meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_10082018_18-0886
|
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.
Speaker 9: I thank you, Ms.. President. I move the council bill 866, eight, eight six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 886 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Yes. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the city council. I mean, it's just Matthew Stoiber with community planning and development. I'm just trying to get the slide show up here. And yes, this is a proposed zoning code, text amendment, text amendment number two to the Denver zoning code, which would remove the word colors from the definition of sign. And it's also a correction regarding one storey porch encroachment as a result of the made this your slot home text amendment. So I'll just briefly go over the purpose of the amendment summary of the changes review of the public engagement process. I'll go through the review criteria and the staff recommendation at the end. The purpose of the amendment is the clarification of what constitutes sign for purposes of zoning regulation, and then also a correction of a code drafting error that may cause confusion regarding permitted setback encroachments for one storey porches and similar features. I'll take the first part of the amendment first. The current definition of sign in the Denver zoning code. It's it's rather lengthy, but it's basically a device or object that advertises by any means, including words, letters, fixture figures, colors, designs, symbols, fixtures, motion, illumination or projected images. So let's take a look at that word colors. What does that mean? This is a question that our reviewers are faced with in community planning and development. The gas station canopy, if there's just a red band on the gas station canopy or a green band, depending on the gas station, is that a sign in and of itself ? Obviously, that Conoco is a sign. But what about just that red band? What about the beige color that is used in corporate architecture, franchise architecture such as the Olive Garden restaurant? What about the public storage facility, which has orange doors and they've actually trademarked that color orange on their door? Are they each are each of those individual doors a sign? Again. From that definition I just read you signs are words, images, designs, etc. that advertise colors was included in the definition of sign as part of the 1971 sign code update. And certainly colors are part of sign designs, but zoning historically has not considered color alone. To be a sign and sign committing sign permitting by staff regarding color has not been applied consistently. Exterior colors are not limited by zoning. Sometimes design guidelines may give guidance regarding color. These are not in the zoning code and this will not be changed by the zoning amendment and would continue to apply. So how did how did we get here tonight? There were questions raised recently by the Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association regarding if color the use of color alone on a building should be regulated as a sign. And again, as I mentioned, regulating color alone as signage is not consistent with historic press practice among staff. So as a result of this question from from the Petroleum Marketers Association and others, the zoning administrator issued a determination or an interpretation of the zoning code in November of last year that would have limited colors as signs to trademark or trade dress. However, the Board of Adjustment overturned this interpretation in May of this year. The effect of this Board of Adjustment decision is back where we started, which is that color as a sign is not limited to trademark. As a result of this, there's a lack of policy direction and a need for clarity and consistency in regulation. The question keeps still still comes up is color alone a sign? And so that is what has led us to this amendment. The amended definition of sign will read the same as before, but the word colors would be stricken from the amendment. I would, however, note that the definition says by any means, including so this is a non-exclusive list of what constitutes a sign, and this still gives staff some flexibility in determining what exactly is a sign. However, it will it would give us some clear direction, I think, and the questions I raised earlier. So these are examples that I pointed to earlier of building colors that would not be considered signs post amendment, the public storage orange doors. So those I think there's 16 or so orange doors. Those are not 16 signs. The sign that says public storage is still a sign, of course, and colors that are used in franchise architecture, for example, these colored shapes on the on the facade of the Taco Bell restaurant would not be considered signs. Of course, the Taco Bell logo and the bell itself is still a sign. So what's the impact of this? Practically speaking, it will reduce ambiguity and the possibility for subjective code. Administration and enforcement among staff. Staff will be able to enforce this consistently and there will be no difference on the ground. What's a sign and how signs are regulated will continue consistent with the typical I wouldn't say exclusive practice, but typical practice since 1971. I just want to recap some questions we received at the alumni committee hearing regarding future steps in the sign code that were raised at that at that hearing. So the city is planning to undertake a bundle of sign focused text amendments to ensure efficient and legal code administration. The kickoff to this bundle will begin early next year, and CPD will host stakeholder meetings to gather public input on this. The bundle process typically takes 9 to 12 months. The city also intends a larger scale effort to rethink and update this update to sign code within the next few years. The second part of this text amendment will maintain historical levels and allowances for porches and similar features to encroach that. Encroach into primary. Minimum. Primary. Street setbacks. It will correct a code drafting error that was adopted in the May 2018 slot Home Text Amendment that can cause confusion among reviewers regarding setback encroachment for one storey porches and similar features in some zone districts. What this amendment would do would return the relevant porch encroachment text to the pre slot Home Amendment state to fix this drafting error that appears to allow setback encroachments for multistory porches but not one storey porches in some zone districts. And it will maintain the intended new allowance for one storey porches to encroach into the increased side interior setbacks when using the new townhouse building form. It will also standardize formatting and terminology used for the allowed porch encroachments. Just want to summarize the public engagement process for you. We took this question about the color assigned to the ANC zoning committee in June. A red line draft of the amendment was posted to the CPD website and informational notice was sent to RINOs in July. We had a public hearing and planning board on July 16th and the I'm sorry, July 18th and then a public hearing on the 1st of August. Prom planning board recommended approval. Again, we had a committee meeting at Luti on the 21st and I talked already about the question that came up about the sign code update. There was also a question that was raised about consistency with small area plans, which I'll cover in the next slide. And then you can see the rest of the public engagement process there. So the review criteria, which is covered in detail in your staff report, includes consistency with adopted plans and policies. So I'm not advancing. Here we go. Can't plan 2000. It should be flexible and accommodating of land use needs, supportive of the city's economic strengths and can be fairly administered and enforced, encourages positive change in diversity and development consistent with character of surrounding neighborhoods and applies appropriate controls and assented incentives and encourages porches. These are all recommendations out of current Plan 2000, which the proposal is consistent with. Blueprint Denver 2002. The amendment is consistent with recommendations regarding signs in commercial areas. It's consistent with recommendations for language amendments and areas of stability. And it's consistent with recommendations that encouraged front porches. Again, I mentioned that there was a question at Liberty regarding is it consistent with adopted small area plans as well as the citywide plan. So we looked and this is summarized in your staff report, we looked at all adopted small area, neighborhood station area plans that were adopted as part of comp plan 2000 and any that were adopted sense for references to sign color and these citations are included in the staff report. Removing the word colors from the definition of sign is not incompatible with the direction in these small area small area plans that science should be compatible with and enhance the character of their surroundings . And although it's not technically part of your review review criteria, I just wanted to also mention we looked at the draft Denver Right. Plans, commercial signage is not specifically addressed. So that is to say that the amendment would not be in conflict with the proposed draft. Denver Right plans. Other review criteria including include furthering public health, safety and welfare. So this amendment would provide clarity and predictability and zoning regulations would implement adopted plans through regulatory changes. And then another review criteria is that it results in regulations that are uniform within each zone districts. So regulations that are uniform in application to buildings and land uses within each zone district to help ensure the consistency of zoning regulations and to improve the ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. So the staff recommendation is based on the review criteria that I've just outlined. Four Text Amendments stated in Denver Zoning Code Section 12 .4. 11 Staff Recommends Approval of Text Amendment number two to the Denver Zoning Code. Are there any questions?
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this item, ask if you please come to the front bench so that we can get through everyone quickly. I'll call your names. Please step up to the podium and then your time will start to elapse. First up, and I do apologize if I get your name wrong career Bailey.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Greer Bailey. I serve as the executive director of the Petroleum Marketers Association. I live in Denver in University Hills. I just wanted to briefly thank the extensive work that Director Axelrod and her staff have done over the last year, working with collaboratively work with the industry in order to just provide some regulatory clarity for our station owners as they try to improve their businesses in the city. So that's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 11: Good evening. Jesse Paris Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud in large candidate for 2019. I approve this. I don't see no issue with this. I would like to get some more detail on what this all entails, but from the current presentations I've heard, it makes sense. So I'm approving now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Richard.
Speaker 2: Kieran. Good evening. My name is Richard Kieran. Last name again. I am a general contractor. I am one of the owners of Ktc, General Contracting, working with the gas station owners. And I am in favor of this Tex amendment change. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer for them.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Show Horse.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Jon Snow Horse. And be a.
Speaker 0: Friend of the agenda. I'm going to pass. All right. And Jeff Sussman. I'm Jeff.
Speaker 2: Sussman. I reside at 1391 Elk View Road in Larkspur, but I'm with Juneau Services Company. We're a 50 year old family business here in Denver, and I'm here in support of the amendment. I won't take any more of your time, but I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Matt Or Abe, maybe you could address this in the presentation. Matt I think you said that that the definition of sign, although we're removing color, the definition of sign characteristics is non-exclusive and that the department would still have flexibility to take color into consideration even though we're removing it as as a specific cited item. Is that is that the case?
Speaker 10: Yes, sir, that is the case.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. My question is, can did the department envision any particular circumstance where color would now come into play after all the examples of where it does not?
Speaker 10: We have discussed this and we can't think of anything where it would come into play. Certainly we recognize that color is part of a assign a can be part of a sign or part of a logo, but we can't think of any instance where that would apply.
Speaker 2: Okay. But we still have a flexibility in case the unimaginable.
Speaker 10: Right. I think if if the end of the question was really focused on is can color alone be a sign and we can't think of an example, but it's possible. And if that comes up, then we do I think we do have the flexibility to say this is something that advertises that uses a design or something else , and it could be considered a sign in this case, but I think it would be very narrowly focused.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And I also want to compliment you in the staff report for using the SIC as ERATO script on when you in the staff report when the one of the Evans station area plan misused the word complement and should have been complement. It's a it's a rare eye and an old editor that would pick that up. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. I was going to mention that same exact thing, but you took the words out of my mouth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Matt, first off, I want to say hello. It's been a very long time. Matt and I worked on the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan many, many, many moons ago. So welcome back to the city. Thank you. The question I have is, was there a conversation about, you know, you know, one of the things we've done historically and we sort of got away from but we still do it on transparency is quantify areas. Was there any conversation about saying well if it is a primary color in a in a sign that it would be limited in its application on the structure by a certain percentage?
Speaker 10: We didn't have that question about quantifying. I think we looked at I think the public storage is a good example of a of a building that if we were to apply this strictly, that each of those doors would be a sign and that the issue, I think then becomes some of these facilities are well in excess of the permitted number of signs if if we count each of these strictly. So I think that was a consideration. I think and I'm not trying to dodge your question, but we didn't discuss it specifically. I think the other example I would point out is that there are so many, particularly gas stations that have this color banding on their canopy that have just been permitted throughout the years. And and it was never applied that strictly to those particular businesses. So it was an attempt to be sort of consistent with what's existing out there already.
Speaker 5: That's actually why I asked, because there's this thing was being presented. I just kept thinking, you know, gas stations have been sort of the NASCAR of our building for us. Like you can tell which one is the the Texaco versus the Shell versus the Sinclair by whether it's white, yellow or black or red. Sorry. Mm hmm. And they've always done that. Where the the the projection was one thing in the building was a different color. And it would have been consistent with our sort of historic use of awnings. We always did an accent color, you know, typically on a you have building facade and then accent. And so I think we could have articulated that awnings and a limited portion of the building can sort of have a logo in because this is this this was the primary question in the in the stadium issue. Right. It's one thing to label a building the Sports Authority field. You could do that in white letters and it would say the same thing. But why you go after the red is because that's the branding and and in I don't know if we're solving one city do you are you not is is the city satisfied that we're not solving. Or this sort of, you know, historic sort of unique deviation and not opening ourselves up to something else. And Ari, is the city at all concerned when I see something like the public storage example that you showed? Mm hmm. All that does is scream empty building. And where we put those buildings and we brand that thing, and then we put red doors, orange doors or green doors behind a glass facade. It just says, no one's here, and that's not allowed before.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 10: So I don't I don't think we thought of that specifically with this. I think that I think we did have discussions. I think it was very it was unclear. So, first of all, I would say, again, that the zoning administrator did attempt to draw an interpretation of this last year that would have limited it to trademark and trade dress that would have applied to something like public storage. But again, the board overturned that. So we were left without the clarity of direction. I think that when we look at something like a gas station canopy, when and a gas station canopy has four sides, but it may have many more because it may have two canopies join together. So then we had a discussion among ourselves. Well, if you're saying each of those is a sign, how many is that? Is that one for each sign or one for each side of the canopy? What if the size of the canopy is articulated now? Do you have eight signs or 16 signs? And it just became sort of it's, I think pointed out that it was very difficult for us to interpret to interpret that consistently. What we could say is if somebody is using a logo or a design, you know, a swoosh or something like that, that's that's a design that we could say that was a sign. But just saying a green band that's in itself is not would not.
Speaker 5: Be a sign. Interesting. The two items, the porch and the sign come up together, because I do think that we're able to discern what is a porch encroachment and what isn't and what makes a porch versus what differentiates a porch from a building or a porch from a sign. I think we could probably make that same distinction on an awning, a canopy for, you know, over pops. And so maybe that's probably going to be like that one. No vote planning board, just the sort of dissenting vote, because I do think that there's probably something there's probably an exception here we need to look at. Okay. Worry about the one size fits all approach, the nature of sort of the unintended consequences of this. Thanks. Sure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, you made a very nice job tonight. I don't want to prolong this very much, but what do you consider the golden arches?
Speaker 10: I think the golden arches because they are a design. There's a design element to that. I think they would be considered they could be considered design.
Speaker 2: So for so you don't need to have the word McDonald's on that golden arches to say that's right.
Speaker 10: Or the target bullseye doesn't have the word target on it, but it is a color and a design, so it is a sign.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Councilman knew and it was an 8 to 1 vote at planning board. That's correct. Can you just speak a little bit to the no vote at the no.
Speaker 10: Vote was from, uh, Commissioner Schulz. And let me just look at my notes here.
Speaker 5: That's a rookie.
Speaker 10: Um, pardon me. I just just summarize the discussion. They had some of the questions, same questions that came up today. If if a color design could still be considered a sign, the answer was yes. I will I will say I'm not entirely clear for the reason for Commissioner Schultz's no vote. He did participate in that discussion. And I think he had some questions about the I think he felt that the the branding the ability of the Petroleum Marketing Association to brand the gas stations was was already very strong. I don't want to take the words. I don't want to take it out of context. I was unclear on the reason for the no vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions at the public hearing for comfortable eight six is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I really explain that analogy of the NASCAR of the of our building forms. And why that matters to me is that if all the NASCAR's going around the oval were were the same color and it just had a generic font and it branded, you know, Valvoline and and STB, I don't know. I'm going back to Richard Petty Days of Furniture Row. That's a pretty generic car actually. You know, there's a reason why they're all brightly colored is so you can identify, you know, where your driver is. And the same thing with horse jockeys, they all were different colored kits. So that, again, they can be identified near and far. And in the case I get, why are our fill filling stations have gone that route? They're all vying for convenience dollars and gas dollars and and some cases liquor dollars. The real problem for me is that these these these facilities do the nature of sort of contamination in soils to failed on underground storage tanks, you know is that they end up being sort of permanent fixtures or very difficult to dispose of a remove once they're there life, you know, the leases up in the franchise is gone . I don't understand the the business. I just know that they sit there when they're when they're contaminated, when they when there's monitoring wells all over the place and when things are spotted and plumes are discovered, no one wants to invest in that land and clean that up. And and so we're to to sort of make it I get why we would want to accommodate the need for something reasonable for the purposes of doing your business. But at the same time, they're not necessarily the greatest neighbors. They have very few agendas with those operators. They have 24 hour facilities. In some cases. I have light leakage with those facilities. And yeah, if it's a modern facility we can address these things. But if it's a historic facility and you're just doing a re skinning of that, a rebranding of that facility, you know, we're doing you a favor by giving you some clarity and saying, hey, plaster our neighborhood with your your logos and your colors and maybe you'll do some other additional things to sort of, you know, pick up. But I have seven elevens that have operators where guys go in with after gunshots and don't call 911. And, you know, and those gas pumps, they don't go you know, they're hard to get rid of because there are fewer and fewer in here and they're more and more lucrative when you get them. And so this is this is my struggle with this specific this specific nature of this ask is one that I think we could come with a specific answer to for this industry. And what we're doing is we're we're trying to do legitimate clean up on any sort of confusion. But I think what it does is it it it creates an interesting caveat that I think other industries might might pick up on. And I and so with that, I'll be voting. No, thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. See nobody else in the queue. I just want to say thank you for all your work on this. You know, I think that this is a common sense fix to a problem that when people look at it and say painting that door a color is not a sign and leads to 15 signs and a violation of the number of signs. So I appreciate all the hard work that when you dig into it, it gets more complicated than it looks like. It should be at face value and takes a long time. And I appreciate your staff putting so much time and effort into it and I am happy to support this tonight . Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. No. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can teach. Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 1: Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close voting in those results. Are we missing somebody?
