming zoned districts. But the unique circumstances of the site and especially the siting of the existing buildings and the various easements running through the site meant that there was simply not a conforming district which worked. There are three owners here on the south. We have Inner City Health Center, a nonprofit health care provider, and they're hoping to expand their footprint following the rezoning to serve more members of our community. At 3840 York, my partners and I will continue to house community serving nonprofits and businesses, including the GSA Coalition, Working Families, Community Wealth Building and landed and 3850 York will become my family's home. And with this rezoning, we plan to replace the 19 space parking lot in front with some greenery. We've engaged, as you saw with the Arnaud's from the beginning. In fact, we met with the R.A. leadership before we even engaged with the city. We've engaged, as you heard, with our immediate neighbors and obtained letters of support from them. And there is, to my knowledge, no opposition to this. We believe that the proposed map amendment serves the site well, serves the surrounding community well and respectfully. Ask for your approval tonight. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have, and we thank you for your consideration this evening. Thank you. Next up, Craig Brosnan. Thank you. Council President Clark and the council. And thank you, Mr. Glueck. As he mentioned, I am Craig Burleson, the chief executive officer and director of Inner City Health Center. I am honored to stand before the council again. The last time I was here was 2007. At that time, Inner City Health Center was asking for permission to purchase the properties at 3800 York Street. We had existed in five points for 25 years and outgrew that site, and we're looking for a larger location where we can further expand the services that we provide. As I mentioned, we are a safety net clinic. We provide primary health care, serve over 20,000 patient visits a year and continue to grow. And so that's what brings us here today. As part of this effort to rezone that property, it allows us to expand our facility by another 5000 square feet of space and serve 5 to 6000 additional patients in the next 2 to 3 years. And so, again, we ask for your permission. We think we have proven worthy of the council's trust as a community benefits organization. When we first acquired that site, it needed your permission. And I think we've proven that we've served well in that of that purpose, and we ask that you support us again as we further endeavor to not only serve more patients, but serve as a valuable and much sought out training sites for health professions and as an employer with a growing workforce. Thank you so much again for your support. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Good evening. Members of Council. Council President Clark. Other members of the council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm an at large candidate for office. In 2019, I resigned at 2842. Josephine Street and I'm here representing for Denver. Homeless out loud.
Speaker 7: Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense.
Speaker 0: And Community Action for Commitment for Change. We are in approval of this, as has already been stated. Mr. Gergen has gone through the proper steps to get this order, this zoning change. He's consulted the community. The community is in support of it. A lot of these nonprofits, such as working families I work with as well. These are assets to the community. And yes, I would advise that council approve this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, David River.
Speaker 7: David Roybal 742 West and I am a candidate for District three 2019, also represent West Denver United and Positive Action Commitment for Change. I grew up in this area for a long time. Pass it every day I work in Swansea so it's good to see a project that will bring life and enhance and also say there's a good bus line in the human service right there and it's right in the middle of Swansea and Rhino. I didn't see no support for Rhino, but rock drill is called Rhino. That's like four blocks away. So hopefully Rhino just stays on that side. And then you see we have somebody from Rhino running for mayor. It's like but you know, as coalition has done, it's got a lot of good work and and, you know, it's for this building to be used for non-profits and and, you know, things to enhance the community. I hope you support it. And I hope this the community keeps serving the community well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Yeah, they are. Don't don't freak out with my questions. But I do have questions for Sara. The. The. I find it curious that the Illyria plan has a three story recommendation here. Because the industrial land to the essentially across York is a 75 foot height limit. The land to the north of is 75 foot height limit. Was there conversation in the planning process or any indication that there was there was any sort of, you know, transition to get to those heights?
Speaker 5: Honestly, I wasn't a part of the 2015 planning process on this plan, so I can't really speak to the intent. It does talk in intent language about transitioning to the residential neighborhoods, but generally this whole area has a recommended three storey maximum height so that the existing industrial zoning is FAA based and would allow heights greater than that. But the plan recommends three.
Speaker 9: So. But is there any talk about maybe a sort of overlay or something to the impacts? I mean, the idea zoned districts to the.
Speaker 5: We haven't talked about it. The three stories was sufficient for this request. So we didn't have the conversation about.
Speaker 0: How far.
Speaker 9: We from the 38th and like station.
Speaker 5: I don't know. Off the top of my head. See that's obvious on any of the. It's pretty far.
Speaker 9: Do you know, Fred.
Speaker 0: We are almost exactly. If you could come up to the microphone to answer that, be great. Thanks. We're almost exactly halfway between 38th and Blake and 40th in Colorado. I think it might be approximately a mile a little bit shorter once the 39th Avenue Greenway goes in, which will provide direct access. But we're outside the Todd area, as it were.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So, so. Yeah. I guess the rest of mine is comment. So thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. That was all your questions. Just been asking questions. Yeah. All right. So no other questions. The public hearing for counsel, Bill 996 is closed. Comments by members of council. Jasmine Espinosa.
Speaker 9: So you're just going to hear me do a little thinking out loud? You know, I appreciate the customized zoning that you're approaching and that you're bringing forward, obviously, is a sort of building hugger. I like the fact that accommodates essentially what you have, the existing fabric, the embodied energy that is on the site and what have you . And it's sort of I wish you weren't running into friction on your sort of progressive and creative stormwater ideas like I wish we could grant latitude right now. That said, I am sort of perplexed that that is sort of the timing and the the coordination of, you know, this 300, $300 million investment in the channel, the proximity to two light rail stations, and that infrastructure, why we ended up with a plan that didn't capture essentially density as we got closer and closer, further and further north, you know, in this location and sort of that wider stretch. So it is so I just asked those questions. This is, you know, a great zoning. I'll be in full support of it. But there is some other curiosities here that I a I'm going to grapple with if there were any subsequent rezonings. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very familiar with this area. I had the opportunity to go over to inner city and do a tour several months ago and. You know, to see the the breadth and depth of the work that is done by inner city and the need and the demand for the services. I can see where you all are kind of bulging at the seams. I know one of your neighbors just to the north, Clinica Teppanyaki, is also looking at doing an expansion because their services are also equally as utilized by by the community. We had an opportunity Friday night to talk some time ago about the project before it was filed and learned about the the components of what this rezoning will entail. And, you know, this this site sat vacant for a very long time after the city moved the library out of there. We had some other city agencies that were housed on this property. And to see the effort to revitalize it and bring more life to that area is really important. So I'm going to be supporting this tonight and just want to thank all the community folks who worked with you guys to, you know, bring this project forward. It's not always easy to do a rezoning in in neighborhoods, and it involves having to reach out to lots of different groups. And in this area there were quite a few. So I just want to thank you for your efforts in doing that, and I think this will be a great addition to that. Specific corner that has kind of floundered for quite some time. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega Singh on else for comments, I'll just add thank you to staff. Thank you for everyone who came to speak. I think this clearly meets the legal criteria for a rezoning. And I will be voting yes this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: All right. Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 0: CASHMAN All right.
Speaker 4: LOPEZ All right.
Speaker 6: New ORTEGA Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please go. The voting announced results.
Speaker 4: 7878.
Speaker 0: Council Bill 996 has passed. City Council Sitting ex-officio ex-officio as the board of directors for the Fort Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, Reno, Denver General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement District will hold public hearings on Monday, November 19th, related to the 2018 work plans and budgets for each district.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 3740-3850 York Street in the Clayton neighborhood.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-MX-3 and B-2 with waivers and conditions to PUD-G #20 (urban, mixed-use to planned development), located at 3740-3850 York Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11052018_18-1294
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you for bringing that forward. Councilwoman Black, we have one other proclamation this evening. Councilman Brooks, will you please read Proclamation 1294?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. And before I read it, I just want to just state that I know we do proclamations a lot and they've just become, you know, common habit. And but even the proclamation we just read, there's important lives at stake in this proclamation that I'm about to read is probably one of the toughest that I've ever read. And I just want to just let folks know that. Just warn you that it's pretty graphic and that folks have experience, much like we did the indigenous day of indigenous people day that in this city there has been extreme atrocities and we as a city have been complicit to it. And so here's another one. Proclamation 1294 This is a proclamation proclaiming November 16th as 2018 as a day to remember and condemn the lynching by burning of a 16 year old boy. African-American Preston John Porter Jr on November 16. On November 16, 1900. And to acknowledge the city of Denver's complicity in his torturous death. Whereas the city and county of Denver recognizes Preston Porter Jr. Short life was ended by racial terrorism and a miscarriage of justice. Justice involving brutal violence at the hands of a white mob and a criminal justice system that failed him. Acknowledging his lynching calls for a process of truth and reconciliation and the continued struggle for justice. And. Whereas, Preston Porter, Jr, a railroad worker from Lawrence, Kansas, was arrested on suspicion and accused of the rape and murder of Luis Frost near Limon, Colorado. Preston was held in Denver City in a Denver City jail, along with his father and brother for four days. During much of the time, he was tortured in order to coerce a confession. No trial took place, furthering the miscarriage of justice. And. WHEREAS, it's widely known that Preston would be lynched if he were to return to Lyman. The Topeka, Kansas Daily Capital on Tuesday, November 13, 1900. Three days prior to the lynching reported, the sheriff declares his intention to take Porter back to Lincoln County. And although it is certain that he will be Lynch and probably burned upon his arrival there. Whereas Preston Porter Jr was sent by train from Denver to Hugo, Colorado, the county seat of Lincoln County for trial. Although he would never arrived there, he was forcibly taken from the train just outside of Lyman at Lake Station by an angry mob from the Lyman area, as well as people from Denver and Colorado Springs who had traveled there to watch the lynching in Lyman Preston Porter Jr was Lynch by being chained to a steel rail, then burned to death. With the first match being struck by the father of Luis for us. And. Whereas, The City and county of Denver designates November 1628 as the day in which the injustice done to Preston Porter Jr can be fully acknowledged and his death be more, whereas it can be acknowledged that an injustice. Was also done to Luis for us because the absence of due process of law and honest police work, her murderer was not confirmed and found guilty of the crimes against her. And. Whereas, PRESTON WHEREAS This Proclamation represents an important step in the journey towards reconciliation, where wrongs can be admitted and the painful absence of justice can be acknowledged. Reconciliation requires complete, complete truths. And Preston Porter Jr's death reveals the bitter truth that Denver had an active role in facilitating racial violence and injustice and prior to now has done little to acknowledge its complicity. Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed by the city and county of Denver. Section one to the Council of the City and County of Denver proclaims November 16, 2018, as a day to remember and condemn the lynching by the burning of 16 year old African-American Preston John Porter Jr. And November 16th, at November 16th, 1900. And to acknowledge the city of Denver's complicity of his death, Section two that the clerk in the city and county of Denver shall attacks in affix a seal of city encounter, deliver the proclamation and be transmitted to Equal Justice Initiative. In Montgomery, Alabama, two representatives of Preston Porter's Jr's family.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Move that proclamation to four. Be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This is definitely one of the hardest proclamations that I have read and. You know, I just want to say first that Councilman Cashman through Judy Ohman, brought this forward to the city and county of Denver, and I was happy to read it. But as I read it and talk about Preston. I got to also talk about Emmett Till, and I also have to talk about the thousands of other lynched bodies, black bodies all over our country, the unnamed bodies all over our country. And I've been we as a as an office have been putting this together all week long. And. There's just a great deal of responsibility. And even reading this. Because. We are proclaiming today that Preston John be remembered and he be remembered well. And as an African-American serving as an elected official here, I realized that I stand on his body, on his shoulders and what he suffered and the violence he suffered because of the color of his skin. See, the thing about Emmett Till and and Preston John is that they didn't commit any crime. And the only crime that they commit committed is being black. And for that. We should feel a lot of shame. A lot of people want to talk about equity in this day and age, but you can't have equity without real reconciliation and an acknowledgment of. The tragedies, the terrorism. That has existed in our own city. And so this was an effort in this proclamation to admit that. And as a part of the leadership of this city say that was wrong. And we cast that down and we're going a different direction and we're acknowledging. That Preston John Porter should have been dealt with differently. And I hope that by giving this proclamation to his family, there will be some bit of redemption. And so I thank you. I think all the folks who are working in this field and brought this forward to us to be able to read it in front of this council in the record as as proof. The government does change that. We can change that reconciliation is possible and that we can denounce hate in our community. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my friend Judy Allman for bringing this difficult topic before city council. And thank Councilman Brooks for doing the digging into this topic so deeply and doing such a indepth, fine job on that proclamation. All I wanted to add, coincidentally, my granddaughter is a 14 year old white American, goes to a private school. And coincidentally, this week, her entire eighth grade class is on a civil rights pilgrimage in the Deep South. They'll go from Selma to Montgomery. They'll walk the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They'll go to the National Memorial of Peace and Justice, which is the official name for the Lynching Museum in Montgomery, Alabama. They'll go to the Ebenezer Ammi Baptist Church. And I just think it's it's so important. I wish I'd have been able to make that that journey. And I wish every child in our country could make that journey is simply because, as has been said so many times, if we don't face the past, if we don't learn from our mistakes of the past intimately, then we are doomed to repeat them. And this is a part of our past. We can't even give a chance to let slip by into the present. So thank you again, Councilman. Thank you, Miss Allman. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for bringing this proclamation. Forward. I'm glad that. I will put this on the record. I'm glad it's going to be in the written history in word of the city. So. Thank you for bringing it forward. I think you know someone who. Represents a district that a lot of Mexicanos. We understand. We stand in solidarity. In this state, we've seen the hanging and the execution and the lynching of our African-American brothers and sisters, our indigenous brothers and sisters. Our Mexican brothers and sisters are full of folks who stood up for labor and fought for wages and fought for fair working places, men and women. And very little has been done to acknowledge not just the city, but this the states. Complacency with it. And I'm glad that at least. This proclamation has has. And we'll continue to be on our record in this city if it is passed. And I just have to say that it is much more than just discussion. We hear a lot about discussion about how we in social justice and its action. It's a proclamation like this. It's every day where we work and make sure that folks are represented and represented well and we stand up for the humanity. I think this is you know, I don't want to know how. This isn't the past. There's still African-American and Mexican people and women who are being killed. There's still folks in this country who are being shot and murdered in our streets just because of the color of their skin. Because they're black. We have to do more. This is an a very important proclamation, I believe, Councilman Brooks, because it doesn't just recognize something that's in our past, but something that we can correct today. And we can correct today in our governance, we can correct today in our society by standing up for people who are oppressed. Who are being murdered in the streets of their own city. Who are being murdered in synagogues. Right. So this is something that is definitely. A yes vote in my book and in a city who? Quite frankly, still has a neighborhood named after. One of our mayors who joined the KKK. My police chief. In Denver, who was a Klansman. And those pictures of them rolling down and file masses in Larimer. This isn't something that's just so far removed. This is something that we have to correct. So thank you, Councilman Brooks, for for bringing this forward. I wholeheartedly in solidarity stand with you on this proclamation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And thank you, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Brooks, for bringing this forward. Madam Secretary, Raquel Brooks.
Speaker 5: A black.
Speaker 3: Eye.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. Flynn All right. Gilmore, i.
Speaker 1: Herndon, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 5: I assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 as proclamation 1294 has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there someone you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 4: Yeah. You know, we have two individuals in the audience. I want to bring up. Penny Goodman is with the Episcopal Church of Colorado and is a member of the Race Task Force, as well as the Episcopal Peace Fellowship. So come on up. And then Elizabeth Epps is the founder and co-founder of the Denver Justice Project and Colorado Freedom Fund, in which she was established and helps bail out poor folks out of jail. Go ahead, Penny.
Speaker 3: Okay. Mr. President, are we permitted call response at city council?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Call and response.
Speaker 3: So if I said if I asked you to repeat after me. Are we allowed to do that? Is that permissible?
Speaker 0: I will check with our attorney. No one has ever asked me that question before.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it seems like a resounding yes there. No. So seeing. Seeing. No objection. Okay. No, seriously. So I'm going to say something and then I'll say it with me. Kirsten? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I think that's fine. We don't respond to questions, but it's fine to do this exercise.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: So it is our duty to fight for our freedom.
Speaker 1: And for our freedom.
Speaker 3: Freedom, it is our duty to win.
Speaker 4: It is our duty to win.
Speaker 3: We must love each other and support each other.
Speaker 1: And support each other.
Speaker 3: We have nothing to lose but our chains.
Speaker 1: We have nothing to lose.
Speaker 3: Thank you for for giving us that. And it was given to us by a woman name, Assata Shakur. And as I turn this over to my sister, I mentor an elder community leader I want to mention. So this shirt of mine. I would have brought you all each one. But I know there's ethical rules, gifts, rules. I had a chance to take the tour last week to be in Montgomery, Alabama, to visit the Legacy Museum. I get shaky, even saying it, and to visit the memorial, you need to do it when you can. As you walk all through these aisles, the Alabama section is deep. The Mississippi rows are long. He spent a lot of time walking through the Carolina markers with name after name of black woman and brown woman and men who were lynched in the South. But sure enough, you get to Colorado. And I want it to be the case that Colorado wasn't there, but Colorado is. And there's two names. And one of them is the young man we have a chance to honor tonight. I think, Judy, I think all of you I think Mr. Cashman. And I want to remind you, when we think about a proclamation and we think about the words of Assata Shakur, that our proclamation is empty, if in a hundred years our great grandchildren are here doing something similar for some other offense. So words matter. This proclamation matters. And I really appreciate this opportunity to honor young Mr. Porter.
Speaker 1: On behalf of the Colorado Community Remembrance Project. And those who have been have suffered.
Speaker 4: Lynching at the hands of vigilante groups, especially president john.
Speaker 1: Ford Jr. I'd like to thank the City of Denver for recognizing November 16, 2018 on President Border Day. It is a paramount importance that the victims of lynching be brought to the attention of the people of this city, of this state, and of this nation. We have too long been unaware of and or ignored those who have suffered in this tortured manner. I'm a long time resident of the Denver metro area, and in spite.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 1: Learning a lot and studying a lot about lynching in the South. I am woefully ignorant of the lynchings it took place in my beloved state. Also, I'm a mother and I'm a grandmother. And as such, I have been long, painfully aware of how African-Americans can be killed and injured by those who have sworn to protect and deserve . We have a new form of lynching. At hand? No. And unless we are.
Speaker 3: Aware.
Speaker 6: Of our horrendous past, we are bound to.
Speaker 1: Repeat and continue these acts into the future. Maybe by beginning with the support of our local officials, we can begin the long journey toward awareness. Then, maybe some day, these horrible practices will become a thing of the past. Thank you for becoming a part of this cause.
Speaker 0: Thank you both so much. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Brooke. Right. Hard to move on from that, but we have some business we need to get to. So resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution titles.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation proclaiming November 16, 2018 as a day to remember and condemn the lynching, by burning, of sixteen-year-old, African American, Preston "John" Porter, Jr. on November 16, 1900 and to acknowledge the city of Denver's complicity in his torturous death.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11052018_18-1146
|
Speaker 0: Under spending, no items have been called out to limit anything.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 1146 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move. The council will 18 dash one one for six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Per the request of the administration, I'm asking my colleagues to vote no to defeat this bill. Revisions need to be made to the agreement, and the modified agreement will be forthcoming before City Council at a later date.
Speaker 0: Thank you comes from Gilmore saying no other questions or comments. Council members. Just a reminder that this is a request to vote no. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black Knight.
Speaker 5: Brooks. Espinosa.
Speaker 1: I mean, sorry. No.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. Herndon.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 5: Kinney. Lopez knew.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 5: Ortega. Sussman. No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting in no results.
Speaker 5: 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays comfortable. 1146 has been defeated. This concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published and 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted in bills on final consideration, be placed upon final consideration, and do pass and a block for the following items. 1178117911911192109411261127112811291130113111761177118111821183118611901184119411931 and sorry 1202 1189 1160 9117011651167 and 1103.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye brooks.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega, I. Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce results. 1212 to 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 1160. Designating 6302638 East 16th Avenue, the Essex Apartments as a structure for preservation. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill out and return to her during the recess of council.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, to lease office space for driver licensing and related services at the Arie P. Taylor building at 4685 Peoria Street.
Approves a lease agreement with the State of Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles for $356,531.49 and for five years for approximately 2,583 square feet of office space for driver licensing and related services at the Arie P. Taylor building located at 4685 Peoria Street in Council 8 (FINAN-201841987). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-19-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-16-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11052018_18-1160
|
Speaker 9: For this particular property, this is an owner initiated designation process. The owner, Ben Gearhart, is here. This property is located at the corner of 16th Avenue in Washington Street in Council District ten. It is in Blueprint Denver area of change in the current zoning is gr03. Per the Denver landmark ordinance in order to be designated a property, must meet two of the following three categories History, Architecture and geography. It must maintain its historic and physical integrity, and the LPC should consider how it relates to a historic context or theme. The designation for this property puts forward that it's a significant under history one a an architecture to be. Under history that it has a direct association with the historical development of the city of Denver, as illustrated on the three maps here. Beginning in 1887, with the Robinson Atlas and continuing through the 1924 Sanborn map, it shows the development of the Capitol Hill area. In this particular area, you can see the blocks around the building with the blue arrow showing there's not a particular amount of large development in the 1887 Robinson Atlas. It's shown before the state capitol was constructed and in the 1886 decision to construct the the state capitol, it drew a lot of additional development to the Capitol Hill area. In the 1905 based map, the building had still yet to be constructed. But you can see there's beginning to see more additional infill. And then by the 1924 Sanborn map, the property had already been constructed. This particular building represents the move in the development of the Capitol Hill area. Initially, it was the wealthy and those who could afford to move out of the urban core and away from the industry and pollution from what was down on the river. They decided they wanted to move closer to the state capitol in the area of political power and Capitol Hill mansions became a way to showcase their wealth. The middle class soon followed with apartments providing affordable options to live in a nicer, wealthier part of town. These were seen as an upgrade from boarding houses, which had been on the other ways for people to live in a multi-tenant or a multi-unit building. This particular property was located close to trolley lines, which allowed people to still commute in and out of their residence and into a place of work. And so this building has a direct association with the development of the Capitol Hill area and the ability to have a multi-unit or multifamily housing. This property is also significant for its architecture being designed by a significant are being designed by a recognized architect and being a significant example of their work. This is designed by William Fisher and here are some examples of other properties that he didn't design, including the tramway building, the state annex building. This is a good representative example of what he designed from ranging from large scale buildings to smaller residential to larger, more affluent residential properties. And these are all from the Denver Public Library's collection. William Fisher was a prominent and prolific architect. He went on to form the firm Fisher and Fisher with his brother. They designed multiple types of buildings residential, commercial, institutional and varied architectural styles. The Essex apartment building was one of the early commissions in Fisher's career, and it was one of the very first apartment buildings that we could find that he had designed. And this was a sign of the the apartment buildings that were built were designed by architects. This one wasn't it wasn't built by a builder. But in the Capitol Hill area, they paid to have an architect design their building. And finally, after meeting the criteria under history in architecture, it should be able to convey its historic and architectural significance through its historic and physical integrity, which is just a preservation way of saying, Does the building look like what it used to look like? This is a 1912 photo also from Denver Public Library that shows the building. Really, one of the only few changes on the building were that the two porches on the front and the side were removed and some of the windows and doors were changed from windows, our doors , our doors to windows. This particular project is taking both state and federal tax credits, so they are following the National Park Service Secretary of the Interior standards, and they, as part of that, have rebuilt the the central patio or porches. And overall landmark staff in the Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met the requirements of having historic and physical integrity. And then finally, the LPC considered how the structure related to the historic contexts or themes with the growth and expansion of Denver, and particularly the late 19th and early 20th century of the area around the the state capital and the development of the Capitol Hill area. The LPC reviewed it and found that it met the criteria under history. One way of having a direct association with historical development and being a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. They felt it maintained the historic and physical integrity and they considered how the structure relates to historic context and theme. And they voted unanimously to recommend approval to you. And there were no public comments that had been received in any written form for anyone for this property. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. I think we can fit all six in the front row. So if you've signed up to speak on this, please come up to the front row. As soon as I call your name, your time will start to elapse. So if you choose not to relocate to the front row, you may lose some of the time that you have allocated to speak. So again, I'd ask everyone who has signed up to speak for this to please come up to the front row and be ready as soon as your name is called. First up, we have Ben Gearhart.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Thanks for having this opportunity for having us here. My name is Ben Gearhart. I live at 3931, Julian here in Denver. And this is our first historic preservation project in Colorado. We've had experience of doing these projects back in the Midwest. This will be our fifth project that we're preserving. We love opportunities to find old buildings and be able to restore them to their original splendor. And this was a fantastic opportunity to do so. I'm sure some of the folks recognize where the building was at about two years ago. Love and have an opportunity. Have anybody here to join us for our launch event in January. And really just here to answer any questions that somebody some of you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Mariana Thompson.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman. Councilman, this is a beautiful building. Yes, very historic. But in this time and in this day and age of people that are houseless, I think that it should be used for better and serve the better public. And it should be used for people like a HUD housing, like Roanoke Apartments are on a bait and log. And so I, I do not feel that we should use it for people who already have money for houses that they could get elsewhere. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Paulson.
Speaker 1: Hello, counsel. My name is John Wilson. I'm with Historic Denver. I really want to take this time to to support the ownership on this project. I think this is a wonderful project for the Capitol Hill and Uptown neighborhood. This has some very unique qualities from a standpoint that was mentioned earlier by Caroline of the city that this was a multifamily property that was brought in to bring the middle class up to the areas of the mansion development. And now it can be used again for that housing. It was in really, really rough shape in the very recent history as far as the ownership just mentioned. And this has been a wonderful turnaround. And I just want to state that this is one of the tools of historic preservation, is actually these tax credits, the state and federal tax credits to be able to get this done. This is, I would say, the ownership group here as doing wonderful work. And I think they're doing it in many ways because it's the right thing to do for their project. And it's also a beautiful thing to do for the city to preserve something like this, for this neighborhood, and to have it reused again. But they're also bringing it forward because this is financially advantageous for this project and we're hoping to see many, many more of these going forward. Historic Denver has been fighting for these types of incentives for historic preservation for a long time. We are continually to fight to fight for them. We had to do that with the reauthorization of the of the tax code nationally. And we're hoping to have more incentives as well. And we want to have more developers like this who see the assets of Denver and really want this to be a part of the future of Denver as well as, you know, have this be a useful building to be able to live in. So I want to thank you. And I also want to encourage you to designate this property so all of this comes to fruition. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm running for City Council at large 2019 and I am neither for or against this. I just had a few questions on this proposal. What will be the EMI level for these apartments? How many people will be living at this property and. Yeah. That was it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman CQ.
Speaker 10: I just want with you. My name's Chairman Sekou. Organizers have founded Blackstar, a movement for self-defense. Champion of the oppressed. The vulnerable. Poor, working poor. Homeless folks, senior citizens.
Speaker 1: Students.
Speaker 10: And others. After listening to. What was said. And having a conversation with the owner. What we're talking about here is ten hotel rooms. And ten apartments or 11 hotel rooms. It's a small little thing here. And it's been done. In a way. That. Satisfies the need for housing for folks who can't afford it. All of this is going to be market rate. And there's some folks who can't afford market rate. Some people go to six, go to a Super eight, some people go down to the brown. But just cause you go to the Brown Palace to make you better than the folks that go to the sex, you just can't afford it. It's a part of America that if you can afford it, get it. And if you can't afford it, then you need to organize yourself so you can get what you need to get . Just like they organized themselves to get what they want to get. So what you have really here is a question of those that are organized versus those that are not. My job is to organize the folks. That's not. And because I'm organizing, the people that don't have it don't mean I'm opposed to the people that can get it. I'm just down for when I'm down for it and you'll be down to what you down for. So I want folks to get the wrong impression that I got this Marxist-Leninist class thing going on. I want to see young white folks go at it. You know, I'm saying they're not going to win it like, you know, we should have did in the Civil War. But that's not story. But what we have here is an opportunity to correct historical wrong. We just celebrate in an analysis the murder of press the DA. What better reconciliation is to get folks in there like press to John act like we believe in what we said and at least just get one unit. Or just get one part of the name of the president on something, something concrete other than an empty proclamation that don't carry no legal weight whatsoever. Let's make it meaningful what we do here.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Next up, David River.
Speaker 1: David Roy Bob. Good evening, council. I live at 742 West Ninth Avenue, grew up in this neighborhood. My family were at the Children's Hospital for a long time, so I always walk through there, see the historic area. I mean, it's awesome. There's always a story there and I'm glad for all the work that historic Denver is doing. I went to the the West Side history meeting and it's bring together people that carry them stories. And, you know, I just support support the historic designation of this. And I just wonder there's any stories from our long term residents. I know it was a it was a hostel, was a boarding house, but there's a lot of stories used to be the Crusader just is right there in and a block away at the right there by their motto was where the robbery was planned. And it's also part of the district that crosses crosses Colfax. So I hope with the passing of the X Y that changes the districts, I hope back and you know, we could see more straighter lines the districts. And I hope this building brings more life to the community and more opportunities for the low income residents. And I hope to keep it affordable because that building once was affordable. So if we keep the historic designation affordable to stay the same and if, you know, to see if it's going to change after this change and if there's going to be more resilience, because I know the hospital is growing, so it'll be interesting to see if it brings more growth on that side. And Will and and I know these past the Emily Griffith and I know used to use an old buildings and I hope to see more old buildings used for housing and opportunities and bringing people back to the community safe on the streets. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'd like to ask the owner. The restoration that's going to occur. Are you? You're restoring the front from what I saw here, the the porticos or whatever the structure was on the front. Are you also looking at the Washington Street side and restoring that as well? Excellent. Yeah. So we actually did a entire survey of the property right from a window perspective first. Had to replace probably 40% of the windows with divided light wood windows, which is somewhat of a challenge in itself. A lot of the windows were restoring back to the original is also inside the building and all the new systems are upgraded plumbing, electrical, HVAC, wood floors or lacing and the original wood floors which were fur back in 1907. All all new trim where it needs trim, but restoring the trim and the handrails that were existing. So, yeah, it's a full, full renovation. Okay. And right now in Washington Street side, there's parking right up against the facade where there used to be a lawn. Are you what's your plan there? So that that will continue to remain parking for the project? Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for accountable 1160 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council councilman?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I and my whole district judiciary team has got some wonderful examples of historic homes, and we've done a great job of preserving them. And in remembering the history of Denver and Capitol Hill is another great area where we got some beautiful homes. And today I rode by the building checking it out to see it. And I can tell the work that you're going to do is going to really restore that building to its beauty and and the tender, loving care that you're given to. So I really appreciate what you're doing. There's going to be Capitol Hill is growing. We'll have more residential, more commercial development there. And there's going to be a wonderful asset. And and I hope we will have more historic buildings preserved in that area. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Knew seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: New. Black eye.
Speaker 5: Brooks Espinosa.
Speaker 1: My.
Speaker 5: Friend I Gillmor.
Speaker 3: I Herndon High Cashman.
Speaker 5: I can eat i.
Speaker 1: Lopez All right.
Speaker 5: Ortega I assessment, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm secretary. Please cause voting in the results. 3913 I as counts bill 1160 has passed City Council sitting ex-officio as the board of Directors for the Fort Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, Reno General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement District will hold public hearings on Monday, November 19th, related to the 2018 work plans and
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 630-638 East 16th Avenue, the Essex Apartments, as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for the Essex Apartments, located at 630-638 East 16th Avenue in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-16-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10292018_18-1146
|
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions, we have nothing called out under bills for introduction, Councilwoman Gilmore is called Accountable 18 dash 21146 for a comment under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Gilmore. Go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 4: Thank you, President. Clerk. I thought it was going to be comments, but I do have one question. Is that okay to go.
Speaker 0: With go for it. But but you're not calling for a vote still. I understand. Okay. Just a question.
Speaker 4: Go for it. All right. Great. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question of Lisa Lumley with the Division of Real Estate. She's coming. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Hey.
Speaker 4: Sorry, Lisa. We got here a little quicker than I thought we would. I had a question about this lease arrangement and just wanted to understand what are the requirements of an organization who is maybe leasing space within a city owned building? What stipulates their participation in building wide safety protocols? Anything that has to do with with the entire facility. Lisa Lumley, Division of Real Estate. I apologize. I was actually trying to get some answers out in the hallway just now. So in general, all of our leases require that our tenants adhere to all applicable laws, state laws, city laws, municipal codes, etc. where I have a number of phone calls in right now, including to Chief Manny and Tony Caro. What we're trying to confirm is, is a fire drill a true requirement in every building other than, you know, it may be high rises, but since that's only a two level building, if it is a requirement, they would be required to participate any tenant. Your email today was the first that I was ever aware that there was an issue and I've already spoken with facilities about that as well since your email, just to understand what's been going on or who they've been communicating with. So all I can do right now is defer that we are trying to understand what is truly a requirement or a regulation. Code issue versus a building protocol. And from there, if it's protocol, we'd still want to work with them and talk to them about that to understand. But if it's anything else, then no, that is part of the lease. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you for your work on it. And look forward to to the follow up. I will. Thank you. Thank you. President Clarke.
Speaker 0: Is that everything for this bill? Yes. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published, and we are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, to lease office space for driver licensing and related services at the Arie P. Taylor building at 4685 Peoria Street.
Approves a lease agreement with the State of Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles for $356,531.49 and for five years for approximately 2,583 square feet of office space for driver licensing and related services at the Arie P. Taylor building located at 4685 Peoria Street in Council 8 (FINAN-201841987). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-19-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-16-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10292018_18-1134
|
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill one one, two, three has passed. Councilman Espinosa, were you put to council bill 113, four on the floor?
Speaker 9: I move that council. Bill 113 for series 18 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved, if I can get a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1134 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Yes. Katrina Madigan with the Department of Public Health and Environment. Let me open the presentation. Okay. I'll give just a very brief overview of the ordinance you're considering today to get things started. So as you all know, an ordinance of the Green Roof Initiative passed on the ballot last November. We formed the Green Roof Review Task Force to develop recommended modifications, clarifications and improvements to the initiative through a collaborative, consensus based process that will honor the vote. A little reminder of who was on the task force. We had two council members, four city staff. Green roof proponents, as well as the real estate sector who had led the opposition to the original ordinance and a number of additional experts the task force met. And nine times from January 19th through June 7th when they reached a consensus recommendation for all of you. And the original ordinance had a number of great benefits for our city. And the ordinance you're considering today and we think improves upon those benefits and really honors them and does even better. So to touch on each of them briefly, that helps reduce the urban heat island. We have the third worst urban heat island in the country. And the new requirement has not only a partial coverage of a roof with a green roof, but full coverage of all the roofs with cool roofs to help address urban heat island. The original ordinance would add green space and help with water and stormwater management in our city, and the current requirement has similar options that honor those benefits. The coverage requirements are actually about 14% higher than the ordinance you're considering today. So we'll add a little bit more green space for the voters. And the greenhouse gas emission reductions will be similar to what their original ordinance would have achieved through solar panels. So just to briefly review the compliance options that buildings will have. All buildings over 25,000 square feet for new buildings will have to install a cool roof. And they will also have to pick one other compliance option. And the options they have are to do a green roof or to install that same amount of green space elsewhere on the site, on the terrace or on the ground. They can also pay for off site green. Ultimately, they can do green in combination with solar panels or energy efficiency. So a smaller amount of green in combination with some energy options. And that's similar to the original initiative where you could do a green roof combined with solar panels. Next they can do just solar or they can do energy efficiency. And again, it's similar to the original initiative where you could cover the whole roof and solar panels. And that's also the option here to cover 70% of the total roof area. Lastly, they can get sort of certified from a third party like LEED or Enterprise Green Communities. For existing buildings. When they replace their roof, they'll have to install a cool roof and pick one compliance option in addition to that, so they can add a small green roof or a small amount of green space to the site. They can pay for off site green. They can install solar panels, get certification, or they can enroll in a flexible energy program where they have five years to achieve similar greenhouse gas emission reductions as that solar option. And there's a number of energy efficiency options, as well as solar options in that energy program. So with that. I'll stop.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. We do have 19 speakers signed up to speak tonight, so I'm going to call the first five up to this front row. So if you'd please come up to the front row so that we can get through everybody and everybody has 3 minutes and you're free to take up the 3 minutes . But if, you know, four or five people in front of you have all said the same thing that you're saying, it's also totally fine if you say, I agree with those people and let us know that you're here and what your feelings are. So the first five of you could come up with front row Bruce Ray, Jesse Paris, Luke Spencer, Jack's Roger Melvin and Ellen Thorpe. If you want to come up to the front row and Bruce Ray, you are up first.
Speaker 3: But good evening, President Clark. Members of the council. Thank you for letting me be here tonight. My name is Bruce Ray, and I'm with Johns Manville. I'm director of Governmental and Regulatory Affairs for them. Johns Manville is a Berkshire Hathaway company with our world headquarters right here in Denver and the Johns Manville Building at 17th in California , where we have 400 employees. We also have our world R&D headquarters in southwest Littleton, where we have an additional 300 employees. We have three business divisions at Johns, Manville Manufacturing Products, insulation, engineered products and roofing. Of course, I'm talking about the roofing products here tonight. In fact, we are our commercial roofing systems division is one of the largest manufacturers of of commercial roofing systems in North America. JOHNS Manville makes a wide variety of different commercial roof membranes for a wide variety of applications. We can supply membranes, insulation and materials for green roofs, cool roofs, traditional black roofs, and just about everything in between. And when it comes to cool roofs, we've been in that business for many, many years, and we're actually one of the companies that work with the California Energy Commission in their establishment of the original cool roof requirements in their Title 24 energy code. So we sort of don't really have a dog in this fight. And from the outset, we've really offered our technical expertize, which we think is is pretty important, pretty vast to this process. And I think based on that overall expertize, we're just not in favor of mandatory cool roofs for two primary reasons. One is that it makes it makes for a more complicated and expensive design and construction. And then second, it may actually increase carbon emissions, since in our climate zone, there's a little bit of a heating penalty that these cooler of buildings have to pay in the winter. It just it takes more energy to cool or to heat them in in the winter. We like to say at Johns Manville, because we have such a wide variety of roofing products that there's there's a right roof for every building. And that right roof is really dependent on the location of the building configuration, size, use and all these other factors. And that's why we have a wide many, many very expert roofing design systems designers that help building owners and developers understand what is the right roof for their particular location. So we would urge you to not adopt this ordinance and instead let roofing system designers use their expertize in getting the right roof for any particular building. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Jesse Paris Blackstar. It's a moment for self defense. Denver Homeless Sellout and Community Action. Commitment for change. No hidden agendas. We are in favor of this ordinance change. I was in attendance for the subcommittee meeting on this. This whole chamber was full of overflow. So this is a big issue at hand that we need to deal with this climate change. So yeah, we're definitely in support of this. And also I'm delighted to hear that low and subsidized income areas will also have access to these roofs. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up. Luke Spencer. Jack's.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. Thank you. My name.
Speaker 0: Is Louis Spencer, Jack's director of operations.
Speaker 3: For London Commercial Leasing Company.
Speaker 0: I am here speaking on my actually.
Speaker 3: The company they run and other companies.
Speaker 8: I support the Green Rush Task Force.
Speaker 3: With the new order of cool roofs. As far as adding.
Speaker 8: Greenery, new structural designs, it has become cost effective for.
Speaker 3: Building owners, new construction belts.
Speaker 8: So with just that being said, this allows us to get back to work and endeavor.
Speaker 3: Who a lot of us, you know, are in Denver.
Speaker 8: Right now because of this ordinance. We, you know, as everybody else, we all have family. We have friends that we need to support.
Speaker 0: So that's all I.
Speaker 3: Have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Roger Melvin.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon.
Speaker 5: My name's Roger Melvin. I work for Seek a corporation. Seek a corporation sells roofs in 82 countries around the world. We've been in business for 60 years. The only thing we've ever made are white, thermoplastic, cool roofs. We have not made black roofs. We hail from New England in the United States and Switzerland and Europe is where our home bases. The point there is that both of those locales are in cool climates.
Speaker 3: The argument against.
Speaker 5: White roofs in this market is leaving the designers to make the decision that they don't want to be dictated to. Well, the same argument was made in the electrical constituency when we made codes for electricity, when we have building codes for insulation. Codes are put in place to protect the. Constituents that those people live under. So the people of Denver have voted for a green roof initiative. It's very complex, but you have the data and the scientific research out there to support the Denver Green Roof Initiative. The folks against it, the folks that are in this room pitching that, we need to leave it up to designers, to the manufacturers to make the point it solely has to do with dollar signs and nothing other than that. They're not looking after the best interests of the city.
Speaker 3: They're not looking.
Speaker 5: At clear data, scientific data. Denver is number three in the nation for urban heat island effect. And, you know, the voters of Denver have spoken that they want to change that. You've got the tools. Each one of the council members have been sent. A case study from Target Corp., which I remind you, is a private, privately run for profit organization that is put in place to do the best for their shareholders. They've done the research. The research paper that you have is based on multiple roofs, I think 25 roofs that are all ten years and older. And they have all successful track records.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Alan Thorpe. And then I'm going to call the next five up if we can make room on the frontbench. That will be Kathy Bachner, Mike Morris, Brandon Routh, Heimer, Andy, Chris and Caleb Ewing. If you want to make your way up to the front bench. Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon. Good evening. I'm Ellen Thorpe with the EPDM Roofing Association. The EPDM Roofing Association is a trade association representing three primary manufacturers of roofing products in North America. Johns, Manville You recently heard from Bruce Ray, also Carlisle and Firestone. All of these companies make a wide variety of roofing products, including cool roofs. As you've heard from us by now, we are supportive of almost all of the proposed modified ordinance, with the exception that we are against the cool roof mandate portion. In fact, we developed a compromise where users could select two options instead of one and an additional path for a high performance green building option. We are very appreciative of working with the City Council, grateful that you have read our e-mails, returned our phone calls and taken our meetings. We appreciate that you have asked thoughtful and critical questions. You've heard from over eight roofing manufacturers in previous communication and from over 100 roofing contracting companies as represented by the Colorado Roofing Association. The Colorado Roofing Association has communicated with you on several occasions and has been consistent about their opposition to the coal roof mandate. We are also appreciative of the work of the Green Roofs Review Taskforce and the monumental task that was set before them. But nonetheless, we are disappointed that we are here. We are troubled that no roofing contractors or roof consultants were on the task force. We are frustrated that when roofing experts were allowed to address the task force, they cautioned against a one size fits all approach. But that council went unheeded. We are concerned that although five members of the Chorus Working Group recommended against a coal roof mandate, they were told that removing the mandate was not an option. And we are disillusioned that although we submitted comments, attended meetings through the public review process and submitted 16 peer reviewed studies questioning the efficacy of a coal roof in Denver, we were told again that removing the coal roof mandate was not an option. And we were told that even though our compromise position allows flexibility and choice while preserving all of the benefits of the original ordinance. And so here we are. We encourage the Council to continue to ask critical questions that will measure the impact of the cool roof mandate on Denver's urban heat island. The roofing industry, the roofing industry, manufacturers, contractors and consultants is available, and we are committed to working with you to preserve the will of the voters while creating a high performance green building network with attributes that will actually improve Denver's urban heat island. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Cathy Fastener.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Clark. Council members my name is Kathy Bachner. I am the executive director of Knapp, Colorado, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. I'm the past chair of the Colorado Real Estate Alliance, which represents over 16 real estate related organizations across Colorado. And lastly, I'm the chair of Citizens for Responsible Denver, and we oppose the passage of the Green Report initiative. The primary members of Knapp, Colorado are owners, developers and investors in commercial real estate. There are over 20,000 across North America, many of which are active in Colorado and in Denver specifically. We design and build office, industrial, retail, mixed use and multifamily spaces. I am here on behalf of those members and as a member of the Stakeholder Task Force to encourage you to pass Ordinance 18 1134 as submitted. The Stakeholder Task Force focused on two primary things as they did their work. Honor the will of the voter. This was a challenge because what the voters wanted and what initiative 300 would have given them were very different and eager compliance. It was our desire to create a program that owners, developers and investors would eagerly want to comply with. This ordinance is a delicate balance of ideas and solutions that we are convinced will not only result in eager compliance, but will ultimately result in even more environmental benefits than the original ordinance would have. For example, the City Planning Department itself estimated that 90% of existing buildings would have been exempt under the original ordinance. This revised ordinance will no longer exempt them. Instead, it gives them a variety of options that assures their participation in the program. One of the most pivotal changes is the requirement that all roofs new and existing include a chorus system with only a very defined few having exemptions for things such as special architectural features. The task force did significant research into this process with multiple roofing experts and have drafted extensive flexibility around these systems. This one change will have a dramatic improved effect on the original ordinance. Remember, 90% of existing buildings would have been exempted and now they will have a way to participate. It is important for you to also recognize that Brandon, who will speak in a moment as the chief proponent of the ordinance and me as the co-chair of the opposition, are in complete agreement with this revised ordinance. And in this day and age, coming to complete agreement on a consensus is a unique thing, and I think you need to keep that in mind. So by giving owners, developers and investors a range of options, Denver can deliver its green promises while remaining a great place to work, live and invest. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mike Morris.
Speaker 8: Thank you, President Clark. Denver City Council. I live in lucky number seven. So excited to be here. I also voted for the Green Roof Initiative 300 last November 7th. In my concern with the new draft ordinance resolved around the language in one of the green buildings draft. I was surprised with the new draft ordinance language on page nine stating that any residential building five storeys or fewer or less than 62 feet in height with over 25,000 square feet of gross area floor are exempt, meaning all multifamily buildings that go under five storeys but over 25,000 square feet do not have to comply with green roofs, solar or any other, I guess, proposed renewables. The white roofs are cool. Roofs are still mandated in that section. So what I'm looking at is in multi-family permits in Denver. The year ending in May 18th, Denver saw 10,343 multifamily home building permits. It was a record that year, 14.4% year over year. So we're essentially saying multifamily can be exempt from this process unless you go over five stories. Majority of the buildings around me are all five stories. This is a building then is in 275 units built in 2016. It already has a white and cool roof, so they already meet this compliance in 2016. So this would be exempt. This building, Broadway station, 419 units built in 2009 with a white roof. They're already compliant. This would be exempt for the green roofs and solar. That's IMT Alameda Station. This is also exhibit 300 8038 units built in 2014. Exempt. And the last one in Observatory Park, 550 units built in 2017. White Roof. This sold for over $92 million. We're trying to exempt buildings that are $92 million in. GROSS This is what our my concern is. So I respect the committee's work and recommendations, but the proposed draft just needs to change that, that verbiage from 25,000 square feet or more to less, as the voters approved back in 20 back in 2017. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brandon Reath Heimer.
Speaker 11: Hello. My name is Brandon Wreath. I'm here. I'm the proponent of the Denver Greenough Initiative. For months, individuals from all spectrums across Denver worked tirelessly to come to a compromise that would honor the benefits of the original ordinance while making it more feasible for building owners and developers. Not only did we accomplish that, but we have comprised something that is even a greater climate impact, not just to reduce our carbon footprint, to also protect Denver from the effects of climate change that we will definitely see in the years to come. As proponent of the Green Roof initiative, I believe the very foundation of our compromise lies with the requirement of cool roofs. Without this foundational piece, we never would have reached consensus. This important requirement ensures lowering our urban heat island highland, which would lead to lower fewer heat related issues and will lead to lower energy consumption leading to less carbon emissions. The task force worked very hard and very thoughtfully while drafting this new policy, and I'm here today to ask that you approve this without any amendments.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Andy. Keith.
Speaker 3: Hello. Council members Mandy Keith, president of Green Roofs of Colorado, where an amenity space, green roof design installation maintenance company. We've been operating in Denver since 2007. I was also a technical advisor for the Denver Green Roof Initiative and a proponent of it, and I'm also a member of the city's Task Force on the Green Roof Initiative . I'm really going to speak to this task force. I want to agree with what Cathy said earlier, too. She said how this new initiative actually increases the reach of the initiative and will have more environmental and sustainability principles for the city of Denver. And I also agree with Brandon Reath Hamer and all the work that he's done. And this taskforce started as a highly opposed group and with very many variable constituents that they were representing. And during the course of these nine meetings that we had with the task force and over almost 40 hours of time, we examined current research and the viability of multiple options that would satisfy the voters intent of the original Green Roof initiative. Amazingly, we reached a consensus and not just a consensus. Unanimous candidate census of the group with this new green building policy, one that protects the will of the voters well, providing them the flexibility and the design and construction industry needs to operate here. This this new policy will help Denver continue on a path of resiliency and sustainability. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. Next up is Caleb Ewing and I'll call the next five if you could come up and we can make room for them in the front. Emma Dutton John deal into the. Grant Nelson and Sean GROSS. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. My name is Caleb Ewing. I am from Castle Rock, so I am not a resident of Denver, but I do work primarily in the Denver area. I work for a company called Seeker Carnival. We are based out of Switzerland with our U.S. operations being based out of Massachusetts. So I have to say, go Red Sox or as a celebration went last night, at least it wasn't the Dodgers. I would also like to point out that some of the other manufacturers that we are in party with with the Vinyl Roofing Institute would be Douglass, who is based out of Michigan, and they've been there since 1978. And then another company called FiveThirtyEight, who is based out of Ohio and has been there for over 25 years. I point out where these manufacturers are from because they are all in cold weather climate zones. Most of their initial installations were within a tight radius around their manufacturing plant. They have not experienced the widespread failures that maybe you may have heard of in some of the colder climates with coal roofs. If they had, they would not be in business anymore. So I would ask for your consideration to just to that one that one fact, as you hear horror stories of that might be contrary to that. All of the many factors that make up the EPDM Roofing Association do also offer cool roof options, as you have heard, and they also sell them in this climate zone in the city. So if they did not work, they would not be sold here. I'd only ask for you to consider that just as you are coming up with a mandate, you guys are all having to become experts in building code and building science, which is an unfair task to ask of anybody considering all the other things you have to consider. But I would ask that you understand that the Green Roof Initiative was passed by the voters in order to have an impact on the urban heat island effect. If we can do that simply by changing the color and reflectivity of our roof surface, then it is a very easy compromise for everybody to comply with. Leaving it up to building owners, choice and designers is a good idea. And in fact, I'm in support of that. To most degree, however, there are some things that cannot be left to designers and building owners. When I go to remodel my kitchen, I am not allowed to use lead pipes. So thank you building code for protecting my children. I would like to say that. While choice is good, we have to do what's best for our city. And I really appreciate your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Emma Dunn.
Speaker 6: Good evening, President Clark. Council members. I live in the inspiration.
Speaker 4: Point neighborhood of District one and I work in the roofing industry. I support the initiative as it has been revised by the task force, both as a resident.
Speaker 6: And as a member of the roofing industry.
Speaker 4: I want to congratulate the task force for the amazing work that they have done to come to a compromise. In my opinion, the original problem with the initiative was that it wasn't well researched by industry members and the task force has now taken time to do that and they have come up with an excellent compromise that many people are happy with. Most specifically, the urban heat island effect will be addressed by the initiative and I believe it really gets at voter intent for the initial passing of the initiative. And we need to think about that, not whether we can make money, whether we designers can have lots of choice. We need to think about voter intention and the long term effects on our city. The research is clear. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has indisputable research that cool roofs prevent urban heat island effect, and you can twist and manipulate data to show many different things. But a national lab is a trustworthy source, and in this age of infinite sources, they can tell us whatever we want to hear. Right. A rule you get on the Internet and you look for whatever opinion you want to find, you can find it. So we need to be careful about our sources. And the research is clear. And I know the task force has done really hard work to analyze that and present you with a compromise, which is a bit of a miracle in today's political landscape. So I urge you to approve the initiative as it has been revised by the task force tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Could you just state your name for the record?
Speaker 4: Am I done?
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. Next up, John Dill.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name is John Diehl. I am in Parker, Colorado, and I also represent a manufacturer. Caleb mentioned that I am the Dallas Roofing Representative. Our corporate offices in Michigan and we have been manufacturing roofing systems for over 40 years now. And we have installed billions of square feet of roofing in the United States and Canada. We offer both cool roofing membranes and dark non cool rated systems. Though we offer a variety of membranes we see the benefit of and recommend cool roofing systems to our customers. This is true in both warm climates such as Texas and Arizona and cool climates like Colorado, Michigan and even Canada. I am also a member of the Colorado Roofing Association and despite previous comments made by the Sierra and EPDM Roofing Association that, quote, the roofing community is unified in its opposition to the cool roof mandate and quote , They do not represent me and many other members of the Denver roofing community. We actually support the Corps of Mandate. Despite their opposition, all membrane roofing manufacturers make cool rated membranes and they can easily meet the cool, cool roofing mandate. And all of the roofing contractors that I work with install both systems, just like the insulation requirement, for example, they can and will install whatever the city code requires. As citizens of Denver voted, and I think most of us agree, we have to make changes to lower the greenhouse gases and reduce the urban heat island effect. The most energy efficient and cost effective way to make an impact is to require cool roofing systems. The proposal you have before you this evening is a great compromise. Through months of meetings, information gathering and negotiations, please honor the task force recommendation and mandate the.
Speaker 9: Use of cool roofs. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, the interior.
Speaker 3: My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya. I live in the I'm a Lincoln Park and I happen to be the deputy campaign manager for the Denver Green Roof Initiative. I'm here today in support of the proposed changes to the code that was approved by the Denver voters.
Speaker 11: This bill provides options and requires buildings to do their.
Speaker 3: Part in meeting the initiative's goals. And I couldn't be more pleased that we're reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, reducing heat island effect and providing green space. I will note that the cool roofs.
Speaker 11: Are a critical component and must.
Speaker 3: Remain in the compromise. I'm pleased that the city industry proponents and opponents came together on the work here tonight. But let's be clear it wasn't an easy feat. Our all volunteer coalition was first turned away by the city, and then we took our case to the voters. We faced big money and the well-connected, and still we prevailed. Even still, our opponents asked the council to illegally halt the implementation of this law. Denver is ready to lead on climate change. We're entitled to clean air and clean water, and we cannot let industry dollars stand in our way. I hope this serves as an example that we cannot that we can choose to be bold, that the sky.
Speaker 11: Will not fall, and that with.
Speaker 3: Government and citizens leading the way, we can control.
Speaker 11: And have the hard fights to ensure a stable world for future generations. I implore you, Council, don't wait for.
Speaker 3: Citizens to push you further into climate change actions. We cannot falter. Time is short, but Denver can truly be a world class city by standing with those around the world and innovating to slow climate change. And let me be clear. If you don't, the citizens and voters will.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Grant Nelson.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Councilman. Council President Clark and members of council. My name is Grant Nelson and I live at 731 Norwich Court in Castle Pines. I'm a commercial real estate developer for the last 26 years have dealt about 3 million square feet of retail. I was the former state president of ICAC, the International Council of Shopping Centers, and I'm here and was on the task force on behalf of the shopping center industry. The original initiative has passed would have been very, very damaging to the shopping center industry, to retail and to Denver as a whole. I will commend Brandon and Andy and those who worked on the other side of this. They came to the table, they learned and they made a compromise. And the compromise was based.
Speaker 0: On the core of part of the.
Speaker 3: Initiative. I think we were all better served to have a diverse coalition or a diverse task force, and I think we all learned from each other. I would also say that it is hard in this day and age to have opposing parties come together and agree on something and not only agree, but we've agreed unanimously. So I would ask for you to support the initiative as designed. And I also want to commend Katrina and the staff in Denver. They did a great job of bringing us together and allowing us all a voice. Thank you. And I'm available for questions if anybody has any.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And next up, Sean GROSS and then I'll call the last four, Paul Reed, Jamaica Berman, Phil Chavez and Jennifer Boosler. Coming up to the front.
Speaker 7: My name is Shawn GROSS and the co-owner of Maverick Roof Coating. And just want to let you guys know that we do support this bill, in particular the core roof portion for energy efficiency. And so happy you guys have everyone's come to a compromise here. So I look forward to seeing it get best. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Paul Reid. Thank you guys for allowing us to be here tonight. My name is Paul Reid. I'm a general manager of Northwest Roofing here in Denver. You know, bottom line is this. There's a lot of roofing companies, a lot of real estate companies, other companies that are looking to grow. And I've personally seen I've been on jobs or we've came out to do a due diligence on some real estate, and.
Speaker 5: They refused to buy there in Denver because of.
Speaker 0: Of how this bill was passed. It's about an affordable for them. You know, these roofs were damaged. They needed new roofs. And it was just plain and simple, not affordable. But I do believe this new task force has put together a compromise that we will all be able to live with and be able to do and we'll be able to get back to work. That's been another issue. We we do have over 250 employees as well that we haven't been able to do work in Denver because of this this bill. So thank you guys for your consideration. And we highly suggest that we get this passed tonight. Let's get back to work. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jamaica Burman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Clark. She added, My name is Jamaica Burman. I am with the building manufacturer, GFT, the world's largest roofing manufacturer. I was also a Denver Task Force member and I represent the roofing community. I've been in the roofing industry for 12 years, both on the contractor side and the manufacturers side. And I just want to bring up to date to where we're at today. Three roofing permits have been poured in Denver. We're clearly in a building halt. I support the task force recommendations and and anxiously look forward to telling the roofing community they can get back to the work in the city of Denver. Stantec, the consultant on the task force, found that 87% to 95% of existing buildings can't handle the weight of a green roof. With that being said, the task force came up with this being the best decision. I believe that the cool roof mandate is the best possible option that respects the voters intents to assertively combat Denver's urban heat island effect. Over the last ten months, Jeff and the Sierra Colorado Roofing Association have been updating the roofing community on the proposed changes. I've been hosting a series of events that focused on training the roofing community on cool roofs, green roofs and solar, so that we are ready for this when it is passed. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Felicia Chavez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, council members. My name is Phil Chavez and I'm the general manager of Top.
Speaker 5: That commercial roofing. We are in support of the.
Speaker 3: Task force proposed changes to the green roof mandate. Our firm looks forward to getting back to work as soon as possible in Denver. And I appreciate everybody's hard work to get to this point. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And last up, Jennifer Bruce looked.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council members, I appreciate it. I'm Dr. Jennifer Bustillo, and I'm a professor at Colorado State University in the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. But of course, I'm not representing the university. However, I am representing the science behind Green Roofing, as I've spent most of my 15 year career studying and peer review publishing the effective use of green roofs right here in Denver, Colorado. First, I want to address the question that Councilmember Herndon mentioned at the October 12th hearing about cool roofs locally and their benefit on the urban heat island. I was on the research team at the EPA and CSU research facility at 16th and Wynkoop. Ten years ago, when we did a three year study on the urban heat island effect and what we found was that green roofs reduce the temperature above the rooftops by up to four degrees or that seven degrees Fahrenheit. So it's four degrees Celsius or seven degrees Fahrenheit annually. That's on an annual basis. And you may recall that the in Denver, the urban heat island effect is about means it's about ten degrees hotter in the city versus in rural areas. So green and therefore cool roofs can make and have made a big difference right here in Denver. I was honored to be on the Green Roof Task Force alongside Councilmembers Susman and Clark. I encourage you to consider approving this proposal as it represents an enormous amount of effort and compromise by many stakeholders. I know I had to do a lot of compromising because I wanted 100% green roofs all over the city. And so your support will ensure a greener future for all citizens of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And sorry about getting your last name out there. And I we did have one more that didn't end up in the system somehow. So. Dan Cupid.
Speaker 3: Good evening, President Kirk and Denver City Council members. I just returned from inspecting the completion of a very difficult roof in Snowmass Village. This report was replaced in just eight years due to severe condensation. In fact, the roof kind of skated so badly that they had to shovel off rotten sheathing in small pieces to get them off the roof. I've seen this type of thing happen way too often, and this is one of the reasons I got involved with the Green Roof Initiative review process early on, working with the city and county of Denver. We were able to agree on language and of portion of the proposed green building ordinance that we help to prevent this type of condensation. My name is Dan Cupid, and I make my living as a roofing expert, designing roof systems and testifying and representing cases. I'm a longtime active member of the Colorado Roofing Association on the Education and Coding Standards Committees, and I'm a board member of the local RCI chapter. I've been involved with this Green Work review process since early January by providing roofing related information and recommending professionals to serve on the Green Review Task Force and also the Green Rope Technical Advisory Group. I have reached out to many of my colleagues during this process, including designers, contractors and manufacturers, in order to obtain an obscure and share their input. Jamaica Merriman Wood Jeff was selected to represent the roofing industry on the Green Rope Review Task Force. She has worked with our Carbon Standards Committee, our group subgroup and myself during the last ten months. Jamaica has been transparent, impartial during this process. I have been part of the Cobra subcommittee meetings, along with Richard Boone, Kate Grabowski, James Kirby, Jamaica Bourbon, which whiskey of TAF and manufacturer representatives from Johns Manville. Over the last five months we worked with Katrina Madigan from Environmental Services. So in Resa Lucero was the sustainability and Scott Prisco and Daniel Krauss in the building department to shape the core portion of the Denver's green building proposal. We also proposed code language to ensure a core of systems are properly installed to protect against the type of condensation I mentioned earlier with cool roofing as a requirement and an proposed green building ordinance. We wanted to make sure it was as inclusive as possible. And in keeping with Colorado's extreme climate. Working with the city and county of Denver employees and various manufacturers, I feel we accomplished our goal as best as could be expected. Through this work, we were able to include concrete towers and balance to the roof systems that act as a different type of coal roof system that saves on energy costs, along with most metal roof systems that are common in industrial areas and would have otherwise been excluded. As industry representatives, we do not promote or choose one type of roofing over another. There are a wide variety of roofing and waterproofing products available in Colorado that perform well in our climate. While we don't support a crew of mandate. I myself understand the need for an equivalency as an alternative to the current requirements in the Green Roof initiative. There is no doubt a change is necessary so that roofing projects to.
Speaker 0: Such a large extent is a way. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council or Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I don't know if this is for Scott, if he's still here or maybe Adam, but there was a mention of a sort of concern about the specific language on page nine. And I just want to confirm that that that that is only for the the additional requirements that the core roof requirement. The you know, I should I'll reference it. Let me pull it up here. That specifically 1310 dash 301a1 is the core proof requirement and it would apply to buildings as described greater than 25,000 square feet. Multifamily, residential, five stories less than 62 feet and a half feet. It's only the additional requirements about greenspace cover and what not. That is is exempt.
Speaker 2: That's correct. The residential buildings, five stories or fewer, do have to comply with the core roof requirement. If they're over 25,000 square feet, they just don't comply with all the other options.
Speaker 9: Perfect. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions that I don't know. We're covered in committee and a couple. There were occasion tonight as Brandon. Where's Brandon? Hi. Could you come up for a minute and Katrina while you're walking up? Brandon, I'm trying to understand what was the purpose in the initiative of exempting residential buildings of four storeys or no greater than 50 feet, whichever was less? What was the purpose of that?
Speaker 11: More just cost and burden. I'm sorry. Cost and burden.
Speaker 5: Oh, okay. Thank you. And Katrina. Then I notice that it's changing here from a exempting five storey five storeys, excuse me? Four storeys and 50 feet or less. Orgill is going to take this or 62.5 feet. And what's the purpose of that change?
Speaker 4: So, yes, good evening. Jill Jennings goal at Community Planning and Development. Sorry, we're tag teaming on questions here.
Speaker 5: So you actually tag her? Okay.
Speaker 4: Just to start. So the original initiative did look at a four storey limit. There was concern with limiting and with adding some compliance options based on what construction types that go up to five storeys. And so there was a concern about artificially limited limiting buildings to a certain height based on requirements in this initiative. So that's how the compromise came to that. They would still have to do a cool roof, but would not have to do other components.
Speaker 5: I was just answered for Councilman Espinosa. And then, okay, so they still have to do the core of and the change was made primarily because of the construction type. When you're still at four storeys, it's basically with still wood frame, right? Correct. Excellent. That's thank you. That's very good. And maybe I don't know, is is there a city attorney here who worked on this? Or maybe I should ask our our own.