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Had Ten eyes one day.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes one day accountable. Eight, eight, six has passed. Seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 1: How does what you do play into the whole wind energy story?
Speaker 2: Well, very important part of wind energy prediction is trying to tell the folks who run the electrical system when the wind is going to blow so they could take advantage of it. You have to blend wind in with all of the other.
Speaker 10: Power generation sources like coal and natural gas.
Speaker 1: So what about a regular weather prediction? Is that.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to improve clarity and usability.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to clarify what constitutes a “sign” for purposes of zoning regulation and correct a code drafting error that may cause confusion regarding permitted setback encroachments for one-story porches and similar features. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-21-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10012018_18-1090
|
Speaker 0: Then the new Madame Secretary. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. See no other announcements. We're going to move on. There are no presentations and there are no communications. We do have two proclamations this evening and we're going to do it a little bit different. We're going to do these two proclamations in a block because they're brought forward. They're internal and very close to home for us with a couple of our longtime staff members who have given so much to this body and to the city. And so we're going to bring them forward as a body. And Councilwoman Sussman is going to be the voice of the body to bring this forward. And we're going to vote on them in a block instead of separately. So, Councilwoman Sussman, could you read Proclamation 1090 and 1091?
Speaker 5: It is my pleasure, Mr. President. Thank you. The first one is celebrating and thanking Kelly Velez for 33 years of outstanding service to the city and county of Denver. Whereas Kelly has announced her retirement from city and county of Denver after 18 years with city council and 33 years total of loyal and dedicated service. And. Whereas, Kelly began her distinguished career with Denver City Council in 2000 as Council Secretary, organizing and overseeing procedures in council meetings, correcting and assisting council members with motions, tallying and verifying votes, and often staying late in the night as council members in the public debated legislation in over 800 council meetings, Kelly is well known across the city for her quick speaking skills, reading all the bill titles into the record. And. Whereas, Kelly is known for her professional and institutional knowledge of city government training new council presidents every year or every other year incoming council members, central staff, executive directors and aides. And. Whereas, Kelly was the go to person for the Sayers system. And now and then GRANICUS, which are the technology systems that manage council and committee meetings. And. Whereas, Kelly is famous for her creativity best exhibited exhibited in diverse training, she designs for council members and staff making council members comfortable performing from the dies during council meetings through prizes, noisemakers and jokes, softening the mood and relaxing everyone so they don't take themselves too seriously. And. Whereas, Kelly is black belt trained and certified in lean business processes and had contributed many innovations to the Denver City Council, making the body's operations more efficient, she was instrumental in revamping the legislative workflow process and consent calendar. And. WHEREAS, Kelly makes every person and every issue the most important when brought to her attention, dropping everything she is doing to listen to a request from a council member, staff member, or a member of the public in person or over the phone and immediately addresses it. If she doesn't know the answers, she researches it and provides it through information, anticipating the next question and answering it without even being asked. And. Whereas, Kelly coordinated the Denver Employees Charitable Campaign for City Council, inspiring employees to donate part of their salary to charities and worthy causes. And due to Kelly's organization, Advertising and Engagement Efforts, City Council exhibits one of the highest percentages participation in the campaign and raises the most money and has inspired other coordinators and other departments to replicate Kelly's best practices on how to make campaigns more effective. And. Whereas, Kelly proudly shares the talents of her grandsons, Isaac and Jessie, who excel in soccer and music, Kelly taught Jesse to play the fiddle, and he has become a national success. Winning small fry competitions at the National Western Stock Show and the National Old Time Fiddlers Contest and Festival in 2016, one of the top fiddler competitions in the world. And. Whereas, Kelly takes pride in her work and is committed to providing high quality and all that she does, Kelly's work ethic, commitment, organization and energy for her job are unparalleled and unmatched by anyone when training employees to cover for her during council meeting, Kelly advises, If you mess up or the system doesn't work , just smile. And. Whereas, Kelly was a willing mentor to new staff, a repository of council, history records and institutional knowledge for colleagues, and an inspiration to others to be kind solely by example. Kelly was is a true joy to work with as a colleague or in any interaction, and now therefore be a proclaimed by the council, the city and county of Denver. That Section one the Council hereby recognizes and thanks, Kelly Velez, for her 33 years of service to the city and wishes her a wonderful retirement in 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 a copy be delivered to Kelly Velez. And in addition to losing Kelly to retirement, we are also losing longtime colleague Shelley Smith.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating and thanking Kelly Velez for 33 years of outstanding service to the City and County of Denver upon her retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10012018_18-0979
|
Speaker 11: Good evening, Mr. President, members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins and I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority here this evening requesting City Council consideration of an amendment to the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. In August of 2017, City Council approved the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. And with your permission, I'm going to refer to it as Emily Griffith instead of the entire name through this, through the rest of the presentation establishing the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Area. The area is comprised of approximately two and a half acres and is located in downtown Denver's cultural core, as defined in the 2007 downtown Denver area plan. The area is generally bounded by Welton Street to the northwest, 13th street to the northeast, Glenarm place to the southeast and 12th street to the southwest. The site is located in Council District nine in approving the plan. City Council found it to be in conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 and its applicable supplements. While the plan authorized tax increment financing, it did not approve the use of TIFF for any projects. The Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. This evening it will do two things. It will approve the Emily Griffith Project as an approved project, and it will also amend the plan to correctly reflect the blight factors established in the condition study underlying the creation of the plan. The Urban Redevelopment area was occupied previously by the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, a Denver public school for nearly 100 years prior to its closure. The school was expanded several times and continued to operate at this location until its programs were relocated to 1860 Lincoln Street beginning in 2013. Since relocating, the buildings have remained vacant. In May of 2016, the school was designated historic at the local level and restrictions were placed on the amount and nature of possible redevelopment. Most of the structure fronting on the Welton Street must be retained, and setbacks were established for new development to ensure that the appearance and massing of the Welton Street buildings are preserved. Any development on the site is subject to the design standards and guidelines adopted by Denver City Council with the designation and must be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. So bear with me as I try to match my comments with the numbered points on the image that is on the screen, if you would, please. So the project that we are asking you to add is an approved project, will redevelop the entire 100,000 106,400 square foot site into the following on the Welton Street side, which is here. It will rehabilitate the historic building into 140,000 square foot hotel with 250 rooms and a 6006 thousand square feet of meeting space. It will also activate the alley between Welton Street and Glenarm place by creating alley access to the hotel entrance, as well as pedestrian circulation between the convention center, the hotel and the Glenarm place facing retail. On the Glenarm place side, it will seek to convert the existing building on the South Side into a 120 stall parking structure , which will serve the entire project. Convert the Northside buildings to 37,500 square feet of retail and office space, as well as demolish a portion of the mid-block buildings on again on the Glenarm place side to create access to micro retailer space and complete the pedestrian access from Glenarm place through the hotel to the convention center. The Urban Redevelopment Plan. While it authorizes Doura to finance projects within the area by use of tax increment, it again did not allow us to use the tip unless a project was specifically approved by council. So again, we are asking for the use of the increment to support that project. Dura staff has reviewed the development budgets and pro forma submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap in the project of approximately $21.8 million. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through property tax and sales tax increment generated from the tax increment area, which is also coterminous with the urban redevelopment area . The property tax and sales tax increment generated by the project of approximately $2.2 million per year upon stabilization and $350,000 per year of property tax and sales tax respectively will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. In approving the Emily Griffith plan, city Council found the plan to be in conformance with the Denver comp plan and its applicable supplements. Accordingly, any amendment to the plan must continue to be in conformance with the plan objectives in order to maintain the continuing conformance with comp plan 2000. The general objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions and to stimulate the continued growth and development of the area. The proposed project meets the following objectives of the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Plan. And in the interests of time, I would prefer not to read each and every one of these, but instead to summarize by saying that they really seek to advance the historic preservation of the buildings and provide for increased activity in this very unique portion of downtown that is proximate to the convention center as well as to the 16th Street Mall. In doing so, draw upon the current conditions that are there so as not to disrupt those efforts while still again bringing new life into the area to encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate, including structured parking, encourage the participation of existing property owners within the area. This entire block is owned by the same development entity and to again really encourage land use patterns within the redevelopment area that will allow for pedestrians to feel safe and welcome. This amendment to the Emily Griffith plan invokes the requirement that before city council can approve a new urban renewal plan or an amendment to an existing plan . You must find that an agreement has been entered into between Dura and the affected taxing districts in regard to the allocation of property tax increment to the project. There are two other property taxing districts, those being Denver Public Schools and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Both taxing entities were notified of the proposed amendment to the plan to add the Emily Griffith Project. Following that notification, both entities evaluated the impact the project would have on their ability to deliver services and determined that the Emily Griffith project would have minimal service impacts and have agreed to allow the full available amount of property tax increment generated by their respective mill levies to be allocated to the project. As I noted at the beginning of my presentation, the amendment also corrects an error that was included in the original urban redevelopment plan. The condition study or blight study that was made a record of the public hearing, as well as my testimony correctly noted the factors of blight. But the actual text in the plan was incorrect. And so we are replacing the the deterioration of site or other improvements that was listed in the original plan is approved with the correct reference to but not predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. There are several other required legislative findings that must be made by City Council in order for us to amend the Urban Redevelopment Plan. That those would include that the Emily Griffith Project is located within the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Area and will promote the objectives set forth in the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment Plan that a feasible method exists for relocation of displaced individuals and families and business concerns. The project area is vacant. There are no residents. Therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. And additionally, again, due to the vacancy of the site, no business concerns will be displaced by the project. A requirement that written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the urban redevelopment area. In the resolution setting this public hearing, City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the Emily Griffith Urban Redevelopment area on August 27th of 2018, which is at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. State statute requires that no more than 120 days shall have passed since the first public hearing excuse me before City Council on the Plan Amendment. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this Urban Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Statute also requires that two years must elapse before council can consider an urban redevelopment plan amendment. If you previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan amendment for this project, as this is the first consideration by City Council of an amendment for this project, the 24 month period is not applicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan on September 5th of 2017. The and I apologize. On September 5th of 2018, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the proposed amendment to the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to the Denver comprehensive plan and applicable supplements. And a letter to that effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. And I also placed a copy of that correspondence at each of your seats this evening, and door is requesting that City Council concur with the finding of planning board the Emily Griffith. The Urban Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the proposed amendment, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Emily Griffith area by private enterprise. The project will be undertaken by Stonebridge Companies, the property's current owner, which is a private enterprise. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan. And an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. As I mentioned previously, those agreements are in place between Dura and DPS and Dura and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And finally that the city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Emily Griffith Project area for the period during which the incremental property and sales taxes are paid to the authority. And the Urban Redevelopment Plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements in city services should they arise. So as I mentioned at the at the council committee briefing, it has been a fairly long process for us to finally get to a point where we are able to bring this plan amendment forward. Part of that process did include the historic designation of the buildings, which we all believe were were completely appropriate and will really maintain the historic character of these buildings. In addition, the developer first approached ERA for just a portion of the site that would have redeveloped just the the Welton side. Upon further conversation, they saw the value in it in putting forward a plan that will redevelop the entirety of the block, which we hope you concur is really a huge benefit for, again, this very unique portion of downtown to not only save these historic buildings, bring them back into productive use, but also through adaptive reuse of a number of the other buildings, really redevelop the entirety of the block so that the entire urban redevelopment area has been addressed. That concludes my staff presentation and of course will be available to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this, if you could come to the front row so you can be ready. First up in the Levinsky.
Speaker 12: Good evening. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, located at 1420 Ogden Street. We're a private, nonprofit, historic preservation organization founded in 1970. And one of our organization's roles in the community is as an advocate for historic places and spaces that tell our city's story and that provide opportunities for continuity and authentic placemaking. As such, we became involved in discussion about the former Emily Griffith Opportunity School back in 2012, when DPS made the decision to move the school function to the building at 19th and Lincoln and then to eventually sell the old site, which interestingly enough, had been owned by the school system and hence the public. Since before 1882, the opportunity school, as it was first known, was the first school of its kind in the nation and is significant both for the inclusive vision and legacy of Emily Griffith, its founder and the Denver Public School System. Its architects, particularly Gordon Jamison, are recognized as important in the history of Colorado design. And for these reasons, the school had been given a Tier one historic ranking under DPS policy back in the early 2000s. And most importantly, these are the reasons the community felt strongly that critical buildings on the site should be preserved and reused. In 2014, DPS convened a sales advisory committee and representation. Representatives of our organization joined others from downtown Denver, the Mayor's Office City Council, Dora and others for a series of intensive meetings. In September of 2014, a recommendation was brought forward by that committee to move ahead with the sales process, but to do so with guiding principles that included the historical significance and historic preservation desires. Even though the site was not yet designated, the sales advisory committee also spent significant time exploring the financing tools that might be available to a future owner seeking to adaptively reuse the school building. It was apparent that preservation offered significant opportunities, including eligibility for both state and federal tax credits, which on a project of this size, can reach tens of millions of dollars. Among the other tools discussed at the time was tackling tax increment financing through Doura. Given that the site was vacant and in an area of downtown where greater development energy was desirable, and given that historic preservation is one of the benefits Dura seeks to achieve, as Tracy mentioned and their website states, preserving Denver's historic buildings has been a longstanding goal of the city, and Dora's redevelopment efforts have contributed contributed to achieving that goal. The willingness of visionary developers to reuse older buildings, combined with the financial incentives that make such redevelopment possible, have helped the city preserve its heritage for future generations to enjoy and appreciate. So I'm here tonight to bring the conversation full circle and to offer historic Denver support. Stone Bridge. As the new owners have honored the agreements and spirit of those earlier discussions, they've embraced the historic designation that now protects the site. And we've had the opportunity to review their concept and believe that it really does those things and and actually preserves even more than we originally anticipated. So we are grateful that the community has assurance that the site will remain at downtown and look forward to seeing a project that will once again demonstrate the great city's embrace the past as they look to the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 2: Amazing. Just when we got news. Six, six, six. Okay. Yes. My name is San Francisco. Found organize a black star action movement for self-defense representing poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and students. Also candidate for mayor 2019. We support this. Process. Otherwise then the approval of this amendment. Being a lifetime resident and. Going up. It's strange, but it's fair. 30 years ago, I decided that I wanted to be a floor designer. And I do floor design right here in the Griffin. And for 25 years, I had a floral company that operated in the state of Colorado from Boulder all the way to Pablo. I learned it right here. And so this has a very good memory for me in that it was a place where people could come and learn a skill. And then become contributing members of the community and actually entertain the possibility that from what we learned at Emily Griffin, we could actually begin the process of doing for ourselves and employing ourself with the education that we had. It was also a process of not going to look for no job but to create a job for ourselves that we could create jobs for other folks. So there was a ripple effect from this that you wouldn't get from any other institution. That was considered education because this was like a hands on thing for folks who want to do hands on stuff other than white papers and kick it in intellectual circles. So this one has to be preserved for the memory of those of us who grew up here, and also for the cultural continuity of letting us know that there's more than one process of education. And that can be the ones that we work with our hands and minds. And then sometimes we work with our hands in order to develop our minds so that we can have families and have occupations worthy of living and saluting everybody. And then to go to college. And so they had those kind of programs. And I'm sure that. If you wanted flowers for Valentine's Day, you wouldn't call them a button. Is it? Harry and say, hey, designs were sent for me because they couldn't do it. So it has a practical application to it and it makes all the sense in the world to do this thing because that legacy of this city and county must be preserved. And the legacy of who we are must be preserved because we're moving now into an area where a lot of what we grew up with is gone now. And that's our history. That's our culture. And so we have to have something to pass on this concrete so that especially the generations are coming up, can see the process of civilization and development that includes not only the future and the present, but the context from which how you got to where you got to. Over there on Lincoln Street. Where they now exist. And it's amazing that a lot of the students who now go to Emily Griffin over there in Lincoln City have no understanding about this building whatsoever. That one. And that's criminal. That's a shame. And so that's why this one's important. For the legacy of. Not how the West was won, but why the West is one. Which means all in E where one? And we're all here in this together. And for the unity and sake of the city, I implore you to approve this amendment. And we've been working hard at this for a long, long time. So now let's move it on forward on down the road, and I'll close with time.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 13: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I am a candidate for City Council at large 2019 and I am representative for a positive action commitment for change. Denver Homicide Loud and Black Star Action Movement and I reside at 2842 Josephine Street in Albert Brooks District. As a student of Emily Griffin Opportunity School, during my college days, a metro I attended school during the 2008 2009 season. I took two classes on web design and office mapping. My mother, who was not in attendance, also attended the school during the late 1980s and early 1990. This school is a historical landmark as of 2009, and it should be classified as such. It should not be turned into a unaffordable, non affordable 250 room hotel to house the tourists of the convention center in the west of the city. Instead of investing in 0 to 30% area minimum income, housing for low income and homeless people. So positive action commitment for change never homicidal loud and black star action movement will be opposing this measure and would ask you to redirect your priorities from tax to from tourist tax dollars to creating attainable and accessible housing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Roybal.