Speaker 7: Hello, over there.
Speaker 5: I noticed there was a word, a different word used in the initiative versus the bill before us. I'm just wondering if there's a if that's an actionable change or if it means the same thing. Is there a difference between an exemption, the class of of structures that are under an exemption in the initiative, whereas in the bill before us it says exception.
Speaker 3: Adam Hernandez Assistant City Attorney The intent.
Speaker 0: Was not to have any sort of difference.
Speaker 5: Okay, so they mean the same thing. I was just just trying to make sure that we're not making a change without really coming to to discuss it. And then finally, Katrina or Jill, maybe one of you could tag each other and answer this. How do exemptions work with large but historic structures that might have pitched roofs? And do they I mean, will they automatically qualify for an exemption? And if so, do they do they nevertheless have to pay a fee? I'm thinking particularly of the Loreto Heights campus, which is which is going to be facing some redevelopment. And they have a historical building down there with a black shingle pitched roof. That would be very difficult. Would they have to provide offsite or onsite Greensburg? Do they have to comply?
Speaker 4: So there is no automatic exemption for historic buildings. However, what we have built into the ordinance, especially as it pertains to the cool roof requirement, because we know that many historic or unique buildings in our city, that roof is a very important element of the overall character of the building. So if one has what the ordinance is defined as a character defining roof, you can request alternate materials instead of meeting the cool roof requirement based on a staff review of finding that yes, indeed, that roof is important to the overall character, and then any portion that's visible of that roof would not have to comply with the cool roof requirement. But the other compliance options still apply and we believe that there are enough options for any building to be able to meet the needs of the building owner and still work for the program.
Speaker 5: So that night, that 1890, Frank and Brooke building all of the roof, of course, is visible. So they could be exempt. They could get an exemption from the corps roof, but they would have to choose from among the menu of other options. Yes, that is correct. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Thank you to all of the speakers. I wanted to ask Jill Scott Briscoe is here. I don't know if he's gone, but the question about how we protect folks from, you know, the potential installation issues or condensation, things like that. I read the Stantec report. What in our building code helps to minimize the risk? So it sounded like proper insulation is the answer. You're not going to save on your heating bill. According to the Stantec report, you are not going to save on your heating bill by having a black roof instead of a white roof, because the difference is so marginal that it's really about insulation and how other things that you build. So I just wanted to ask whether or how our building code is there.
Speaker 4: So Scott Briscoe did have to leave, but I've got Daniel Kraus from our architectural structural review team. But essentially we have requirements and the rules and regulations which, if this moves forward, will be going out for public comment that require submittal of a roof study. Daniel, do you want to take it over from here?
Speaker 8: There are two types of Daniel Kraus, senior architect for committee planning and development for Denver. There are two types of roof projects that would be subject on an existing building to the cool roof requirement, and one would be a roof replacement where the existing roof comes off the building and a roof is put onto the building and the coat already requires installation of are 20 above or 30, but a minimum of 20 regardless of the roof type, where in some instances it does not. We would require a study by a an architect, an engineer who would show us where the dew point occurs and how to mitigate any condensation issue. And that Dan Cooper was mentioning was developed with experts on a roof recover, which is where the condensation issues are much more common because there are no existing building codes to require any insulation necessarily on a roof for cover. So you're putting an additional cover on an existing roof and that is allowed in some circumstances, although often not. But where it is allowed, there can be a condensation issue when you put the cool roof and for that there is an actual exemption where it is demonstrated that that would potentially create a condensation concern. There would be no requirement for a cool roof.
Speaker 0: On a roof recover.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That's Thomas.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Can you do Councilman Ortega?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask Jennifer. I can't pronounce your last name, though, so far for Bustillo Abu-Salha. Okay. I had a question about the science, and I understand there are other cities that have done the white roof and wanted to just ask if any of the work you've done has looked at the benefit and the effects from cities that have had this in place for a number of years, and how that sort of folded into the the work and the decision made to move forward with a white roof for Denver's program.
Speaker 6: Sure. So the only data I have is specifically related to green roofs as one of the cool roof options. So not white roofs specifically. And that's Toronto. And what they found is an annual drop of four degrees Celsius already in. And they've only initiated their ordinance, I believe it was 2011. So already they're seeing that that difference that we found already in Denver on a small scale.
Speaker 4: Is there anyone else in the audience that could talk about Chicago and the effect that or the benefit that Chicago has seen? I understand they've had a program that's been in place for many more years than what Toronto has had.
Speaker 6: Though I don't have recent data. I know they have around 8 million square feet of green roofs installed. I don't know about Kourou specifically, and I don't know their current data on temperature.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega, see no other questions. I have one that I think, Katrina, you might be the best one to answer, but if you want to tag out, then feel free to make my Harris question. I don't know if you still here, but about the change in floors and then Councilman Espinosa, I think, touched on it . The only change between what voters passed and this is the compromise on that one floor. There is an additionally a different change when it comes to square feet. Can you just confirm that that the change is just the floor, not a new exemption for buildings based on how big they are? That's different from what voters passed.
Speaker 2: That's right. And the voter passed initiative, it was all residential buildings for storeys and fewer were exempt. And now it's five storeys or fewer because as Jill said, the wood construction goes to five stories. So this just to be consistent across construction type. And I might just add, because I didn't said when I was up here last time, the question was that, of course, the core roof requirement was then added to all of those buildings, which were exempted entirely from that arrangement. It's one of the ways the task force really wanted to provide additional benefit.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Daniel Kraus, CBD architect. It just wants to make a clarification that the original ordinance had an exemption for a four story or 50 foot tall residential building and a 50 foot tall residential building. And again, it could be the whichever. If you had a 50 foot residential building, even if it were five storeys, it would be exempt and a five storey building would often be that height. That's why one of the considerations in simplifying and just saying a five storey building would be exempt because the 50 foot height was already within the exemption of the original ordinance
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, did you have another question? Come on.
Speaker 9: Yeah, mostly. Just probably you might want to answer this one. So in the code changes, we actually can build a six story wood frame structure now. So the key is really the height. I mean, so, so I mean, because we can build a podium before it used to be the common thing was three stories of stick on a concrete podium. But now we can build five storeys a stick on a concrete podium. So is there can you explain to me how how this works? Because now you can have a six storey building stick framed, you know. So it's really the interplay, I would think, between the height and the number of stories.
Speaker 8: And can you clarify the question? Because a six storey building regardless would not be exempt, including residential building, even if it were five storeys above a podium that would be considered a six storey building and not be exempt.
Speaker 9: So then explain to me why it's significant. If we're referencing Stick Frame, you could build a 2320 5000 square foot, 50 foot high stick frame building, and you could also build a six storey stick frame building. So what is it? What is the connection between wood framing and the exemption?
Speaker 8: The more affordable housing types try to use exclusively the wood frame and not depend on the concrete podium that you're referring to. And those are the types of projects that would be hardest hit and the cost of the green roof would be passed along to the occupants who are trying to get into the affordable housing.
Speaker 9: So the real challenge, though, for for from that perspective and I'm sorry this didn't come up in committee, is that what we're talking about is a very marginal expense increase on a on just the roof component. Not every single floor, not every single facade, not every single finish. It's just the roof component in a lot of our affordable housing. And actually, if it's less than 62 feet, typically has a shingle roof, which I think would conform to the character defining rules. So did we just unexpectedly make a carve out for four and five story substantial market rate projects which could readily accomplish, I mean, accommodate a 1 to 4% increase in just the roof component itself.
Speaker 8: When you say roof component, you're referring to the cool roof because the five storey or a four storey or a three storey, any height, if it is 25,000 square feet, including residential, would be subject to cool roof requirements. Awesome.
Speaker 9: So we're back down to the same question I asked before, which is anything over 25,000 square feet period is required.
Speaker 8: With the exception of a single townhome, a single family home or duplex.
Speaker 9: Yep. Awesome. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn, you become famous president.
Speaker 5: I actually needed a clarification based on the answer to your question, but it just came out on on this question. So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no other questions and the public hearing for counsel go one on three, four is closed. Are there comments by members of council or Councilwoman Sussman?
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you all for speaking tonight. Very well. I was very heartened by all the conversations we had on the committee and how much we all learned about roofing, which I never expected to know so much about. And and thanks for all the hard work of the committee members that came and gave your time up to discuss the how we could make this particular ordinance work. One of the things that we talked about at first reading and before, I just want to reiterate, we've heard some folks from the roofing industry express a concern that the mandate for cool roofs might not be as all as wise as we. And they speak to things. We have heard a little bit about this tonight about perhaps condensation worries. I also heard that from the Roofing Association that perhaps a cool roof, a white roof, isn't as resistant to hail damage as some other kinds of roofs . And so to that end, I have asked the Department of Health and Environment if we wouldn't put in the rules that there be a very careful study and report about the effectiveness of what we are proposing to institute for our roofs in Denver. I think it's just makes sense that if we are going to make some requirements on the building and the roofs, that we understand that, that whether or not they are performing the way we would like them to perform for the goals of the ordinance. And they have said, of course, that they would make a report to council at least annually and put this in the rules about the effectiveness. Is it me? Is it helping with urban heat island? Is it helping with climate change? I know that that is a difficult study to make, but I'm sure you will put your best efforts forward and and very happy that we're going to do that. I also want to encourage you to start that study now, because you'll need to have basin formation of the roofs that are not cool roofs now and how they're performing versus the the new roofs that are coming in to do some sort of comparisons so that we're very you know, that we're we're very cognizant of whether these rules that we're setting in place are as as effective as we want them to be. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much, Mr. President. And to Councilwoman Sussman, I first just want to thank you for the incredible amount of time that you guys dedicated to this. And I think that, you know, we were approached and many of us didn't have the capacity. Even if we kind of had some interest, we didn't have the capacity to take this on. And so the voters put us in a position where we had no choice but to find the capacity. And so I respect and appreciate the proponents and the voters, and I really respect and appreciate you guys. So thank you. In particular, Mr. President, I know that you spent a lot of time trying to help to balance the the the the the interest here. The one comment I wanted to make is that I know that there was some concern raised about the residential buildings. So where we are today is that I feel like the exemption is pretty similar to the exemption that the voters passed. And so I'm comfortable with it. But I also don't want folks to feel like this is the only place where we've addressed or we can't address the environmental sustainability of residential buildings. So I want to give two examples. One is that for most affordable, dedicated, affordable units where the prices are restricted and the folks have to income qualify, most of those projects in Denver use something called the Enterprise Green Community Certification already. And so they are working and they it helps them with keeping their operations costs down. So they do it because it's the right thing to do and because it's economical. And so that's happening for those folks. I think for the market rate, new construction, it's important that we continue to look to our building codes for places where we can be putting those standards in, in the in the, the building code. And I it's my understanding that there's a pretty significant green building code update coming in in the next year or two so that we'll have an opportunity to think about where we have gaps in what this ordinance covers and how we get to those gaps in the residential multi-family environments. I think that's really important. And then the last thing is, I think it's important for us to like not just monitor the cool roof in the and the heat island effect, but I want to see, for example, how many buildings do the retro commissioning and how many buildings do the energy efficiency stuff. Because if folks aren't choosing those options and we may need to continue to look at ways to because what we know from our our education recently as a council is that we can't meet our climate goals without keeping that energy efficiency improving. So Heat Island is one thing, but we've got to keep looking. So I think it'll be very interesting to track kind of the paths folks are choosing. And I just don't want us to feel like, Oh, this is the only ordinance we're ever going to pass and now we've solved climate in the building environment. That's just we're going to have to keep working at it. We know a lot more about how to do it in a stakeholder. Says this time. So I feel confident that we have the tools in place to do that and that this really important step is when we can learn from and then where there are gaps and we need other work, we've got to continue to problem solve to do those things. So thank you very much to the to the community for your patience and your willingness to participate in the conversation. Thank you. And I will be proud to support this ordinance as drafted.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Flint.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, will be supporting this tonight, although for perhaps different reasons. The the initiative passed citywide by about eight percentage points. In my district, it failed by 18 percentage points. And in order to adequately represent the folks in the more suburban context, I feel there's a need to at least outline that sometimes one size fits all solutions or approaches aren't really the best and can have. Unintended consequences as initially written this the requirements of the of the initiative that was on the ballot could have been devastating to these small commercial strip centers that serve my working class neighborhoods and and along my corridors, like Federal and Sheridan, because of the enormous costs versus the inability to recover those costs from small tenant base on a one storey commercial building that exceeds 25,000 square feet. There were enormous costs on that. And so this revision, thankfully, removes a lot of that cost burden that that actually, I think Brandon spoke too about when they exempted the smaller residential buildings as well. And so I really want to thank the Task Force Council President Clark and Councilwoman Susman for their really, really hard work on this to fail to approve this by our supermajority, which is required tonight to fail to approve this doesn't and would not bring about a better resolution for for more options for those looking for greater options at simply one. It would feel to me to fail to approve this would be like punting on first down and given the game the other day maybe that would have been better for the Broncos. But. But not for us. Not for us. Right. We tend to look at Denver sometimes, not all of us and not all the time, but we tend to look at Denver as looking like it does outside this window. We're just a couple of blocks away without recognizing that when you walk around the borders of the city in county of Denver, we have a huge diversity of neighborhood types. And when I sat through the task force presentations and saw heat island effect, we want to mitigate the heat island effect. And I look at the average nighttime temperature map versus the daytime and the changes. I see that in my suburban district, single family, some apartments, Wadsworth Sheridan Federal we don't have we don't have the same issues that we have in the core of downtown, which is where the heat island is concentrated. And how is it fair to say we have to solve the heat island effect down? We're not even we're not even experiencing it. And so. I believe that this compromise that's been worked out, given the various competing, you know, Kathee and Brandon at the same table, probably glaring at each other at the first meeting and coming away side by side is a great testament to the power of compromise and working together. Maybe this isn't the last compromise. And I thank Councilwoman Sussman for calling for annual review or, you know, one year and let's see how it work. But what I do know is that because this was put into code by the voters in 2017, we were told that there were six about 630 roof replacement permits issued in this city, 631 on the buildings that would be required to put a green roof one in 2018. So far, we have had three. And those three did not put on a green roof. They went to the planning board and they got an exception. That tells us that this this initiative was a significant problem for commercial building owners. I hope that this compromise will free that up because the very worst thing for my neighborhoods and for the commercial, the older commercial buildings, fifties and sixties era. The very worst thing would be for them to not be able to afford to replace their roofs, to lose tenants, and to board up their properties. So I am very happy to vote yes on this agreement and I'm looking forward to a review on whether it really does generate roof replacement and building upkeep and keep our building stock thriving and vibrant and serving our neighborhoods. So I will be voting yes on this. Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank you and Councilwoman Sussman for your work in bringing everybody together and really working toward something that, you know, we can all support and be very proud of. I also want to thank Jack Paterson from my office, who sat through all of the meetings and kept me fully informed on the work that was occurring. I want to thank the folks who came and met with me on all sides of the issue to raise various questions and concerns. I am going to support this tonight as well as it's been brought forward. The only other thing I want to say is I think the work that's been occurring with our energy advisory board that administers our $2 million franchise fee from Xcel Energy, has done a lot of work with various nonprofits and a lot of that happens with single family homes as well. But as we hopefully get to a place in this city where we've we've approached a lot of that work and where we have nonprofits and others that might need to replace a roof. Hopefully we can see that fund maybe be utilized into the future so that even the work of our nonprofits continue to not only benefit from the work that's been occurring to, you know, make buildings more energy efficient, but really contribute towards this overall effort as well when it comes to, you know, having to replace a roof and be able to try to as much as possible be in compliance with with the rest of the work that everybody else is working towards. So I'm happy to support this and great work, everyone, for just rolling up your sleeves and coming together and finding something that everybody could could say, Yeah, we agree to.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Part of me wishes that cool roofs were crazy expensive and that we applied this to duplexes so that we could. So there would be a new movement towards character defining roofs again. That that's me. Sort of self-serving. As a young architect, you get pigeonholed to doing essentially toilet room details and roof details, and you end up spending a few years just doing the things. I see that. And so it's fine that we've already grappled as a council with toilet rooms a couple of years ago, and here we are with roofs. So it's been a real pleasure for me to watch my colleagues, council and clerk, our President Clarke and Council and Susman sort of develop their own skills with regard to roof and roof assemblies and things like that, that that are so critical to the world, to our built environment, and to to see them all the way through these different committees still still getting more and more. And it's just I don't know, it's pretty cool. And but it speaks to sort of how much, how much, how much this role actually takes us out of our comfort zone, gets us to a place of understanding so that we can actually legislate better rules. And so kudos to you, too, and your leadership role in this task force. And kudos to all the task force members because it's pretty cool when you develop these things and get to that point where where everyone sort of feels good about what's going to go forward. And so it's a it's a it's a real pleasure for me to be able to sit here and in support of this and, and why I say that is, yeah. District one Northwest Denver sort of put this over the line, you know. And Brandon, you know, I've always acknowledged this that Brandon and I, we had our differences. I mean, right? We didn't have our differences. I always supported the notion I had problems with the technical aspects of it and where how onerous it seemed to be. But you didn't see me going out there and telling my constituents, vote no. And the reason being is this exact situation, which is it is the right step in the right direction. And I wanted it to win so that we could come here and fix it and find something more workable going forward because it moves Denver in the right direction. So I am wholeheartedly here to sort of. I mean, happy to support this because it's not only what my constituents have been crying for, you know, they're not crying for it, but spoke out loud in the last election that this is something they wanted and it is a way that we can implement it and for the better of this city long term. So thank you to staff as well for your efforts in shaping this and helping make that case again and again and again to the groups that I mean, the people that you were leading. So thank you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. You know, one thing that has not come up during this conversation is historic buildings and representing one of the oldest areas in the city. I had a lot of concern of historic buildings and how this would fit into how they will be penalized or exempted and things like that. And I just want to thank the team for working with our community, especially the LoDo district. They had a lot of concern about that and I just appreciate they're probably the only neighborhood that was pushing so hard and in my district around this and so I really appreciate you guys working on that. And I think it's a lot of times we I definitely want to say thanks to our our city council folks, but the amount of time, Katrina, you put in jail, you put in Adam Hernandez into the study over this stuff is unbelievable. So thank you for your hard work on that. And obviously, Dr. Sussman and President Clark, thank you guys for working so hard on this. Sometimes, you know, folks forget about they just see you at the meetings, but they don't know about the prep that it takes to get to the meetings. And so appreciate you guys and then the community that's out here today. Number one, thanks for sitting in those hard chairs, going through security, paying your parking and being here and caring enough about our city. No matter what side of the aisle you land on that you care enough about our city to get this done. I feel like being the worst. What is it that the top three worst urban islands, but yet putting this innovative, collaborative solution together? We're going to be I'm going to get phone calls from my colleagues in Seattle and Portland. And I love that, by the way, saying that you got that we did a great job. And so but really, you guys did an incredible job. I want Washington, D.C., to watch what's happening here. This is this is communities coming together over a very tough issue. And I remember when this passed, I mean, folks were going crazy on both sides. I was like, calm down, everybody. And you guys really proved that a city can come together, come together, and we really want the same thing at the end of the day. So really appreciate everybody who worked hard.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I'll go the thanks to the staff and my council colleagues. Brandon Rice, Ruth Heimer, thank you for kicking the door open as we've had a couple of examples recently along with the Democracy for the People initiative of initiatives coming before us that we take a close look at and see problems with and working with the proponents to come up with something better. And so I think the system's working real well. And Brandon, thank you for moving us into farther into the 21st century towards making Denver truly a leader in sustainability. And I've said it before, I am so tired of hearing Boulder, Portland, Seattle talked about when it's matters of environmental importance and your work is going to go a long way in putting us at the top of that discussion. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Guzman. Councilman Lopez, I just want to to join in on the on the on the congratulations and the thanks for the hard work. But the one thing I'm going to I'm going to saying in that here on the floor that I said in committee is it doesn't end here. I think, you know, we will see true climate change. We will see change happen in our environment when folks who are everyday people living all over Denver who are not just installing these things as their jobs, but own the companies and have the skills to be able to do it and own their own businesses to do it . This is there's you know, there is something to be said about the training, something to be said about building that economy and making sure that that we grow those businesses and we. Make sure that those folks are able to have the training, to be able to install them and then even take them one day down to the residential scale. And that isn't necessarily just putting your regular roofing tiles on, but being able to tap into this and maintain this kind of technology. And that only happens when it's affordable. So we have to be able to grow that part of the industry. And, you know, I'd like to see not just folks that look like me installing these roofs, but also owning the businesses that install these roofs. So I think that's you know, there is an economy to be to be to grow here. There's a trade to continue to do training. So I think this is a good step and I'm going to vote yes. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman? Yeah, I think it was surprising. I think my colleagues have stated everything very well for our support tonight. And I just want to thank all of the industry representatives and the professionals and the scientific community for helping provide the information that we're looking forward to do to support this initiative and understand the value and the benefits we're going to receive from it. It's very easy for us to explain to our colleagues when we have scientific data, industry experience and information to support such an initiative and a change for our city. So thank you for all your participation and input and advice and data and the support of our task force. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New seeing no other comments. I will just end by saying one more round of thank you to Katrina and all the city staff who are here and not here who put in made the number of hours of the task force put in, which was significant, seem small in comparison. Thank you so much for all of that to Councilwoman Sussman for serving on the task force with me and and being a great sounding board as we went through the process. To Cathy and to Brandon, who, you know, for some of those first meetings, I was like, oh, boy. I mean, they're even sitting on opposite sides of the room. It was not just glaring. It was, you know, and there were, you know, people paranoid about who's meeting in secret rooms and what are they deciding and to really sticking with it and then sticking with each other as we got close to the end. And there are turbulent waters over this, that and the other thing and really saying, you know, here might be an opportunity where one side might pick up a little bit or a little bit of that and saying, you know what, no, we went through this process together and we compromise. And I didn't get everything I wanted, but neither did they. And that that's a tenuous balance. But to be able to come here tonight and just, you know, thank you to both of you. Thank you to Brandon. I quote, Councilman Cashman said, As a guy who came into this job with very few credentials that that look like this, but a natural resource degree and training as an environmental educator this is a really exciting night for me to to have this in front of us. And thank you for for doing that for our city. And then to all the task force members who are here, all the ones who spoke, I'm Count and other ones who didn't speak, who could have kept us here for an extra, you know, 30 minutes or so, but are here and have been supportive. It's a lot of time that you are not getting paid for to be in a room wrestling around with people over something. And so I appreciate all of your dedication and and hard work. You know, it's to have this ordinance in front of us that now gets more environmental benefits, will keep keeping people working who have not been able to work in the city for a little while and having eager compliance instead of rapid opposition is really. Amazing. And, you know, Councilman Brooks almost took the words straight out of my mouth, but I had written in my notes that the entire nation should look to this room to see how government can and should work and and take note that it's messy and it's hard work. And it took a lot of time and a lot of hours, but it is totally worth it to be able to sit here tonight with this in front of us. So thank you all for setting a great example for not just as leaders in our city, but for our country. So with that, Madam Secretary, let's vote. And as a reminder, we do need nine votes, not seven, to pass this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Brooks Michelle Espinosa, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore, I. Cashman I can teach. Lopez I.
Speaker 4: Knew. Ortega, I.
Speaker 2: Sussman All right. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce results.
Speaker 2: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 I's Council Bill 1134 has passed. On Monday, November 5th. That's right. You can clap for that one. On Monday, November 5th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council 1160, designating 6302638 16th Avenue, the A6 apartments as a structure for preservation.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting Article XIII of Chapter 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning green buildings and for conforming amendments to Chapters 2 and 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Amends Article XIII Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) concerning green buildings and Chapters 2 and 10 with conforming amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-11-18. Amended 10-22-18 to correct cross-references to other portions of the bill.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10222018_18-1075
|
Speaker 0: No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Miss anything? All right. Looks good. Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens and councilman new, will you please put Council Bill 1075 on the floor for publication a move the council bill 18 1075 be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilor. Councilman Cashman, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that first reading or publication of Council Bill 18 1075 be postponed to Monday, November five, 2018.
Speaker 0: That has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you. It has been moved in second questions or comments by members of Council or Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my colleague's consideration of this request to delay first reading for Council Bill 1075. I want to explain that my request for a delay is not intended to be a slam on anybody. There have been a whole lot of folks working hard to move this proposal to a place where it can be fairly evaluated by this council. City staff has been engaged in productive negotiation with control group for four months on a critical development agreement that the Planning Board noted was so important to this process. That agreement, still awaiting city signatures hit my desk this morning. Neighbors are negotiating a collateral neighborhood agreement with the developer. And I have been working with all sides to craft the project team structure that will provide ongoing dialog between all parties council, the city, the developer and the community at regular intervals should this rezoning ultimately be approved? Once a development, the scope of which can grow is proposing is re zoned. The real hard work for a community begins. We need a formal structure in place to see that work gets done in an appropriate manner. All of these elements are moving toward completion, but none are yet finalized. Those those dotted i's and cross t's are critical, and I believe council and the community deserve adequate time to study those documents before we consider the proposal. Pros and Cons. A smart chef does not serve dinner until it's fully cooked. I want to take a minute to explain why I'm taking such a cautious approach to this rezoning request. I believe it is unique that such a large piece of property, 13 acres, goes from a sleepy, decades long use to a high density mixed use development. Councilwoman Sussman is project up at ninth and Colorado was historically a hospital zone that was active seven days a week, 24 hours a day for decades, generating some 30,000 car trips a day. The new use under construction will actually cut the hours of operation on the site and the daily car trips approximately in half. The growth in Cherry Creek, breathtaking as it may seem, has been incremental over decades in an already existing commercial district, the Lowry and Stapleton commercial districts have been born of a comprehensive planning that intentionally fit retail and office uses into the overall residential context. The scene on site historically generated some 670 auto trips a day, Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, basically 835 trips going in in the morning rush and another 835 going home in the late afternoon. By the developer's own estimates. Should the request be approved, traffic will increase somewhere in the neighborhood of 800% to something like 11,000 trips a day, seven days a week. This equates to that same morning rush hour every hour from morning to the middle of the night, depending on how the final site plan and uses come together. I live eight blocks from that site. I'm intimately familiar with the infrastructure by which it is served. To say that there are challenges to get pedestrians, cyclists and automobiles safely and conveniently to and from 4201 East Arkansas is an understatement. I'm committed to doing everything within my power to mitigate impact proactively. I want to thank Cantrell, the Community Planning and Development and Denver Public Works Department, as well as community representatives for participating in unprecedented preemptive discussions on traffic concerns. I want to thank all the city agencies for working so hard with Kantor on the development agreement, and I want to thank all the neighbors who have participated thus far in expressing their thoughts on what is being suggested in trying to craft a neighborhood agreement to further guide work on that site. In spite of all this hard work. There's a bit more to be done before this cake is ready for council to taste. I asked my colleagues to join me in voting for this postponement. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks? Yeah.
Speaker 5: Just got a question to Councilman Cashman. Obviously, we just had this in committee. Councilman, and I know that we said some of the items. I hear what you're saying, but the substantive work of why we're postponing was not really laid out. So, I mean, this is the first time I'm hearing about this, a little more information.
Speaker 7: When this year, Speaker Quinn, this issue was before the Land Use Committee. There was considerable discussion about whether or not it should be postponed at that time, awaiting development agreement, which, as I said, planning board has recommended an important part of this discussion. At that point, our attorney said that the development agreement would be done within a couple of days, and it's taken longer than that. We're now almost two weeks down the road, and I just saw it today. And it while it looks like it's final, it's still awaiting final signatures. I'm not comfortable with trying to predict when things might be finalized as a lot of things in the mix. And as I say, I think this discussion deserves a completed product.
Speaker 5: Okay, Councilman.
Speaker 7: And I just let me add, I made the developers aware of my intended request this morning, and they're not objecting to the delay.
Speaker 5: Okay. Councilman, I was just curious, because this is this is before us and four weeks.
Speaker 7: It'll be delayed two weeks to I don't know.
Speaker 5: But I'm saying to as of today without delay it's before us in four weeks. And you don't think that the development agreement will be buttoned up in four weeks?
Speaker 7: I'm I'm not in the position to mind, Reed. I'm taken, as I said, a conservative approach to give the city plenty of time to finish the development agreement, the neighbors and the developer to work on the neighborhood agreement. And as I said, I'm working with public works and planning and development for for several weeks now on trying to craft some sort of a structure. So this is an extremely impactful development on my district, and I just think it deserves the time to be for us to all have plenty of time to consider it completely and carefully.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I was not here for the committee meeting, so. I'm sorry I missed that. I, I thought. I didn't realize there were issues with it. And so I guess I'm curious about the development agreement. I thought it was done. And the good neighbor agreement is we we don't weigh in on that. So but I guess I have a question for Nate Lucero. My question is. Just from moving city business along. Is it is it better to postpone publishing it or is it better to publish it tonight and then postpone it for date certain two weeks later than we already had planned? I mean, is there a way that.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. That decision is purely within your discretion, whether you postpone it now or postpone the public hearing. That being said, this is a quasi judicial reasoning that has been applied for by a private party. And at some point they have a right to come to this council's decision up or down on the matter. But again, the decision is yours. Whether you postpone now or if, if, if at the public hearing, which which currently is scheduled in four weeks, the decision is to delay that public hearing, then obviously you would be able to do that within your discretion as well.
Speaker 1: So from.
Speaker 4: Your perspective.
Speaker 1: Does it matter if it's done one way or the other, or is it one way better than the other?
Speaker 5: Doesn't matter from a legal perspective.
Speaker 7: And what I would tell you, Councilwoman, as far as the neighbors, the development agreement was put on my desk this morning. I haven't had a chance to look at it. It's a critical part of this. And while we don't vote on the neighborhood agreement, it was my understanding that in the negotiations over the development agreement, there were elements that I believe the developer had hoped to get into the neighborhood agreement that the city decided were not appropriate to be in that agreement. And so trying to incorporate that into part of the neighborhood agreement. So I think there's a lot of work to do. I mean, I'm confident it's moving in the right direction. I think all parties are working in good conscience and good faith and very hard to get it done.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Black, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. In response to the council members questions and in support of.
Speaker 0: Counseling cash and I'll answer the.
Speaker 6: Question that was put to the lawyer since he indicated it was a political rather than a legal question. It is much.
Speaker 0: More convenient.
Speaker 2: For the public to postpone on first reading rather than to.
Speaker 6: Wait and see if the development agreement is finally approved. And if it were not to be approved, to have to cancel an already announced public hearing on the eve of it or the or the Friday before.
Speaker 2: It's much friendlier to all parties.
Speaker 5: To start the process. With the clock.
Speaker 6: Ticking at the first reading, politically speaking rather than legally, to do it the way Councilman Cashman suggests. And I would remind the Council that when this came through Land Use Committee, that we were told that the planning board had approved this, not with the condition, because they don't do a conditional approval, of course, but the observation that their their approval was based on the development agreement being in place at the time of public hearing. And since we're not sure right now that it will be for the sake of the public, I think it's only prudent that we that we honor the four week calendar and do an official notice once.
Speaker 0: We've published it on first reading. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: And Councilman Flynn took the words out of my mouth. I just sort of wanted to. To inform my colleagues who weren't able to attend that. Yes, there was that planning board recommendation for for this agreement to be established, and that our our discussion at the committee table was about postponing to a date certain that committee. And it was a decision of the of the committee that actually this was the appropriate time to to suggest that delay. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I think two other questions I'll just ask quickly if somebody from the development team could just come up and speak to the delay on the thing. Any estimated timeline for the development agreement, anything else? I know Councilman Cashman has had a chance to chat with you, it sounds like, but I don't know if everybody else did. I didn't. So just let us know a little bit on timelines and the delay on your end. Are there also some deadlines? We're working with Wassenaar and the city purchasing. I'm off the top. My head. I can't.
Speaker 5: Remember. Yes. Thank you, Councilman Clarke, and thank you. Good evening. Council and Councilman Jimmie Boyle, office Kraft, Arkansas applicant representing tonight. And ideally, you know, the delay is not ideal, but I think we're willing to accept Councilman Cashman's request. We do have some timelines in the contract that we've signed with the city and county of Denver. Currently, the contract, as it reads today, we're supposed to close our due diligence expires November 17th, which would have been a day before our zoning contingencies. So now we're kind of locked in a period where it will be naked, we won't have our zoning and our due diligence has been expired. We are working to amend the the the dates of the closing, but that has not been done yet. So right now we're going to be going into a naked a naked period where if this gets postponed to December 3rd, we're you know, we basically have gone hard on our earnest money with the city. And and now we don't know if we have our zoning in place. So what we're asking for, if possible, is is to set a public hearing for final consideration on December 3rd, which is two weeks out from the November 19th date that is currently slated. And I don't know if council can approve that tonight. I know there's sound it like from the city attorney Nate Lucero that you can do. You can have it either way. So I don't know if that's possible, but that's that be our request. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 7: That's. That's my intention. The first meeting in December.
Speaker 0: And is that within our notification deadlines if we postpone till. November 5th is the.
Speaker 7: I've been assured by the city attorney that we're in good shape.
Speaker 1: Kirsten Crawford legislative counsel Nate Lucero can speak more specifically to the requirements, but we have the 15 day notice in the charter and then 21 days in the zoning code. And I do believe that December 3rd fits within that time frame.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, one last comment. I fully appreciate Cointreau's position that as Mr. Bill office states being in that kind of unprotected realm, I can't emphasize enough the potential impacts of this development on my community and the communities in a similar space of what's going on here. So I just think this I appreciate Castro's willingness to to assume that position and give the neighborhood the time that they need.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing nobody else. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 7: Cashman I.
Speaker 4: Black.
Speaker 1: Eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks Clark.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Espinosa.
Speaker 2: I. Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gillmor, i.
Speaker 5: Herndon.
Speaker 3: Kinney.
Speaker 4: Lopez. I knew Ortega. Right. Desmond.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: You, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 As publication of Council Bill 1075 has been postponed until Monday, November 5th.
Speaker 7: Excuse me. I believe it's the third, sir.
Speaker 0: November 3rd.
Speaker 7: But not correct.
Speaker 0: The fifth is a monday and I killed her. So we're good on November 5th. Okay. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman, will you please put Council Bill 1134 on the floor? A move against the bill 1018 1134 be ordered published. It has been waiting for the screen to catch up. Yeah. There we go. It's fun. Moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman your motion to amend.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201 East Arkansas Avenue in Virginia Village.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, 4040 East Louisiana Avenue and 1380 South Birch Street from CMP-EI2 and S-MX-5 UO-1 UO-2 to S-MX-8 UO-2, S-MX-8, S-MX-5, S-MX-3, and S-MU-3 (campus, various districts, to suburban, mixed-use various heights), in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-9-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10222018_18-1134
|
Speaker 0: A move against the bill 1018 1134 be ordered published. It has been waiting for the screen to catch up. Yeah. There we go. It's fun. Moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman your motion to amend.
Speaker 1: I move that council bill 1134 be amended in the following particulars. I also after this amendment I have a comment after we pass this amendment. Thank you very much. In the following particulars one on page 13, line six, strike ten, dash 301a to C or F and replace with ten. Dash 301a to B or F. Number two on page 13, line seven, strike ten, dash three oh to A to C and replace with ten. Dash 302a to B, number three on page 14, line 13, strike ten, dash 307c and replace with ten 307d, number four on page 16, line one after ten 3018 to add or add or ten, dash three oh to A to C.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of the council. Would you like to make a comment on that?
Speaker 4: Remember, I felt more like a bureaucrat.
Speaker 1: In those couple of seconds. This is obviously a clerical change. They got some letters wrong, and so we had to change the letters so that they match what we meant to say. Thanks.
Speaker 0: This looks like front, front page news tomorrow. All right. So no other comments or questions on this one. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 3: Sussman.
Speaker 1: Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 3: Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I. Gilmore. Herndon.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can h.
Speaker 4: Lopez.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: New Ortega.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 Council Bill 1134 has been amended. Kels menu. We need a motion now to order publish as amended a move the council bill 1134 be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Actually, it's not a comment so much about this change, but it is a comment that I'd like to make about the bill as a whole. Do you want me to wait till after?
Speaker 0: I think this is the bill as amended. So the whole bill is on the floor right now. So I think now would be a great time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Some of you may have seen the council meeting that we had. The council committee meeting. I had mentioned that we didn't have anything in the ordinance. Speaking to the requirement that the Department of Public Health report back the findings they have regarding the measures that are being taken and what their effect has been and whether they are measures which are our working. Are they are they doing the things that we expect them to do in part and just sort of one word in this particular bill, they have added our our attorney did add that there will be a report due, but I would like to let you know that I've had a good conversation with our Department of Environmental.
Speaker 4: Health.
Speaker 1: With Katrina Lanigan and asked her if she wouldn't create a rule, not that it would be an ordinance, but it would be in rules that this report have some very specific expectations. And that is that when they do a report and we expect it to be annually, they will measure whether there has been an effect on the urban heat island, which which measures have worked there, which ones don't, what the effect has been on increasing our green space in the city and what that green space has done for the environment. Information research done on water quality. Certainly some of our intention is to work with our stormwater runoff and whether the greenhouse gas emissions have or have improved. I know that's going to be difficult research to do, but I think it's important for us because we have made all of these requirements for buildings, both new and existing, that we understand. What the effects are. Have we made the right decisions? Are there other things that could have worked better? And and if we don't get some sort of report and research done on that, we'll never know whether it's working or not. So they did. Katrina was very amenable to putting that in the rules after the ordinance passes. And I just wanted to let my fellow council people know that. And I think I did mention that it would be an annual report and it would report both to the advisory committee and to the council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Susman. Seeing nobody else in line, Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 1: SUSSMAN All right. Black I.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Herndon.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Kenny. Lopez I knew. Ortega Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close voting and announce the results. 1339 Council Bill 1134 has been ordered published as amended. That does conclude the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills and 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 out an item for a separate vote. Councilman New, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor and move the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration and be placed upon final consideration and do pass and block for the following items. These are all series 18. Start with the resolutions 1135, 1139, 1142 and 26 1032, 1071, 1095, 1096, 1099, 1111, 4711 48 1152 937 1046 1047 1048 1124, 1132, 1133, 1102 and 1104. Now the bills for final consideration. 629. 1074. 1079. 1077. Ten. 78. Ten. 89. 75. And 1089. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye Burks.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Hi Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore.
Speaker 1: I Herndon.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Can each Lopez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 3: New.
Speaker 4: Ortega I.
Speaker 3: Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, please go as voting announce results 1313 I As 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 1072 designating the Vassar School bungalows historic district as a district for preservation and a required public hearing on the
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting Article XIII of Chapter 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning green buildings and for conforming amendments to Chapters 2 and 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Amends Article XIII Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) concerning green buildings and Chapters 2 and 10 with conforming amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-11-18. Amended 10-22-18 to correct cross-references to other portions of the bill.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10222018_18-1072
|
Speaker 0: 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 the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Nu, will you please put Council Bill 1072 on the floor? Okay, move the council bill 1018 1072 Postpone final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1072 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening, city council members. My name is Jenny Button Borg. I'm a senior city planner with the Department of Community Planning and Development. And tonight I'm here to present to you on the landmark designation application for the Vassar School Bungalows Historic District. The authority to designate structures and districts for preservation is found in Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, more commonly known as the Landmark Preservation Ordinance passed in 1967. One of the purposes of this ordinance is to designate, preserve, enhance and perpetuate structures and districts throughout the city and county of Denver. And the map you see in front of you on the presentation. We currently have 340 landmarks and 53 historic districts. The districts are indicated in purple and the individual landmarks indicated by red dots. This equals approximately 4% of the city or one in 25 structures that are designated landmarks. Designation. The designation process is very much designed to be community driven, and this is the case here with the Vassar school bungalows, where the idea and interest for the district was generated by the property owners. Applications for designations can be submitted by an owner or owners of the property by the manager community planning a development by a member or members of city council. And this is the case here. Councilman Cashman is the applicant for this district designation or three people who are either residents, property owners, or have a place of business in Denver. The proposed historic districts includes six parcels with six individual owners located at 105 115 119 127 135 and 141 East Vasser Avenue in the Rosedale neighborhood. The six primary structures that you see on the map here are those that will be contributing to the historic district. Again, this is council district number six, Paul Cashman, who is the applicant and blueprint Denver. This is an area of stability and the current zoning is you S.O.B. one. In order for property or properties to be designated, they have to meet a certain set of criteria. They are required to meet a designation criterion in at least two of the following categories History, architecture and geography maintain historic or physical integrity and be considered by the Landmark Preservation Commission for its relation to historic context or theme. The Landmark Preservation Commission has found that the district meets all required designation criteria. More specifically within those categories. It meets history a 30 years old and shall have direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation architecture. A has designed quality and integrity and embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type and geography. B It promotes the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. And I'm going to go through each of those really briefly here with you. First for history. A situated one block east of South Broadway. The district is directly associated with the growth of South Denver in the pre Great Depression era. The development of the bungalows between 1925 and 1926 was influenced by the overall growth trends along South Broadway at that time. And the image you see on the screen on the left is the Gates Rubber Factory, and on the right is the Ford Motor Company running down the city or excuse me, the center of the street is a streetcar route along South Broadway, going north and south. This very much created a working class demographic in this area. If you look at the map in the middle of the screen, you can see the Vassar School that's highlighted by the red dotted line. That's in 1905. And then 24 years later, the map on the right, you can see that development has filled in in the neighborhood and you can see the six bungalows in the lower right that have replaced the Vassar School. The bungalows are directly tied to the former Vassar School, built in 1892, then in the town of South Denver. The school served K through eight, closed in 1924 due to construction of Rosedale School, which was built to accommodate the growing student population of the neighborhood. And the property was purchased and developed into six residences by Elbert L. Franz, who is pictured on the screen in Ohio native and building contractor. He designed the bungalows using the historic Vassar School topography and building materials. And although we don't have a historic image of the Vassar School, the Milton School, which you see here built around the same time, has pretty much the exact footprints of the Vassar School. So we can have a sense of what the Vassar School may have looked like. For architecture, the six buildings successfully convey distinguishing characteristics of Spanish revival style architecture. The flat roofs are found in only 10% of the style in the country overall. And although the buildings are not architect designs, there is a great deal of thought and resourcefulness that was put into their design with the elements reflecting the historic Vasser School . In general, there's a very uniform, cohesive appearance between the six buildings. Geography B to promote the understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics and rarity is achieved in this district due to its unique uniform grouping of Spanish revival style architecture and direct association with the design and layout of the former Vassar School. No other properties in the surrounding area resemble it or exhibit a uniform grouping of Spanish revival style architecture constructed by the same builder. If we take a closer look at those six properties, we compare it to the historic map of the Vassar School. We can see a lot of similarities. It maintains the South facing placement of the school. If you look at the three westernmost properties, they are mirror images of the three easternmost properties and plot size, location and spacing in between. You can even see in between the two middle buildings the historic entry into the Vassar School. The historic Fastener School materials were also reused in these buildings and in the properties with sandstone walls along the perimeter of the property and sandstone masonry in the foundations. So this truly is a very physically distinctive and rare piece of Denver's urban environment. The properties also retain a high degree of physical and historic integrity related to the district's period of significance from 1925 to 1926. Each building retains its original residential dwelling in the location where it was constructed and continues to serve in a residential capacity . There have been minor alterations over time, but they are found to be compatible in size material to the original. And finally, the proposed district does relate to a historic context or theme, and that illustrates the growth and development of working class housing along South Broadway and also the evolution of the Vassar School property from educational facility to residential development, all within the period of significance of 1925 to 1926. Because this is a proposed historic district. The planning board also has the opportunity to review this proposal per Chapter 30, Dash 4.6 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. The Planning Board considers the proposed designation with respect to its relationship to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation or amendments. The Planning Board has found that the proposed district is consistent with applicable plans, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver and will have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Two notes There is no neighborhood plan for the Rosedale neighborhood. Just a reminder that this is U.S. to be one single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units. The proposed district advances several comprehensive plan goals, visions, objectives and strategies, and on the screen are the strategies that it meets. The Vassar School Bungalows Historic District Designation meets these by reinforcing the intrinsic, historic and cultural character of the city and Rosedale neighborhood, preserving the city's historic properties and neighborhoods and enhancing design excellence. According to Blueprint Denver, the proposed district's concept land use a single family residential and is in an area of stability. The primary character of the Vassar School bungalow is a single family residential, and the proposed district designation will help preserve that character. Areas of stability include the stable residential neighborhoods, where no significant changes in land use are expected over the next 20 years. The goal is to maintain the character of these areas and accommodate some new development and redevelopment that maintains the vitality of the area. The proposed designation identifies and helps retain the character defining features of the Vassar school bungalows, thereby providing greater, clear career clarity or certainty for any future change. Blueprint Denver does specifically note that historic designation is one of the most successful and common tools to preserve a neighborhood special qualities. The proposed designation is consistent with the Blueprint Denver concept, land use and area of stability recommendations. Because the proposed designation will help preserve the character of the Rosedale neighborhood. It will have little impact on the neighborhood. The designation ordinance and design guidelines that go along with it are only enforceable by the Landmark Preservation Commission within the district boundary. In some summation, both the Landmark Preservation Commission and Planning Board have unanimously recommended approval of the designation. There has been no public opposition to the designation, only support. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Vassar School bungalows. Historic District designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'd ask if you signed up to speak on this issue, if you could come up to this front row now. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. I'll call you up. As soon as I call your name, you can step up to the microphone. There will be a slight delay and then your time will start. First up, we have Jennifer Kramer. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Kramer.
Speaker 4: In March of 2004.
Speaker 1: My husband and I purchased our home located in the Rosedale neighborhood at 119 East Vassar Avenue. Shortly after moving in, our neighbor informed us of our homes. Unusual history in the other five Spanish revival style bungalows on our block were built on the site of the demolished Vassar School.
Speaker 4: And some of the building materials had been reused in the construction of these homes that explain the unusual red sandstone wall that surrounded the property. It also explained the strange mix of brick and stone visible in our basement walls and the big pieces of chiseled sandstone that we would eventually dig up in our yard while landscaping. After Denver's real estate market took off, we anxiously watched.
Speaker 1: As three of the other bungalows went on the market. Each time.
Speaker 4: One sold, we were afraid that the new owners would decide to demolish.
Speaker 1: Their bungalow and build.
Speaker 4: A new home.
Speaker 1: On the lot.
Speaker 4: Destroying the cohesive.
Speaker 1: Appearance of our block. Finally, in February of.
Speaker 4: 2016, I decided I had to figure out a way to protect and preserve these six bungalows.
Speaker 1: So I emailed Annie.
Speaker 4: Levinsky.
Speaker 1: Of Historic Denver. From the get go, I involved the other bungalow owners and our councilman, Paul Cashman. Early in the.
Speaker 4: Process, we hosted a meeting with the Homeowners Historic Denver in the city's Preservation Department to discuss the pros and cons of creating a historic district with the other five homeowners on board. I plan to complete the historic district application myself and submit it to the city within a few months. This was completely unrealistic and nothing happened for over a year because of life just being too busy. Finally, I came to the realization that we needed to hire a consultant to complete the application if we ever wanted our historic district to become a reality. In August of 2017, I applied to historic Denver's Action Fund. A few weeks later, we were approved by the Action Fund and they provided 75% of the necessary funds to hire a consultant. The six bungalow owners eventually split the other 25% of the consultant's fee. The consultants started researching, compiling the necessary information in January of this year. In April, we hosted another meeting of the homeowners to review the rough draft of our application and to once again remind everyone of the ramifications of creating and living within a historic district. And in June, our completed application was finally ready for Councilman Cashman to submit to the city of Denver. Two years and eight months after sending that first email to historic Denver, I finally stand here before Denver City Council hoping you'll approve our master school bungalow historic district, so that our charming homes can enrich the character of.
Speaker 1: Our city and our neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Excuse me for another 92 years. It's been a long road, but along the way I've met.
Speaker 1: Some all of my neighbors and a lot of really great.
Speaker 4: People. I'd like to thank.
Speaker 1: The other bungalow owners for your support throughout the entire process. Everyone has sought Denver for your.
Speaker 4: Guidance, financial assistance of your action fund. Our consultant, Christina Anello.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: In Geneva.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Kristi minnillo.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Kristi Minnillo, and I'm the owner of Minnillo Consulting, a business that specializes in architectural history services in environmental reviews. I am here because historic Denver hired me through the Action Fund to prepare the Landmark District application for the master school bungalows. I'm here to answer.
Speaker 3: Any questions you may have.
Speaker 1: About the application that Lamour staff may not be able to. And I'm also here to speak for this bill because not only, you know, I prepared it, but I have 15 plus years of experience in the world of historic preservation, and I frequently connect with the places and the times that I'm researching. But there's something very unique and very special about this place. I am proud to be associated with this application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Scott Nelson.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Hi, my name is Scott Nelson. I am one of the property owners.
Speaker 0: For this district and a neighbor of Jenn who I want to thank.
Speaker 5: For her passionate.
Speaker 2: Pursuit of this and.
Speaker 5: All the hard work and.
Speaker 0: All the energy and emotion as well as.
Speaker 5: Councilman Cashman for his support and help. Historic Denver Kristi minnillo.
Speaker 0: Everybody that's been involved has been it's been a fun process, and I'm hopeful that this will.
Speaker 5: Go through.
Speaker 0: I'm very much.
Speaker 5: In favor of of.
Speaker 0: Our homes being on this historic district because of the unique and consistent architecture.
Speaker 2: They all share. I've seen a lot of other individual homes. I'm a realtor.
Speaker 5: In the area and.
Speaker 9: See some of those.
Speaker 0: Historic homes that.
Speaker 2: Are one or two. And you can see.
Speaker 0: What the architecture is. But to see a group of this group of like this is is pretty unique for a whole block.
Speaker 5: I think they fit in very well with the neighborhood in terms of the size of home and the community in general. But they're.
Speaker 0: Very unique because of the style, the architecture.
Speaker 5: Their orientation, south facing instead of east or west facing. So it's something I'd like to see preserved, and I think all.
Speaker 0: Of our neighbors are in agreement with.
Speaker 5: That. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Shannon Stage.
Speaker 4: Good evening, council members.
Speaker 1: I am Shannon age. My address is 1420 Ogden Street and I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. For anyone unfamiliar with historic Denver, we are a preservation nonprofit that has the support of over 800 member households. And our mission is to assist the community of Denver in retaining the unique character that makes up our city. Historic. Denver is thrilled to be here tonight to show our support for the strong application of the Vasser School Bungalows Historic District. The neighbors of the bungalows sought out historic numbers support and started talking to us as well as Councilman Cashman a couple of years ago to create a historic district of their six bungalow homes. Last year, they applied to the historic Denver Action Fund, which they were awarded the funds to hire many consulting to write and complete the Historic District application as an action fund awarded program. The neighbors raised the 25% matching funds to help support this application process and have helped with organizing the project throughout the entire process as well . The neighbors, as well as historic Denver, truly believe their six Spanish revival bungalows are special, historic homes worthy of being protected in this quickly changing area of Denver. The homes were all built by the same builder Albert France in 1925 to 26 on the grounds of the demolished Vassar School. And one of the unique items here are all the elements of the Vassar School building that were incorporated into the residential properties, including the low sandstone sandstone wall that runs the length of the block, as well as parts of the foundation wall of the school that was incorporated into the foundation of the homes the Vassar School bungalows . Historic District is not only strong because it meets all three of the criteria history, architecture and geography, but it has had 100% support of each of the neighbors within the proposed district. Historic Denver strongly urges you to consider this historic district application for your approval. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 9: Good afternoon, members of council. My name is Jesse Pears. I'm a lawyer at large candidate for office in 2019. We are. I'm speaking on behalf of Black Star Action Movement and Community Action Committee for Change. We are in approval of this. We support Paul Cashman and his wise decision to keep areas of Denver such as this historic. And for that, we give a salute. I see no opposition coming from this whatsoever. It looks like it passed at planning board. The whole community is behind it. Are the neighbors that are in attendance are also on approval of it. So, yeah. I am in support of this and that is all I have to say on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 6: But even Mr. President and his team members of City Council designated humble and trusted servants of the city and county of Denver. I am the organizer, founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, being the voice for those who are voiceless, the poor, the working poor, the homeless, students, senior citizens and other oppressed groups within the city. Also on the candidate for mayor, the city County Dem 2019. This evening. What we like to do is. We like to join in with Jennifer Kramer in thanking the other bungalow owners for their support throughout the process. Everyone at Historical Denver for your guidance and financial assistance from your action fund or consultant Kristy. Many yellow. Kerrigan and Jenny Lunenburg with the city of Denver and Councilman Paul Cashman and other council members for your time, effort and energy. Taking on this consideration. You know it's very often lately that. I get these historical memories of this district and it seems to be strange. But the truth is, as a senior at Emanuel High School, we were given the opportunity to go to other areas of the city to get college credit and high school credit as we graduated from high school. And I was calling I going to borderline in terms of student whether he would go to high school or not or the war to Vietnam. And also, I just happened to be a basketball player for three championship teams. So despite of my academic. Shortcomings. I was given opportunity to attend the University of Denver. And up there I saw a whole different world from the east side. Five points. I didn't even know y'all was out there because at that point, our communities are pretty much grew up in a segregated community here in the city county in Denver, where you didn't find very many black folks out there like you was on the moon somewhere. We pretty much stay on a borderline between Colfax and I-70 and in downtown all the way to Quebec, the airport, because prior to that, outside airports when my daddy taught me how to shoot rabbits and gophers and things like that , and we shoot to eat. We weren't shooting for fun. So anyway, I'm out there. Do you? And a whole new world opened up and I had to go through this beautiful look like pristine gothic environment that you see on PBS or something, you know. But actually to live in that and see that and go to school out there, it was like it opened up a whole new world for me. So this is very important for us to preserve this environment because there is a history there for this entire city, including the part that I played and lived in, going out there because it opened up a whole new world now. It was amazing in terms of how life turns out. I leave my new high school and I have to go to Northeastern during college, go have the grades, to go to the University of Southern. Cal and I go to for two years, and then while I'm there, I get injured. And then I'm because of my integrity and how I was taught how to do things. I just applied my basketball skills are going to the library and then ended up graduating with a degree in accounting and offered a Ford Foundation scholarship to attend any major university on the planet. And I chose the University of Denver. And I was the first African ever in the history of the business school to get a full ride. I didn't have to pay a dime. And then I was given an internship. More Mitchell to become a certified public accountant. But it was that environment when I was first introduced to it at an early age of 17 years old that I came back because that that environment was a world I wanted to operate in. And it wasn't very many of us out there. But I had the greatest mentor in the world, Condoleezza Rice's father, John Rice. He was vice chancellor there. And he opened up a whole new world for me. I mean, a whole entire new world. And so I feel very fortunate to be a part of the history of that air in the area impacting my life, because that story needs to be preserved because that's part of the history that may not ever be written down. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen for me. So I have to support this. I have to support this other love that opened up avenues and doors for me in my life and the lives of others who are not present here to share this story. And so we're encouraging this to happen because it's more than a preservation of the buildings. It's a preservation of the history of the people who were there. And I'm telling you straight up, I was embraced by that community. And I felt right at home. I can't be alone. And that's something that I'll treasure for the rest of my life. So we support this. Thank you very much. And good evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. We'll move on to questions for members of council. And I'll just start with Jennifer Cramer if you want to come back up. Sorry that you ran out of time as you were. You were going. And I think, Chairman, say, who helped you get to a few things, but is there anyone else you wanted to thank or any anything else you wanted to add about this application?
Speaker 4: He did complete my list, so I just was wanting to thank all of you for the consideration for all of the committees that we've sat through and everybody else had to listen. And for everybody at historic Denver and at the city's preservation office, it's been a great process.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's a great. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? All right. Seeing none of the courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1072 is closed. I would think that was required. Hearing comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. As happened on before the planning board. And we had the same mix of presentations. We first heard from Kendra about their project, which while it very possibly will have elements of great benefit to the neighborhood, if it should pass, it will change the face of that community. And here we have this simple group of six bungalows that will preserve the history of the community. And it is such a gift. These historic preservation, whether it's a district or an individual landmark, are so important to our community. And I'm always a bit embarrassed. I believe in the staff presentation. My name was mentioned three times, so I'm going to say Jim Cramer. Jen Kramer. Jen Kramer. Jen Cramer. You heard her passion and the sincerity with which she put this designation forward. These I've said it in committee to those who weren't there. If you have not driven this block, you've got to go see these. These are just beyond charming as a lovely group of homes that clearly meet all the requirements of our preservation ordinance. I'm just so happy to be able to bring this forward. It is so nice when people do a whole lot of work and I get to put my name on it that I always find that enjoyable. And I want to echo a thanks to besides Ms.. Kramer, Jim Boulden and Karen from staff Christie in yellow Shannon stage from historic Denver in the Legend The Woman, The Myth, The Legend, Annie Levinsky, our preservation maven in Denver. Seriously, for the work you continue to do with your entire staff. Thank you. And I would urge my colleagues to approve this designation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Now, I just didn't want I just didn't want it to be one speaker, having heard how long of a process it was and having worked on community issues myself that seem daunting at first or seem simple at first and obvious and then become daunting and then rolling that long haul or hoeing the long row. Sorry to finally get there. I'm glad in in all the narrative that was presented because it sounds like all the sort of bits and pieces and the people that are involved, both in the nonprofit world and at the city and volunteers and neighbors and property owners, all came together in exactly the way they were intended to be put together. And but it's still an education process. You know, there's there's hesitation. There's I mean, I don't know that that happened, but there's reticence about what what what it all means and what it how it might impact somebody. And and I'm just grateful that you persevered and that your neighbors came on board and that everyone is, is, is, is, is and is in support because it's one of those I probably am familiar with it. You know, I'm going to make a point of going out there and checking it out because I'm sure it's one of those parts of Denver that as you go by it time and time again, you think it's basically obvious and that these things are part of history and should remain and are probably protected. And too often we find out sort of after the fact that no and and and then it becomes a struggle and it becomes too late . And so for you guys to recognize it real time in a time where you could still act and that you all sort of recognize the importance of these sorts of homes to to yourselves, to the people that came before you and the people that will come after you and to the rest of the city. So I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your hard work, the involvement of your neighbors and the people that supported you in getting here. And Councilman Cashman. I said your name honestly, Jen, for bringing this forward and supporting your community in this effort. So thank you all.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I see nobody else in the queue. I'll just add that the day this was in committee, I got home and I told my wife, I said, Hey, there's this historic designation. I think it's on your training ground. She was training for the rock and roll half marathon. That was this last weekend. And the second I said three words about it, I think she's like, I know exactly where it is. It's so cool. She's like, I run by it all the time. So of course, she instantly knew. And so I think it's so exciting to have this in front of us for preservation. And then Councilman Cashman said in committee and don't let it go to your head. But I thought was so cool. I actually wrote it down. You said this is a gift that these people are giving Denver. And I think that that is really true, that what you're doing here today and preserving this as the owners is you're giving a gift to our city to preserve that history. And I was at the parade this weekend talking to another one of my constituents who who did the same thing. They created the South Lincoln Historic District recently. And I said, that's what we need if we're going to really, you know, preserve this history in Denver is we need we need to get the word out. So anybody is watching on TV. Take a look at your house and reach out and find out if you can do the same thing and give a gift to our city. Because it is it's really pretty phenomenal. So thank you for doing that and I'm excited to support this tonight with that. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Black Eyed Peas.
Speaker 3: Hi, Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 4: Flynn Gilmore. I Herndon Cashman. Sorry. Can I. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi, Sussman.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 hours.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes council bill 1072 has passed. All right. We have one more hearing this evening. The public hearing for the mayor's proposed 2019 budget is now open. May we have the staff report?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating the Vassar School Bungalows Historic District as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of Vassar School Bungalows as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, bounded by Lincoln Street, Sherman Street, East Vassar Avenue, and the public alley between East Vassar Avenue and East Harvard Avenue in Council District 6. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 10-22-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10152018_18-1175
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. I don't see anybody else in line for announcements. Just double checking. All right. Moving right along. There are no presentations. There is one communication tonight. Tonight, council is scheduled to sit as the quasi judicial board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for local maintenance districts. However, since no written protests of assessment were filed with the manager of public works by September 27th, 2018, 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 East 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall South Downing Street Pedestrian Mall Tennyson Street to pedestrian mall 44th Avenue an Elliott Street Pedestrian Mall West 32nd Avenue Pedestrian mall Broadway Pedestrian Mall A South Broadway streetscape Arizona to Iowa South Broadway Broadway Streetscape West Little South Broadway Streetscape, Iowa to Wesley Tennyson streetscape portions of 38 to 40 fourth. And we have no proclamations this evening. So resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolution titles?
|
Communication
|
Local Maintenance Districts Group 1
Tonight, Council was scheduled to sit as the quasi-judicial Board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for Local Maintenance Districts. However, since no written protests of assessment were filed with the Manager of Public Works by September 27, 2018, 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
Delgany Street
East 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall
South Downing Street Pedestrian Mall
Tennyson Street II Pedestrian Mall
44th Avenue & Eliot Street Pedestrian Mall
West 32nd Avenue Pedestrian Mall
Broadway Pedestrian Mall ‘A’
South Broadway Streetscape (Arizona to Iowa)
South Broadway Streetscape (Wesley to Yale)
South Broadway Streetscape (Iowa to Wesley)
Tennyson Streetscape (Portions of 38th to 44th)
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10152018_18-1086
|
Speaker 2: So, Madam Secretary, could you put 1086 Council Resolution 1086 on our screens? And Councilman Ortega, that's one that you would call out for an abstention. Anything you want to add to that?
Speaker 5: No, I'm on the board of a nonprofit that receives helpful funds, and it's consistent with how I have voted on this particular allocation of funding that we receive.
Speaker 2: And I'm sorry, Councilman Herby, abstain. Okay. Councilman Herndon, can you put Council Resolution 1086.
Speaker 4: On the floor? Business president, I move that council resolution 1086 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Flynn. Do I see you up on this one for comment?
Speaker 3: You see it there, Mr. President, but it's there because it didn't go away from the council announcements.
Speaker 2: Okay. So you're all good on this one. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments on this one. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye Brooks.
Speaker 3: I had.
Speaker 1: Espinosa when.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore i Herndon. I Cashman. I can teach i.
Speaker 4: Lopez I.
Speaker 1: Knew.
Speaker 5: Ortega Abstain.
Speaker 1: Sussman, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes, one abstention. Council before council resolution 1086 has been adopted. And now, Madam Secretary, if you could put the next item, a council bill 975 on our screens. And Councilman Herndon, if you can put a motion to delay consideration of 975 until after the public hearing tonight, the courtesy public hearing tonight on 1089 is due.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Grant Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the United States of America Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning the “Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) FY18” program and the funding therefor.
Approves a performance grant agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the 2018 allocation of $2,017,134 through the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program to provide housing and supportive services designed to prevent homelessness for persons with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or related diseases, citywide (201844785). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-5-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-3-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10152018_18-0975
|
Speaker 2: 11 eyes, one abstention. Council before council resolution 1086 has been adopted. And now, Madam Secretary, if you could put the next item, a council bill 975 on our screens. And Councilman Herndon, if you can put a motion to delay consideration of 975 until after the public hearing tonight, the courtesy public hearing tonight on 1089 is due.
Speaker 4: I first need to order it published and then there needs to be a second motion to delay.
Speaker 2: The word I got was that we needed a move to delay consideration, but we need to put it on the floor first.
Speaker 1: I think I think you do your vote on that, but then you'll go ahead and.
Speaker 2: All right. So go ahead and put it on the floor.
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President, I would move that council bill 975 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: Right. It has been moved and seconded. And now do we need Councilman Espinosa then to make a motion to postpone? Correct. All right, Councilman Espinosa, I want to make a motion to postpone consideration of this until after the public hearing.
Speaker 7: Yes. President, I moved to postpone this till after the public hearing of.