Speaker 10: They robot live at 742 West and I represent West Denver United candidate for District three has a lot of history. My family went to this school and one thing I got to say about the area is probably one of the parts of downtown on this side that hasn't been cleaned up. I mean, it hasn't been used. You know, there's still homeless people there. But in the area, this is one of the you know, people come out of jail, families go there to give vouchers. And it would be real good, you know, if they could go use the vouchers across at this new hotel. But hopefully we see that and we know the effects of Dura, you know, cleaning up downtown, removing people that are from here to a betterment of business. Because I had the job downtown, it's very hard being a person of color to get a job downtown. And we hope that the opportunity remains in the school, the name, the opportunities for locals, for small owned businesses. And, you know, to put it into another hotel thing, it seems like it's trying they're trying to push it to the of the art district and connect it. And that's no affordability. You know, we still have seniors that live around here. We still have residents, long time residents. And I really don't see this benefiting the residents in the long run besides the city tax. And I hope that, you know, it could go back to the schools and and it could cherish the the history that's there, you know, because that's an important name. Emily Griffith, everything she's done one of a kind schools. I hope it honors that history instead of just being another expensive downtown business that doesn't benefit the residents who live here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council or Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Is Tracy Huggins, can I get a quick question for you real quick? It has been a while since since I don't remember. What is the what is the requirement on minority construction for for these properties?
Speaker 11: Sure. And if you'll allow me, I'd like to answer that a little more broadly as well in response to some of the concerns that were raised. So any time there is tax increment part that is put into a project, there are several requirements that Dura requires of the developer. One of those is of the utilization of small business enterprises. And Dora's, unlike the city that has different goals that are set for each projects, are as is standard, with 23% of the total project budget exclusive of the acquisition cost needing to be committed to do SB enterprises as part of the construction process. In addition, there is a requirement to participate in the first source hiring process that allows for first opportunities of any jobs that are created on the in the project area to be made available first to low income Denver residents. There is also a 1% project art requirement and there is another one. Oh, there is also a requirement that 1% of the amount that we are committing to the project be paid by the developer to Doura, we then use those monies to partner with entities that are providing construction, employment, opportunity training. So we are working very actively to try to make sure that there are opportunities for for Denver residents in each of the projects that we participate in.
Speaker 6: Okay. How's your compliance on that? I mean, I know there's a lot of projects out there to to continue to keep up with that. How are you guys doing in compliance?
Speaker 11: We are doing very well in a compliance standpoint. And if I could speak more specifically to the 23% SBC requirement, we increase that level of expected participation. I want to say about two years ago, previously it had been 15%, in part because what we were realizing is that the 15% hurdle was met and then it stopped and we thought, gosh, why don't we try to see if we can go a little higher? And so most of our projects have been able to attain that 23% rate even in this challenging construction environment.
Speaker 6: Great. And if they don't meet that 23%, what happens?
Speaker 11: It can depend on how diligent they have been in addressing their outreach plan that they have put forward and approved by us. If they are meeting that plan and they just are not able to meet those requirements, but it is able is able to be demonstrated that they have made good faith efforts in doing that. There is not a financial penalty. On the other hand, if they if it is concluded that they haven't really done what they said they were going to do and trying to meet those criteria, we do have the ability to withhold the tax increment reimbursement from them.
Speaker 6: Got it. All right. Thank you. And I just have another question for the owner rep or come on up. One of the questions in a lot of these projects, we haven't seen a lot of TIFF projects with small retail components. And so, you know, I personally see that as an opportunity. I mean, this is you're getting tax. Dollars. And I want to make sure that this is an opportunity for small businesses, especially women and minority owned small businesses. In our meeting. You said that you would work to try and accomplish that. Is that is that still a part of your theme in what you're trying to work on?
Speaker 10: Yes, that's accurate.
Speaker 0: Sir, could you introduce yourself for the record first?
Speaker 10: Yes, sorry about that. My name is Tommy Negro. Stonebridge Companies Address 3291, South Magnolia and Council Councilman's Black's district. With respect to your question, Councilman Brooks, we we would love to see small owned businesses. We're not looking for chain retailers to go into our space. We are early in the process, so we haven't identified anyone specifically. I believe you suggested a group that we were not familiar with previously called Radian. We have reached out to them. We have not had any substantive conversations, but certainly open to those. And we would welcome, again, women, minority owned businesses. In fact, we would, you know, seek those out. We think that would be a fantastic I guess, tenants for our retail on the glenarm side of the the project.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you, Miss Nigro.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of my questions were answered about the first source program. I just wanted to ask Tracy if there is a deadline by which construction would need to begin in order to.
Speaker 7: Utilize the tive.
Speaker 11: Do we set deadlines or timeframes on these on these projects? There is not a deadline that we have to have the construction start. With the exception of a deadline that I am not going to be able to recall, that is in the agreements that we have with the DPS and with urban drainage, where their willingness to continue to commit the tax increment ceases if construction isn't started by a date that is several years out into the future. I apologize that I don't know that date immediately. Dora doesn't have an immediate start date, but the clock is ticking on the tax increment that was approved at the end about this time in 2017. So there is only 25 years under which the increment can be generated. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: I'm surprised to see Commander Martinez here.
Speaker 10: Hi, Commander.
Speaker 6: The. The beauty of public hearing is that. Is in this case, and it happens to me fairly. You know, often somebody says something that makes me think about something I completely missed throughout the entire process. And this one sort of scares staring me right in the face. And I don't know why this question never came up, but it sort of goes to both you, Tracy and in the property and Stonebridge. There is a history to this site and this facility in the concessions requirements. I mean, what you detailed there are sort of boilerplate requirements for Dura and suddenly I'm going, it's not enough for me to just preserve the building. The building is important, no doubt. But there's a legacy that. That culture, that entire block. And so is there anything you can tell me that gives that that sort of puts me a little bit at ease about how there's going to be an ongoing relationship between the sort of opportunity that comes with drug financing, new to financing, and the things where the level of involvement beyond the building that actually would sort of start to resonate and help move forward those those those goals of the original Emily Griffith. Everything history there, because there certainly could have been a, you know, scholarship set up a, you know, 1% for something, you know, that it never and I'm sorry, it just never occurred to me till now. But none of this none of this conversation is happening without both what happened there and then the opportunity that we created by exchanging parcels and whatnot. So can you guys give me any sort of above and beyond.
Speaker 11: So so I have some thoughts, but I would also invite the developer to, to share their thoughts as well. And part of that goes to just how the project started with our continuing relationship with Denver Public Schools, who had this the sale of this site as part of a broader agenda regarding their facilities that included the continuation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, not only at 1860 Lincoln, but also at the other location that they have more proximate to the Mariposa Denver Housing Authority development. So the legacy of Emily Griffith and the importance of there being alternative means of pursuing education has in no way been lost simply because this project is no longer you in use for that. In addition to continuing with the threat of the Denver Housing Authority, when we talk about first source, which well, it may seem boilerplate, it is so important to us in order for us to continue to have the the much more clear and direct impact on folks who may never stay at the hotel, but they may have the opportunity to work there. They may have the opportunity to work in one of the small businesses that are going to come forward, that we work really closely with the housing authority in looking to find those candidates for those positions. And part of that also, again, includes some of those more. I'm going to say vocational, educational. I'm not sure that's the right terminology component so that they are positioned to pursue a career in the culinary arts that have opportunities as you are working in in the type of businesses that are coming forward. So I recognize it isn't quite as direct as from this project. We will do something that is in absolute direct correlation with what Emily Griffith stood for and the opportunities that were presented. But I think when we take a step back, there are a number of threads that when combined together, do make sure that the fabric of what she stood for, what this facility has provided, can continue on this site.
Speaker 6: Because I would imagine the facility would ultimately end up with some sort of narrative, some sort of acknowledgment of the the architecture itself and how this sort of facility ended up coming to be that way. So it would be interesting to me if there were some sort of actual, you know, design component where people who were trained through that program actually had a sort of visible presence in the in some aspect of the finished product. And then, yeah, maybe just an acknowledgment in their own sort of employee ID if they.
Speaker 0: Were Chancellor Euston questions before it comments.
Speaker 6: It is a it's not a comment. I'm sort of really directing it to Stonebridge and saying, do you guys have any have you considered anything along those avenues which is sort of visible, you know, bringing in graduates to do some actual work, you know, in a in a very in a visible and finished way. And then if you did have higher employees sort of essentially acknowledging that they were graduates of the program.
Speaker 10: You know, it's an interesting question. It's a good question. It's not something we have specifically addressed. I would say that the I think the idea and the spirit of what you're saying is, is a central value of our company, not just for this project, but for every project we do. And maybe going on a slight tangent as a company, we're very strong supporters of Metro State University and specifically the hospitality school there. I wish Nevin Demand and his wife Rita were here to speak to it, but they've contributed over $1,000,000 to start a fellowship program there, and we actively hire those students to work for our company long term. We are a local firm, long term holders of real estate here in Denver and throughout the state of Colorado. In addition to supporting Metro State and and bringing a lot of really first time college students into the company, we do have a very active, I guess, trying to blank on the word right now, but growth program to bring individuals from, you know, you know, kind of entry level positions up into management. And that was actually just featured, I think about three weeks ago on on Channel seven News. So maybe a little bit different than what you were asking about specific to Emily Griffith. But it's an interesting idea. And I will say just personally, as we've worked on this project, it's amazing to me, especially almost anyone who is a native, you know, Denver, right? Almost every single person has a family member or some story about an individual that that gained their education there and that that's really meaningful to us. So it's something I would certainly take away and and see if there's something that we can can do. But but we certainly want to honor the legacy of Emily Griffith. And it's what really attracted us to the project to begin with.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you for that. Knowing that you guys have a altruistic component to your business model. You know, I'm glad that we even had this little bit of discussion. Hopefully it's a little nugget kernel of thought that might permeate as you move forward. Thanks.
Speaker 10: Certainly. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Quinn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President, for Tracy and Annie. I think either of you, in looking at the renderings and the comparative pictures, it strikes me that maybe it's just the way the renderings turned out. But it looks like there's significant exterior modifications to the windows and to the entryway there. And I'm wondering if that's so.
Speaker 11: So, Councilman, you'll notice that those renderings were not part of the public hearing presentation tonight for exactly that reason. When I presented to Council Committee, I tried very hard to call out that those were just for illustrative purposes to try to show the reactivation. And in fact, those exterior treatments were not part of what had been approved previously. And so there is work that has continued since the time that those renderings were provided to be able to address the concerns that had been raised by by the historic community.
Speaker 2: Okay. I was going through the one that was in our system while you were speaking.
Speaker 12: Sure, yeah. We had the opportunity to meet with Stonebridge and discuss those and we gave feedback around the entryway and the window changes. And then when the landmark commission did their initial form and match review, they did conditionally approve it, but not those elements. So there is still work to be done on the specific design features. One of our comments was around really maintaining as part of the story of the building, those up the doorways that say opportunity, for example, in that location. So I know there is still work to be done on the details, but the general concept has been approved by the Commission.
Speaker 2: Okay. And refresh my memory, because the map on the city website, the mapping function is not working. The last day and a half or so, at least for me, is the Glenarm Street side also landmarked? My recollection is that it was not.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that is correct. The well it's all considered part of them like Griffiths designation, but there were non contributing, contributing buildings identified within that. And so the contributing structures are in what's labeled in the designation as the area to be preserved. And then the glen our buildings were the area that did not, were not required to be preserved. We're actually excited that they will be anyway, but they are not part of the required preservation area.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman flynn. Seeing no other question. The public hearing from council bill 979 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Hey, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President, this has been a long time coming. Matter of fact, when the issue with Emily Griffith moving and the opportunity for a redevelopment popped up, I think it was even before this council, this current council was seated and I had the opportunity to sit on a community group and deal with all the issues coming around. Emily Griffith I'm excited to say that preservation and revitalization can coexist, and I think this is another example of it coexisting. I think the preservation community. I think folks who are part of the downtown of a partnership all came together and agreed on a way forward. And that way forward set the stage for this night and this development that's coming forth. You know, I want to say that when we any time when we approve tax increment financing, there's always and people should should know that this is the question that is coming out of many of our. I'll just speak for myself out of my mind is. You're you're you're you're using public funds to develop this project. What is the public benefit? What's the good? And so the public good in this is that we preserves not only the legacy of Emily Griffith, but the building. And and and that was incredible and a very important piece for a lot of folks in my in my district. And I always tell people that if you preserve the building and not the culture, you know, what have you done? And so it's so important that we think about the culture. And I got to tell you, I don't know, Mr. Negro was being a little, you know, modest because I don't know, another company who's more ingrained in the least of these in this city than Stonebridge and Nava. Dimon Small historical fact. Councilman Flynn Nevin Dimon was actually a employee of Federico Pena at the time as mayor and got his vision for this city working for the Pena administration. And I can say with without a doubt that this company and that person really knows how to connect those who are struggling in this city with opportunity . And so I think it was a great not only did they give $1,000,000 to Metro, where a majority of our folks of color in this city go. But he is very involved on the planning for the hospitality school. And the great thing about hospitality is you can you can start at a very low level and be managing in no time. But I want us to even go further. I think I think all of that is great. I think you guys are doing a great job. I think this is a great opportunity for women and minority owned businesses on this site. And and I will definitely be working. Radian is a great organization that connects individuals in the community who've been displaced and pushed out and connects them with businesses. And we're doing that at 30th and Blake right now. So I'm going to I'm going to be approving this because on every level this is the process was right. The public good and benefit is right. And I think it may be a model for, you know, the retail side as well, because we've never done this before. And so I appreciate that you reached out. That shows me you want to work with them. And in moving forward, I think we can attain this. Thank you. I'll be supporting this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilman Brooks said it well, but I just had to throw in a couple of thank you's to folks who didn't speak tonight, and that one of them is DPS. When there was a call for a pause and a process, they responded to that.
Speaker 11: Call and I thank them. And it wasn't easy.
Speaker 5: They maybe had some financial obligations that created some pressure for them. And so this is possible tonight, in part because of them. And also Jeannie Rob, my former my former seat neighbor and.
Speaker 11: Colleague.
Speaker 5: Who who helped to, you know, make sure the pause happened and made all of this possible as well. So whether she's watching or not, she's appreciated and her legacy is is moving forward even years after she's no longer seated at this dais. And I just will also share the kudos in terms of Stonebridge for for frankly, taking second and third looks in terms of what could be saved on the site. And so, all in all, an appropriate project to really complement the old and the new of our city in ways that I think make our city richer, being right next to the convention center there. So it'll be exciting to see that addition and.
Speaker 7: Change.