Speaker 4: 86.
Speaker 2: Has been moved and seconded. Any comments or questions by members of council on this? I'm guessing, Councilman Flynn, that that's still just you hanging around on there.
Speaker 3: Correct. And not that I'm trying to. It just won't go away.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black Eye. Brooks.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Espinosa.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 4: Herndon, I.
Speaker 1: Cashman. I can reach Lopez.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announced the results. 3913 Eyes Council Bill 975 will be postponed for consideration until after the courtesy public hearing tonight on 1089. I believe that concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published except for Council Bill 8-0189 which council will vote on after the conclusion of the one hour courtesy public hearings scheduled later this evening, 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 out an item 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 4: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the block for the following items. All serious 2018 unless noted 1076, 1068, 1049, 1067, 1069, 1085, 1087.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye Brooks.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, I Gilmore I Herndon, I Cashman I can canete.
Speaker 4: Lopez Hi.
Speaker 1: New Ortega I Susman. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. 1313 I As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight, there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 1089, amending Title 27 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to revise
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance to amend Article IV of Chapter 27 (Housing) of the Revised Municipal Code relating to affordable housing.
Amends Article IV, Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to affordable housing to allow for the execution of a performance deed of trust for settlements of disputed matters and to allow the recapture of lost affordability terms. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-12-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10152018_18-1089
|
Speaker 2: Council has reconvened. Apologies for the extended recess. We do have one courtesy public hearing this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. 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. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1089 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council.
Speaker 4: Bill 1089 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Are we? Sir, I'm just checking. Are we doing the amendment now? Okay, so we are going to do the amendment now. I almost had the gavel down there. Councilwoman, can you have an amendment to make before the public hearing so that members of the public can make comments on the amendment as well? Would you like to make that amendment now?
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 18, Dash 1089, as follows On page seven, line 18, insert the following. The amendment to section 27 Dash 50 regarding minimum affordability periods shall be effective with regard to projects receiving a city subsidy pursuant to a contract dated on or after February 1st, 2019.
Speaker 2: And we have a motion and a second on the amendment, and now we're going to do the public hearing. So that explanation. Go ahead with your comment. Yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the period by which the. So right now our current law is that the minimum affordability period is 20 years. The bill before us has many components in it, including tweaks to the preservation aspects. All of those would go into effect upon passage of the bill were passed. But the piece that would change the minimum affordability to 20 years to 60 years would be delayed until February 1st of 2019. There are two reasons for this. One is because I believe there has been a very sincere desire from members in our affordable housing development community to engage in a closer dialog with the Office of Economic Development about the implementation, details of the how, and I think they legitimately want to have a seat at the table before the rules and regulations are finalized, and this allows time to do that. The second reason is because I know my colleagues were planning to introduce a motion to delay the adoption or debate of this bill until February of 2019. And my concern with delaying the entire bill is that we have several tax credit applications that are due in January 1st. Developers have to have their letter of intent into the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority about what projects they want to submit. And then they actually have to submit the actual application by February 1st. If what we do is we don't decide where we are on this length of affordability, we will have an entire round of tax credit of players living in limbo, not knowing where we're headed. I believe that my amendment is intended to be a sincere compromise with my colleagues and with the community members that there does allow time before the law goes into effect and it ensures they have a seat at the table. But it creates certainty for those folks, especially who are applying for tax credits in January and February. So I apologize to my my colleagues for the the last minute amendment, but I felt like it was a compromise to the motion to delay. And so this is how legislative process works sometimes. And I look forward to hearing feedback from the community during the hearing. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Councilwoman. Okay, so we have the bill and then the amendment on the floor for our courtesy, public hearing and members of the public can feel free to speak to either. We will not take action on them until after we've heard from the public since the amendment has been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 1089 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Absolutely. Laura brzezinski, Office of Economic Development in her housing division. I am going to just give a brief overview of the information that was provided to the Safety Committee two weeks ago regarding Council Bill 1089. As Councilwoman Kenny mentioned, there are two components of what's being proposed with this bill. There are some intended clarifications to some of the definitions as well as the notice periods for the implementation of the preservation ordinance. We have had three years of time passed since we introduced the right of first refusal to the ordinance in 2015. And we've realized through the implementation process that we need some more clarity in terms of the definitions used within the ordinance, as well as certain definitions that are omitted from the ordinance and need to be added. We also have some clarity that's needed for the notice periods for federally as well as locally supported resource preservation projects. These are just clarifications to the ordinance language, not introducing new policy solutions or policy concepts into the ordinance. The component of the changes. The second component of the changes is the proposed change to the minimum affordability period. So why are we discussing extending this minimum affordability period? We conducted a lot of outreach as part of the development of our five year housing plan, housing and Inclusive Denver and heard from community members and stakeholders that our our plan and our implementation processes should focus on longer term affordability periods across all of our investments, and that we should pursue housing that is affordable in perpetuity. And those are a couple of the direct comments that we received from community or stakeholder members during the process. Why are we talking about it? We believe that long term affordability of rental housing can prevent the conversion of our multifamily resident residential rental developments to market rate housing, which can help to stabilize low and moderate income households and or prevent homelessness. When when a property is converted to market rate, it's at risk of displacing the residents that currently live there. Right now, the ordinance requires that our projects come with a minimum period of 20 years. However, we do administratively sometimes apply longer restrictions at 30 or 40 years, but that ordinance does state that 20 years right now. So in terms of our process, we analyzed our current portfolio of affordable units across all of the redistricting agencies. We have about 20,000 affordable units in our entire portfolio. Not all of those are funded exclusively by the city of Denver. We also have U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Division of Housing at the state level, and then the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority that apply other types of restrictions to properties as part of Denver's portfolio. The average term of the restriction is about 29 years across our entire portfolio with these different restricting agencies. We also conducted research on other high cost peer cities as part of this process to determine what are some of the best practices in terms of minimum affordability periods. We found anywhere from 50 to perpetual affordability in some of our peer cities. If folks have questions about that, I'm happy to answer them. We hope to also conduct a large group as well as stakeholder outreach, including outreach to nonprofit, as well as for profit developers of affordable housing finance experts, including tax credit investors, as well as private lenders. We had several meetings with our housing advisory committee and subcommittees between May and September of this year, and we also have a group of experts convening locally around anti displacement solutions and policy recommendations. That's part of a cohort of different cities nationally looking at policies that focus on anti displacement. So our our recommendation based on public and stakeholder feedback is to use long term to long term affordability as a tool to stabilize residents at risk of displacement and to promote inclusive communities. We are recommending an increase from the minimum affordability period from 20 years to 60 years in the ordinance as part of our focused outreach with those different stakeholder representatives. We did hear some feedback on that, has informed some of these recommendations and our considerations for implementation. We do believe, based on our outreach, that the income increase minimum affordability period should not impact developer developers ability to access low income housing, tax, credit equity or private debt. We have talked to other communities, even here in Colorado, that have longer term affordability periods than what Denver currently has at 20 years. Boulder is an example. They have perpetual affordability on their projects right now. There's also a willingness to match the city and the state affordability, length and loan terms. We've had a lot of conversations with the state division of Housing as part of this, and we have gotten some feedback regarding opportunities for implementation considerations. There's been questions around the funding for rehabilitation over time, as well as some of our underwriting criteria, which we think there's opportunities through a rules and regulations process to more clearly define as well as specific covenant terms. Some questions around the length of affordability and the potential for the mix of affordability within an individual project. So for example, if a unit is restricted at 30% of the area median income because there is also a project based voucher that is being leveraged for that unit, if that project based voucher goes away in 20 years. But we have affordability restrictions at 60 years. Is there an opportunity to amend the commitment to accommodate that change in the the project's capital stack? That's the kind of thing we've heard some feedback on and are looking to have further discussion around the rules and regulations related to this piece. So we are recommending approval of Council Bill 18. 1089 tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. We do have nine individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five if you could make your way up to the frontbench so that we can move through everyone as quickly as possible. And I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. As soon as I call your name, then please step up to the podium. There will be a slight delay to let you get there from that front bench and then your time will start. So the first five I have are Jennie Santos, Andrew Romero, Andrea Barela, Jonathan Capelli and Marvin Kelley. If you could come up to the front and Jennie Santos, you are up.
Speaker 1: When that's not just. Good evening. My name is Jennie Santos. I'm actually a resident of Globeville. And the reason I'm here, I'm in here in support of this ordinance as Servicios de la Raza, as a victim advocate, I provide support to victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking in general, victims of crime. However, our agency also has a reentry program that helps individuals that are, in the end, incarceration system reentry back into our community. We also have our mental health program that aids individuals, individuals and family, what their mental needs. And we also have our client a program that provides support to victims, that provide support to individuals that are diagnosed with HIV and providing education around that with case management. We service a very vulnerable community. Our community is needing the support and increasing the years of affordability from 20 years to 60 years. Why? Our children, our mothers, our fathers are needed to have that mental stability of knowing that if they're currently finding a housing unit right now we're in a market where it's hard enough to find a unit that's affordable. But when individuals are able to find a unit that does have that affordability to have not only 20 years but the extension of 60 years, because service a lot of families. And in the city and county of Denver, we're dealing with the housing crisis. It's very important that we're able to have these units for a long term, even after you and I are gone from here. As far as the roles that we play and hopefully we've moved on knowing that we've created this change in disabilities, this the ability for the city and county of Denver's residents. Thank you. Please vote in favor of this because our communities need the support. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, Andrew Romero.
Speaker 7: That's part of the problem.
Speaker 10: Hi, my name is Andrew Romero and I'm a resident of Denver and Jefferson Park and I am a member of the board of All in Denver here representing that organization. We certainly support longer term affordability, city dollars and other resources such as state funds. Federal tax credits should not be spent on short term affordable fixes for long term problems. 20 years is not a very long term time period for one of these affordable housing projects. When people are generationally poor sometimes, however, if there is going to be a longer term affordability restriction 60 or more years than when those projects have to be refinanced or re syndicated for low tech, low income housing tax credits, typically every 15 years or so, there has to be a recognition that those projects have to be continually reinvested in affordable housing developments, especially the family projects and those that are older to begin with need to be substantially re halved periodically. Capital markets for debt and tax credit equity will not accept the minimal amount of rehab at refinanced time Project Rehab, but just have to demonstrate that the new loan will outlast the major systems in the project. So typically capital markets want to see new roofs updated electrical kitchens, baths, carpets, heating, cooling systems. These costs are typically well above $40,000 per unit in these projects. So we often see projects coming in for refinancing with only $25,000 per unit in rehab. That means that they're skipping some major systems that could fail during the life of the financing again, only every 15 years or so, which puts the project and the owner at significant risk of default. So while longer affordability makes a lot of sense to keep units in the affordable housing stock, those projects have to be maintained throughout the life of the restriction and we're talking six years. So all in Denver encourages the city and its other partners to look at new and additional sources of funding to make sure that the low income residents in long term affordable projects are not being forced to live in substandard conditions due to a lack of funding as projects cycle through their financing periods. And we don't want to see burdens on owners and financial partners as well. So perhaps it makes sense to explore both sides of this equation, the restriction versus the resource further before passing this resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, Andrea broke.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name's Andrea Barela. I'm the president and CEO of New Said Community Development Corporation and treasurer of in D.C. Neighborhood Development Collaborative. We are one of the oldest kdka's in Colorado this year. At 45 years, we owned several affordable housing developments in Denver and endeavor to build more in the future. Like our colleagues in this field, we are mission driven and want to see the proliferation and sustainability of affordable housing, both rental and for sale for low and moderate income households. In the Denver metro area, a segment of the population that is being slowly displaced. We work daily to and we work daily serving that ideology. In order to make affordable housing projects work for the long term, there must be flexibility that accommodates fluctuations in the ever changing economy. This is why news that supports a 40 year affordable affordability restriction. There have been no plans of funding commitments made by the city, state or chapter to accommodate a 60 year affordability restriction. And this is very troubling, to say the least. What is clear to us, as well as various members of NBC, is that a vote at this time would be extremely premature. And we strongly support a four month delay to allow for a more strategic and informed policy approach. You know, just to speak also to what Andrew was was was saying, we echo all of those comments. You know, we currently have a couple of properties in the market right now that are you know, we've only erected very recently and already they are seeing just a myriad of issues. And, you know, these kinds of restrictions would really hinder our ability to to, you know, do do the kinds of improvements that that we need in them. So, you know, we are all about affordability in the long term affordability, but it has to be done the right way . And I know that there's been a lot of looking at other cities and how they do that, but there is also strong funding commitments in those other cities that the Denver hasn't demonstrated yet. And we we need to see that demonstrated. We need to see something other than just pushing forward an ordinance that we don't know how that's going to affect us in the long run. So we hope we can take a step back and and really look at this. So we we we support an extension on this.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Next up, Jonathan Capelli.
Speaker 4: Thank you, everyone. So, I'm John Kelly. Live at 3421, Bruce Randolph. I'm the director of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative. And before you all, you should have a copy of a letter that we sent very late. Sorry about that. Detailing exposition space. I just want it so there's no time to read the letter. But I wanted to ask if you could formally.
Speaker 5: You pull your microphone up a little closer.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry. I better don't ask if you guys could formally enter that letter into the record for the hearing. All right, great. So first, we want to say that ABC strongly supports the city's goal of extending the affordability ordinance. We can't allow the current problems of losing affordable units to due to short term covenants continue into the future. When it comes to the extension of the preservation ordinance, the question is not if to extend it, but how. But as it's currently written, many developers have serious concerns about how to make it work. It's true that other pure cities have a longer preservation ordinance than we do, but is also true, as evidenced in the city's own research, that these cities have different funding mechanisms and regulation language than we do. And that of all of our peer cities, Denver has the lowest municipal contribution per unit. Seattle, for instance, funds units at up to five times the rate that we do, but has only only has a 50 year affordability covered in other cities such as Boulder and Boston that have less than Seattle, more than Denver, less than Seattle , but have it in perpetuity. So the point is that the devil sort of in the details for how you implement this, and that's what we're concerned about. So we're asking for postponement of this vote until a group of developers, nonprofit housing providers, advocates and tax credit attorneys can get together and craft what funding and regulatory changes we need in order to actually support this. Why do we not simply wait until the second reading? Because we want as much time as possible to give this substantive feedback. Why? If the question is not if, but how to implement this, we don't simply turn our attention to rules and regulations. The reason is because we think that the ordinance could potentially even be even even longer. The number of NDC members, some of which implement even longer affordability covenants, you know, up to 199 years, still agree that we need to have this delay in order to figure out the details. The cart shouldn't become come before the horse on this. So so once again, our request is to postpone it until February 15th, 2018. And we ask for this given the coming holidays, the absence of a number of OED leaders under the three month FEMA Family Medical Leave Act. And so we're seeking this four month delay so that everyone can be at the table and work on this together. I'm hearing Councilman, can you she's concerned about tax applications, you know, perhaps delaying until December makes sense. But in any case, we still feel like that the ordinance should be delayed and the rules and regulations worked out first. As a final note, it might seem counterintuitive and I don't even have time to say about I say, all right.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Next up is Marvin Kelley. And if the last four speakers who signed up tonight to speak could come to that front bench Tiana Patterson, Jean Markkanen, Jessie Parris and David Roybal, if you could come to the front row, that would be appreciated. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: My name is Marvin Kelley. I live at 139 South Clarkson Street in Councilman Clark's district. And I'm also the executive director of Del Norte Development Corporation. We've worked in the Highland neighborhood and West Colfax neighborhoods since 1979, developing housing affordable to very low income and moderate income families. And so, as a matter of fact, I developed the very first tax credit property in the United States working with Jim Ross of the Enterprise Foundation. And that property was developed in 1986 when the tax credit legislation was passed. That property is still under our ownership. It is still affordable. We still has all those families who are primarily earning less than 30% of the Denver median income. I've shared my concern with this legislation with the Office of Economic Development Staff, and I've worked with the staff in trying to fashion some changes to this that would make it more palatable to us. But tonight, we're asking for a four month delay in the adoption of the legislation as another note. We've worked with this, the chap of 40 year affordability. Ever since that has passed and that's something we live with and something we have to live with. So there's no necessarily. Need to go to 60 years, in my opinion now. If we can work out the tools that to make that work, then as far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with that. But to date, I haven't seen the tools that time that will help us make that work. This year, we attempted to syndicate 80 units of affordable housing located in Highland, placing an additional 30 years of affordability on those properties. The properties primarily housed persons whose income does not exceed 30% AMI families, persons living with other disabilities, historic properties and persons living with HIV AIDS. We developed the very first property in Denver to house homeless persons living with HIV AIDS. We ran into a very, very big problem in trying to re syndicate these properties with the rent restrictions that were in place. They impacted the appraisals to the extent that our basis on which the tax credits are based and therefore the investor payments made re syndication impossible. We are keeping the properties affordable primarily through HUD's RAD program, and so that's working very well with us. And those properties will remain affordable for another 30 years.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, but you're out of time. Thank you very much. Next up.
Speaker 3: We're asking for a delay in their letters.
Speaker 2: Next up, T.A. Patterson.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Tianna Patterson. I am the state and local policy director for Enterprise Community Partners. 110 16th Street in Denver is operated pretty simply. Enterprise supports the extension of long term affordability from 20 years to 60 years. And we also are here to express our support for the proposed amendment and for the continued engagement with our nonprofit and for profit development partners. As this process moves forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Next up, Kate Markkanen.
Speaker 7: Grimly. My name is Kate McKinnon. Kate, a second for short. I work for the Northeast Denver Housing Center. I'm the executive director.
Speaker 5: Northeast has been.
Speaker 4: Around for about 36 years.
Speaker 7: We do both wholesale and rental housing. So I speak to you with.
Speaker 4: A little bit of experience.
Speaker 7: Having.
Speaker 5: Lived.
Speaker 7: Properties that have been.
Speaker 5: Financed.
Speaker 7: 20, 25.
Speaker 5: 30 years ago. And when markets change, when community.
Speaker 7: Change, when financing.
Speaker 5: Changes, what we thought 20 and 30 years ago are not the same today. Similarly today, when we talk about an ordinance that's going to be.
Speaker 7: With us for 60 years.
Speaker 5: I think we need.
Speaker 7: To stop and pose and make sure we have the.
Speaker 5: Toolsets and the thought out answers to what.
Speaker 7: We could.
Speaker 5: Anticipate happening in 60 years. At the end of the day, this Council is interested.
Speaker 7: About how well we house low to moderate income families what you do here and make sure that your.
Speaker 5: Office of Economic Development has.
Speaker 7: Set the right.
Speaker 5: Tools such.
Speaker 7: To evaluate.
Speaker 5: Progress as we go.
Speaker 7: Will make sure that units will not be less than what you would want your children to live in. What we had experienced in the first 20, 30.
Speaker 4: Years was because.
Speaker 7: Of the restrictive nature.
Speaker 5: Of early.
Speaker 7: Housing programs, we could not.
Speaker 5: Get enough income.
Speaker 4: To capitalize and.
Speaker 7: Improve the housing stocks that we had. Where similarly, today, unless we do this program right, pose and query and challenge our friends at OED to do a little bit more research.
Speaker 5: Than telephone calls.
Speaker 7: To survey cities throughout the city, let's look at the fundamentals of.
Speaker 5: Neighborhoods from one.
Speaker 7: Area to the other are different. Today, you're looking at roughly about 60 to 65 units that are going to come into restriction in the next five years. While we're supposed to you.
Speaker 5: That most.
Speaker 7: Of these units are in the.
Speaker 5: Inner city, older.
Speaker 7: Housing stock. What are you going to do to those housing stocks? There's going to be different that the new units that we built in Stapleton, what we may build today in downtown, the collaboration that is needed in terms of the flexibility going to need for the owner developer.
Speaker 5: Down the.
Speaker 4: Line.
Speaker 5: When markets have changed, what neighborhood needs have changed?
Speaker 7: If you have told him you got to be a 30%.
Speaker 5: EMI, that's not.
Speaker 7: Going to work 30 or 40 years ago. So you need to build the flexibility into the program that anticipates.
Speaker 5: Change.
Speaker 7: And is friendly to the residents and to the owner. Because it's a partnership. The city can't do it by itself. Nonprofits can't do by itself. We need the private, the profit and the industry working together as a partner. This ordinance today kind of lacks a little bit in terms of.
Speaker 5: Working and making.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 11: Good afternoon. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm speaking on behalf of Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Denver Homicide Out Loud. A Community Action Commitment for change. No hidden agendas. Members of this Council, this ordinance amending Title 27 of the revised fiscal code of the City County of Denver to revise definitions and procedures for greater clarity and to extend the minimum affordability period for properties to receive city subsidies from 20 to 60 years has been a long time coming. I guess the housing project experiment is over and now you want to address the needs of the poor and downtrodden in the city. I have several questions. My questions. My first question is will there be a set Ahmar level written into this bill or will be up to the property owners to decide? Also, what is with the property owners going to be room 40 extension to 80 to 100 years worth. The city continue to allow developers to pay the linkage fee to opt out of accepting subsidies from the city for affordable housing. So in closing, positive action commitment for change is in favor of this ordinance. We would love to see more affordable measures for the housing and increasingly rising rental market, causing displacement and communities of color black , brown and indigenous. No delay. We have a housing crisis. I would ask council to approve this immediately. The poor, homeless and downtrodden in the city have no time to delay or wait. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And last up, David Roybal.
Speaker 4: David Roybal, 742 West Ninth Avenue represent West Denver United. Candidate for District three represent positive action. Commitment for change. No hidden agendas. We already got a sanctuary city. We need an affordable city. This should be front lines is Latino. This city will be affordable. Is this going to protect the black and brown communities that has been moved since the seventies, 1970 Horario was a thriving community in town, and now it's gone. The history has been erased. North Lincoln in the past ten, 15 years has changed so much. Many people getting relocated out. So we hope the people that made the city can move back and 60 years can be three generations, four generations. And we just hope that the gentrification across Colfax will stop. And we ought to have a plan that when it comes to properties, we want organizations like Donor Day. And we we need a lobbying for affordable housing. We don't need the lobbyists and those and the lobbying is the community members that addressing the need that are most affected. How would this plan, you know, in the Sun Valley's due process? Well, this keeps Sun Valley affordable. They want we want to do something by the stadium. And you guys are leading the way. And I hope that other cities can learn. And there's been a lot of a lot of housing ordinances passed. And it's a big plan. And I just hope that it's done right and it's done the right way. And it keeps the people here and let us know that that we want to be here for the rest of our life and have generations to have our kids thrived and want to be in fear that we can't afford it. So we just hope that that this is good for everybody and let other cities know that that that it works and that you guys can get it done. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I have a question of Councilor McKinney or or Laura, if that's appropriate. The amendment that you're making is not about the fact that they are. This is for affordable housing that the city subsidizes. It's just an amendment to change the date at which it takes effect. It's not. Is it related at all to. Because it applies only to projects that that receive city subsidies. Right. Right.
Speaker 6: The section that's referenced is intended to only delay the effective date for the number of years. So, yes, it is about the number of years, but it doesn't change it. So it would still go to 60, but only for projects that enter into contracts after February 1st. I see. So it was intended to get at this idea that it allows time for the rules and regulations to be written so that they can go into effect at the same time with all the stakeholder input.
Speaker 1: Okay. And I'm wondering, Laura, do we have an idea of of the inventory of our affordable housing? How what is the percentage that received subsidies from the city that would be affected by this rule? What's the percentage of our or our whole inventory? Do you have that? And if you do, I'd be all be amazed.
Speaker 7: Of course. Because if it's not affected, it's a VHA problem. Permanent.
Speaker 1: I'm Britta Fisher. I'm the chief housing officer. And I think I have approximate numbers for you. There's about 20,000 income restricted units in the city and county of Denver, and over 5000 of those are funded by the city of Denver. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions as well. So the first one is who on the staff would be working with the nonprofits? I mean, I'm assuming there's a commitment to sit down, roll up your sleeves, and make sure that in looking at whatever kind of rules will be put into place to ensure that the staff at the housing arm have the right systems, the right policies and practices in place that will ensure. You know. So, first of all, it's the input with the neighborhood, but then with the nonprofits and then how how all of that will come together. Who are the staff people that will be doing that?
Speaker 9: Sure. So this has been really a collaborative effort between our policy and program team, as well as our development staff. As for how the research has been conducted to date and the outreach process, so I expect that to continue. I will be one of the staff members out on Family Medical Leave for a portion of the next couple of months. So I expect our staff members on the policy team as well as the development team.
Speaker 5: Who are they specifically?
Speaker 9: Sure. So Doug Selby leads our development team. Hailey Jordan, who is on his team as well as Megan Yankey are also supporting this project and Melissa Tardy from the policy team will be supporting as well. That will be in consultation and working closely with the city attorney's office as well.
Speaker 5: Okay. And how quickly would you envision that that that those conversations would begin? And I know that the nonprofits have been to a number of meetings, but didn't the level of details that they're asking for are not contained within this ordinance? And, you know, normally that's done through your rulemaking process. And I mean, this is no different than when this body wanted to make sure that we had a housing plan before we move forward with, you know, just giving carte blanche authority to the administration to decide what projects were getting funded. I mean, I see this no different than that. So I just wanted to make sure I knew who the staff people would be involved with that. The other question I wanted to ask is specific to I think to some degree, Councilwoman Sussman got at the amount of the 5000, how many of those are actually properties that are owned by the nonprofits? And these are over the next five years, correct, that the obligation period would expire. And so how many of those 5000 are owned by nonprofits?
Speaker 9: So we have I think the the answer to the question regarding how many total units were funded by the city is of our portfolio, but not all of those have restrictions that expire over the next five years. We have in total across all funding levels are all funding sources. The city included about 2000 units that have restrictions that are at risk of expiring over the next five years. I say at risk because sometimes we are working on extending affordability through rehabilitation or a recent addition of a tax credit project. But about 63% of those that have restrictions that are at risk of expiring over the next five years are owned by nonprofits.
Speaker 5: Okay. So when when we look at the fact that the city has put money into for profit development to ensure that we have affordable units within those developments, how are those units being treated differently from the ones that are owned by non-profits?
Speaker 9: So we really focus on what the outcome is that we're purchasing with our city subsidies. So we are buying affordability as part of our investment into a particular project. And the partner by which we achieve that outcome is part of what we're looking at in terms of a project. But it's really what what we achieve in terms of the outcome that we're looking at, not who the partner is relative to to picking specific funding, but.
Speaker 5: What is the maximum that we've been able to extract from all of the non. All of the for profits that we have put city money into. I want to make sure I understand the price of the affordability. Is it 20 years? Is it 30 years on? On the ones that we have been funding and those that are in the pipeline.
Speaker 9: So is the question the difference between the non-profits and the for profits in terms of affordability? I can certainly follow up with that information. I don't have that immediately available. But across our portfolio, 29 is the average length of affordability. And right now, our term sheets have the same affordability length, whether you're a for profit or a nonprofit developer. Okay. But I can certainly follow up on the difference in our portfolio between nonprofit and.
Speaker 5: The 20,000 includes directive funded units and that that includes some that are out at Stapleton. We've got trying to think of our other funding sources.
Speaker 9: The Denver Housing and Housing Finance Authority might place a similar division structure. Yep, exactly.
Speaker 5: So. So they have different affordability periods than what Denver does. And in the communication you sent to us, it was just the Division of Housing who had indicated. But they're not doing that right now in terms of extending to a 60 year timeframe. Correct.
Speaker 9: They do not currently have a policy of a 60 year timeframe across all of their investments, but they have indicated that if the city was to go to 60 years, they would match that term.
Speaker 5: And they would do that statewide or just.
Speaker 9: For Denver, the projects.
Speaker 5: Just for Denver. Okay. Do you want to add some?
Speaker 1: I just want to clarify that point a little bit. One of my other hats is sitting on the state housing board. So for the Fisher chief housing officer. Right now, the city of Denver in general matches the local length of affordability. The state of Colorado matches that level of affordability, except the city of Denver, which has a lesser affordability period than their minimum, which is 30 years. So their minimum affordability period is 30 years, but they'll match whatever the local jurisdiction has. So like for Boulder, that's perpetuity.
Speaker 5: But does that mean then because part of the challenge here is a structure normally needs investment before the end of a 60 year obligation period. And having said on the board of a nonprofit, I know that you can't allow them to fall into a state of deterioration without having to invest some money to keep the property attractive in the neighborhood. So you don't have neighbors complaining, but also to ensure that, excuse me, your residents are living in habitable conditions. So by extending out the affordability period, what what is the cities? And again, I think this is where having the dialog with the nonprofits is important. But what is the city's commitment to ensuring that there is city money that will be available for the improvements that need to happen during that time frame that the obligation period has been extended out?
Speaker 1: Yeah, if I may answer that as well, I, I know that I cannot commit future councils to levels of funding, but I think the recent actions of this Council to remove the sunset on the dedicated affordable housing fund provide a strong indication of future funding, and in asking our development team for any examples of rehab projects that had been denied in the last ten years. I wasn't given any. So we have a strong commitment to preserving. That's what this ordinance is about, and I hope we can continue that. But I cannot forward commit on behalf of the city.
Speaker 5: So just one last question, Mr. President. And this is about how how we ensure that even though we have city money into for profit projects, that at the end of that obligation timeframe on the handful of units that are in for profit projects that have a majority of market rate units, how we expect we the city expect that those owners will commit to extending out long term affordability of those units.
Speaker 9: So I want to make sure I know understanding how do we ensure that for profit owners, I will extend affordability restrictions that are set to expire in the next five years. Sure. So we engage in a process of conducting outreach to all of the properties that have restrictions that expire over the next five years. And we are talking with them about options to rehabilitate their property, whether they're for profit or nonprofit, and also making them aware of the requirements of the preservation ordinance. So this preservation ordinance that we're discussing, although we're talking about one piece of it, does give the city a right of first refusal when any income restricted property is sold. That's only while the restriction is still active. I know that was something that we discussed a little bit in committee. But we are conducting outreach to all of the owners that have properties that expire over the next five years, including for profit and nonprofit, to let them know about the availability of our financing. I think there was a question or a comment earlier about the city's term sheets. We do right now offer rehabilitation, financing up to $50,000 per unit. Sometimes that's leveraged with tax credits, sometimes it's levered leveraged without tax credits. But that is the current available funding for our projects. We have, I think, six or seven projects in the pipeline representing about 500 units that are in some stage of financing for rehabilitation at our existing properties.
Speaker 5: So how how realistic is it, though, that we will exercise the first right of refusal on a project that has, say, 30 affordable units, but there's 400 units in the development to try to secure the long term affordability at the end of that commitment period.
Speaker 9: We would certainly be looking at the price tag of the opportunity to exercise the right of first refusal. But a lot of our projects that are owned by for profit developers are not necessarily just a small portion of units in an otherwise market rate development. They might also be tax credit projects where the entire property is affordable. So so the number of projects where we have just a few affordable units within an otherwise market rate development is actually a pretty small proportion of our portfolio.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm just thinking about many of the projects that have come before us where we've been asked to approve the financing that's going into these projects. And we have seen a lot of them that are for profit developments, that have smaller number of units in a very large development. And I don't see the city using money to go buy an entire market rate project in downtown, a lot of them on Welton Street. I mean, they're all over the city now because those are going to be way too expensive. So so I guess part of my concern is that the majority of the entities that this ordinance is going to apply to is going to be our non-profits. So anyway, I'll stop at that. Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: So three questions, actually, and Laura might want to stick around. How many of the units, the 20,000 units that you mentioned include the DHEA units? And how many units are DHEA?
Speaker 9: Sure. DHEA represents about 5000 of the affordable units in the city's portfolio of 20,000. Okay.
Speaker 7: And none of those would have met. All those are in perpetuity, correct?
Speaker 9: I can double check the answer to that question. I'm not sure that 100% of them have covenants that require perpetual affordability, but certainly any unit that is developed under the agreement that was approved by council earlier this summer will be subject to a covenant that requires affordability in perpetuity. But I can follow up with our staff on the answers specifically to the current portfolio.