Speaker 5: Come with this preservation. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add my underscore on a couple of things that have been said. I've spent a lot of time in that building. A dear friend has been a teacher for Emily for the most of the past 35 years and working with people with extreme physical disabilities and ESL students. And this is really is hallowed ground for a lot of people. And so just wanted to throw a little underscore on anything you can do to memorialize that in a fitting way so that people who remember the roots of that structure when they walk in, feel like it's been honored. I appreciate it. I look forward to supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, I. Cashman also took the words right out of my mouth, thinking, It's just important to incorporate that history in that legacy and then in the future build and and how you celebrate that building. It is part of our history in Denver and at a time when we where it's growing so quickly and moving and changing so fast, I just want to make sure that those stories don't disappear with the buildings. Right. Much needed, though, I think, you know, the use of the space is smart. However, when it comes to Emily Griffin and the concept, we have Emily Griffin in school and everything that it's done. I would encourage you to go cross the street or come down into the West Side and check out their campus, one of their campuses. It is amazing. The auto shop, everything that we used to have in high school out west anyway. And you know how to fix a car. You know how to had a saw wood. I mean, a lot of that stuff that they're working on there is is now over there. Right. And we miss that. And there's and the program they're running at, Emily Griffith, is amazing. They even do, you know, volunteer brake jobs if you want to go over there, I mean, that kind of thing. Right. So it's it's still around the legacy, still there. The population that's using it is benefiting from it. And it's close to my heart because my grandfather graduated from Melanie Griffith after he came back from World War Two. He was in high school when he was drafted at West High School? No. Highland and West Highland and all. Then West and then Emily Griffith, his dad, went when he finished it. So a lot of legacy for a lot of people in Denver. Thank you for for for the process.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks, you back up?
Speaker 6: Yeah. You know, Councilman Lopez mentioned Emily Griffith be on the west side and that's how the vision has spread. But I just want to be very clear that the Emily Griffith building, the DPS building, is now named after and lives on the east side. And there is still some training and of Emily Griffith Center there over there on the east side as well. So, you know, we got both sides of town. I'm just trying to compliment both sides. I so that's all.
Speaker 0: We can settle this later with a dance off right at the zero and seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: They don't play that music in Reno anymore, I.
Speaker 3: Black eye, Brooks.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I feel more I Cashman. I can reach Lopez.
Speaker 10: I knew.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I Susman.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 by.
Speaker 0: 12 hours. Council Bill 979 has passed. All right. We have one more tonight. Councilman Lopez, will you please vote council bill nine, seven, six on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving an amendment to the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan.
Amends the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan by adding the Emily Griffith Project including the rehabilitation of the 140,000 square foot historic Emily Griffith Opportunity School Building into a 250-room hotel with 6,000 square feet of meeting space in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-11-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-1016
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, seeing no other announcements. We're going to move on. There are no presentations and there are no communications. We do have a couple of proclamations this evening. Councilwoman Gilmore, I'm going to go to you first. Will you please read Proclamation 1016?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. Whereas the Land and Water Conservation Fund LW CRF was established by Congress in 1965. The ACT designated that a portion of receipts from offshore oil and gas leases be placed into a fund annually for state and local conservation, as well as for the protection of parks, forest and wildlife areas. And. WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2018, LW, CRF received 425 million. The program is divided into two distinct funding streams straight state grants and federal acquisition funds. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, LW, CRF has provided more than 268 million in funding from LW CRF and has leveraged more than 147 million for local government and state park outdoor recreational investments in Colorado. Whereas in Colorado. LW CRF has protected more than 10,000 acres of public lands valued by sportsmen and women since 2011. This land helps support helped support Colorado's economy by bringing in 28 billion in consumer spending and 229,000 direct jobs for tourism and outdoor recreation. And. WHEREAS, preparation for natural disasters in Colorado is essential and money from LW CRF is used to prevent and natural disasters like fires and floods. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, agriculture is important to the economy and our Western heritage and lw CRF is essential in protecting agricultural land. Whereas, for over 50 years, LW X, LW C.F. has played a critical role in providing funding for conserving national parks and forests, rivers, farms and ranches, fish and wildlife, sport and recreation, access and trails, and has additionally provided funding to conserve state and local parks and facilities throughout Colorado and the nation and should therefore be fully funded . 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 hereby recommends full funding and permanent.
Speaker 3: Reauthorization.
Speaker 8: For the Land and Water Conservation Fund and encourages the Colorado Congressional Delegation to support full funding and permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 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 Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 18 dash 1016 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to co-sponsor this proclamation with my colleagues. And, you know, Councilwoman Kenney each had brought this forward to me. And I have a long history working with the Land and Water.
Speaker 3: Conservation Fund, and.
Speaker 8: It has never been fully funded. The reauthorization comes up periodically, but.
Speaker 3: We need to make sure that.
Speaker 8: We're asking our congressional delegation to fully fund it, to keep it reauthorized, and so that we can realize these funds from offshore.
Speaker 3: Drilling will come back.
Speaker 8: Landside.
Speaker 3: And make sure that we have these important resources to.
Speaker 8: Protect our environment and all of the different items that I had listed. Thank you, President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for taking a lead on this. Given your personal experience, I think it's very fitting. You know, it seems like one of these routine things that oh, of course, things that are good do good things and they expire. They will get reauthorized. Well, that's just not the federal government we are operating under right now. And so I think it's critical. It is a bipartisan program. It has gotten lots of support historically. I think both of our senators, both Senator Gardner and Senator Bennett, both support it. But it's important for us to kind of use our collective voices, especially in the West, where openly and is so important to us, to make sure that Congress hears the importance of reauthorizing it and it doesn't get lost in political battles. So I would ask anyone who's listening, who believes in our open space and and the public lands that we have support from these programs with, to please reach out to your congressional representatives and let them know how important, even whitehouse.gov, you can email and let them know the importance of reauthorizing the program. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So you know their comments, Madame Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I, Herndon High Cashman. Kenny Lopez. All right. New Ortega Assessment. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 12 Eyes 12 eyes proclamation. 1016 has been adopted. Custom. Gilmore Is there anyone you'd like to invite up to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 8: Yes. President Clark, I'd like to invite Bow. KIC was with Conservation.
Speaker 3: Colorado to the podium, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much. Appreciate you receiving Conservation Colorado. I'm honored to be here. You have the organization tonight. I believe that's programs like Clinton Water Conservation Fund that have touched just about every American in this country and especially in the state of Colorado. And it requires constituents and businesses and people of all kind advocating for this program to be the priority in the halls of Congress in Washington.
Speaker 6: D.C., including.
Speaker 7: Proclamations like this by the city of Denver. So thank you very much.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recommending full funding and permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0957
|
Speaker 7: Proclamations like this by the city of Denver. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have two other proclamations this evening, Councilman Ortega. Do you want to read Proclamation 957, please?
Speaker 8: Yes, I'd be happy to. Proclamation number 957, opposing amendment 74 and attempt to amend the Colorado Constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulation at a high cost to taxpayers. Whereas local government services are essential to the citizens of the city and county of Denver. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 has been written by certain corporate interests to change the text of the Colorado Constitution, Article two, Section 15, which dates back to 1876. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 declares that any state or local government law or regulation that reduces the fair market value of a private parcel is subject to just compensation. And. WHEREAS, while Amendment 74 has simple language, it has far reaching and complicated impacts. And. Whereas, under the current Colorado Constitution, a property owner already has the right to seek compensation from state or local governments. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would expand this well-established concept by requiring the government, i.e. the taxpayers, to compensate private property owners for virtually any decrease whatsoever in fair market value of their property, traceable to any government law or regulation. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would create uncertainty because it is not clear what the language actually means and how it can be applied. And. WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would severely limit the ability of Colorado, state and local governments to do anything that might indirectly, unintentionally or minimally affect the fair market value of any private property. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would drastically diminish the ability of our state and local governments to adopt reasonable regulations, limitations and restrictions upon private property. And. WHEREAS, Amendment 74 would directly impact zoning density limitations and planned development. And. Whereas, Amendment 74 would make inherently dangerous or environmentally damaging activities prohibitively costly to attempt to limit or regulate even the interest of the public. And. Whereas, any arguable impact upon fair market value, however reasonable or justified or minimal or incidental or temporary resulting from state or local government action could trigger a claim for the taxpayers to pay. And. Whereas, governments would be vulnerable to lawsuits for almost every decision to regulate or not to regulate, making regular government function prohibitively expensive for the taxpayers. And. Whereas, similar efforts have been attempted and defeated in other states, such as the states of Washington and Oregon. And. Whereas, the fiscal impact for similar language in Washington State was estimated at $2 billion for state agencies and 1.5 billion for local governments over the six years. And. Whereas, there were $4 billion in claims in Oregon before the residents repealed the initiative two years after its passage. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that the Denver City Council oppose Amendment 74 and strongly urges a no. This November, Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilman. Are taking your motion to adopt.
Speaker 8: I move for the adoption of proclamation number 957.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. President, this was initially brought to my attention asking if I knew anything about what initiative went away, as it was referred to before. It was given an initiative number by the Secretary and amendment number by the Secretary of State's office. And at that point in time, I had not really looked at this particular initiative that will be on the November ballot. They did get the signatures. And as I started to look at it and talk with people like the Colorado Municipal League, we actually had them come and speak to our Finance and Government Committee to share their concerns also about the broad reaching and indeed significant implications this could have on really gridlock in the day to day work that local and state government does. And so I thought it was important, number one, to bring it forward so that it's another way to educate the public. We did get very clear direction from our city attorney that on amendments such as this, we do have the authority or the ability to take a position. And I just want to strongly encourage my colleagues to to vote for this proclamation tonight, encouraging the voters to vote no when they see it on the ballot in November. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. This this initiative, this measure is a killer for the communities ability to regulate land use in their own backyards. The. Determination of fair market value is not really a science so much as an art. And so actually sometimes it feels like a dart game throwing darts at the dartboard. I recall when Land was being acquired for Denver International Airport back in the late eighties early nineties, there were wild, wild estimates of what constituted fair market value, the largest parcel box elder farms that the city had offered about $30 million. The owners wanted 90 million and they were eventually awarded 56 million. And I believe that that might have been later reduced in an appeal. So fair market value chain changes from day to day, from hour to hour sometimes. I would look at this a little differently. If the owners of private property who are pursuing this were just as willing to give back to the public the gains and fair market value they receive from government regulations and laws. When we take an action that improves and enhances the fair market value of property, there's no mechanism for us to recapture that. And nor should there be a mechanism for the taxpayers to be on the hook for a perceived decline in a fair market value. We could take an action, and every action that we do take is subject than to litigation, because someone is going to claim that we diminished their fair market value if we imposed a height restriction or a view plane ordinance, suddenly we have taken away from all the property under that ceiling. We've taken away some of the density they could otherwise have built. We are subject to litigation for that. On the other hand, if we don't adopt tight restrictions and we allow people to build up as high as they wanted. Then we'd be liable for litigation from people across the street who've lost their view of the Rocky Mountains and we've diminished their fair market value. This is just a horrible, horrible attempt to solve a perceived problem totally unrelated to most of what we do. And I encourage everybody to take a good, hard look at this and ask yourself, do you really want your checkbook? After all, it's not our checkbook. It's yours. It's the public checkbook. Do you want that opened for blank checks to every property owner who says when you pass that law or regulation, you affected my fair market value ? We need to urge people to vote no on this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Ortega. Sussman Black Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close voting. Announced results.
Speaker 4: 12.
Speaker 0: Days 12 hours proclamation 957 has been adopted. Councilwoman Ortega, do you have anybody you'd like to comment?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation opposing Amendment 74, an attempt to amend the Colorado Constitution to drastically limit state and local government regulation at a high cost to taxpayers.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0951
|
Speaker 0: Council Bill 951 Exempting a children's neighborhood beverage stand from licensing requirements under pending. No items have been called out to miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? And Councilman Herndon, you want to go ahead with your comment on Constable 951 thing?
Speaker 5: Mr. President, as our president talked about. 951 the more formal title is Exempting a children's memory neighborhood beverage Stand for Licensing Requirements is more affectionately known as the Lemonade Stand Law. I wanted to recognize Ben, William and Jonathan, ages six, four and two, who are here and are the catalysts behind that. I wanted to let you guys know this will be the last time you have to come here because this is on final consideration. So I know this is really exciting as the father of a three and a half year old, but I'm sure there are so many other places you'd rather be on a monday night. But I wanted to thank you all for your entrepreneurial spirit, for wanting to raise funds for Compassion International and helping us recognize that we had an issue with one of our licensing requirements. And we're going to remedy that tonight. So I want to thank you for that. I want to thank their mother, Jennifer, for being here and has her parents are here as well. And I want to thank my colleague on council, Councilman Cashman, who is also with me in moving this forward. So I want to thank you all for that. And I've been waiting for this. I should have got ice on it, but I wanted to say cheers to you all for that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon and Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Councilman Herndon for allowing me to join in this fun celebration. I have endless memories as a kid of waking up on a Sunday morning. And, Mom, can we go sell some lemonade and going out on the front lawn and, you know, raising a couple of pennies for whatever we wanted to spend it on? So, uh, William, Ben and Jonathan, you. You have a good time, and I hope you enjoy your burgeoning careers. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: I just want to say the lemonade was so good. It's gone. But you put the right amount of sugar in this. It's tough to find some good entrepreneurs who put the right amount. Sure. So good job, kids.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. That concludes the items to be called out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. 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 out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Flynn, we put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I know 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 2018. 964. 955. 961. 929. Nine. 6963. 965. 951. 927. 943. 394 872 9069079 11 935 767 and 798.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa, i. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, i. Katherine Can each. Lopez All right. Ortega, I. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, please cause voting announced results.
Speaker 4: 1212.
Speaker 0: Hours. 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 vote 885 approving the service plan for the creation of the Denver Rock Drill Metropolitan District.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance exempting a children’s neighborhood beverage stand from licensing requirements.
Exempts a children’s neighborhood beverage stand from licensing requirements. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-29-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0885
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 885 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18.
Speaker 5: Dash.
Speaker 1: 885 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. The public hearing for Council Bill eight five is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. I'm Michael Kerrigan with the Department of Finance. Accountable 18 818 0885 is for an ordinance approving a service plan for a new metropolitan district supporting redevelopment of the site commonly known as Denver Rockdale. The district is called Denver Rock to a metropolitan district. The service plan is being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of the Saunders Commercial Development Company, LLC, pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act, sections 30 21201 and more particularly 30 21204.5 CRC Service Plan contains the District's Purpose, Powers, Requirements and Financing Plan. The districts are responsible for compliance with the City's Municipal Code Rules, regulations and all other applicable law. The districts will ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. The new Metropolitan District will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without of the service area, including without limitation street and sidewalk improvements, parking infrastructure, water, storm drainage detention and sanitary sewer improvements, landscaping, irrigation, a public plaza and traffic and safety control improvements. The new metropolitan district will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls, charges and debt for the debt and district and debts in district operations and maintenance. Once the district imposes a debt mill, the district's operations and maintenance melody cannot exceed ten mills. Additionally, the district will be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the direction of the city. The district anticipates estimated eligible costs for the public improvements to be approximately 23.5 million. And in order for the new metropolitan district to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide funding for the upfront costs of the public improvements needed in the service area, that the new metropolitan district shall have the authority to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. The Denver Rock Trail site is not currently located in an urban renewal area. The developer has an application into into Denver Urban Renewal Authority for authorization to use tax increment financing and at completion. The current plan projects a transit oriented development envisioned to approximately to include public spaces and approximately 600,000 square feet of commercial space. The current planned development will include only commercial space and will involve both new construction and restoration of existing unique buildings for office, retail and entertainment space. The development plans also include 175 key hotel approval. The service plan establishes the following There are sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and projected needs. The district is capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Staff recommends approval of the service plan. The applicant, the representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to questions regarding this council. Bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this, if you could come to this front bench so that we can move through as quickly as possible, I'll call your name, step up to the podium, and your time will start to elapse. First up, we have Sam Sharp.
Speaker 5: Hi, Sam Sharp with the Davidson Company. We are a financial consultant to the applicant here to answer questions only.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Trey Rigby.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Trey Rigby Sanders Commercial Development Company. We are developing the rock drill property.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 6: With Star Board Realty. I'm an.
Speaker 1: Advisor to Saunders on this application.