Speaker 7: I'm glad you mentioned that. So we just committed basically $100 million in bond table money to DHEA for those perpetual units, which is going to take a significant portion of our permanent affordable housing fund over the next few years, is it not?
Speaker 9: So we in the effort to double the affordable housing fund earlier this summer, we went from two sources, up to four sources, up to $30 million. And the partnership with the Denver Housing Authority utilized the existing property tax, which is about seven and a half to 8 million of that $30 million for the next 20 years.
Speaker 7: Which is the more which is the bond portion. Right. Because our per the amount of money that we assessed developers through linkage fee is not vulnerable or is it?
Speaker 9: The property tax represents a stable source that the determination was that it was an appropriate source to repay if if bonds were issued and the other sources are a little bit more volatile.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So that's what that's what I'm getting at is our only actual sort of reliable source of income is actually now obligated to an affordable housing provider that that is already not subject to this 30 slash 60 year term because they're already obligated through their missions and their purpose to deliver permanent and perpetual affordability.
Speaker 9: And they're also obligated because of that agreement to deliver perpetual affordability. So any unit developed by DHS or through a partner on land that DOJ acquired under that agreement would be subject to a covenant in perpetuity.
Speaker 7: So all of those DHEA properties that we're going to do with the $100 million are not as flexible as the properties that we do with developer agreements or through our nonprofits today, because they're locked in forever.
Speaker 9: The six years is less than that. Perpetual affordability and the development agreement, if that.
Speaker 7: But that is double any of the things that we do today and triple what the actual had mandated.
Speaker 9: For the six years. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So I mean, quadruple sorry, it was a 15 year affordability term when it came out. So the question for Britta is that I just wanted to to hear that again about the you know, you had asked about the denial of funding in the last ten years. Can you clarify that for me? Because that is not my understanding. So what was said to you and by whom?
Speaker 1: What my understanding was or was that I asked for any example of a rehab project that had been denied funding and I was not given any that had. And Doug Selby can answer that more specifically if there's any qualifiers on that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I appreciate John maybe giving any qualifiers on that because it sure makes us look like we don't deny projects funding. But I, I know prior to ten years ago of a specific project that was denied funding, but I'd love to hear Doug's.
Speaker 12: I'm Doug Selby on the housing development manager for OED. Sorry Councilman. My memory only goes back ten years when I started employment. That's okay.
Speaker 7: That's the only time frame we're talking about. So in the last in.
Speaker 12: My in my tenure here, for any project that's applied for us for rehab funding that came in and qualified and hit our priorities and also had the other financing lined up all of the underwriting criteria that any governmental entity would do. We have not denied that funding.
Speaker 7: Okay. Those are the important qualifiers, right? Because there's a lot of criteria that we a lot of checkboxes we asked to be checked. And sometimes that can sort of keep evolving as our priorities adjust. Similarly, you know, where we have a project that might hit a lot of our criteria, but not all of them, and therefore it resulted in a lack of funding because you hold the keys of all the criteria. Do not.
Speaker 12: The city holds the keys of all the criteria which is given to us by the Housing Advisory Committee.
Speaker 7: Those are not interior years. What's that? Not in the last ten years. That's only the last three years.
Speaker 12: Correct. In the last three years, our priorities have been the same towards the affordability levels that we have targeted for. Prior to the last few years, we had just federal funds and so those were limited at affordability levels.
Speaker 7: Also, the reason why I'm even bringing that up is myself, my colleagues and myself have been working a lot to try and eliminate some of the subjectivity that has been involved with OPD and the funding of affordable funding, because priorities seem to shift in administration to administration or year after year. And that's understandable because that's basically recognizing that market shift, conditions shift and basically all the things that Gate was mentioning that things are different on the ground year in and year out, decade to decade. And so it is difficult. Can you tell me what the market's going to look like in 60 years from now?
Speaker 12: No, Councilman, I can.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Can anybody? Laura. Britta. No. Okay. So thank you. Sorry. Then the last question, and it's really a group question and I don't know if it's Andrea, Andrew, Gay, Marvin, you know, Jonathan, somebody can you in a fourth grade at a fourth grade level for me explain to you address how how this how a delay in either implementation or or adoption of this bill impacts pending app mean current applications applications that are have already been submitted. I should I should mention this. When you go for latex funding, there's no guarantee that you're going to get it. There's it's known that you go after round after round sometimes trying to get your funding. So there might be applications that are coming in for their second or third, whatever iteration. If we change the rules, what happens? So thanks.
Speaker 3: Councilman. I'm not aware that anything will change. What probably will change is allura the land use restriction that Shaffir places on the project. Could change from 40 years to 60 years. That's the only thing in my opinion and in my experience that will change. The performance won't change, the tax implications won't change. It'll look like a typo. Others may have other opinions about that.
Speaker 7: And so is that what you're saying becomes an issue? Long term sustainability of the project is if all you're doing is changing the land use restriction, the rest of the portfolio perform becomes challenging over time.
Speaker 3: Or I understand the question to be. That you need to act on this tonight because folks, folks won't be able to submit an application in February. I don't see that. I'm sorry. Because I see. Is that when the when the deal closes, the Laura may look differently. Okay. The numbers will not change. Or if they do change, they could change at any time due to any of the investors reasons. For instance, I've had them change at midnight or close to midnight on December 31st. Nobody wants that. That's no fun, but nothing else will change. There are no tax implications to this.
Speaker 7: So I apologize. When I was in the affordable housing business, I was on the design side. Fortunately, we had some really confident and capable people on the financing side in the in the capital stack side and whatnot. Is there a question I should be asking you all that I'm not that.
Speaker 3: What's the hurry?
Speaker 7: What is the hurry? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Let's get it right. If we're going to do it, let's get it right.
Speaker 7: Okay. That is a good question. To to to our staff, which is for 32 years, we have been operating under the current rules and current periods. What is happened because I have been talking for three and a half years from this dais about the need for a longer term affordability. Many of my colleagues have been asking for the longer term affordability. Yet I did not know until you guys presented to me that anybody at the city had been having this discussion and then less than two months later were on the floor committee. And we're here trying to ramrod this through where people that I highly respect in this field and worked with for five years delivering affordable housing have legitimate what I believe legitimate concerns. And when our comparison are jurisdictions that have a multi-year, multi-decade, more robust track record of funding affordable housing to deeper levels. We've already made a $100 million commitment to that 0 to 30% AMI in very low income households. I have a my own proposal for for the missing middle that has sort of been pooh poohed by the administration, because somehow our portfolio addresses that concern, which I would argue if you go around and you ask the community, are affordable housing needs at 50, 60, 70 and 80% AMI is being met? The answer is going to be a resounding no. So my concerns, you know, why are why does it have to be this round of high tech funding when it wasn't last year's around a little bit funny and in the year before this round of high tech funding. Why can't this be a discussion for 2020? Why does it have to be 2019?
Speaker 1: So I'll at.
Speaker 9: Least address the process. So our draft of the five year housing plan, which was released at the end of last year, did include a recommendation to explore the possibility of increasing the minimum affordability period. That plan was approved by council with that language in February of this year. We did also include the exploration of the minimum affordable exploration and raising of the minimum affordability in our 2019 Annual Action or 2018 Annual Action Plan excuse me, that was approved for implementation by our Housing Advisory Committee in April of this year. So it's been something we've been working to start researching and start engaging in conversations about really for several months this year. We had a stakeholder kick off process in May of this year where we had nonprofit for profit finance experts come together to help share some of our initial research on other peer studies, as well as get initial feedback on some of their considerations or thoughts for us as we explored this. And then we really spent the majority of this summer time at the housing advisory committees and subcommittees talking through the potential considerations as part of this. So we believe that the proposal to increase from 20 to 6 years has been thoroughly vetted through our stakeholder community and through our housing advisory committee. And it is typical for us to set policy here at the council level in ordinance and then to engage in a rulemaking process as a supplemental implementation conversation of that policy. So that's a typical process for us and for other agencies, and we're certainly committed to moving forward with the rulemaking process over the course of the next couple of months.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to figure out how to turn this in the form of a question. Here it is. I've had many developers come to me with this notion that they have met several times with the community, and therefore, just by virtue of the fact that they met several times, they have crossed some sort of threshold. That means that this council should accept what they're proposing because of the sheer volume of meetings. How do I know that the the the the the output that we see today is, is one that is well conceived, considered and and thoroughly, you know, extrapolate, you know, considered, considered over time that we know it will work. Because I haven't seen how it plays out. I've seen a lot of comparisons on how it compares to others, but I don't. And then some allusion to to the funds that we the commitments that we've made. But we just talked about who's got the locked in funds versus who's got the discretion is sort of more volatile funds , as you termed. So how do I know that this isn't just us grabbing on to that notion that this is. Well, we all champion this idea of extended terms and we're just moving forward the standard terms versus a well, well considered measure. And just telling me that you met several times since April and May does not tell me that. It just tells me that you had a lot of meetings over a long period of time. So is there anything that you can can provide me for that?
Speaker 9: I think that, you know, we have we have had a lot of those conversations. We've been having follow up conversations with specific experts based on what was shared with us at those stakeholder processes and with the Housing Advisory Committee. We do not take our having our housing advisory committee take a formal position on it. But Councilwoman Kenney, just part of that advisory committee, you may be willing to speak to the conversation that has been happening there over the course of the last couple of months. And really, what I would say is a robust dialog about this as part of that process. So you do have the benefit of someone here who has participated in that process. But we do believe that we have vetted the concerns that were raised as part of those conversations.
Speaker 7: I would expect her comments probably will address that. But there is a history that I am concerned about with respect to having a sole member leading that continuum for this body.
Speaker 4: Councilman.
Speaker 2: Do you have any more questions or comments in in a little bit. I just want to make sure we're still moving along with questions.
Speaker 7: That's good.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Laura, I'm just going back through the material that you presented very nicely at the safety committee. And and I didn't see any information about the the issue that is being discussed here tonight about the repair and reconditioning costs and and what tools were available in other cities when you survey the cities. Did you or did you ever find out what those other cities were providing, what tools they were providing to help with the financing? If we go out to 60 years and they are faced with additional pressure for repairs, planning funds to repair and reconditioned affordable housing.
Speaker 4: Units.
Speaker 9: We did find from our Pier City analysis that the other cities that have longer affordability periods do typically reinvest into projects after their initial or initial funding of the project. We did not find from our peer city research that those cities have a dedicated amount set for the particular project, but they do offer rehabilitation financing, just like we do to projects that are in need of it at any time during their affordability period.
Speaker 2: Did they address it in their preservation ordinance? The disrepair and conditioning financing? Is it addressed in any way? We just didn't address.
Speaker 9: Whether or not this the availability of rehabilitation financing is addressed specifically in their ordinances. I can follow up with our team that did the research on that.
Speaker 2: Because I didn't hear as much objection to the 60 years as I heard about where we would be able to finance the repairs. And we don't want these units to become slums and and in such poor repair that it would be embarrassing to have people live there. So I think I think that's a very legitimate issue. And so so I think it'd be very appropriate for us to look at making sure we not only have six years of housing stock, but also 60 years of quality, quality housing stock. So, yeah. So maybe, maybe a little more time may be necessary, especially if it's not going to mess up anything with life with the funding for the state. So the test price that. Here is is that I?
Speaker 9: So I can certainly look into what language might be present in some of those other in those other cities. But I believe that it would be appropriately addressed if if we were to address what kind of funding might be available at an implementation level, which is typically more rules and regulations.
Speaker 2: I just think a lot of the developers and, you know, need predictability about, you know, what's going to happen in the future. So at least will give some kind of assurance there will be funding to help. And we sure do want to make sure we have all that quality housing stock available. So short now. Last question on the 20,000 units we've got. You said, you know, the DHS got, what, 5000 and we got the nonprofits with 5000. So the other half of 10,000 units is being managed by for profit organizations.
Speaker 9: The 63% was of the properties owned. And with respect to those that have restrictions over the next five years, I can follow up with the information of of the entire portfolio. What proportion is owned by nonprofit?
Speaker 2: Okay. Because I was thinking I was thinking DHS had a very large percentage of the from the committee meetings. And I guess the committee we talked about that. I thought, I don't know why 75% stuck in my arrangement, but that they had 75% of the stock.
Speaker 9: About 25%.
Speaker 2: By.
Speaker 9: 2030. Yeah, about 5000 of our 20,000 units. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was actually going to talk about that. The Laura, this is a question for you. And I'm just I'm it's a comment and asking you to respond.
Speaker 7: Question form but or to answer it I believe it's 5500 DHS actual units and 6800 vouchers. So I guess my question is, where are those vouchers? You know, what units are they using?
Speaker 9: Do you mean project based vouchers or tenant based vouchers?
Speaker 7: Well, the report that I got it just said six, 800 vouchers. So they must be. I wonder if they're both.
Speaker 9: Okay. We can certainly follow up with more detailed information about what there may be that some of those units overlap with the DHS units and some of them overlap with the other units that are not. And if they are project based vouchers, typically a tenant based voucher is taken to a market rate unit and would be in addition to the 20 20,000 income restricted units.
Speaker 4: Okay. So that 20 so okay. Yeah, we should get some more information on that. Okay. Can can you tell me and just a more a much more specific question about our units that are vulnerable.
Speaker 7: From four expiring this year for, let me.
Speaker 4: Say, 2019.
Speaker 7: Do we have that number?
Speaker 9: I have here the breakdown of the next five years, but I don't have it year by year. So that's something that I can.
Speaker 4: Okay. And what was the number?
Speaker 9: It's about 2000 units that have restrictions that are at risk of expiring over the next five years.
Speaker 4: You also.
Speaker 7: You also said.
Speaker 4: That Councilwoman Sussman was talking about and I've actually said this in the.
Speaker 7: Bill, that it's only projects receiving.
Speaker 4: City subsidy. But also since our new policy is around land use and incentives.
Speaker 7: Those projects as well would be receiving the extension and affordability. Correct.
Speaker 9: So right now, the when projects do build alternative plan under the linkage fee ordinance or under the height incentive overlay at 38th and Blake and do not receive city subsidies, the linkage fee rules and regulations are applicable. The linkage fee rules and regulations when drafted were drafted such to meet the preservation ordinance minimum requirements. So right now the rules say 20 years, but if approved by council to increase the minimum affordability for city projects to 60 years, we would looking at an administrative process to update those rules and regulations to require the same amount of years for other projects under the build alternative.
Speaker 7: How quickly would those be implemented?
Speaker 4: The reason I ask is, as you know, there's there's.
Speaker 7: About 100 or so units being built right now and in the five points area around that. And so we want to make sure that they have that 60 year affordability.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 9: We've been discussing some possible updates to those rules and regulations for a couple of months, and we'll probably continue over the next couple of months. We have been engaging as part of that in an overall conversation around another approach at the Central Valley area. So we've been waiting to move forward with some proposed regulations to the linkage fee ordinance to try and tie those processes a little bit more closely together if there's anything necessary for the implementation of the central. Valley and area district if adopted. So that's part of why there's been a little bit of a delay on those. I expect we can move forward over the next couple of months.
Speaker 4: Okay. Last question.
Speaker 7: I know you were studying other cities.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 7: Can you tell me the two cities that were and I.
Speaker 4: Know we had it in and I couldn't find it in the in the slide. But the two cities that mirror us that.
Speaker 7: You're looking at for 60 years and if there was any conversation with a distinction between for profit nonprofit developers.
Speaker 9: Let's see. Just pulling back my. So it looks like Seattle has 50 years. And then we have Portland at 99 and Boston and Boulder at perpetuity. So the closest there is Seattle. But we do have a couple of examples of cities that are out longer than 60 years.
Speaker 7: And was there any conversation with how they dealt with the nonprofit to nonprofit, you know, rehab.
Speaker 4: Program and all those issues?
Speaker 9: I can certainly follow up with the staff that conducted the research directly to see if there was a nuance between whether or not the for profit and nonprofit developers had different affordability periods.
Speaker 7: But not that you know of tonight. No. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, especially Laura and Britta, because you both look really uncomfortable and tired. I have a question if if this does pass and I'm going to put a hypothetical situation so I'm imagining my district, there's a. Six or seven story building let's say this passes a developer built that that building across the street from that building that actually does exist now. There's a giant piece of property that's for sale. Let's say this building was built after this pass and then all of a sudden they realize they can acquire this property across the street if they can sell this one and they can build three times more units. Could they do that if this passed?
Speaker 9: I think it would require an amendment to the covenant. In that scenario, and Julia may have a more robust answer for Councilwoman Black, but it would require an amendment to the covenant on the original building to encapsulate the second property if there was to be a transfer of the units from one property to the other. But would you have anything else to that?
Speaker 1: So if I understand.
Speaker 6: The question you're asking, if they could essentially replace the units on one site with units from the other site, they would have to come back to the city. And as Laura.
Speaker 1: Indicated, we would have to do an amendment, a release, partial release of one covenant and replace it with another covenant. So it would be a process that we would have to go to go through what would have to go through the council or it would just go through already. I think it would depend. You have.
Speaker 12: If we were making a substantial amendment to an existing contract that was over 500,000, it would have to come in front of city council.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: So I wanted to my colleagues have asked great questions. I was going to do some cleanup, but I see there's some others. Maybe I'll wait. I'm going to wait. Actually, I'm going to defer. Mr. President, if that's okay, I just want to let my colleagues ask questions and then clean up where I think there's some gaps.
Speaker 2: Do you want to go to the back of the queue? Okay. Kezman fun.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Espinosa. Actually, I just asked several of my questions, but I do have a little bit of clarity that I need provided maybe Marvin Kelly can I can ask you to clarify for me, by extending the the affordability period into 60 years, you were saying that there's no impact on pro formas for projects. I'm trying to understand how when a project is geared on 20 or 40 years, how extending that retroactively to 60 years doesn't have an impact on the bottom line. Maybe explain that for me. It does not have an impact on the pro forma as it is submitted to the Cholera Housing Finance Authority. The only thing that would impact the action tonight would be, as I said, the Laura and maybe Andrew can help me with that if he's if he's still here. Okay.
Speaker 4: Good me, I think I was, but I just.
Speaker 2: If you could wait until you're up at the microphone before.
Speaker 10: What was the question?
Speaker 3: How does the extension of a project out of the affordability period of six years from 20 or 40? How does that not impact the bottom line of a project? But Marvin was saying, no, it doesn't affect the the Lura.
Speaker 10: Right. Well, from a finance perspective, you know, from a lender and investor perspective, any of these projects for that first 15 years, it maybe doesn't affect it. But if you have a 60 year Lura land use restriction agreement every 15 years, you're going to have to go back and try to refinance that project really, because that's that's just the economics of it and what makes sense. And so when you're doing that, you're going to have to do that three times over the period of six years, rather than in order for you to have adequate financing to renovate the project in a way that is attractive to the capital markets, you have to have more than $40,000 a unit in there. And what I'm seeing and I've seen about five projects in the Denver metro region in the last year, all of them had less than 40,000 as unit rehab and they're just weren't able to be sold in the market adequately. You're only going to get a couple of interested buyers and your prices are going to be depressed. There's not enough competition. So I think that's the big issue here, is there's not enough rehab coming in to these projects that are older, you know, and as you go forward, you're going to just get older and older buildings. And if you're not putting enough money into them over the years, you're starting to have pretty depressed projects.
Speaker 3: But that won't impact step to the microphone. That won't impact the capacity of any developer or nonprofit developer to submit an application to. SHAFER Right. The the action tonight. Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, I'm going to go to Councilwoman Gilmore because I don't think she's been up yet. Councilwoman Zimmer. Oh.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I think this question might be for you, Doug. Since we were asking questions about rehabbing the units, I, I want to understand what the maybe the financial modeling that you all did to look at right now, if I'm understanding right, there were 6 to 7 projects in any one year in the pipeline around rehab. What's the conversation been if we're.
Speaker 5: Going to now extend the affordability.
Speaker 1: To 60 years, what that gap.
Speaker 4: In.
Speaker 1: Funding might be to appropriately rehab units?
Speaker 12: The conversation has more been about our accessibility to funding for rehab in the units, whether a project is restricted for 20 years, 40 years or 60 years. As you've seen some of the audience members come up, the development community said usually they move in for a syndication of a tax credit project at year 15 to 20, and that's when they're looking for some more inflection into the project of capital dollars to rehab to the projects. So it's been more about the availability of funding than it has about the level that is reflected in our product term sheets.
Speaker 1: Are you anticipating that there will be?
Speaker 4: You know, as we're.
Speaker 1: Looking at federal funding and state funding, what's coming to local municipalities, a need for local municipalities to put more in, as were increasing the number of years of affordability.
Speaker 12: I don't see a need. I see a need for sustained funding over the period of affordability time. I don't see a need for that funding to increase over time. Costs just generally go up for those rehab dollars, but I don't see a need for an initial like today's money to be increase for rehab dollars today. Okay. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. As far as the the application guidelines for the projects that are coming into the city, are you all going to relook at the the guidelines and qualifications for those as part of the the rules and regs process?
Speaker 12: We'll look to make sure that is in alignment with what we looked at in the term sheet so that we didn't miss anything. Currently, you know, we have seven term sheets out there for different types of products and our rehab dollars on a tax credit project or if it's not a tax credit project or anywhere from 10000 to $50000 per unit.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Ortega, you back up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask Andrew Romero if you wouldn't mind coming back up. I wanted to ask you if you see any implications of adopting the ordinance tonight without the rulemaking components in place. I know that's part of what the development community is asking for, is to have some input into all of the the rules. And are we locking certain things in by adopting the ordinance tonight that then. Leave less flexibility for what those rules might look like if we wait and deal with the totality of it all at the end of the four month time frame.
Speaker 10: Well, I think the markets would just be a little bit unsettled maybe. You know, we don't really understand until we see the rules as investors and lenders. Again, we don't we'd have to see what the rules are behind it. You can change this one piece. But until we are able to see what the actual guidelines are for $30, for how chapter reacts to the change, for how the Division of Housing reacts to the change, it's just impossible to really understand what the impacts are, you know, financially. So I do think that there you really have to look at the deed. Someone said, look, the devil, the devil's in the details. You got to look at that. And I really would like to see, you know, not not just the lengthening of the term, but how you propose that these projects will be funded. I just there's something I've been wanting to say for a long time, and I have now an opportunity and maybe this is the time the state of Oregon addresses these issues in a very different way than in Colorado. They have preservation as one of their top priorities. So in their later program projects that come up for recertification, they give a lot of points in the state to preserving units that might expire or go out of the program. And that's something very different from Colorado, Colorado. Almost all of the money for 9% awards go to new projects. And so they're they're doing something about it. They're very different than we are. And I think that would be something to look at, you know, suggestions to look at. Another thing that is happening in Oregon is the match Portland metro area has a $650 million bond on on the ballot in November. And a big chunk of that is for preserving units that are about to expire. So there's another thing that I think we ought to look at is the resource side of this, not just, you know, the restriction side.
Speaker 5: So one last question for you. So as a lender, do you look at a project that is brand new that would have a 60 year commitment time frame to the affordability different from what you would look at an older building that is being asked to commit to a 60 year affordability?
Speaker 10: No, we're looking at 15 year, 15 year time frames as lenders and investors. Okay. And we're only looking at the length of time our money and our capital is in the project, and it's always usually about a 15 year time frame. So we look at it in increments of 15 years. But I can tell you that when a project is, say, 30 years old and it comes in to us and there and they're proposing small amounts of renovation because, you know, the city, the state just doesn't have enough resources to build it up to a point where it's substantial.
Speaker 5: The funding.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Then, then that becomes an issue for us as lenders and investors. And those are usually older projects.
Speaker 5: Okay. Couple of questions for Edie, and I'm not sure Britta or Doug who wants to answer this. First of all, how many how many projects are in the pipeline right now that are asking for city money that are awaiting awards from Chapple for their like tech funding?
Speaker 12: There are 25 projects that we're actively working on right now that are in various stages of underwriting or moving towards a contract. The pipeline going into next tax credit round. We're compiling that information right now. Two projects were awarded tax credits this last round.
Speaker 5: In the city of Denver.
Speaker 12: Correct? In the city of Denver, sorry.
Speaker 5: Because this is a statewide competitive, very competitive process for not just the 9%, but any more even for the 4% money rate.
Speaker 12: The 4% plus state is competitive and the 9% is very competitive.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 5: Is it mandating a particular am I level for projects? And how do you all determine which projects receive which? Am I levels?
Speaker 12: We do incentivize into our term sheets for financing products that incentivize a lower AMI level across the board of our projects to those rental projects for pushing to 30%. AMI As an example, I think we talked about the 4% plus state. Our we started a typical per unit subsidy of 15,000 and we are able to move that to 25,000 per unit should the project do 30% of its units restricted to 30% am I?
Speaker 5: So if this is a nonprofit that's already serving a low income population, that may or may not be right at 30%. I'm curious how the mandate, if you will, to go to 30% impacts the bottom line that we were just we just heard about earlier, where a lender is looking at the the rents to be at a certain a certain rate that ensures that the project will pencil out over the the, you know, next term of that affordability period. Can you can you speak to that? If so. If a project is is coming in for re syndication of of their tax credits and asking for city asking the city for funding to help close that gap again because it requires that find finding financing. How how is the 30% that you just talked about affecting that bottom line?
Speaker 12: It depends on the project I can't speak to unless you give me higher specifics. I can say that any project that is currently under tax credits, if they're going for re syndication of tax credits and asking for tax credits and re syndicating to a longer amount, the appraisal of the projects must be done at the current subsidized rents. So if they have Section eight subsidy in there, they must be pro forma and underwritten at those current rents. If they don't have those existing subsidies, they must be done at the current lura levels that are in place on the project.
Speaker 5: Okay. And I think you're just reiterating the point that Marvin Kelly just made earlier.
Speaker 12: For the 30% units, we only incentivize those. We don't mandate that you have to ask for those. So we have levels of affordability that we're targeting as an outcome, and we'll pay more for those lower affordability. But we still will subsidize projects between the 30 and 60% levels and the 30 and 80% level.
Speaker 5: And are you making any distinction between whether the developer is a for profit or nonprofit?
Speaker 12: We're we're totally driven towards the outcomes that we get for longer term affordability and lower affordability. Our term sheets are available to for profit and nonprofit developers.
Speaker 5: And it's based on who's willing to go, who's who's willing to serve that lower income population that you then subsidize further subsidize those units for.
Speaker 4: Correct?
Speaker 5: Okay. Does the allow developer fees for both for profit to nonprofits when they're building a unit brand new as well as when they're coming in for a re a total refinance of their project to maintain that long term affordability of those units.
Speaker 12: Yeah, the developer fee is an eligible staff costs in a development budget for both for profit nonprofit any affordable developments.
Speaker 5: And is there a difference in how they are looked at and awarded, if you will? Between the two. Does a for profit get a higher developer than a nonprofit?
Speaker 12: Typically now the developer fees are set within a range. I would say that the developer fees currently are falling within the 9 to 12% of the total development budget.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to return to Councilman Black's hypothetical. Just a real quick question. It might be my lack of knowledge about capital markets, but if suppose you have a building that went from a 20 year preservation to a 60 year preservation, and you want to buy the property across the street. And use the building you presently have as collateral. Does the change from 20 years locked in to 60 years reduce the value of the property you have now? If you wanted to use it for collateral to buy something across the street.
Speaker 12: Oof! These are great questions. I don't think so, because I think the collateral would be as an as is condition for the appraised value of the building. You're you're talking about whether there was another 20 years left on it or 15 or 60. It would be as a as is condition with the as is in place rents if you're pledging that as collateral to a project somewhere else.
Speaker 1: I'm getting different kinds of answers from the head nodding behind you. I'm wondering if I call Mr. Romero up in.
Speaker 4: Church.
Speaker 1: And have him talk to me. He seemed to know something about capital markets.
Speaker 10: I think it would be a very big difference in value because you would also look at the 15 year value of the property. And if you don't have restrictions at that point, that value is going to be much higher. So a person who wanted to buy that property, if there if the if the restrictions were ending in, say, five years, they're going to pay a lot more than if there were any in six years.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Councilman Espinosa. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Maryland, sir. Mr. Romero, just. I guess for her as a refresher, how many years have you been doing affordable housing finance?
Speaker 10: Oh, thanks. Thanks. Bravo. It's been a long time. About 30 years, huh?
Speaker 7: Yeah. On the bank side, correct?
Speaker 10: Yes, on lots of different sides. But yeah, on the bank side for about 20 plus. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So I will stick around. I will have a question for you about private activity bonds. But first, I have a question to the city. It has has chief have been consulted and I recognize they have a member of the of chaff has an ex-officio role on the hat committee but has the board. Has the city asked the board chair for board for a written position of support? Why or why not? Or have they received it?
Speaker 9: So Jaffa and the State were both consulted as part of our research on this proposal. We did not ask them to take a formal position.
Speaker 7: Since they seem to have, you know, they would probably be impacted on the financing side. Why didn't they give us a strong indication of support or non. Just, you know, simply just being at the table as opposed to actually being giving us clear direction that this isn't set, in fact, something that they desire.
Speaker 9: I won't put words into Shaffer's mouth in terms of why they wouldn't give us any formal recommendation. But this is a local consideration for us of what do we think is appropriate for Denver. And certainly they have worked with restrictions at a local level that range from hours at 20 years up to perpetuity at Boulder. But I, I won't speak for Chandler for why they didn't take a formal position.
Speaker 7: Well, what percentage of our Logitech projects go through Charter?
Speaker 9: So any Logitech project that receives well, I should say any project that receives city funding that's a large tech project was allocated the light tax through Schaefer because they are the allocating agency for our city.
Speaker 7: So basically what we've talked about a lot are low income housing tax credit projects and those are the real deep affordability projects. And that is we can't wrap ourselves around deep affordability and in our goals there without actually considering the people that actually direct those funds and and and allocate those funds year in and year out. I really wish they would have taken a position. Maybe that's my question to you, Ander. How do how do private activity bonds. I mean, you talked a lot about how hard it is to finance these longer term affordability projects. Were you specifically talking about private activity bonds with respect to charter or or is that history?
Speaker 10: Yeah. Most of the renovation syndication work is with the 4% private activity bond program. What I was talking about is in another state, they're allowing the 9% program to come in and do these return occasions a lot more. But yeah, almost. I would say 90% of the work that's done with recent occasion is private activity bond 4%.
Speaker 7: So do you think this will impact Charter in any way, shape or form? If we were to dedicate I mean, extend the terms 30 to 60.
Speaker 10: Probably not too much. No, I don't think so. I think it might eventually make these projects a little more competitive if they start scoring them based on that years and if they start to if we can encourage as a city, you know, a lot more of out of the scoring to go toward re syndicating and these projects that are expiring if we can get more scoring, there's certainly traffic will be impacted significantly by that. And that's what I've been advocating is is being able to have more resources to these projects that are expiring that are older.
Speaker 7: So that's interesting. So because there is that aspect of this of this action sort of forcing our hand both from a funding standpoint down the road and now maybe impacting charter, I don't know, half as formal structure. Do they get to change their own rules about scoring or do they have to go somewhere?
Speaker 10: Yeah, kind of. But I think that there's input from cities and localities and you know, we certainly can input have input as a city and I think we do as a city, have input into chief as to which projects they select. So certainly we as a city, we have a significant role.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa and Councilwoman Kennish, thank you for your patience here.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Mr. President. I'll just pick up where we left off. So there's this early question about whether this is compatible with China. We're narrowing it down by minus two final questions. One, are we aware of any projects in Denver that have been underwritten for 60 years already? Particularly that involved tax credit financing.
Speaker 9: So I think actually Union Station is the example that we looked at that has a 60 year restriction.
Speaker 6: So we've already done this in Denver. Projects in Boulder have perpetuity. Has CHAUFFER underwritten them?
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Does it to your knowledge, has Shaffer ever taken a position on a city housing policy? Is that something the state does generally in Denver, elsewhere, or do they weigh in on city policies?
Speaker 9: Not to.
Speaker 1: My knowledge. Okay.