Speaker 7: And here to answer questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Alan POGUE.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Members of Council Allen POGUE. I snagged Seaver POGUE legal counsel to Saunders here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Members of council. My name is just Paris. I am a large candidate for 2019 and also I'm representing Denver Homicide Loud and Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, which is a community for profit organization that seeks to solve the problems of the homeless, working poor, senior citizens, students and teachers. My question was, this is going to be a commercial development in the already being gentrified area. What is who is going to be working on this at this facility? I heard something about a hotel. Who is going to be employed to work at this hotel? And also how many businesses are going to be involved with this project? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Catherine Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Michael could. The issue of the regional mill levy of up to five mills for city improvements on within the district or just outside, particularly through Ninth Avenue Greenway. I expressed this concern in committee as well, but can you talk to me about the precedent setting nature of of having a metro district impose a regional levy for city projects that are offsite or adjacent to but off site, but from which that development benefits in some form or fashion. Because 39th Avenue Greenway is adjacent to many of the Coca-Cola plant and other properties. And I'm also concerned about whether this sets a precedent for an ability to surcharge or do some sort of a mill levy for private for residential property that might benefit from a city improvement. So it's actually not precedent setting. We we already have this clause in a number of other service plans that have been approved in the city. Gennaro Metropolitan districts, they have a couple and then a couple of the the service plans for the metro districts around the Broadway Broadway I-25 redevelopment. They have they have the clause in there for their service plans for that additional mill for a regional mill. Okay. So go ahead. Well, would just say to the answer question or do you have so this would we don't envision extending this principle to other types of owners ownership of property particularly I'm concerned about residential. So to the extent that other developers and other property owners do come in and seek a creation of a metro district at that time, we'll have those discussions with those property owners, but only associated with a metropolitan district from the from the Department of Finance perspective. That's the only kind of key that we have or that's in any type of development entitlement. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Someone from the development team give a give a basic for folks who don't understand the area of your project, basic understanding of why you're going for a metro district. Yes.
Speaker 1: So the property is quite large. It's over two city blocks and there's a series of buildings that, while inherently neat and interesting and create a lot of the appeal for the property were built from 1909 through the 1960s, have various levels of remediation needed there. They're essentially dilapidated, as is the infrastructure. So they're on a two city block site. There's one restroom on the whole property, so there isn't infrastructure, utilities adequate to service, which proposes 600,000 square feet of development.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and most of it from folks. Coming from the historic perspective, how will you retain some of the historic elements of the building?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So there's. There's kind of two parts of that. There's a series of almost 200,000 square feet of I call them brick and timber there. They're brick timber. They're the sawtooth buildings. Those will be retained. Repurpose. You know, the term adaptive reuse?
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 1: There are buildings that were built in 60, 70 or 80, 90 that are CMU block or metal that are completely nonfunctional and not historically architecturally interesting. Those will be removed to make way for new development.
Speaker 7: Great. And you're talking about a 100% commercial building. But should you decide to build housing? Did you guys agree to an affordable housing plan?
Speaker 1: Well, what we've what we've discussed a couple of things. One, it's not zoned for residential. So for that to happen, we'd have to request a zoning change would be here in front of all of you requesting that. And at that point, we can, whatever the current affordable housing rules regs are, certainly would comply. It was also mentioned that we are in discussions with Denver Urban Renewal Authority for TIFF and likewise the development agreement we would negotiate today would be commercial only if we wanted to include residential.
Speaker 7: So you would do it, but you would do a plan. Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, seeing no other questions. The public hearing for accountable 885 is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Yeah. No, Mr. President, thank you. No comments, really. I mean, this is this has been a long time in the making of anybody who's. I'm actually five blocks away from this site. And so I think for this current proposal that's on the table, the infrastructure that is required here alone is going to be a heavy lift. And so I'll be supporting this and looking forward to working with the developer in the neighborhood and folks out there as we continue to move past the 39th Avenue Green Way Channel and also the incorporation of some small businesses that benefit the community in the future. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: For those few dedicated individuals that that watch this regularly, you probably see me sort of hammer on metro districts from time to time, sort of where I'm questioning the validity and necessity of using this as a tool. This one, I just want to say thank you to the development team and the owner. Byron, if you're in the audience there, because, you know, I for exploring this avenue as a way to help sort of reshape and recraft this site, but do it in a way that helps make it possible to preserve what are some pretty unique structures in the city, remnant structures in the city, and in an integral part of the history of the 38th and Blake area. So I just this is, to me, one of those things they can wholeheartedly support because it's the right tool for the right reasons, both for the development team and for the for the city at large. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ezra Espinosa. In other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks Clark. Sorry, Espinosa. I Flinn. I Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman, I. Black I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Am secretary, please. Because the voting and thus results.
Speaker 4: Are you get a flame. When 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes counts, about eight five has.
Speaker 5: Passed.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn, will you please put council bill 944 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Service Plan for the creation of Denver Rock Drill Metropolitan District.
Approves the service plan for the formation and establishment of the Denver Rock Drill Metropolitan District Title 32 district in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-28-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0944
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn, will you please put council bill 944 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 944 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded and the public hearing for Council Bill 944 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening. Council members Michael Harrigan again with the Department of Finance. Council build number 18 0944 is for an ordinance approving two service plans for new metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of the site known as Curley Place in the Rhino Community. The districts are called the Hurley Place Residential Metropolitan District in Hurley Place, Commercial Metropolitan District. The service plans are being submitted for City Council on behalf of the Noto LLC pursuant to the requirements of Special District EC Section 30 212001 and more particularly 30 21205.52 or 4.56. The service plan contains the District's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The District shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations and other applicable laws. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and all other governmental entities having jurisdiction . Is anticipated that the Shirley Place Residential Metropolitan District will ultimately include all residential property located within Hurley Place and the Hurley Place. Commercial Metropolitan District will include all commercial property located within Hurley Place, within the birthplace place development. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation street and sidewalk improvements, parking infrastructure, water, storm drainage detention, sanitary improvements, sanitary sewer improvements, landscaping, irrigation, public plaza and traffic safety controls and improvements. The new metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted in the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls, charges for debt and district operations and maintenance. Once the district imposes a debt mill levy, the district's operations and maintenance mill levy cannot exceed ten mills. The new metropolitan district will be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the direction of the city. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately 28.1 million. In order for the new metro districts to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide funding for the upfront costs of the public improvements needed in the service area, the new metropolitan districts will have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt service mill levy. Hurley places his plant is a residential and commercial mixed use development. The project will support and enhance the existing development within the Rhino neighborhood by creating a new iconic entertainment and residential hub in the center of the community. The development plans include a mix of creative office, restaurant, retail, hotel, entertainment and residential uses for a total of nearly 1 million gross square feet of development. Approval of the service plan establishes the following There are sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and projected needs. The districts are capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Staff recommends approval of the service plans. The applicant, their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to any questions regarding this council bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for the presentation. Your PowerPoints are almost as compelling as your colleague Andrew Johnston's. Thank you. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you signed up to speak on this one, if you would please come to the front bench. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. I think we might have a few of these in our system incorrectly. But I will start with Bernard Hurley.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. Good evening. So. Thank you, counsel, for allowing us to present. I mean, Early Place is a development that's located between 38 basically and 36 between Arkin's court and Del Gainey, one block down from Brighton Boulevard to include the New River Promenade. And and so we've got mixed use of residential. The residential we have we're taking advantage of the up zoning and the overlay and providing the affordable units. We're taking advanced advantage of the the overlay and and and using community benefit. I think that we have an opportunity to create a truly iconic part and sense of place that doesn't exist in that side of Reinoehl right now. And I believe that with the team that we have together in our plan, I mean, there's 13 acres of greenspace surrounding this project. So between the Reinhold Park, the six and a half acre linear promenade park, and then the green space that's in the private development that's on Chestnut, I think that this project is going to be iconic and impactful for the city for years and create a sense of place to bring people together and also create a lot of services that are lacking in that part of. Ryan All right. Now, as in we've got 65,000 square feet of retail and other services as a part of our development, as well as a large plaza area that opens up to the river and the river promenade and the project interacts specifically with that promenade. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And again, I apologize on this next one. If I get this wrong, Tom, go screw.
Speaker 7: Good evening. It's Tom George with the law firm. Spencer Fein.
Speaker 1: Might not have gotten.
Speaker 0: Fully translated in our system, but. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: That's a new one for me. I just like to say thank you to city staff, particularly Michael Carrigan and Andrew Johnson and also city attorney's office for the work with us. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Mark Tompkins.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mark Tompkins with Stray Advisory Services. I'm an adviser to Mr. Hurley on this project and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Michael Persichetti.
Speaker 5: Michael Persnickety with RBC Capital Markets. We're financial consultant. And just here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Kirsten Beck.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's Kirsten Beck with Foster Graham, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And our last speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I was on a 2842 Josephine Street, which is an Albert Brooks district, and I am also a candidate for our large city council 2019. I had a few questions in regards to this development. I was overheard that this is going to be a mixed use residential. I want to know what is the and my level for this affordability? Is it going to be 30 to 60? Is it going to be 60 to 90%? What do you consider affordable? Um, something about services. What kind of services will be rendered at this property and also where the local Arnaud's notified? Because the last time I was at this at a city council meeting, I was told that these metropolitan districts had not notified the local Arnaud's of what they were up to. So I just need clarification that this Metro Politan district notified the local Arnaud's. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council?
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Ortega I do have one. And this sort of applies across the board to all of them. But Michael, you might be able to help answer the question, if not maybe somebody from the team in terms of how the financial team is picked for any of these meet districts. Is that handled separately by the people requesting the approval from council to create the Metro District to, you know, put it on the ballot and whatnot? Or does a city play any role in any of that in any way, shape or form?
Speaker 1: So so the city plays a role in reviewing the the application that comes before us. And then we and then we also engage the city's financial advisor for that. But the initial kind of financial team for for the applicant, that's a completely private decision made up by the property owner.
Speaker 8: Okay. So somebody from the team, can you give me an idea of the total square footage we're talking about for the proposed development at this location? Mr. Hurley. Maybe there.
Speaker 1: It's approximately a million square feet.
Speaker 8: Okay. Yeah, because I mean, I was just looking at the one that came before us, and that was. I don't believe they were approved for 50 meals. Maybe I didn't hear that correctly. But this one is and clearly the amount of square footage on this one is a lot more. Almost 400,000 square foot more than the other one. So. Okay. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah. At a finance committee. The slide deck showed these artists studios with some of them being some of the ones that are on the private property being mirrored in the public, in the parks. Right, in the parks area. And there was some discussion about these being sort of publicly available artist studios to sort of and but there is no mention of that in the service plan. The service plan doesn't doesn't include the area outside of the property lines. There is some language that manager finance can sort of add area. And so I just want to know, you know, you know, are the artists studios, in fact, part of this service plan in a way that I don't quite understand?
Speaker 3: Councilman Espinosa That's a really easy question to answer. So as part of the 38 and Blake overlay, the value incentive that we are providing for the commercial height provides for community benefits agreement. So it's terrific about this project. This will be the first community benefits agreement that we will be entering into and we will have as artist studios as part of that. So we've worked in conjunction with Parks and that's why it will be on the promenade, because Parks would like it to be located on the promenade. And so all of the requirements with respect to the artist spaces will be something that is part of a community benefits agreement with OED.
Speaker 7: So how would that sort of legally be captured? And the service plan has defined boundaries in the exhibits, and these sites are not included in those limits.
Speaker 3: So it's part of the property owner. It's a developer's agreement that we're required to do because again, this is part of the 30th, an overlay, incentive overlay. So as part of our requirement to be able to get the additional height for the commercial property, we have to enter into this agreement directly with the property owners. So there will be some participation with the district once it's formed, but it will be entered into between the developer and the an EADS in order to be able to implement that 30th and Blake overlay incentive.
Speaker 7: So in theory, it's the developer is privately developing these improvements on city land and district money is not essentially being used.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And originally, the artist spaces were going to be located on this property as part of the plaza that then would obviously feed into the promenade. And again, that was conversations with parks and kind of the spirit of what we've been working with the entire time, which is really cooperative nature. And so the parks request was to have this as part of the promenade, to activate the promenade, which was an easy request.
Speaker 7: Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Michael. On this one, the regional mill levy, it doesn't specify any projects that the city envisions levying this for or asking the district to levy it for. What do we have in mind for this? At this time, I'm not sure what we have in mind for it. I imagine it would be some kind of cooperation with the the city, the Greenway Park or the Promenade Park. But, you know, I'm not sure exactly what. What what discussions have gone? I don't know. Somebody from the development team. Is there a specific project that the last one that we did? The reason I was questioning that one was we had a specific project that were already that we had already funded. And we were asking the new metro district to provide a mil levy, a levy for that. Here we don't have a specific project for 25 years. We have this authority to ask the district to levy an additional five mills to provide revenue to the city for some undefined future need. Is that am I reading that correctly? Yeah, I think so. Did you give some comments? Yeah, it's. It's it's the ability to be able to enter into a future idea, to be able to. To levy those bills for a to to be determined. It's interesting. Okay. So we're creating with these metro districts, we're creating future financial capacity for city projects as yet undetermined. But but it is an IGA so the idea has to have terms with although the service plan says we don't need an IGA if we don't have one, we simply take the revenue from those five mills into the city rather than flowing them through the district. Okay. That's that's interesting mechanism. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn saying no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 944 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks. Yep.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilman Flynn, I don't know if you're going here, but, you know, we just approved with the bond this entire the rhino promenade and this this this development actually is going to go in conjunction with that. And I think what I like about some of the metro districts is as we can live, we if if we do decide to go into an idea. And so you don't need an HCA, but we can levy both. We can use both mechanisms to fund your development and to fund what we're trying to do some improvements on to our development. So that passed the bond pass overwhelmingly and this rental problem promenade was actually on the first tranche of dollars that would be spent. So that's one of the reasons I'll be supporting this. The other reason that I'll be supporting this is if you seen again, I always say, you know, you you need these mechanisms to fund infrastructure. And if you saw this area, if anyone's ever been to Blue Moon, this is the area of which Blue Moon is in. And Mr. Hurley owns Blue Moon and the welcome in. He doesn't own that, but the welcome in that whole area over there, it is in desperate need of infrastructure and we need to activate that river. And so this entire project does that. Ms. Hurley does not have to activate the river, but it's part of his vision and it's part of the neighborhood's vision. And so we want to see that happen. But even even more of why I'm supporting those are the I think the criteria for me in funding a metro district. But one of the things that Mr. Hurley did not talk about is his support of formerly incarcerated individuals in the eight or two or five neighborhood. And I personally know of several that he has hired from the community in his company, Family, Environmental and you know, you know, his work with Impact Empowerment Group, led by Haroon Cowans , has been great, but my hope is that we see more of that, right? We see more of that with this development. We see an incorporation of formerly incarcerated individuals who were gangbanging in this area and now part of the economic success. And so I appreciate you hiring folks and I hope that we can grow its capacity. And I hope that many other business folks and developers in the city recognize their ability to connect folks with the economic success of the city. So I'll be supporting this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Excuse me. I'm also supportive of this. My historical note for the evening is that, if I recall correctly, Denver's first Catholic Church was built down here, and I think it was flooded out and then moved up to where Sacred Heart is now in Larimer Street, the the issue of the regional levee and the promenade. Councilman Brooks, if I recall, the promenade was funded in the bond issue. So it strikes me that this additional capacity to have a third party, a metro district, taxed its own property up to five mills is a bulwark against the city incur incurring cost overruns on the project or the infamous scope creep that we've seen in a lot of projects. So to have to have that five mills authorized with no project in mind strikes me as a little prospective protection against city overrunning on the Promenade project. Nevertheless, I do support this project. I'm familiar with the area having worked on the the A-line project and and think it's going to be a great project and I fully support it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, I'll just add I'm very excited about the activation of the river have. He spent so much of my life along it. So thanks for bringing this forward and look forward to seeing the final product. I'll be supporting this tonight with no other comments meant. Oh, Councilman Brooks, right at the deadline.