Speaker 6: So, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to follow up. You were asked a scenario, and I think you answered it sincerely, but you might have answered two different things. So one question is if I'm about to buy a building, if you want to come up, if I'm about to buy a building, would I pay more for a building that's about to expire or for a building that. And that was kind of the answer you gave. Well, of course, it's going to expire in six months. I'm going to pay more than I would if it's in 60. But that wasn't actually the question Councilman Sussman asked. And so you were saying about collateral or thinking about if you wanted to finance or renovation. So we're not in a sale scenario. You're going to a bank and you're saying, I want to refinance this building to repair it, or I want to use it as collateral to do something else. In that scenario, you're not talking to a buyer saying, is the bank going to give you less money because you have a longer affordability? And so we'd gotten some answers and they matched what Doug said. And so I just want to clarify that we're not talking about a sales scenario appraisal here. We're talking about with a bank, if you less money to renovate because your affordability had 20 years instead of ten years to expire.
Speaker 10: I'm sorry. Maybe I understood her.
Speaker 1: Question a lot about kind of long night.
Speaker 10: So her question was about collateral also and whether the long a longer term restriction would impact that value of the collateral. And it would, in my view, impact the value of that collateral across the street because of the lower if you have only five years left, it's certainly going to be a higher value than six years to anybody, to the marketplace. And that's what an appraiser is going to look at. They're going to look at the value in the market.
Speaker 6: And then going back to the original scenario about if it was just a rehabilitation, though, which is I mean, again, we're not in the interest of passing an ordinance that helps makes make buildings sell for more. That's not our mission today. That's not the ordinance as purpose. So I'm most interested does it impact the ability to rehabilitate? We'd gotten again quick answers from the from other financers that it was whether your deed restricted or not more so than the length of affordability. And so I just am trying to.
Speaker 10: I don't I don't know, I think for renovation the length, as long as you're out past 15 years, again, you know, that is the length of time that our capital is in a project. So if it's 15 plus, that's all we're really looking at. And I don't think it affects the value there.
Speaker 6: No. Okay. Thank you. That's really hope. I'm just trying to I think my goal here is to narrow the number of issues that we're debating or that we're concerned about. There were a couple of folks you mentioned tripling the number of years of affordability. Denver's ordinance has 20 years in it. But could you get a tax credit project funded right now at 20 years? Do we have any new projects being funded at 20 years that are receiving tax credits in Denver and for the last couple of years?
Speaker 12: While it would be allowable under the AKP for Shaffir, they actually incentivize through a point system longer affordability. So they're already as I mentioned, at 40 years this would achieve another or achieve 38 points in their AQAP. So just.
Speaker 6: To clarify, we're legally going from 20 years to 60 years, but in practicality, for most projects, we're going from 40 to 60.
Speaker 12: As we see it in tax credit projects. That could be correct, yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. I wanted to go back to something that was touched on. A couple folks in the testimony shared concern about the idea that you might have this need to change the army levels that markets change. And I wanted to just ask OSD, you know, we had some conversations and I you know, I shared some questions from the community prior to the hearing. So I just want to be transparent is. Well, let me ask the city attorney first. Is there anything in the ordinance before us tonight that prohibits OSD from allowing a change in army levels? So is there anything in the ordinance language that would prohibit us from allowing a project to change its aim eye level during the six years? By the way, I'm Julie.
Speaker 1: Mecklenburg with the city attorney's office. I forgot to introduce myself last time.
Speaker 6: No, there's nothing that would prevent that. Great. Thank you. And then for OSD, there are some things that you know are yet to be figured out. But have you made a decision definitively on your willingness to commit to in writing something in the rules and regs related to flexibility in army levels at the point at which someone is re syndicating and had an economic case. So can you just speak to what commitments you're able to make on this topic?
Speaker 9: Sure. We have asked we talked with Chief. This is one of the things that we talked to the chiefs about. And in their lawyers, they do have language that they've shared with us that allows flexibility in the event that a project needs it to amend the terms of the covenant. And we have discussed that internally, and that's something that we would feel comfortable, including in our covenants, if a project required it.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. So we've had a range of questions about, you know, the re syndication issue. And so I just, you know, the community came to me with some ideas from San Francisco. One of them was the idea of having a little more reserve up front to just kind of build up a little bit more of a nest egg for those repairs. Is that something you are willing to consider in the process that's going to happen with the community that you'll look at that idea?
Speaker 9: Sure. Yeah. I think we are we are definitely committed to evaluating our role in supporting projects, including our underwriting standards, and that would be part of that conversation around our underwriting standards.
Speaker 6: And then there was also a question about whether or not it made sense to have a renovation specific RFP or some ground where folks weren't trying to compete with new units, but they were, in fact, just money might be set aside. Is that also something the department is committing, committed to considering?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think we are open to considering ways that we would support these kinds of projects and preservation generally moving forward. Got it.
Speaker 6: So the other you know, there's been a set of concerns that are kind of were raised about whether or not there's enough money generally. And I think, you know, this is where sometimes we have a conversation up here that's about more than just the policy before us. We've gotten several folks who've been very clear now that nothing changes in the pro forma with the decision we make tonight. And yet folks have also brought up the amount that the city subsidizes. So we've got a little bit of a conflicting message out there. But I want to clarify. Has anything changed in the maximum investment amount from OSD since the initial research was done about how our initial investments compare to other cities? So we were lower? No question. But that research was done. Is there has there been any changes in what aid has been willing to invest per unit since that research was done?
Speaker 12: We've increased our funding levels across the board in our term sheet over the last years. Amounts given that research and also the market research we did here in Denver for development of projects, both tax credit and non tax credit.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. I think that's it, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: One very last question I just want to ask. Oh, I'm assuming that you were looking to do rulemaking anyway. So what does that look like moving forward? Have you already sort of laid out a schedule? What are some of the key elements of what that would entail and who else is at the table besides the nonprofits to help shape what that looks like? And do you expect that can be done over the next four months, given the fact that at least two of you are going to be out for, I would assume, a couple, 2 to 3 months?
Speaker 9: Sir. So there's two different pieces of the rulemaking process. This ordinance includes the right of first refusal as well as the minimum affordability period. We have been because we've had the right of first refusal and the experience of the last couple of years, we've been thinking about what those rules look like and starting to have some conversation around that side of it already. So certainly focusing in on the minimum affordability is something that we could spend the next several months working on. And I imagine that we would want to have the non-profits, for profit developers, but also finance experts as well as some of our other state partners at the table to think about what particular implications our rulemaking process might have on those other agencies.
Speaker 5: And can you make sure that it's not just one representative representing the for profit community because you have some that have been around long enough that they have exhausted their obligation, period, and have attempted to refinance, whereas others have not quite even come to that point yet with some of their properties. And I think it's important to have robust representation because I believe you're going to see a greater effect on the nonprofit world than what you are, the for profit world, because we're not going to go buy a, you know, 100 million or whatever the cost of a a project is on Walton Street that has a smaller number of affordable units, whereas the non-profits, it's 100% of their properties that are affordable. And so I think the representation is critical in how the the criteria gets shape moving forward for what will. And I would love for the opportunity to ensure that some of that information is shared. Back with us about how that rulemaking plays out.
Speaker 9: Absolutely. Whenever we engage in a policy conversation like this, we try to have a balance of different perspectives informing the dialog. But I think that's certainly appropriate to have more than one voice as part of the representation that for that particular stakeholder group.
Speaker 5: Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1089 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. We had a very technical debate there. Discussion. I want to thank all of the speakers, particularly the community members who spent time with me and with many of us just engaging in this dialog over the private previous weeks. There were a couple questions raised about process, and I frankly agree that it can't be one council member trying to carry the opinions of this council, which is why, at my urging, in May, when the department started to hold meetings on this, they invited this entire council. So I just pulled up the email. All of us were invited to attend those focus groups and to be a part of the conversation. I'm busy. I don't make it to everything. I don't expect everyone to make it to everything. But the offer was there. I also pulled up the email from June 20th where I emailed you all the slide that I got and shared with you, my feedback and the things that were raised, including some of the questions that came from the community. I flagged all that in June, so I always I know we're busy and it is always acceptable if we can't all engage in a debate at the same level. But it's important for us to take responsibility for our roles and not say that we weren't included when we had those chances. That doesn't mean that everything was perfect and that the process couldn't have been more robust and getting to some of the technical pieces of how this could be implemented. And I think from the community standpoint, I will say and I shared this, that initially it sounded a lot like opposition to the concept. And so it can be hard to focus on the how. And so sometimes it just takes some time to get through that. And I appreciate the time that folks spent getting there. The letters we received today, the testimony from some folks today was clear that there was a commitment to long term affordability and the focus should be on how did we get there a little later than we might have in terms of being able to get to those details? Probably. Are there some learning opportunities? Yep, there sure are. But where do I find myself tonight in terms of wanting to really move this forward now? And it comes down to two things. The first, I've been doing this work before I was elected, including council 15 ish years. During that time, I have seen zero nonprofit projects flipped to luxury. I have seen nonprofits that regardless of whether their covenant is in. Place or not. And I heard some of these stories this week. Work to get the refinancing. Work to get the loans. Work to get the do the repairs. They may change the army levels and they keep their buildings affordable. So whether this ordinance passes or not, our nonprofits are doing this work and it's hard and we can make it easier. But during that time, I can tell you, I have seen a number of for profit buildings flip to luxury. Right. So Sikora Square. Right. Is is lost. Rents increased. There's a building in Capitol Hill that we lost. I know this may sound counterintuitive based on the testimony we heard today. I believe this measure levels the playing field because right now, mission based organizations have to trudge through and find solutions to all of these renovations because their mission requires them to, whereas for profits can dodge our efforts to make offers and can let their units expire and sell them at a profit and walk away. And they've done it. And so that's unacceptable to me. I want our for profits to get the same investments as we heard tonight, as are nonprofits, to have to slog through all of these challenges, too. I want them to have to figure out the refinance and the repair and all those things. And I want us to be fixing all the systems and improving our ability to do it. But I can't in good conscience allow one piece of our market to walk away from these buildings and the residents and have them be displaced. So, one, I see this as a leveling of the playing field and to. I can't walk away from a solution that I know is feasible during a moment when it's needed the most. 25 projects in the pipeline. And I have the opportunity right now today. Now, some may be a little further along and maybe they're already past the point where this would apply. But if I have the opportunity to send a signal to this market about what's expected in the city, and I can send the message tonight that what's expected is six years, I need to send it. And I can't go to my community and say, no, sorry, I'm not sure where I stand. We need a few months because I know today it's feasible. I know today it's feasible because actually Union Station did it in our city. I know it's feasible because Boulder has funded 1818 tax credit projects since 2000 with perpetual affordability in the same Housing Finance Authority system that we use. And so if it's feasible and if it's right and if I have the power to vote on it tonight, I have to do that. And so I urge my colleagues to reject a delay. But out of respect for the desire to get those details on paper, to support my amendment to delay the effective date, but to make it certain for everyone that that effective date is coming. Because if we delay this for four months, what we are saying is we don't know, we're not sure, and it might change. And that's not the message I think we need to send during this moment in this housing crisis. So with that, I urge a yes vote on the amendment as well as the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council can each sing no votes. Some late clickers. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Sorry, I thought I actually clicked, so I apologize. I'm not going to go there. I got we did this before, which is not going to use the fact that there's urgency to sort of to sort of run run forward with something that can actually be improved and actually win my support, because I have been in favor of extended terms since before I got on this council. And and so but it isn't I have no interest in just doing it. When there were three things in my colleague's line of questioning that that that the presenters said that they are open to discussing that are actually important to know and have sort of written down clearly so that we can clear I'd approach this and all that takes us. Yeah a few more months of dialog or a couple more meetings and it doesn't take me being there because I haven't been present every single iteration. But there are members of this community that have that have been paying attention for three years on these endeavors, that still have these concerns, that you are just willfully acknowledged that, yeah, those are all things that we can consider. So why not consider them and come to this body with some form of rulemaking already in place, in some sort of projection on what these needs would be going forward so that we can actually approach this thing thoughtfully . Because over the last 15 years we had an Ihf that had a 30 unit minimum and didn't, and we were promised that this was going to generate a whole bunch of housing. And we told people back then that that was not low enough. And that one was heat mapped. We could have done it towards specific communities and then it had a 15 year covenant, and that was disastrous because part of these units that are going up these days are the units in Jefferson Park that expire this year and in three years. In all, affordable housing, subsidized housing that the city built will be gone from Jefferson Park in four years. Meanwhile, we've lost a lot of market rate housing to very generous zone up zones. That's a different matter. And we even had to extend we had to update the show to revise the terms of the covenants because we had bound people into looser units when the economy took a downturn. We don't get it all right from here. And we have acknowledged that. And it's painful and slow to get it right later on. So what's a few more months to have this discussion to address our partners in the Affordable in the nonprofit sector? I get it. I'm fine with no one wants to send a clear signal to our for profit community that developers than me been very consistent with that for three and a half years on this on this date. Got no problem with that. But there are actual language in our charter that makes special carve outs for nonprofit. So why not do it in ordinance? Recognizing that for 32 years, our nonprofits have taken it upon themselves to help deliver on these needs for our city. Why not give them flexibility that our for profits don't have? So I think there's I think there's a discussion to be had, and I think it takes time. And so this is often where I get told to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm not searching for perfect. I'm searching for a few more rules to address some legitimate concerns by our nonprofit partners who have helped put in that affordable housing that you just were told doesn't disappear. They don't go away. And I can tell you, having sat in those offices for five years delivering affordable housing, and I said that I wasn't on the financial side, but I have seen the work that gets done to try and put together the capital stack. And that is not easy work. Architecture is simple. To build developing projects is simple compared to the financing that goes on in these projects for nonprofits. That is difficult work. That is a lot of brain cells being used up and a lot of stress because what you're trying to do with those nonprofits is you've got a mission to deliver this kind of this needed housing to a population that is demanding it, and there is a waitlist for it. And you're sitting here going, How can I make sure this project gets financed? What do I need to do to make sure we get across the finish line? And Doug just mentioned all the different strata, the different checklists that you have to go through to get to that finish line. It is not easy work. The building code, the zoning code, those are way easier than every bit of requirement in AQAP in a latex credit, you know, light tech application, a NOVA, you know, all these terms that I don't even care to know are all surrounding. And they drive up the cost of delivering affordable housing. And these guys have been doing it for 32 years in this city. And if they have a question that needs to be addressed and it's going to take us one, two, three or four months to address, then let's give them that time. Because for 32 years, we haven't done this. But for 32 years, we've actually had the need and other municipalities have been doing it for almost that time. So I, I just, you know, to compare us to Boulder is, is to me, if you look at Boulder and their per capita revenue relative to this city, they have the means to put additional constraints on their development, held their linkage fee of $19 per square foot on their construction. And people will pay that because it's still a desirable place to live because they care about their people. I care about our people. But I so I'm not interested in pooh poohing this. I am not interested in not doing a 60 year turn. I am very much interested in a six year term, but I want four months just to have this conversation about how do we actually make sure that driving this, to shove it down the throat of a development private developing company world is is good enough. And because we've got this pressure of affordable housing that we're just going to do it. All right. Now, when there are legitimate concerns that don't require me being at the table every single step of the way. Because I sit here on this dais right now at this decision point to hear those concerns at this public hearing. And I did. So with that, at some point I will be asking for an extension for four months for my colleagues. Mike.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilman Councilwoman Kennish for her passion and her hard work on all of all things having to do with affordability. And I think I can give a reason why I'm going to vote no more briefly. I. I also want to see the preservation of affordability and feel very strongly that this is a very good goal for us to have. But hearing the leaders of the Housing Affordability Community speak tonight about their concerns, it produced concerns for me. And it reminds me, although this might be an unfair comparison of the Green Roofs ordinance, which also had some rules and regs already. But we have we got we got that ordinance and it was an executable and executable and had to take it and write the rules and regulations so that it does become something that is can be executed and and maintain the original goal of it. And I'm feeling like this is the same thing here. I also think if we're if there isn't a hurry about something, let's let's let the community that is feeling concerns about the ordinance work on the rules and regulations so that we can pass the ordinance with everybody thinking , okay, this is a good this is a good thing. We can make this work. So. Thanks. But thanks again, Councilwoman Kennish, for all your work on this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman. New. Thank you, Mr. President. Face Lord, the whole crew for all your hard work. And Robin, especially, I have similar concerns. You know, when I think of the word preservation, I think of, you know, first I think of our right of first refusal, you know, to make sure we secure those properties. But I also think about rehabilitation, and I think that's the piece of the definition that we haven't addressed thoroughly with me tonight is that I wish we had gotten more information from those other cities about what kind of funding that they have to make sure that those affordable housing stay in good condition and that we don't end up 30 or 40 years from now in a funding crisis where those properties deteriorate. And I just worry a lot about that, and I'm not sure that a couple of months is going to make a difference. I think Councilwoman Sass was right getting all the people to the players at the table to talk about this and just and make sure we address all the key issues, whether it's right of first refusal or rehabilitation. I don't think any of us disagree with the 60 years that much. You know, what I heard was was rehabilitation. Am I going to be able to refinance? Am I going to be able to afford to keep these properties in good condition? And I don't think we can afford not. To make sure that happens. I will also be voting no tonight. Thank you again for all your hard work. Thank you. Councilman. New Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I don't want to reiterate a lot of folks said. I just. I think for me, I think.
Speaker 2: Of it in terms as folks were at the podium, as we were going back and forth. I just kept thinking of my council district.
Speaker 4: Most of the development that we've had in housing has been affordable. There have been low tech projects. Most of those units that are out there are units that have that that shelf life. Right. Of affordability and also maintenance. You know, these are brownstones that are being built right there and they're amazing. But they have a shelf life, I think, of the housing stock in my council district. A lot of the housing stock in my council district and this is one thing I always talk about early on is, you know, what's the greatest challenge in District three is that it's the housing stock. The housing stock wasn't built to last for more than 60 years. Some of the.
Speaker 2: Some of those units, you can really tell.
Speaker 4: However, it's that investment and then the opportunity for folks to invest in that future. And I can't tell you what it's going to look like in 60 years. Hopefully, we won a few Super Bowls in that in that time frame. But I think of the investment that's happening now in Council District three, where you're seeing most of these.
Speaker 2: Apartment units that.
Speaker 4: Are being built are all luxury. You drive down Colfax and.
Speaker 2: You go to the north.
Speaker 4: Or you look at Avondale or the top of the town bar used to be or the other side of the street or the old human services building used to be. They're all luxury. And then our game plan, in terms of how we're working on it, and.
Speaker 2: You look at a project.
Speaker 4: Just down the way across from Sloan's Lake and folks have been talking about this project for two years, is to create mixed housing affordability and for sale at 51%. And we drag our feet in terms of making it happen. And I kind of I don't have much faith that we're going to have the same kind of vigor that we do now in the future if we're already tripping over over our own feet. The folks that I used to rely on and that I still rely on are those showed us when Marvin comes to my office and talks about affordability and talks about properties in the district, I listen when new San or northeast come come by and listen. Because before it was popular they were doing it. And so for me, that means something. And I hope that we can gather that information in that input. So I am you know, I admire.
Speaker 2: My my all my colleagues who have.
Speaker 4: Been working on on this on this particular issue with their whole heart and soul, with everything.
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of work that goes in. I don't want any vote here.
Speaker 4: To reflect any kind of no non-confidence or anything in that. I just, you know, issue by issue here in front of the city council. And this is one of them that I think every single like I said, most of the units have been built in my district that are new, are affordable, and they have that shelf life . Right, 20 years, 25 years max. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all of you for your willingness to sit through this public hearing and to listen to the input from our nonprofit, who unfortunately were not able to be at committee because this was during the same week as the housing conference that's held up in the mountains. Otherwise they would have been at the committee meeting. So I appreciate your indulgence in allowing for all of these issues to be put on the table. I also want to thank our city team from our housing office for all of your work, not just on on putting this together, but all the work that has assisted us in looking at how we roll out the $30 million in bond financing and have an adopted housing plan that really guides how that is going to be spent and how we meet the different ambition levels where the need is just so great across the entire city for so many people. From 0 to 80% of the am-I and. But I do want to say that, you know, when you talk about preservation, it equals investment. And we have to have the opportunity for input into the rules so that people know what that means and how how that impacts their ability to continue to deliver, and particularly for the nonprofits who are in it for the long haul and have been and will continue to be. But if this creates some hindrance and there's a different way to think it out and work through how you create that longer term affordability, but still allow that investment into the units to happen, that is really critical to ensuring that we don't have folks say, Oh, well, heck with it. If we if we have to do this and we can't get assistance with not only the units, but when you say you got to serve zero re 30, you also have to provide some of the service dollars because they're harder population that needs the support services. And if we're not looking at and doing that, we're doing a disservice to the city, to the individuals we expect to live in these units and to the surrounding communities. So we have to be looking at the big picture and making sure that we are doing this with that comprehensive point of view and input into how we move forward. Yes, there are 25 projects in the pipeline, but annually we're lucky if we get 2 to 3 in the entire city of Denver to get funded because we're competing with Grand Junction and Fort Collins and Trinidad and every other community across the state that's trying to secure these same dollars. So the the long term affordability is something that I support. But I think having the the confidence that. Our non-profits have some input into where this goes is a vital part of being able to. Ensure that it's not creating roadblocks down the road. And again, we have some that you're not going to see that, you know, time period expire for for a while and others that have have already tried to refinance and have have run into the roadblocks, because that's why we receive some of the input they have. They have tried and they they have shared with us the challenge of being able to show the lenders that the incomes that they're collecting on the properties today don't pencil out over the long period to sustain the project. And so you need that deeper affordability with with support and assistance from the city. So having the tools in place and the right systems that will track these over time. I mean, I was here when we adopted the inclusionary housing ordinance. We thought we had all the right components in place to be able to monitor each of those. Inclusionary housing ordinance across the city, a number of which were at Stapleton. Some were in Green Valley Ranch. Some were, you know, just scattered across the city. And we ran into some challenges. And I don't know if that's because we've seen pretty significant changes in our staffing across over time. But having those components in place and the confidence that that we will be able to monitor those and ensure that affordability is there, not just for the nonprofit units. And I support our for profit partners being able to commit to the longer term affordability if they want our city money to do their projects. This is one place where public policy matters, ensuring that we can create the right environment and the right tools across the board that ensures that we have this long term affordability. But this input is critical. So I am going to move a different motion and we'll have two on the floor that we could we could vote on.
Speaker 2: We're not doing the motion yet. You'll have a chance to do that after we get through the amendment. It's in your paper. You're you're you're in here. But first we vote on the amendment, and then we'll move to your motion. So don't make that motion yet, because we.
Speaker 5: Okay. Let me just explain what I propose to do. Go ahead. Okay. I propose to bring forward a different amendment that moves forward, a four month time frame that allows our nonprofit partners, along with with others, to engage with our staff from OED to have input on what the rulemaking will entail before we adopt the ordinance. And that's the difference between the amendment that I will propose versus what we have on the table. The one on the table would adopt the ordinance as is, and then we go do the rulemaking, mine would do the rulemaking and then bring it back in four months and then adopt it. So I just want you to know that's what I will bring forward as soon as we.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not particularly interested in 60 years of affordability. I'm interested in perpetual affordability. But 60 years is what is on the table. So that's that's what we're talking about tonight.
Speaker 4: I don't believe.
Speaker 3: That this ordinance has been discussed in a silo with no concern for our nonprofit partners. I believe their concerns were on the table all along. I believe that.
Speaker 4: Now is the time.
Speaker 3: To make. We're not going to not extend our affordability. I haven't heard anyone at the table suggest they don't want to go to at least 60 years. It's about involving our valued partners in setting up the rules. And I think the most logical approach is what Councilwoman Kenney says to pass this ordinance tonight, let the community know
Speaker 4: . Where our commitment is and then hold a four month.
Speaker 3: Delay on the lengthening the affordability portion. So we can involve the nonprofit community even more deeply in setting up the rules and regulations. So I'm I'm tried, but I don't see a reason to delay this ordinance. So I will be I'll be supporting it tonight. And I really think we need to be talking about a perpetual affordability. I don't see why in in any scenario, I can envision that we want to take these off the table. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Castro and Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yep. Just put an exclamation point on this long hearing. 20,000 units.
Speaker 7: A fourth of them are all in District nine. And what I hear from every meeting that I'm at is on affordability and length of four. But it's it's sometimes I feel like I'm in two public hearings in this deal. I mean, what I heard is that we're going to work through through the rules and regulations, opportunities for funding and rehab. That's what I heard in the public hearing. That's the major issue that we're talking about here. Every city that I go to.
Speaker 4: And talk.
Speaker 7: To city council members.
Speaker 4: Around housing, they all have longer.
Speaker 7: Times of affordability than we do. And this has been a major point of conversation.
Speaker 4: At.
Speaker 1: All of our.
Speaker 4: Community meetings.
Speaker 7: So I'm a little frustrated.
Speaker 4: I'm going to be I'm going to be supporting this. I think Councilwoman Kinesis rational and.
Speaker 7: Collaborative Amendment fits really good on both ends to allow us to really sit at the table and say, let's make sure we bring the totals to the table. Let's make sure we have the nonprofit developers. And let me just say this, because Councilwoman Ortega said this twice.
Speaker 4: For profit, affordable housing developments aren't just ten and 15 units. We have a.
Speaker 7: 225 unit for profit development right there at Park Ave.
Speaker 4: And and in.
Speaker 7: Welton. And so it's a very complex issue.
Speaker 4: But I do.
Speaker 7: Believe in rehab. I think that's so important. And I hope that we can get there. And I think we can get there the rules and regulations and through the hierarchy of law. And so honorably supporting this.
Speaker 4: I don't. Yeah, I'll leave it there. I'm supporting it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. See no other speakers. I just want to add my piece here. First of all, I want to thank Councilman Ken each for all your work and all of the staff for all the work. And that, you know, there are there are a lot of things going on and there are a lot of us who are working in different areas. But I really appreciate Councilwoman Cleage and staff everybody on the team willingness to reach out repeatedly, answer any questions that I had, and very quickly to get that information and up to speed. And I absolutely feel like even when I was not able to make every single meeting, the resources were right there for me. And so thank you for that. You know, I'm going to echo what Councilwoman Kennedy said. I can't say it better than that. So I kind of feel like this is a less good version of what she said. But also it tells me Cashman and Councilman Brooks said, you know, to get to for me, I'm. Really. I'm feeling, like, very confused as to why we're not. This isn't a 13 oh vote here. And I think Councilwoman Kennedy said it best. This is doable. Right. We have we have proof that this is doable. And it's time we're in a crisis right now. And to sit up here and say we're going to put a delay on this and kick down the road, whether or not we're even going to do 60 years to me is is absolutely not in line with what I'm hearing. At least I think that we need to do this tonight. I think that the amendment that Councilwoman Kennedy put forward is is a good compromise. Let's tonight make the statement that in Denver, it's going to be 60 years. Look at the smart people we have in this room, on the city side, on the development side. I have no doubt in my mind that given between now and February, knowing that that's when 60 years start, that this will all get figured out.
Speaker 4: And if it doesn't, we are the legislative body. We can amend it, we can repeal it.
Speaker 2: We can say, you know, we didn't get there. So guess what? Now we're going to stop it. So to me, it's we this is our chance that none of the stuff is going to be ironed out. And rules and regs changes our ordinance. We'll be back here on the one plan voting on the same exact thing in February when we could have just said, Hey, you guys didn't get there, so now we're going to repeal it because you didn't get there, right? And that puts the pressure in the right place. And it's the one pressure point we have as legislators is do our part, pass the ordinance and then say, go figure these things out or else we'll reveal it. Right. And so to me, that's where we can strongly say, you know, hey, 60 years is what what is the expectation in Denver? And we're going to give you some time to iron out rules and regs, which is appropriate. The ordinance doesn't lay those things out. Let's give some time for those conversations to happen. But under the pressure of on this date, it starts. And if you don't get it figured out, then maybe we will take this back up. But we won't be taking it up to decide. Do we do it or not? We'll be will be really putting the pressure points in the right place. So for me, I'm absolutely in support of the amendment and not to the delay as things get a little confusing as we start to vote on the multiple things that will be on the table. Councilman Lopez, are you back?
Speaker 4: And just just in terms of procedure. Council president, I just.
Speaker 2: It feels awkward because I would support.
Speaker 4: This one, but I also would consider supporting a postponement. And I'm just wondering why. I'm just thinking how it flows. It doesn't seem to flow as if it sounds like it. It would flow better. Procedural wise, if you had the postponement, motion and vote first and then this.
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. That's why we spent so much time extra at recess. It wasn't just because we couldn't get it off the slide talked about, but it was because. Because for Robert's rules, we have a motion on the floor that has been amended. The motion to postpone actually comes after that. And so that's so again, I think thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for setting forth what our our various options are. But procedurally, we take them in the order of bills being put on the floor. It's been amended. If it gets amended or not amended, then there's a motion about postponement for a second reading, which comes either way. And so that's why it's set up like that. But I think, again, to clarify for anyone who's following along in the room or on Channel eight for we have the bill open, we'll vote first on the amendment. The amendment would say that if the bill passes even now and then on second reading, then it's the implementation. Part of the part that's been contentious tonight does not start until that same date in February, February 9th or February 1st on the amendment. Is that what it is, Councilwoman?
Speaker 6: Yes, I.
Speaker 2: February, February 1st on the amendment, whether that amendment then passes or not, then Councilwoman Ortega intends to bring forward a motion to postpone second reading, meaning that the ordinance would not even be adopted until February 19th. And so those are the things that we are we're going in that order.
Speaker 4: Thank you for the explanation.
Speaker 2: Of.
Speaker 4: Folks falling at home. I think it's finite either or. Yeah, it's it's yeah, it's.
Speaker 2: Been it's been a little bit of making the sausage on the floor tonight here. Councilwoman Lopez, was that everything you gentlemen can do? You want to add something to you?
Speaker 6: Yeah, just to two quick comments. First of all, regardless of how these votes go tonight, I'm absolutely committed to being a resource through this process where it's appropriate and where the parties that are involved are interested. So in my opinion, no matter where the vote goes, I'm committed. Secondly, just a little piece of voting advice to my colleagues. If you shoot down the amendment and then the motion to delay fails, this bill will go into effect immediately.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 6: You may want to vote for the amendment as an insurance policy just in case the vote to delay fails. If what you want is more time. So you certainly may do what you like. But I'm oversimplifying that Mr. Roberts rules speech to say the implicate and I will say this so if you vote for my amendment and then the delay happens, we will probably have to amend the bill when it comes back because it'll have this awkward effective date that's easy to fix and will run an amendment so the world doesn't end. But I will say this if you shoot down the amendment and it's not delayed, just so folks understand, the bill will go into effect when it's signed. Is that correct, Julie? It's got it doesn't have another effective date. It's just it's silent, which means it goes into effect when it's signed. Someone will jump up if I'm wrong, but then the attorneys are not jumping up. So there you go. Thanks, Mr. President. And thanks to my colleagues for a very thoughtful discussion.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I just want to be real clear, because the public hearing was on the bill, but the amendments on the floor, I do, in fact, support the amendment to extend I mean, to change the implementation date and and all these have. So I appreciate it, my colleague, Councilwoman Candice, for bringing forward that amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. So let's see if we can figure this out in our voting here, because everybody's done. So first, we're going to roll on the amendment, which as a reminder, is not necessarily an either or, but does change the effective date to February 1st. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 1: I. Brooks.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, i. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. I can h. I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega, i. Susman, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 hours, 12 hours.
Speaker 2: The amendment has passed. President Pro Tem Gilmore, would you step in since Councilman Herndon has stepped out for a second? And will you please put Council Bill 1089 on the floor as amended, I believe is our next step?
Speaker 1: Yes, President Clark, I move that council bill 18 Dash 1089.
Speaker 5: Be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. So we are now voting on the bill as amended. And then after that, we will move to the postponement after it's ordered. Yep.
Speaker 5: The postponement first? Yeah. Mm hmm. Because if you're adopting the bill, then.
Speaker 2: You know, we've got our legislative staff there.
Speaker 4: To duck cross my legislative staff. This is first reading. So the bill would still go on for final next week, which would be delaying the final reading until February 19.