Speaker 7: I just had to say one more thing. The the Hurley in the team is is going to take advantage of the affordable housing incentive overlay. The incentive overlay is a ceiling of 80% am I but allows you. To go below that. We have folks going in at 60% am I by 30th and Blake. And so I just want to encourage you to use that 60% that 30% and come talk to the city, put that affordable housing plan together because this neighborhood needs it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. No other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. Can each. Lopez.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 4: Ortega. Sussman. Black. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes with a name shown up on the screen.
Speaker 4: Oh, no. Okay, I'll fix that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks. 11 a council bill. 944 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please? What council? Bill? 820 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Service Plans for the creation of Hurley Place Residential Metropolitan District and Hurley Place Commercial Metropolitan District.
Approves two separate service plans for the formation and establishment of two Title 32 districts: The Hurley Place Residential Metropolitan District and the Hurley Place Commercial Metropolitan District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-28-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0820
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Thanks. 11 a council bill. 944 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please? What council? Bill? 820 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 820 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 820 is open. May we have a staff report?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President, and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 3901 L.A. Street from au0 to two C Amex 20 properties located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. It's at the northwest corner of 39th Avenue and L.A. Street in the 41st and Fox Station area properties about 30,000 square feet and is currently vacant and used for parking. The request is to rezone from au02, which is light industrial with the billboard use overlay to see Annex 20, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use with a 20 story maximum height and that billboard use overlay would be removed. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to facilitate the redevelopment for the development of the property. The property is surrounded by that IAU oh two zoning. Although as you can see in the map, portions of the 41st and Fox stationary have already been zoned to mixed use. Some CM x 20 CMS 12 and S.R. x 12 are already in the area. As I mentioned, the property is currently vacant, but you can see the surrounding uses a mix of industrial multi unit, residential, single unit, residential, commercial office, a little bit of everything in the area. You can see the subject property in the top right photo. Just to the east of it is the Regency student housing across a lot of street in the photo just below it and then some of the other development around there in the other photos. This went to the planning board on July 18th, where it received the unanimous recommendation of approval. No one from the public spoke on the application sent to Luti on August 7th, and we have 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, and there are four plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2000. As described in the staff report, Steffes found the proposed rezoning consistent with these six strategies from Campaign 2000 as the relating to infill development and mixed use development near transit or transit oriented development, which is consistent with the proposed Annex 20 zoning in this area. Blueprint Denver from 2000 to as a concept land use for this property of transit oriented development, which calls for a mix of uses and mid to high density development. Again, what would be allowed with the proposed TMX 20? Zoning is also an area of change and both 39th Avenue and a lot of street are designated locals which are intended to provide access from properties or developments to larger streets half a block to the west as Fox Street, which is a mixed use arterial. And then a block south of 39th is the intersection with 38th Avenue, Park Avenue and the I-25 interchange. All major arterials serving this area. The third plan is the 41st and fox stationary a plan from 29. The land use map in that plan designates this for mixed use office slash residential 3 to 20 stories consistent with the next 20 proposed zoning calls for high intensity developments and it calls for. Allowing the tallest buildings around the sort of edge of the development along I-25, serving as a buffer from the highway and providing views to downtown. So this location is appropriate for that highest height designation of 20 stories. And the fourth plan is the global neighborhood plan from 2014. Mostly just reiterates the recommendations in this area from the 41st and Fox stationary plan, calling for transit oriented development around the area. So staff finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the sea annexed toe zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which has been adopted since this zoning was put in place. The zoning was put in place in 2010. The plan was adopted in 2014 and also justified by the recent investment in the area. There's been some new investment, commercial development in the area and then with the G line, which will hopefully open soon. A significant public investment in the area justifying the rezoning. And then the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The proposed rezoning would facilitate facilitate the development of the 41st and Fox stationary into an urban center, consistent with the plans as described earlier and consistent with the description of an urban center neighborhood in the zoning code. And then you see Annex 20 is specifically intended for areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets where a building scale of 3 to 20 storeys is desired. As I mentioned, the property is at the intersection of two local streets, but there is a an arterial a half block way connected by the local streets and then a further block south or a major arterials of 38th Avenue and Park Avenue and I-25. So the area is served by major arterials and consistent with the purpose and intent of the city. And next toe zone district staff finds all five criteria met and recommends approval. I'll be able to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening, so if you've signed up for this item, please come to the front bench. I'll call your name, step up to the podium and begin your remarks as time will start elapsing. First up, we have Isaiah Salazar.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. I'm here on behalf of the ownership group Fox reinvestments here to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 5: Isaiah Salazar.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, we have Jesse Pearce.
Speaker 10: Jesse Paris. Black Star Action Movement. Self-defense. Denver Homicide. Lord, I had two questions. I wanted to know what was going to be the residential am I for this possible redevelopment? It's a very congested area. So what's going to happen with the parking over here? Yeah. So somewhat to answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 1: Good evening. When he was chairman, Sekou found the organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor homeless students and senior citizens. We support this zoning change. Because of what is right for this to happen. In addition to the five criteria which. It obviously qualifies for. There is a piece in this that represents hope for the people that we represent. There's going to be a lot of job opportunities present and the possibility that instead of being historically ignored, we will be concerned. And we know that part of the caveat for all of this is pretty much after these only requests are approved. Most of the time it falls by the wayside. And there's no follow up about whether or not these things are going to be made so that all the citizens can participate. We kind of leave that over to the developers and then you vote. I am, I am. I excuse me and know the aspects will seriously impact poor people. And as we continue on doing these things. In Michigan when I land. So you have development driving these areas who have been historically in the Gulf neglected. And yet there's nothing in place to ensure that the human rights of the citizens of the city county in Denver are going to be. Adhered to and promoted. So the caveat becomes how do we continue doing what we're doing and then justify that in the name of established rules and regulations and laws? Well, we know laws aren't necessarily set up to protect the poor. The oppressed. The Exploited. Like slavery was like. But it wasn't necessarily a good thing for black people. So the struggle continues and we'll be monitoring the projects. We would like to hope and also be present at the table so that when these things are happening.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I would like to ask the question about. Whether or not the owner of this property is being asked to participate in the next step study for this area. Mr. SALAZAR Can you come forward and the next step study was being done? It was, I think, partially financed by the Denver Post site, looking at that intersection of 38th Avenue, Fox 25 and Park Avenue. And Fox really is the only road into this site. And I have discouraged our folks from the planning department from trying to look at the road that goes over 44th Avenue into the Globeville neighborhood from being considered as one of the access points. Those neighborhoods are being inundated with traffic. And so they have asked the Denver Post Project to do this study that looks at the infrastructure improvements that are needed. And I believe that includes drainage because as you know, that 38th Avenue underpass floods. So have you all been asked to participate in that next step study in helping finance any of the costs of that? Or have you been alerted that whatever the improvements are going to be required, that somehow you all may be asked to participate in that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, we were involved in the presentation that CPD put on, I think at the end of the summer, informing us all the property owners, kind of what the next steps are happening and the next step studies and we'll be a part of that as well. Okay.
Speaker 8: And can you talk a little bit about what it is you're looking at doing with the site other than rezoning it?
Speaker 5: Currently, we have no immediate plans whatsoever to do any development on the site. We are kind of waiting around to see wait for the light rail station, open up, really wait for the neighborhood to develop a little bit more to kind of see what comes of the neighborhood and what our needs of the neighborhood. Myself, my family, we we own quite a bit of property in the neighborhood where the owners and developers of the Regency Student Housing and we've been very excited for the light rail station and been teased with that for many years. So as of now, we're really happy with the operation of the student housing and the car share program that we have kind of working on there with our shuttle service that we provide for the students and more. Want to see what kind of comes out of some of the other big properties. The Denver Post site, uh, another site where the power rental site was as well to kind of see what is needed with the neighborhood, what residents. Kind of see a need for before we kind of pull the gun and start developing anything right now, especially on that site.
Speaker 8: But you're looking at a mixed use development.
Speaker 5: And we see a version, a mixed use.
Speaker 8: And would you all potentially be the developers or would you sell it to a developer to build?
Speaker 5: No, our ownership group looks to develop it. Okay.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions. The public hearing for Collinsville 8 to 0 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Looking at the criteria, this completely meets it. I'm glad that some of our family is involved with the conversations. Love to get your input on the. You know, some of the parking solutions that we're looking for. I mean, I know that's a quite an investment, but we're really concerned about mobility in this area. And so I would invite you to continue meeting with the community, meeting with CPD and meeting with our office as we start to look at mobility options for this area. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call Brooks.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Flynn, I Gilmore. I heard.
Speaker 5: Did I?
Speaker 4: Carnage. Lopez. All right. Ortega. I assessment black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please, because voting announced the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes Council Bill 8 to 0 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you put Council Bill 866 on the floor, please?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3901 Elati Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property at 3901 Elati Street from I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial to commercial, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-7-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09102018_18-0987
|
Speaker 0: Thank you for bringing that forward, Councilman Ortega. Next up, Councilman Lopez, when you read Proclamation nine, eight, seven.
Speaker 2: Yes, I will. Proclamation number 18. I'm sorry. Proclamation number 97 Series of 2018 recognizing the housing authority of the city and county of Denver's 80th anniversary. Providing quality, affordable housing and community revitalization. Whereas the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 was passed to provide decent, safe and sanitary dwellings for families of low income. And. WHEREAS, The Denver City Council passed an ordinance legalizing the creation of a local housing authority on September 2nd, 1938, appointing a five member board to guide the agency and set its housing policies. Whereas, September 2nd, 2018, marks the 80th anniversary of the Housing Authority and the city of the City and county of Denver. The Denver Housing Authority, which has provided thousands of families, seniors, veterans and disabled individuals with quality and affordable housing in communities, offering empowerment, economic opportunity and a vibrant living environment. And. Whereas, DHHS earliest primarily focused on I'm sorry. Whereas the earliest housing primarily focused on the needs of World War Two era defense workers providing cost effective housing for employees of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. And today, VHA manages and serves over 12,000 family members and nearly 2300 units in Denver's first road type family development. And. Whereas, the 1960s and eighties brought the NE as from from the 1960s to the eighties, brought the need for housing for seniors and VHA, built senior high rises, adding 500 new units of senior housing. The Seventies fostered resident advocacy and leadership, establishing the Central Resident Council and emphasizing resident self-sufficiency. Those years also brought the first tenant based Section eight housing certificates, the first home ownership program, and dispersed housing. And. Whereas, the 1990s, DHEA evolved to building homes and lives through partnership and community revitalization, launching partnerships with the Area Higher Education Campus. It launched the first tour. I mean, sorry, the first of four bridge projects in partnership with the University of Denver to increase graduation rates for children in the housing DHEA, forge mixed income, mixed use housing and energy efficiency through its award winning Benedict Park Place. And. Whereas, today, DHEA leads the nation in creating healthy, safe, vibrant, transit oriented, sustainable and mixed income communities of choice and transforming neighborhoods under the direction of a nine member board and leadership of an executive team and staff. DHEA is committed to working in partnership with the city, business, community and nonprofit organizations, community and residents. And. WHEREAS, DHEA, a quasi municipal agency, develops, owns, operates and manages a portfolio now of over 12,000 units and housing choice vouchers, providing affordable housing to more than.
Speaker 1: 26,000.
Speaker 2: Very low, low and middle income individuals, which over 50% are children, representing over 10,500 families with average incomes of 12,709. For families and seniors. Average seniors. Average income 13,851. Whereas DHB employs over 300 individuals providing over $69 million to the private sector in housing assistance payments for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and contributes over 81 million into the $81 million into the economy for new construction, rehabilitation, modernization and preservation of affordable housing. And. Whereas, in 2018 and beyond, DHS Focus on Innovation and Social Ventures include the Youth Empowerment Employment Academy, Osage Cafe, Friends of the West, Denver Renaissance Collaborative. Connect Home. Denver Bridging. Denver Bridging the Digital Divide Real Estate Development, Living Green Eco Districts, Solar Gardens, New Markets, Collaborative Spaces and private public partnerships providing a variety of housing opportunities in and for Denver. Now, therefore, being proclaimed by the city, by the council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver recognized the housing authority of the city and county of Denver's 80 years of providing quality, affordable housing and community revitalization. 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 housing authority of the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move that council proclamation number of nine, eight, seven series of 2018 be adopted.
Speaker 0: And has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Living in the shadow of the Westwood Homes for most of my life. My first understanding of community was the playground, the old playground at the Denver area. Housing authorities, Westwood Homes. Three languages I learned. Well, obviously. English. English. My broken Spanish. My, my. I call it my, my, my, my total of Spanish from last word and Vietnamese. All my friends were from that those. They spoke those three languages. And it was there where you understood community and it was there where you understood not just community, but other people. Other people and where they're from, but their struggles are. It was there as a city council man where we in during the renovation of those Westwood Homes. And we we created gardens. And to see folks who would be gardening separately, usually garden together, sharing food, sharing culture, and being able to do this in peace. Being able to do this away away from war torn countries. Being able to do this with their families and in dignity in Denver. And I got to tell you, a lot of us have been either from other parts of the country or been around other parts of the country. When you say public housing. It's different when you come to Denver and say, excuse a term I just grew up with the term and say, Oh, oh yeah, those are the projects. And they're like, What? Those aren't projects. Seriously, those are the projects. Yeah, those are nice. Compared to other cities. You have to see this from a from a perspective from around the country. There is a standard of living that Denver has upheld. There's a standard of living that everybody, A.J. has worked for. And now that standard of living is ever changing and ever evolving, because I get this all the time and I know I want to. I just I just I just want to say this on the record, because a lot of people get confused when they cruise down Mariposa. Over there in the lower and the west side. Right just right down the street like 11th and Mariposa they say all. So you got rid of the projects, huh? You got rid of all those folks. That's terrible. Where do they all go? And I'm like. It's still there. What are you talking about? Yeah. Those high rises, those fancy old buildings. Uh huh. The fact. The public housing units. Are almost indistinguishable. From market rate. Reduced rate. Any other neighborhood? Any other units? Means that we're doing our job. And that is being able to provide a unit to somebody who is in need. Without the stigma. But instead with dignity. Right. And for that, I have to say, 80 years of hard work. And you're still not done yet. There's plenty more to go. And I couldn't be prouder of this team. Can be proud of this leadership, but especially of the resident councils and all those folks who I know growing up who have become not just in now, folks who just live in the community, but leaders, some of our strongest leaders have come out of these resident councils. So this leadership thing is is a real deal. And I could be I can be more proud of that. So. From one Denver native to plenty more. Keep doing a great job. I'm proud to carry this proclamation, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I had the distinct honor of speaking at the gala, one of the 17 or 19 events you're having this year to celebrate. I'm just teasing. It's good. It's good to celebrate all year long. Anyway, it was a distinct honor to be there with the mayor and him and talk a little bit about the impact of the housing authority, I think. Councilman Lopez, thank you for bringing this forward. And I think you did an amazing job. So just to underscore for me, I think, first of all, I don't talk about housing anymore in my work. I'm trying hard to make the switch to homes. What we do is we build homes, which is places where people live. And, you know, the DHS has been building homes for a very long time, but it has been about the people. I mean, Paul mentioned the three languages. Now we've got dozens and dozens. And I think that when I think about what it means to someone who, for example, might be in the twilight of their life, they're a senior and this is probably the last home they're going to have. And that is where they are going to, you know, be hopefully with stability, with the ability to afford food because their home is is more affordable and be able to really in dignity, you know, end their lives. People with disabilities. Right. Who might not have the ability to work in the traditional way that we often think of to earn enough to pay market housing prices. So. So regardless of whether it's the immigrant family who's getting started, the family that maybe has lost a parent and really needs to get back on its feet and it's a very temporary situation or the for household who may need to live in this housing for for their life. These homes are really, you know, about that opportunity and about that dignity. And then what I think has been amazing watching the eight year transformation is the way that DHS has moved beyond the home and the community of people there to thinking about places. So one of the things that was striking to me as I kind of started doing housing work in this city 15 years ago, is that DHS is always thinking about what does this whole neighborhood need? Right. So if there's a food gap for their residents, it's a food gap probably for their neighbors to or what does, you know, having a safe sidewalk in a safe environment feel like when you're walking around. So it's not just about the people who live in the homes. It's about that entire community and thinking about transformation in ways that really benefit the broader neighborhoods where where you own homes. And, you know, I guess the one thing I want to say to about this is that we think a lot about your multifamily housing. But one of the secrets I think of the housing authority is that across the city, in single family homes and duplexes that you would never know are residents of that. You know, these homes that we call them scattered site and I happen to live on a block and the best yard on my block and the dearest neighbor I have, I won't name her because I want to respect her confidentiality, but is a resident and lives in your home and her pride in how she takes care of it and her family, her son and her grandson live with her and just the opportunity it gives her to live in a neighborhood and thrive. Right. That integrated way of living. So so it's not just these big, tall multifamily buildings, but you may have a Denver housing authority neighbor and you might not even know it nearby. So we really have to get beyond our stereotypes and think about this agency. The last thing I will say is that thinking beyond just the home, thinking beyond just the the community is then thinking about our entire city. And so in my almost what are we at seven, seven and a half years, seven and counting years I have sat at I don't know how many policy tables with the Housing Authority as a thought partner thinking about big catalytic ideas. We saw them here for the housing fund expansion, bringing forward the bond dollars, the live program. Many of the other really when we worked on revisions to the inclusionary housing ordinance, every policy conversation you all are there is thought partners. I often think about it is Ismail, but there's a whole team. Many of you are here, Ryan and Stella and others, Chris Carr before you and many others. So so you are thinking with us as partners about the overall realm of housing. And I think that to me is like the depth of partnership. It's it's about the physical, it's about the the integration, and then it's about this big picture ideas. And so I have found that my work would not have been possible over these years without your partnership and without all that you bring. So thank you for what you've contributed and happy 80th. It's very exciting.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I want to extend my congratulations and thanks to you as well for their 80 years of existence. I had the great pleasure of working with DHEA because I had four of their larger developments in in my former district, Curtis Park, Lincoln Park, Stapleton and Craig Newton and. I had the great pleasure of of working with Kevin Markman when he was the director. So Carpio my my former colleague, Bill Radcliffe, when he was there, when I worked for Sell, Bill had a long history as well. Some of the comments I wanted to make were about the scattered sites and just the the role that VHA is playing in helping us really accelerate, addressing the need for so many people who are struggling in this city today because of the significant rise in our housing costs and the fact that our our wages have not kept pace with the cost of housing in this city. And. You all just stand in the you know, in that place where you fill that gap for so many families and the fact that we've been able to bring forward, you know, with the help of the mayor, the $150 million that will be bonded, that will really jumpstart your Sun Valley project and the Westwood West Ridge project that will bring those units online much faster than you probably otherwise would have been able to do so. And that's only half of the money you all will be administering that with other nonprofits and trying to help bring online units in in other areas of the city. And that is so important. And without you all willing to stand in that place to help us accelerate that, we'd we'd see we wouldn't see that light at the end of the tunnel for so many families that are struggling. And I just, again, want to say thank you for for that work that you have done, the partnership that you all have had with other nonprofits. I know you did a lot of work with the Denver Road Home Program and provided vouchers for homeless families. When the Denver Road Home Program was kicking off and trying to give people a place to to live. And I again, I just can't say enough thanks for the important work that you're doing in this city. And and congratulations to your entire team and your board for the great work you guys do every day. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 7: Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN Black.
Speaker 1: BROOKS Hi. Flynn here.
Speaker 7: Grier. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman can eat, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results.
Speaker 7: 12 days, 12 hours.
Speaker 0: Proclamation, nine, eight, seven has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there someone you'd like to bring up to accept the proclamation?
Speaker 2: Yes. I'd like to bring up the executive director, Ismael Guerrero. And anybody else who you would like to bring up as well. Mr. Garrett. Great. Good evening and good to be with you as you all again. Ismael Guerrero, DHS executive director. And thank you for the proclamation for the kind words from the council. It's appropriate that we started the evening talking about Denver's great sports teams, because I have to tell you that we definitely have the best housing and community development team at the Denver Housing Authority in the country. I would dare say, given all the great work that we're doing and we know that nothing great happens without teamwork. And so we have a great and deep bench at the Housing Authority, starting with our board of commissioners who have to thank all of you. City Council approved. We have a great leadership team there that really lets us run with our ideas and our creativity and providing great vision for the organization overall. Also, as I said, have a deep bench here with some of my senior leadership team. And I would say collectively just in this room, we have over 80 years of service to the housing authority already. And if you add up among the staff, you probably have a thousand years of service to the city, given the depth and the many staff members who have been with us for four decades, really. And we have great community partners throughout the city. We can do what we do without our nonprofit partners, our neighborhood partners. Councilman Lopez mentioned our resident council board. Our resident leaders are unparalleled in the country in terms of their commitment to their neighborhoods, for their residents, and to the authority overall to our areas. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for mentioning my predecessors. You know, 80 years of history, you cover a lot of ground, have a lot of accomplishments and build on the success of the past. Sal Carpio, my predecessor, was fantastic, really did a lot for the organization and for the city overall. And Kevin Markman before him is still active on the Housing Advisory Committee. I'm still committed to serving the city of Denver. Even now, when we think about celebrating 80 years, we're really looking forward as much as we're looking backwards at our accomplishments. And I just wanted to share with you, some of you have already mentioned just briefly. We're really moving beyond housing in terms of the work that we're doing, understanding that great neighborhoods and improving the quality of life of residents is more than just offering them a great unit to live in. You heard earlier in the proclamation some of our new social ventures that we're launching, including the Youth Employment Academy, our Osage Cafe, friends of the H.A., the Connect Home, Denver, which is bridging that digital divide. And our metropolitan solar farm out east of DIA is powering hundreds of public housing and affordable housing units around the city. So those are things that we're doing now looking beyond housing to really how do we change lives and impact the neighborhoods that we're in. We're also really excited now, looking forward to be a partner, a stronger partner with the city. Now that the five year housing plan has been completed and the goals and the work ahead of us has been made clear. I'm very proud that the Housing Authority staff is really stepping up to the challenge and and being part of the solution to the city's housing challenges. You heard earlier the live Denver program that was approved earlier this summer, the bond initiative that you all approved just a couple of weeks ago, which we're excited to be launching over 2000 units we expect to be delivering between in the next 3 to 5 years there. And soon you'll be hearing more about the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative and the work we're doing in to stabilize neighborhoods in southwest Denver. So those are all exciting work that we have looking ahead in the immediate future, but intend to continue to be a strong partner with the city over the next eight years. And finally, as Councilwoman Kenney mentioned, this has been a year long celebration for us. There's a lot of people to recognize, a lot of accomplishments we want to acknowledge and celebrate and our partners. And we are going to have a capstone event in December, our 80th anniversary gala. We're looking forward to not just bringing coming together with our partners who've helped us build the neighborhoods and the housing and the programs that we offer. But also as a capstone event, it'll be a fundraiser for our residents services that we offer throughout the city to youth.
Speaker 0: To adults.
Speaker 2: To seniors and disabled. So we're hoping to raise a good amount of money at the end of the year to have some funds going forward to improve and expand our resident programs. So with that, I'll thank you again for the proclamation and for recognizing the city and county of Denver Housing Authority service to the city of Denver . Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And enjoy your most. Thank you. All right. And Councilman Lopez, you're back up now with Proclamation 1988. Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver’s 80th anniversary providing quality affordable housing and community revitalization.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09102018_18-0394
|
Speaker 0: Street and Leeds, still dry and under pending. No items have been called out. Uh, looks like we're good. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item up on our screens? And, Councilwoman, can you please put Council Bill 394 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 dash 0394 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 5: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 394 be postponed to Monday, September 17th, 2018.
Speaker 0: It has been moved, if I can get a say and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Some of the interested parties in this matter where we requested a postponement to Monday, September 17th, because tonight is a Rosh Hashanah holiday and they would not be able to attend this meeting.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. See no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 7: Sussman. Black Brooks. Flynn. Ah. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete, I. Lopez. New. Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting in this result.
Speaker 7: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 394 has been postponed to Monday, September 17th. That concludes 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 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. All right, Councilman, can you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All series of 2018 828 913 nine 3934 938 925 920 89049059099 ten 926 931 930 2879 891 893 604 816 832. And that's it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Black. Hi, Brooks.
Speaker 1: Uh, Flynn. Hi.
Speaker 7: Gilmore. I heard in Cashman can eat. I knew Ortega. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please call the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 7: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 880 approving the service plans for the creation of the 4201 Arkansas Metropolitan District number one and 4201 Arkansas Metropolitan District number two a required public hearing on Constable 881
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the alley bounded by Cedar Avenue, South Birch Street and Leetsdale Drive, with reservations.
Vacates the alley bounded by Cedar Avenue, South Birch Street, and Leetsdale Drive with a partial special reservation in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09102018_18-0881
|
Speaker 5: Now, we were missing 112 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes, constable. 880 has passed. Councilwoman, will you please put Council 81 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, I move that council bill 18 Dash 881 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. The public hearing for Council Bill 881 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 11: Good evening. I'm Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance. And here to give you your staff report on Council Bill 1881 series of 2018, which is for an ordinance approving a single service plan for a new metropolitan district supporting redevelopment at the site located at 2000 South Holly Street. The district is called 2000 Holly Metropolitan District. The service plan being submitted to City Council approval is on behalf of CR F Holly LLC, pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act. Sections 30 2-12001 and more particularly 32 Dash 1 to 4.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The service plan contains the district's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations and policy and all other applicable laws. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and other governmental entities having jurisdiction. The new Metropolitan District will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation street and sidewalk improvements, parking infrastructure, water, storm drainage detention, sanitary sanitary sewer improvements, landscaping, irrigation, public spaces and traffic and safety controls and improvements. The new metropolitan district will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authorities granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges for debt and district operations and maintenance. Once the district imposes a debt mill levy, the district's operations and maintenance mill levy cannot exceed ten mills. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve content contemplated development is approximately $3.8 million. In order for the new Metropolitan District to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide the funding for the upfront costs of the public improvements needed in the service area, the new metropolitan district shall have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. At this time, 2000 South Hadley site is not currently located in a urban renewal area, and a developer is not seeking authorization from the Denver Urban Renewal Authority to use tax increment financing. At completion of the current completion. The current plan projects the residential and commercial mixed use development to include approximately 140 to 180 for sale residential units and either 40 to 60 affordable senior housing apartments or 5000 square feet of commercial space. Approval of the service plan establishes the following There is sufficient and sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for president projected needs. The district and the districts. The district is capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. And the facility and service standards will be compatible with the service and facility standards of the city. Staff recommends approval of the service plans. The applicant, their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to any questions regarding this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Johnston, you've been down here a lot. Thank you for all your good work. I do fear that at the end of the year and our council awards ceremony, you're not going to fare well in the best PowerPoint presentation category. But we do appreciate all the work that you put in and thank you for that presentation. We have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. I think you're probably all sitting right here in the front already. But if you're not, come on up. First up, Kristin Baer.
Speaker 7: Good evening.
Speaker 5: Again, Kristin Baer.
Speaker 7: With the law firm of White Bear Brinkley.
Speaker 5: Tanaka and Waldron. And again, we represent the petitioners in this matter. I am.
Speaker 7: Wholeheartedly for the passage of this.
Speaker 5: Bill and would welcome any questions you might have regarding the service plan of the districts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Chris Scardino.
Speaker 11: I'm Crispus Guardian with the control group. I represent the applicant. And again, we're in support of putting this matter district in place. And I'm here for any questions that I can answer.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Sam Sharp. Sam Schaap with D.A..
Speaker 2: Davidson and Company. You are the financial.
Speaker 1: Consultant to the applicant here for questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Chairman Secret.
Speaker 3: Yes. Chairman Sekou likes saw some movement self-defense as a group of poor working poor homeless people. Senior citizens. Students. Again. We. Support. This metropolitan district. Thinking about. What's right about it as opposed to what's wrong about it and what's wrong about it. Councilman Guzman has committed himself. Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your. If you could just refer to the. Our expectations refer to the council as a whole not to individual council members. Think you can please continue.
Speaker 3: Okay. I can use a name as I would.
Speaker 0: You can just address us as a body instead of picking out individual members. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. So. Strike that. So what's right about this thing is that it can be. And it shall be. To. For the development of the city and the neighborhoods. And when we have. Folks who are willing to step up to invest. In the city and especially on this one, where they coming out their pocket, they're not asking for the financing and and getting folks caught up in future debt and they see the possibilities of them. Making a contribution to the city and in the process they get something out of this too. It's a win win thing. It's a win win thing. Now, the caveat is not why are we doing it, but how we do it, how we do it. And if we apply the standard of. The greatness and goodness of the possibilities that can happen with it, with our actual behavior in doing what we say we going to do. Then this is a good thing, especially for poor, working, poor and homeless people, because there's a lot of jobs in this part of jobs in this city's bangin jobs. And I just came from the gemstone show after the Coliseum.
Speaker 1: Oh, man. Big.
Speaker 3: Great. When I saw people at stops and they were doing construction, there were no black workers there. Now what?
Speaker 5: Like, how could you do this?
Speaker 1: How could you have all this going on? Ain't no black folk working.
Speaker 3: And we got black folk on the council. Come on, now. Talk to me. So saying one thing out, one side to mouth and then doing something else. And that's not critical. That's just the way things have been going.
Speaker 1: On.
Speaker 3: And on and on with no one having the courage to stand up and do it because they don't want to risk their careers, their political associations, their friend, whoever they've been hanging out with for the last something died before they got up in here.
Speaker 0: Sherman Sager, again, thank you so much for speaking. As far follow our expectations state to the topic that we're discussing. And again, number three is no remarks about council members personality, appearance or perceived motives.
Speaker 3: Did you change some rules? I didn't. Is this supposed to be read out loud so we understand this thing?
Speaker 0: Those are just our expectations. Same rules we've always had while.
Speaker 3: We come up here. No, I didn't know this is for this. And you didn't even explain this suggestion before you had the conversation.
Speaker 0: These have always been our rules. Your time is ticking.
Speaker 3: So people will know what is about to win is up here. We can follow rules.
Speaker 0: My chairman said. What do you have? Do you have any comments?
Speaker 3: Study and ask, Is it okay if I take this with me so I can read this? The first time I ever seen this in 12 years, it's sitting up here.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Jesse Paris. Denver Homicide. Low Black Star Action. War for Self-defense. So the Council at Large Candidate 2019 August stated previously The way these metro districts are operating and the way council is working with them is very disingenuous and a disservice to the people. That you are supposed to be representing. This just seems like another way of masking the widespread gentrification that's going on in the city. Gentrification, just a nice way of saying ethnic cleansing. The city is becoming where it wants to be once again. White only exclusive, but under the inclusion of inclusion. There's nothing inclusive about any of this stuff, especially if you're not being transparent with the citizens of this city. We find this very faulty. And once again, I am against this. If you do not disclose this information to the Arnolds. If you are not disclosing this information to the public, we need to know these things. So with that being said, I'm against this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I just want to clarify whether or not this particular application is going to either need or be requesting tax increment financing. Can someone from the team address that?
Speaker 11: Not on this site.
Speaker 9: Okay. Just the other one. Yep. And then Andrew wanted to ask you a question about the legislation that creates metro districts is very, very clear and very prescriptive. But I don't remember seeing anything in there that would preclude local government from being able to require notification. So can you just speak to that? I know Councilman Cashman said that he would intend to bring that forward. I think that's a reasonable request on all of these. And I'm sure that the community was notified this was part of the process during the public meetings that were being held. And I know there were a number of them with the community, but can you just speak to that?
Speaker 11: Absolutely. There. You're right. There have been a number of community meetings about the development on both the Holly and the Arkansas side with a lot of involvement there. But when it comes to the actual legal requirements in the Colorado Revised Statutes, it is very prescriptive. And it does say that it's only to all the taxing entities within a three mile radius of the proposed district site. But there's nothing precluding the ability of of going the extra mile and including our in-house.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is just a small item, but I notice that committee and tonight that in the information we have on our agenda and also in the bill that was filed, that the word south is not there in South, Holly, and the word east is not there in Arkansas. And I'm just wondering if that's going to result in you're having to refile the bill because those are not the addresses.
Speaker 11: It will not. It's been a confusing thing all along, actually. They chose the name of the metropolitan districts by their legal name, creating them as just 2000 Holly and 4201 Arkansas. But the sites have site directions in their addresses, either being on South Holly or on East Arkansas. So but that will not require any new notifications.