Speaker 2: The first we order it published on first reading. Then you delay second or final. Okay, so this is just approving the bill as amended is what we're voting on now. And then we'll move to the postponement. All right. Okay, everybody good on this.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks Hi.
Speaker 1: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn I gillmor, i.
Speaker 4: Cashman Hi.
Speaker 1: Can I.
Speaker 4: Lopez All right.
Speaker 1: New Ortega, I. Susman No, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: You have ten eyes.
Speaker 2: One name that we're missing somebody because we have 12 up here. So we're missing council minutes.
Speaker 1: So Lebanese want.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes when they're accountable. 1089 has been ordered, published as amended. And now, Councilwoman Ortega, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move to postpone final consideration of Bill Number 1089 series of 2018 to February 19, 2019.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Are there any comments or questions on this part by members of Council Council women or take it you have more you want to add?
Speaker 5: No, I think it's it's all pretty clear. It just postpones final consideration that allows this input to happen until February the 19th, 2019.
Speaker 2: And Councilman Espinosa, I don't know if your name is still in there or if you're in there for a comment on this. For a comment. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: And this this is Monday. It's Presidents Day.
Speaker 7: This is this is my plea to try and sway the president. You know, this idea of a statement vote. You know, Donald Trump is great at making statements. We don't need to be in that business. We need to be pragmatic. And my point is, is the reason why I'm even saying this is you were questioning you were wondering why this is not a 13 oh vote. I want it to be a 13 no vote. I think if we did a four month delay, I have no doubt that this would be a unanimous vote. What I take exception to is the same thing I took exception to back in the permanent affordable housing vote thing. I was always a yes vote except for the fact that we were not going striving deep enough. I wanted a higher linkage fee. Multi-unit, affordable, I mean, multi-unit, apartment housing, which was a segment that we could have isolated in the next study. We, we because I recognized we were not going to get enough money out of the development community, nowhere near what was being promised to deliver the 15 years million dollars per year. And it bore out and it continues to bear out. And what I was saying is that the amount in total, $15 million was insufficient to make a real crack at an affordable housing needs. And so I am grateful. And that's why you saw me supporting the two additional sources and getting to that $30 million a year, because that's where I wanted to be two and a half years ago. And we had the votes we needed nine to override the mayor. There were seven to get it through. And we can do that as a body, but we chose not to because it would have required a little bit of negotiation and legwork to make that happen. So instead of getting that additional $30 million over the last two years and having to subsidize it, I mean, add funds in a whole bunch of different ways rather than have it part of the permanent affordable housing fund. We we missed that opportunity. This is that opportunity on this bit of legislation is what you have is resounding support for 60 months. I mean, 60 years terms. Why not come here with a unanimous decision? Where that says to the development community on all sides that this council is unequivocal in its statement that this is important because I'm a yes vote on a six year term. But I, I, I, I love the, the, the paragraphs four, three and four of the NDC statement that really gets to the heart of what's at issue here. There are partners they're not interested in, in having counsel kill this bill. I'm formally of that. We're having been an employee there and I am not interested in killing this bill, but I am interested in having them at a discussion and making and trying to make clear tweaks so that we can get somewhat some bit of assurance that we've considered the long term ramifications that this has to a very , very specific I'll recognize a very, very specific sector. But that sector has served us well. You heard it in the statement. DHEA only has 25% of our units. It's these others, these other segments that are delivering the bulk of our affordable housing units. Why wouldn't we have a big significant partner in that discussion helping shape our policy before we implement it? Why would we put a gun to their head and say, Nope, we give you till February 1st to figure this out. We've given our state, our city until February 1st to figure this out because the consequences if they don't is we live with the bill as written and whatever they come up with. What is so terrible about taking a little bit of time? Why are we Trumpian about this? Like, wow, we're going to make a statement. Lock her up. You know, that's great.
Speaker 2: Jasmine. Jasmine. With all due respect, I think everyone understands where you are. You have talked at length this evening about it. In a democracy, rational people, smart people who care about their community can disagree. That is what this chamber and this body is all about. You demean us as a body. You demean this chamber by reverting to name calling on our decorum rules. What we expect from the other people in our chamber on how they treat us. The person who has broken that tonight and not just in how you have spoken to me. Do not make remarks about council members, personality, parents, or perceived motives. You're bringing in something that is highly controversial to. I'm I'm not done. And I'm sorry, but your time is up right now. It's inappropriate. You demean this body, you demean this chamber. Everyone knows where you're at. It is disrespectful what you have done tonight, and I take issue with it. Are there other comments on this? I think that we have.
Speaker 7: We have. I did not.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sorry, Councilman.
Speaker 7: I did not intend to demean the president. I was.
Speaker 2: Councilman.
Speaker 7: I have experience. I have.
Speaker 2: If you don't respect the rules of this chamber, then we have no democracy. Your time is up. I want to get clarified one thing. February 19th is that Presidents Day, do we have the right date on? Is that the Monday or the two Presidents Day?
Speaker 5: That's why I put the 19th, because that is a Tuesday.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it says Monday. It is February 19th. Is the correct. Correct. To clarify. So there's movement to February. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on the delay on the floor.
Speaker 1: Black. No. BROOKS.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: Espinosa Oh.
Speaker 2: Flynn No.
Speaker 1: Gilmore No. Herndon. Cashman. Kenny. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: Before.
Speaker 5: Harry, my mind didn't have nine.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Three eyes. Nine knees.
Speaker 2: Three eyes. Nine days. That postponement has failed. Now, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: You should have been four eyes. I mean, four nays.
Speaker 2: Nine and three gets us to 12, which is how many we have without councilman heard it. And so either somebody pressed the wrong button. We can. For Madam Secretary, can you bring that vote back up and can we just double check? Somebody might have pressed the wrong button so that it's eight four does not change the result of the vote. But let's make sure that we get it right for the minute. Council President. I think I'm the one that actually pushed this. Okay. All right. So, Madam Secretary, we will fix Councilman Lopez to clarify. Your vote was no, but you pressed. Yes, yes. We'll get that fixed. Does not change the the results, but we'll make sure and Councilman Flynn, we'll make sure that we get the minutes correct for next week.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: And Councilman Ortega, you also had a motion to postpone a companion bill of 975 sitting that the first postponement did not pass. Are you still moving to postpone?
Speaker 5: That was an entirely different bill. That is not should not be intertwined.
Speaker 1: Oh, I oppose it.
Speaker 5: There is no need to even have a vote on that.
Speaker 2: We did. We did. Is that the one that we pushed consideration? We delayed consideration. Okay. So we do need to vote on it. That's right. So, Madam Secretary, could you please put 975 up on our screens to vote on when I pushed?
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 5: It will be two.
Speaker 2: So this was the one that we postponed prior due to council 975 yup.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. President Clerk I am.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, Councilwoman Gilmore, can you please just put Bill 975 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, President Clerk I put council bill 975 on the floor right there.
Speaker 2: Is there any discussion on this one?
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Cannick Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Just for transparency, this bill is about making some amendments to the inclusionary housing ordinance and other covenants that some of the for sale homes are under. In order to create more opportunities for to try to.
Speaker 1: Cure.
Speaker 6: Some of the noncompliance issues that were discovered at our committee meeting, we had a really robust discussion about a desire for stronger protections and new covenants going forward. And I just wanted to share from my perspective that OPD and the City Attorney's Office have been responsive to that request. We don't have amendments that will be moving to this bill for future covenants, but I feel pretty comfortable that we're on a good course of talking about how to not use the same covenants and the same methods again and assume that we're going to have a different result, but that in fact, we're going to use a do a different result. So I just wanted that to be transparent since we had such a robust conversation at committee. And I want to thank, you know, our alleged counsel in the city attorney's office, and particularly Councilwoman Gilmore, who's put a lot of time into this for their work. So just wanted that on the record. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, President Clark. I want to clarify for my colleagues that we have been dealing with this issue around affordable housing compliance. I have been personally for the last two years, and I would ask that my colleagues vote down any sort of postponement of 975, because we have had homeowners, folks who have been affected by this affordable housing compliance issue and basically were holding.
Speaker 5: Their lives in limbo.
Speaker 1: At this point in time. And so I would ask my colleagues to vote down any sort of postponement that might be offered, because we need to really get this clarified and cleared up for these residents, these homeowners, by the end of this year or as quickly as possible. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. And I think the motion on the floor is not currently a postponement, and I don't see anybody making that motion. So we're just voting on this.
Speaker 1: Location.
Speaker 2: Whether.
Speaker 1: We're voting to order it published.
Speaker 2: Just to order. 975. Published? Correct. Yep. All right. Any other. Because this is not showing up on my screen been. Guzman-Lopez Did you have something on this one because you're still showing up on the last one. No, I was on the last one because I wanted to I.
Speaker 4: I did vote I on the last postponement. The other issue was, is that my.
Speaker 2: Colleague didn't vote yes on her own.
Speaker 3: So I didn't. All right.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, we got it. All right. Perfect. I wanted to make sure on that record thing, nothing else on 975. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2: This is first of all, thanks for that. This is just to order published 975. This is ordering 975.
Speaker 4: Published in.
Speaker 1: Black. All right.
Speaker 4: That's Brooks. Hi.
Speaker 1: Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 3: Flynn. Hi.
Speaker 1: Gilmore. I Cashman can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. But, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce results. Automatically since I was the one that.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes count the bill. 975 has been ordered published. Seeing nothing else before us. We do have a pre adjournment announcement on Monday, October 27, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1072, designating the Vassar School bungalows historic district as a district for preservation. And on Monday, November 13th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 996, changing the zoning classification of 3742 3850 York Street in the Clayton neighborhood. A required public hearing on Council Bill 1006 changing the zoning class classification of 1901 Noisy Street in Union Station and a required hearing on Council Bill 1013 Changing the Zoning Classification for 2929 West 10th Street in Sun Valley. Any protest against Council Bill 9961006 or 1013 must be filed with the council officers no later than Monday, November 5th. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending Title 27 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to revise definitions and procedures set forth therein for greater clarity and to extend the minimum affordability period for properties that receive city subsidies from twenty years to sixty years.
Amends Section 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to approve revisions to the Affordable Housing Preservation ordinance including definitions and procedures intended to clarify applicability to income-restricted properties within the city and extension of the minimum period of affordability from 20 years to 60 years. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-3-18. Amended 10-15-18 to delay the effective date of the affordability period to 2-1-19.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10082018_18-1154
|
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other announcements, we are going to move on. There are no presentations this evening and there are no communications. But we do have two proclamations. Councilman Lopez. I think the first one up is yours. Would you like to read the proclamation? 1154.
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. Proclamation 1150 forces of 2018 and observance of the third annual Indigenous Peoples Day in the city and county of Denver. Whereas the Council, the city and county of Denver recognizes the indigenous people have lived and flourished on the lands known as the Americas since time immemorial, and that the Denver that Denver and the surrounding communities are built upon the ancestral homelands of numerous indigenous tribes, including the southern, the new mountain ute tribes of Colorado. And. Whereas, the tribal homelands and seasonal encampments of the Rapido and Cheyenne peoples along the banks of the Cherry Creek and South Platte River confluence gave bearing to future settlements that would become the birthplace of the Mile High City. And. Whereas, Colorado encompasses ancestral homeland of 48 tribes, and the city and county of Denver and surrounding communities are home to descendants of approximately 100 tribal nations. And. WHEREAS, on October 3rd, 2016, the Council, the city and county of Denver unanimously passed council bills 16 Dash 801 officially designated in the second Monday of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day in Denver, Colorado. And. WHEREAS, the Council of the City and County of Denver continues to recognize and value the vast contributions made to our community through indigenous peoples knowledge, science, philosophy, arts and culture. And through these contributions, the City of Denver has developed and thrived. And. Whereas, the Indigenous communities elected and appointed tribal, local officials, community leaders and educational leaders are vital components to the community awareness issue visibility, education, informed decision making, and supporting students in developing greater connections between science and indigenous communities. And. Whereas, this year, Indigenous leaders of all types from across the country will gather here in Denver beginning on October 21st for the 75th Annual National Congress of the American Indians Yearly Meeting to discuss specific issues affecting indigenous communities relevant to Denver and throughout the country, including continued advocacy for public lands as monuments, protections for the benefit of all individuals now therefore being proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one. The Council, the City and County of Denver celebrates and honors the cultural and foundational contributions of indigenous people to our history. Past, present and future. And continues to promote the education of the Denver community. Of the about these historical and contemporary contributions indigenous people section to the city and county of Denver, Colorado does hereby observe October eight, 2018 as Indigenous Peoples Day. Section three at the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and affixed a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Denver American Indian Commission and the Colorado Commission on Indian Affairs.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I move that council proclamation 1154 series of 2018 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I you know, it's awesome to be able to read this proclamation for the third time while actually that the third time is Indigenous Peoples Day, the fourth time as recognizing the support for it. You wouldn't have known this but about. Seven or eight. I'm out 8 hours ago. Just down the street on I 25. I was in the town of Pueblo. And I was having homemade fry bread in this in this pueblo, in this ancient home. Right. And I was drinking Cafecito, and I was drinking that New Mexico coffee. And I was talking about how Colorado chilies better than New Mexican chili and Pueblo. Anyway, bourbon's. Meatier, but it's better. And. She tells me, Oh, you know, that it's Indigenous Peoples Day. I said, I didn't know that. You see, I took my daughter over the weekend to find our great grandmother's, her great grandmother's grave and little town of when I was done in New Mexico. Nobody knew or knew where I was at. We just went word of mouth and we found it. And to see my my daughter there, powerfully standing over her, her grave and given her thanks, was powerful for me. And we went to the Pueblo. We're reading. And so she says, yes, did you know that? And I said, I did know that she was. How did you know that she was? I'm from Denver. She goes, That's right. You all have Indigenous Peoples Day. She goes, Congratulations. I didn't say a word about oil. Well, we had a little something to do with it. But just to know that in an end and in a place like the Pueblo, like the Taos Pueblo, in a little home made of Adobe, of original adobe earth and hay, to know that this woman who was making fry bread that was super the. Knew about what we did in Denver and how much it meant to her. And she says, we also are asking for our state to recognize that. We recognize that, but we're asking for our state. And we heard about Denver, and we we were so happy, she said. And we got tears in her eyes and saw the know that our impact is not just in our community and our city here in the Mile High City, but far and wide. Right. And even just down this little street, none of the south. It's an inspirational and it's a it's a badge of honor and pride. So I wanted to share that with my colleagues here and with you all in the council chambers, because I felt that that was powerful. We didn't mean to stay another day. It was by accident. We ended up staying another day, but not for me did it. And so I'm glad I made it just in time. Denver traffic to be here and read this. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Lopez. And thank you for bringing this forward again this year. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: LOPEZ. Hi. Brooks.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, I. Cashman. I can.
Speaker 1: Teach. I knew. Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Ten days at sea. We're waiting for Ortega.
Speaker 7: I went to push it and it disappeared from my screen.
Speaker 1: Here we go. 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Proclamation. 1154 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there anyone you'd like to bring up to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 8: Yes, there is. But before that, I want to make sure that I acknowledge and Susan Ranta, who is in my office, is in my mind. I had in my office my brother, who worked so hard every year to make sure this happens, at least from our own, to work with our commission. So thank you, Jesus, for your work and thank you for helping coordinate and organize this so and helping write the proclamation. So I wanted to invite the following individuals Kimberly Malek, Lucille Echo Hawk, Donna Christian, Chinua Cross, who? Paterson and Christina Badkhen and Lance Soucy to the microphone.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. City Council President Clark. We'd like to introduce ourselves where the Denver American Indian Commission. And we also have a representative from the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs today to accept the proclamation recognizing tribal leaders and the vitality and awareness that tribal leaders, community leaders, cultural leaders, educational leaders and economic leaders bring to our community, to Denver, to the front range and to the nation. And so with that, I'd like to take just a few minutes and allow my fellow commissioners to introduce themselves, as well as provide a small and a brief profile on some of our our community leaders. Before I do that, I'm again Kimberly Valle. I'm Eastern Shoshone, just like Sara or Tegan. And I'm also Oglala Sioux from South Dakota. Thank you. Okay. Hello. Me Diana Cousineau, a crochet Patterson, an adult book doe from Blackfeet Nation. I. First of all, I'd like to tell you about one of the mayors diversity and inclusion award and the member that we, the commissioners, decided to choose for this year's award winning. His name is Bill William Tarbell. He is a Cheyenne. And so, as you know, we're here on Cheyenne's land. Bill Tarbell has been doing much, many amazing things in the community with our Denver public schools, with committing community members from all different nations and tribes. And one thing in particular that you may or may not know is that he's been working with Denver Parks and Rec and with the city. The city gifted our indigenous community with a bison. And Bill was able to arrange a meeting with Denver public school students, with community members, with Parks and Rex members, and with the city to harvest that bison and to do it in a traditional way. So he was he deserved the reward this year. And thank you. We talk GAAP you Hotlanta which did not pay to use AP you much AP Donna Christian C John Gounod dinner. Thank you very much. I agree to with a heartfelt handshake. Thank you for honoring indigenous people day today. Thank you very much. I would like to acknowledge all the educators in the room, the two that are on our on our commission as well. And I would also like to do a special acknowledgment to Denver Public Schools for chartering the first school to integrate indigenous knowledge and principals this year in May. So thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 9: Got a Shaolin associate, a killer Chinese culture. But she's been teaching you just now. Let's go to China. Hey.
Speaker 10: Hey, everyone. My name's Lance Soucy.
Speaker 9: I've been on the commission now for two years. I'm a graduate from the University of Denver. I work now for an educational organization called Big City Mountaineers. And I just want to say thank you all for acknowledging Indigenous Peoples Day.
Speaker 5: Today on this beautiful fall and Denver Day.
Speaker 9: I also want to highlight one of our amazing community members. Her name is Dana Sultan. She's the executive director of the Rocky Mountain American Indian Chamber of Commerce. And she has been working diligently to support our American Indian community by raising money to support students who identify as American Indian or Native American or indigenous to basically support them with their educational endeavors. And so she works really hard to get scholarship money for our young youth to pursue their dreams in education. And I just really want to highlight this beautiful.
Speaker 10: Amazing person from our Native American community.
Speaker 9: So thank you.
Speaker 1: Hi. I'm Christine. About hand. I'm Chicago, Lakota and Cherokee. And I'm here to introduce Lucille Echo. Hank. Well, let her come and speak her words to you guys. Thank you, Christina. And it's an absolute pleasure to be here this evening. And it's been many years since I've had the pleasure of being in the council chambers with the Denver City Council. And I'm pleased to know that I still know two council members, Councilman Lopez and Ortega. So good to see you both. I'm a citizen of the Pawnee nation of Oklahoma, but I've also resided in greater Denver for more than 37 years. I'm starting to feel old. I am in my fourth term as a member, At-Large member of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs. I served many years ago under Governor Romer's administration or one of them, and I am delighted that they asked me to come back under Governor Hickenlooper's administration to continue the work of the Colorado Commission and the new two pairs that was founded in 1976, and to support the great work of EARNEST House Junior, our executive director, who sadly just left us. But he's still going to continue in Denver with the Keystone Policy Center, but will be seeking a new executive director for the account for the commission. And we've just done so much, thanks to Ernest. And most recently, a week ago Friday at our meeting in Ignacio, hosted by this other new tribe. The commission, through its member agency, the Colorado Department of Education, presented to the two Ute tribes the first copies of a new curriculum for fourth graders about the peoples of Colorado. And we were just. And I hope it's the first piece of well-researched and documented native history that the next step would be to delve into the history of the Arapaho peoples who were here along this this front range, and other native peoples, the Cheyenne as well. There's so much that needs to be known by Colorado's young people as they grow into adulthood. I was asked to say a few words and thank you, Councilman Lopez, in reading the resolution to speak about the National Congress of American Indians that will be meeting here the week of October 21st. The organization was founded here 75 years ago at the Cosmopolitan Hotel, which, of course, no longer exists in downtown Denver. And so we in the native community here in particular are just thrilled that the organization is coming back to commemorate its 75th anniversary and to recognize its founders. And if you look on the website of the National Congress of American Indians, there is a photo of the founders, some of whom are their descendants, will be here to help commemorate this 75th anniversary. It's been a lot of work, but my pleasure to work with many others here in Greater Denver to support the National Congress, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., to put together their conference where what we call the Denver based local planning committee supporting the many tribal leaders in this region of the country who will host the the the conference. But Denver City and County's own Darius Smith is one.
Speaker 7: Of those people who stepped up.
Speaker 1: And has been very, very helpful to us and many other members of the community. What is it they say? If you want something done, ask a busy person. So we've all been very, very busy, but we're looking forward to the conference. It will be at the Hyatt Colorado Division, Colorado Convention Center. So thank you very much. We are very moved that this is the third Indigenous Peoples Day in Denver. Yesterday I was privileged to be in Boulder and be a part of their celebration and and then to read that there were at least four other cities in Colorado that celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day, Aspen, Telluride, and I can't remember the other ones, but and other cities across the country are following suit as well. So we as native people are are much appreciative and applaud their efforts. So thank you very much for having me this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you all very much for being here.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Chuck.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in observance of the Third Annual Indigenous Peoples Day in the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10082018_18-0874
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvening and we have three public hearings this evening. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names, 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, please come to the podium. State your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel 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 Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 874.
Speaker 2: On the floor?
Speaker 9: 874 be placed on the floor.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 874 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council, president and Council. My name is Brandon Shaver with Community Planning and Development, presenting an official Map Amendment application to 18 i0024, which would result in property at 3600 West 29th Avenue from U.S. C to um x to x. This property is located in Northwest Denver Council District one. It is actually in Beverly in the Sloan Lake neighborhood. Uh, location is just at the southwest corner of Lowe Boulevard and West 29th Avenue. It is just over 10,000 square feet and is currently a vacant one story building that was formerly occupied by a gas station. And the proposal here is to allow for redevelopment with commercial uses. The zone district request is the um x2x that is an urban neighborhood context mixed use two storey maximum and the x two notes, limited uses and building forms. Current zoning at the site is as you see, that is urban neighborhood context single unit C lot size which is 5500 square feet. You find this zoning to the south and to the west of the subject property to the north we have campus zoning in the form of C, NPI two and to the east we have two unit zoning with the C lot size as well as the current land use on the site is commercial retail as it was formerly a gas station. And what you have surrounding here is generally single and multi-unit residential. To give you a flavor of what is around the site. Looking at the top left, we have a couple of single unit residential properties across the alley. On the bottom left, you can see the campus that is to the north and moving to the right, we have two pictures of the subject property. And then on the bottom right, a picture of the single unit residential that's directly abutting to the south. Speaking to the process here, this item was that planning board on August 1st where it was voted unanimously in favor. It then went to Judy on August 21st. And we are at council today and October 8th. And to date we have received four letters of support, one being from the registered neighborhood organization, which is the West Highland Neighborhood Organization. And we have also gotten three letters of support from the nearby property owners. This includes the property owner directly to the south and the property owner directly across the alley to the west. You're familiar with the review criteria. Staff has to find that a proposed rezoning meets all five in order for us to recommend approval. Starting with number one, we have consistency with adopted plans and two plans impact this area first comp plan and then blueprint Denver for comprehensive plan 2000. You see these noted strategies that are further detailed in the staff report. They speak mainly to environmental sustainability, promoting quality infill and giving residents in the neighborhood opportunities to live, work and play within their neighborhood. The Blueprint Denver land use concept here is single unit, single family residential. In these areas there is an employment base, but it is significantly smaller than the housing base. And single family homes are the predominant residential type. This is also in an area of stability. These areas are seeking to maintain the character while accommodating some new development at appropriate locations. And Blueprint also says that the land use regulation should aim to prevent or mitigate impacts from nonresidential development. And that is why staff has become comfortable with the application of a, um to zone district here with those lower scale uses and intensities. And lastly, the street classifications and blueprints, both Lower Boulevard and West 29th Avenue are residential collectors next? Uniformity of disregulation staff feels that this proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of the Max to Zone District, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans. This application identifies changed or changing conditions as justifying circumstances. I'm sure you're aware that there are a number of new residential units in the area, particularly at the commercial node at 32nd and Lowell, which is just three blocks north of the subject site. And we have also noted new bike lanes have been installed from Sheridan into downtown along 29th Avenue. And lastly, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. This does fit the urban neighborhood context where usually we see single and two unit residential uses with small scale multi-unit and commercial units that are commercial areas that are embedded in these residential areas and the um, max zone district purpose and intent. It does apply to these small sites that are embedded within existing neighborhoods and limited to the lower scale building forms and uses. With that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. I'm happy to answer questions. An applicant is present as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you signed up to speak on this item, might ask that you please come up to this first bench. I'll call your name and then you can step up to the podium and your time will start. First up, we have Reed Goolsbee.
Speaker 2: I'm the owner of the property, so I filled out the card for any questions that you may have. Could you introduce yourself? Reed Goolsby I live at 2440 Mead Street in Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. And next up, we have Jesse Paris.
Speaker 11: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Pearce. I am representing four Black Star Action Women for Self-defense in Denver Homicide Law, and I'm also a At-Large candidate for office in 2019. This neighborhood, West Highland, is undergoing rapid gentrification. Like many areas of the city continue gentrification in the already heavy Lee gentrified area. On this Indigenous Peoples Day, where we are denouncing colonialism and colonialists like Christopher Columbus, you want to allow colonialism in indigenous neighborhoods, in areas of the city in the midst of a housing crisis. You want to change the urban single unit to mix youth who will occupy this reason property and what is the army level? That is my question. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to ask the applicant what your plans are to do with the property. If you can come to the microphone, please.
Speaker 2: So I initially worked with the West Highlands Neighborhood Association to kind of get an idea or feel for what, you know, the people in the neighborhood would like to see there. It's been vacant as far as I remember. I've been in the neighborhood since 2005 and it's been one of the few remaining rundown properties left in the neighborhood, actually vacant for the last three years. But we've kind of been back and forth a few times. And what we have proposed and kind of come to an agreement on with the West Highlands Neighborhood Association was a mixed use building of first floor retail, second floor office space. With that will also meet the parking requirements that come along with that.
Speaker 7: So not utilizing the existing structure but correct.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the existing structures is beyond repair at.
Speaker 7: This point and it's very small.
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 874 is closed comments by members of Council and Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Well, no, I just obviously this is the exact right zoning for this context and you don't get any more minimal mixed use zone district in single family residential neighborhood. I'm also comforted by the fact that text amendments to the Amsterdam text message to ex help with some form issues that we had previously and the Urban Townhouse Text Amendment also would help if that option were pursued. So it is I am more comforted by this base zone district today than I would have been three years ago. That's okay. But that I'll be voting to support things.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: I. Brooks, i Flynn, i Gilmore, i Herndon, i Cashman. I can teach Lopez.
Speaker 1: I knew Ortega, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am. I'm secretary. Please close voting announced the results 11 times. 11 I is accountable. 874 has.
Speaker 6: Passed.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3600 West 29th Avenue in West Highland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3600 West 29th Avenue from U-SU-C to U-MX-2x (urban, single-unit, to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-21-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10082018_18-0877
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Brooks, would you please put Council Bill 877 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yemen's president moved the council bill 877 to be placed for funding consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 877 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Hello again, Brandon Shaver from CPD. This time we have an official map amendment application 2017 i00171 this free zones property from 5124 to 5136 West 41st Avenue this time from U.S. U.S. one to UMC two x. This item was also at Planet Planning Board on August 1st, where it was voted unanimously in favor to move forward. Again, we're in Council District one, this time in the Berkeley neighborhood. Zooming in closer to the site, we are at the edge of the city. This is the southeast corner of 41st Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard. And to the west, we have the city of Wheat Ridge in Jefferson County. The request here is the same urban neighborhood context mixed use two story max with limited building forms and uses because of that little access going through the context here, the zoning is see kind of a sea of us. You see one, two, all sides of it except for the Jefferson County side to the west. And then there is an insect on the right which shows the mixed use that does occur on both 38th and 44th Avenue. And we'll get more into that in a bit. The land use at the site is coming up as mixed use. It is currently three residential units and a retail storefront. It is adjacent to single family dwellings, duplexes and the city of Wheat Ridge. Here is an aerial shot to give you a sense of the building, form and scale. This is a building that was constructed in the early 1900s and definitely fits that kind of shopfront embedded commercial look. And a couple of pictures of the site starting at the top left. You can see the retail store front and the three residential units that are next to it, going to the bottom left. This is the view of the structure as you travel north on Sheridan Boulevard. And then the pictures on the right just show a kind of a little bit of what the residential character is over there. And then again, pulling out the inset map, looking at 33rd and or 38th and 44th Avenues, rather. You can see that this kind of pattern and of embedded commercial exists there as well. The process here, we have received two letters, both being from the Berkeley Regis United Neighbors Incorporation. The first was received before planning board and it was a letter of opposition. They have since rescinded that letter and are now in support of this rezoning. Same criteria here. First, consistency with adopted plans. We have the same two plans apply to this area comp plan and blueprint. Here are those strategies from comp plan that are further detailed in the staff report, mainly talking about environmental sustainability, land use, mobility and economic activity with the neighborhoods and moving to blueprint the same land use concept is here we have single family, residential and an area of stability and the future street classifications have shared in as a residential arterial and 41st Avenue as an UN designated local street. So staff feels that this rezoning will result in the uniform application of the UMTS to U.S. Zone District and will again further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. This application for justifying circumstances also known as changed or changing conditions in a particular area. There are also a number of new residential units in this area, particularly along Tennyson Street, which is just to the east, as well as a lot of reinvestment in the housing stock that is currently existing. And lastly, for consistency with neighborhood context, this area is very urban in nature and the zone district purpose and intent. Again, the um, access to X is mainly for these embedded commercial uses that are within neighborhoods. Again. CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Happy to answer questions in the applicant as president as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have two individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. So if you signed up for this item, if you could make your way to this front bench. First up, we have Jason Lewis.
Speaker 2: Jason Lewis. I reside at 4383 Vrain and I'm here to answer any questions that counsel might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 11: That's the Paris Black Star action movie of self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud, now large candidate for 2019. I had two questions. What was the am I level for these properties on Tennyson? So keep hearing that this area is building housing. I want to know what the amount level is. It still seems like this is gentrification in a already rapidly gentrified area. And also, what is going to be the use of this mixed use? What it's going to be here as commercial is going to be residential. What is this? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I just wanted to ask the applicant what you plan to do with the property, if you don't mind just sharing with us what you're. What you hope to do with it. And if you're planning to use the structure or just build a whole new development.
Speaker 2: Yes, we're actually leaving the current structure and it's in its current state. Right now it has single use zoning, but the prior use was originally commercial and over the years it's just been overlaid with the surrounding single use. So we wanted to bring the the zoning up to what the current use of the building has been in the past, which is mixed use. It currently has one commercial and three residential units in it. We're looking to essentially upgrade the building. We've put a $90,000 energy efficient roof on it and we're looking to do some exterior upgrades. We've re paved the driveway and made some improvements and we're just looking to overall improve it. But before we do that, we'd just like to make sure the zoning matches the use.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 877 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: So this one, I'll just admit this was a little bit awkward for me because I didn't in fact have ex parte communications with all sides regarding this property. But it is. But I had not made a decision prior to the public hearing, and I also communicated that to both parties that I would that I wasn't making a decision. That said, this is very, very similar to my comments on the prior rezoning, which is when you're embedded in a business district in a or a business function, in a in a in a single family, two sort of district, the two X is the appropriate zoned commercial mixed use zoned district. So with that, I will be in support.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And I'll just add that I think Stafford the presentation and showing that it clearly meets the criteria for rezoning. I also be supporting this. Madam Secretary, Raquel Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Hi Brooks I. Flynn I Gilmore I. Herndon High. Cashman High. Can each Lopez.
Speaker 1: I knew Ortega.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I'm Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1109 accountable 877 has passed. Councilman Brooks, will you please vote council bill 886 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5124, 5128, 5132 & 5136 West 41st Avenue in Berkeley.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 5124, 5128, 5132, and 5136 West 41st Avenue from U-SU-C1 to U-MX-2x (urban, single-unit, to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-21-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.