Speaker 5: Interesting.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 881 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I will approve this. But with your indulgence, Mr. President, something I neglected to speak about regarding the Arkansas site that I just want to get on the record. Part of the problem I have with taking these things out of order, out of what would seem like a logical order. While there's no proscriptive, this must be done in this order to be approving these metro districts. I have concern that there may be some inference of an indication on feelings towards either the TIFF application or the rezoning that will follow. And it should be clear that that is not the case. The developer and the city are presently working on a development agreement that we don't know what that looks like yet. We don't know what the outcome of Dora's evaluation of the TIFF request is, so we really have nothing on which to consider either of those items. So any comments made tonight, at least from this chair and I suspect from my my colleagues, are simply about the creation of these districts. And I would also say that I'll just reinforce the need to add this to the R.A. ordinance, because I was I think I've been at all but one of the public meetings. And if metro districts were mentioned, it certainly was not emphatic enough to stick with me as far as knowledge of that from those meetings. I have been briefed on them, but that's my recollection. Apologies if I missed something in the meeting process.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I think that's a great idea to let our RINO's know. But just to be clear, these plans really are just a funding mechanism to build infrastructure, which is then turned back over to the city. It's just a way to fund those things. It's not a development plan or anything like that. So I just wanted to be clear on what they are and aren't. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Black. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Oh, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be supporting this. I just wanted to chime in on this notification process. I appreciate the effort to make sure the Arnaud's do this. I would say if if it is notified to Arnaud, as I just said in Arnaud. Actually, I was at a neighborhood that did not knows a hundred people there and they did not know who their R.A. was. So we need to have a conversation about other folks outside of Arnaud who are in the neighborhood. They've been in the neighborhood, but they aren't connected to a specific Arnaud. So I'd love to have a conversation with you, Councilman, on that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Cashman. Cannick, I. Lopez All right. New Ortega. SUSSMAN Black Eye.
Speaker 1: Brooks Flynn, I.
Speaker 7: Gilmore, Herndon.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and thus results choice. 12 hours, countable. 881 has passed. Councilwoman, can you please be accountable? 791 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Service Plan for the creation of 2000 Holly Metropolitan District.
Approves the service plan for the formation and establishment of the 2000 Holly Metropolitan District in Council District 6. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 9-10-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-14-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09102018_18-0791
|
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and thus results choice. 12 hours, countable. 881 has passed. Councilwoman, can you please be accountable? 791 on the floor.
Speaker 5: Yes, I move that council. Bill 18, does 791 be placed upon final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 791 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Members. Counsel. Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston. And with me planning and development. I'm here to present on a rezoning for 1260 East Albrecht Drive and Council District eight in the Montebello neighborhood, the size is about five and a half acres, and the proposal is CPD on behalf of Denver Parks and Recreation is requesting to rezone the property from as the Max 12 to OSA to align the zoning with city ownership and use as a public park. As I just mentioned, the subject's site is zoned as Max 12. The surrounding properties are as max 12 as well. We also have some form of Chapter 59 zoning surrounding the property to the north, R3 to the south, before waivers to the West Bay. You are one you go to. In terms of the existing context for the land use. As I said, the park is the property is currently under construction for the open space park. It is showing is currently vacant. But on this map we have various commercial, retail and institutional uses surrounding the property as well as industrial to the south. This is showing the property and site photos of the site we have showing it that is under construction currently. And here is photos of the surrounding context. We have Denver Health Building to the west. North, you'll see the multifamily to the east, just general commercial, retail to the south, industrial warehouses and to the west. You have an extended detention base and that is serving flows from the industrial warehouses to the south. The proposal is to rezone the property to OSA. The OSA district is open space public parks district. It's specifically intended for parks and open spaces owned, operated or maintained by the city and county of Denver. In terms of the process. We had our public planning board hearing on July 11th and it was unanimously approved. Lee was on July 31st. In terms of public comment, we had a letter of support from Montebello 2020, the registered neighborhood organization. Three additional letters of support from various organizations in the area. We also received a timeline and update of the Mount Belo Open Space Partnership, an acquisition that is in your packet. And so we'll go through a step through the criteria for approving a rezoning. First one consistency with adopted plans. There are four adopted plans that apply to this rezoning the comprehensive plan Denver Parks and Recreation Game Plan Blueprint. Denver and the Montebello. Green Valley Ranch Neighborhood Plan. For the comprehensive plan. The request is consistent with several comprehensive plans strategies for use as parks and open space. And we also have the game plan and the request is consistent with several of the game plan policies as well as the OCA district will allow for greater flexibility to support the partnership with Environmental Learning for Kids. And with Blueprint Denver, the concept land use is town center and the ozone district supports the town center land use by better integrating a park into the town center. And it is an area of stability. And the goal for area stability is to allow some change in development. The proposed MAP amendment to OSA creates a better alignment between the use and the zoning, and both of those are consistent with Blueprint Denver. With the Montpellier Green Valley Ranch Neighborhood Plan from 1991. It contains various policies supporting community services, parks and open space uses. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the My fellow GBR plan, and the plan has various policies that support those open space uses. So we'll look at the other review criteria two through five. The rezoning will result in uniform application of the OSA district regulations across the site. It furthers public health, self safety and welfare as it furthers adopted plans. The justifying circumstances. The change in the area is that the city has property has been conveyed to the city transfer city. There is an approved site development plan already on the property under the Max 12 in the construction of the Montebello Open Space Park is already underway. It is consistent with the neighborhood context and zoned district purposes. Ten. As I mentioned, it's the open space context. That context is specifically for to support various active passive recreational uses. And also the OSA Zone District is specifically the A is specifically for parks owned operating or maintained by the city and county and Denver, which this is . So in conclusions, committee planning and development recommends approval of the application based on finding. All review criteria have been met. Thank you. That concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you signed up to speak on this one, if you could make your way to the front bench there and I'll call you up in order. And again, your time will start as soon as your name is called and you reach the podium. First up, Loretta Pineda.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Welcome. My name is Loretta Pineda, and I'm the executive director for Environmental Learning for Kids, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Mark Taber. Good evening. I'm Mark Taber with Parks and Recreation. And we wholeheartedly support not only this zoning change but also.
Speaker 1: The use as it is being developed right now is.
Speaker 0: Open space park and an environmental education center. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: Chairman Zuku doesn't need to say all that other stuff or just get started.
Speaker 0: You can just get started. Okay, good.
Speaker 3: All right. First of all, thanks. I missed class. I was gone. Thank you for the instruction. I will be no public perception that he was interrupting me being rude, but that wouldn't have meant I wasn't having it all. It was just informing me how it was working. I didn't know. And I thank you for your courtesy of helping me out with that in the hallway. So, Mr. President. We support this. His only change. Because it's consistent with what's going on with the development out there now, with massive projects going up and buildings going up in the air. Folks. From here. This used to be in in this neighborhood. And I grew up in this neighborhood. We need some air, man. We need some space. And we need some brass for the kids somewhere to go play. And a safe place environment and a good place to go walking around, you know, exercising and stuff like that, feeling at home. You know, healthy physical fitness, mental wellness and. Spirit of lifting space. Space. This is the wild, wild west. We need space, space, space. Now, we have an issue, though, in that public safety. Protection of folks walking around so they can feel safe. And I'll give you an example. As businesses growing and a development a city and people coming in from other areas of the country. We're also attracting that which is so good. Say That ain't so good. And then the to the police about incidents that happens to people in the neighborhood of little. Example is candidate run for city council just attacked in West Side. At a train station with his bus on there. And the police did like what? But if that had been you, you, you, any of the body could have been in the papers due to due to investigation. All that ain't nothing happened. It was like. Oh, well. How am I going to feel safe now? I'm going to say. And I'm running for elected official, and I'm a good guy. Can't walk from a train station home without getting attacked because his bike is a trigger for folks who want to steal it. That ain't from here. And that's one of the things we have to protect against, because as we attract all of this, we track in good will, tracked and bad. We've tracked an ugly. And this thing could easily become real interesting and unmanageable. Like the city of Chicago. We have to be careful about how we go about doing all this. But those open spaces must be sacred. They've got to be sacred. If we don't protect nothing else, where there's playgrounds and kids and senior citizens come in there and people jogging around the park and just relaxing so they can get ready for the grind to Monday. That's got to be sacred space, not just open space sacred. And so as we go about doing this thing, think about the police protection that's got to be included in the plan. How much money are we going to need here? We're going to need here to manage this here without being obtrusive. So don't look like it's no armed camp. But you're going to need to add that to this idea because we're growing way too fast with resources trying to catch up. The development is pushing us as opposed to us. Pushing to develop. So we caught up. So we got so this thing down. And then suddenly we got speed this thing up and as we slow it down for stability so we can keep going, we got to protect territory. We got to protect the land. We got to protect, first of all, the children, the women. Senior citizens. The ones that are most vulnerable to these outside elements. So. I say that I didn't break the rules. No, that's okay. I had to do all that.
Speaker 0: Did great.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Jesse Paris Blackstar. Some Movement. Denver Homeless out loud. Candidate for City Councilor at Large 2019. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it seems like a good idea on the surface to put a open space park where there used to be a park and ride use service people of Northeast Denver, which was torn down. And now people in northeast Denver have to go all the way to 40th and Peoria to catch the train to get to downtown Denver, opposed to having to go to the Montebello Park, a ride where this site is located. My whole thing is we don't need any more permanent patties and barbecue. Becky, is this predominately black and brown neighborhood? If you put a park here, what is going to stop these transplants, these gentrifiers, these newbies from calling the police on people for just simply barbecuing in the park, simply having a get together in a park? That is my concern. So if I also I want to know what it's all going to be here is it's going to be a park. Is it going to be a garden with what is all this? And tell me. So if I get some clarification on, I greatly appreciate it. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council councilwoman? Can each.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Mr. President, I just had a quick question, and I just had never caught this before. And maybe it's because this is one of our first of several partnerships the is doing. But you mentioned it was a city owned, operated and maintained. But I actually think that the agreement with the environmental learning for kids has them doing some maintenance and maintaining of this. And so I just want to clarify that everything is okay with the zone district that you don't have to have city all three of those being done by the city. Just can you clarify to me I just want make sure that we're good with the arrangement we have and the zoning. Yeah, you can definitely you can be owned but maintain there's many different OSA zone properties that are owned by the city, yet maintained or leased to a different entity. Okay, got it. So note no incompatibility. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, councilwoman. Can each councilwoman or it.
Speaker 9: So I was just trying to understand if it was elk that was the applicant or if it was the city of Denver that was the applicant. And I was trying to look through these documents and that wasn't real clear.
Speaker 5: Right. So the city and county in Denver is the applicant. So community planning and development, the department, we are the applicant on behalf of Denver Parks and Recreation as they have the partnership formerly without. Okay.
Speaker 9: And how much of the land actually. So it's my understanding there's a structure being built on the site that it's not all just open space, is that correct?
Speaker 5: Currently, and that's in the phase two. The site development plan has phase one and phase two on the property. Phase one is the open space park and phase two would be the the Environmental Learning Center.
Speaker 9: So is there any limitation that Parks and Rec has for how much? Structure can be on their parks.
Speaker 5: So that would be with the ozone zone district. It is up to the executive director, Happy Haines, and I believe it is 2500 square feet before it has to go to city council for additional approval.
Speaker 9: Do we know the size of the building that's proposed for the building for that site?
Speaker 5: I'm not 100% sure. So I'll let Loretta answer that question. Thank you. Council on Woman Ortega. Right now, the building will be 7800 square feet. That's the plan. So if there's some other process we need to go to. Well, we'll have to see. Okay, we do that.
Speaker 9: But you don't propose. I mean, I know you're probably just raising the money to build that right now. So do you propose it any time in the future that it would grow or it's really intended to use the building to then interface with the park?
Speaker 5: Right. Yeah. The open space, it's one acre is dedicated to the building and the 4.5 acres are dedicated to open space. So with that much open space, hopefully we can still.
Speaker 9: That's a helpful explanation because that that wasn't clear from looking at the information that was provided to us. Okay. I think those are all the questions I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Clark. Courtney, could you go to Slide eight on the presentation? I just want to make sure it's clear that this has always been, you know what, I might be on the wrong slide. It's the slide that has. Yep. That one right there. The previous one. And this one for the Nets. Yeah, that one right there. So this has always been raw, undeveloped land, correct? That's my understanding, yes. And so the park and ride that was referenced is actually to the west of this parcel of land. And so this isn't on the current RTD park and ride that has been vacated. Now, the RTD is that concrete, you know, to the north, I guess would be northwest. So you see the corner of Peoria and Walbrook, it would be just to the east of that that concrete area. That's the park and ride. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 791 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think Councilman Gilmore, she took my first point.
Speaker 2: This is not where the parking ride is going.
Speaker 1: I was going to make that correction. Thank you for that. This is a no brainer. I'm a huge.
Speaker 2: Fan of what environmental learning for kids has been doing under your leadership. Thank you for that. And of course, we have to give.
Speaker 1: Huge.
Speaker 2: Kudos to your predecessor who created environmental learning for kids. So I will.
Speaker 1: Look to.
Speaker 2: My left and look for my colleague, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that, for educating our youth. And so I welcome anyone to come out to this space once it is done to learn about our environment and how important it is no matter where you live, because anyone could benefit from that knowledge. So I want to thank you for your.
Speaker 2: Leadership as we move forward. Best of luck as you continue to fundraise.
Speaker 8: For this cause. I know they were still still working to get to our total goal, but I certainly hope my colleagues will support this because this is a great cause for the Marbella community and beyond.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. A couple of things. One, I'll be supporting this because it is in conjunction with the criteria we need to approve rezonings. This falls right in line with that. So I'll be supporting it to environmental learning for kids. You know, I think it really touches the kids of the neighborhood, which I appreciate. And so to get kids of color in the neighborhood, connect it with the environment is huge. So I just really appreciate you all doing that. And three, 18 years ago, I lived at our Brook Apartments on our brook. And so this is like really exciting to see this area getting so much attention. And so thank you all for your hard work on this. I think the city to for for really parks and rec for being proactive on on doing open space in the city. I think it's a critical time. I think we're going to look back on this time and say if we hadn't had done this and increased our acreage of open space in the city, we would not have had such incredible greens in our city. So thank you for all your hard work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also agree that the criteria have been met, and we'll be happy to support this rezoning today. I just wanted to share my recollection of getting toured this site back in, I think it was 2014 and it was, you know, at that point we were just doing an, you know, tour, just just the two of us. And there, sure enough, was a totally unscheduled school class that was going around and comparing weeds to native plants and just, you know, as high school students. I don't remember if they were from Montebello, Ohio, where they were from. But anyway, so so this community was already trying to interact with this space and create an open space. I mean, sometimes it's like when you let the community use a space, you can they'll tell you what it's going to be. And so and then I juxtapose that with doing neighborhood night out at the Albrecht apartments where what they do is they empty out the parking lot for neighborhood night out. And it is just so many children. You can see all of them playing and you just imagine that most of the time they can't do that because their cars parked there. And so just the proximity of it to, you know, some really much needed high density housing but without, you know, that big open space to play, I just think that the synergy is you couldn't imagine a better kind of way to make use of urban infill to do a park. So and just lastly, having had a few years of experience converting a place into open space, we have no idea how much where Councilman Gilmore and the new leadership and Parks has done to get here. So it's just exciting to see a vote on this. We've had a couple other little midges come through, but this one's a big one. So congratulations to everybody who's worked on it for all these years because it's it's it's more than this slide show could ever tell us. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Clark. I was kind of reviewing the history of this site and my work on it, and we started this conversation in 2006. My daughter is 14 years old and just started high school. She was two years old when we started. Working on this project. And so from that standpoint, you know, having founded Environmental Learning for Kids, we had all of our community meetings in our home in Mount Bello.
Speaker 9: And when we.
Speaker 5: Ran out of space in our backyard and we couldn't fit 75 people in our backyard to do leadership programs and education for young people in their families. The kids and the families in Elk said, Why don't we have a place in the community so that we have a home, we have the Gilmore House, but that's not our home. We want this in the community for us. And so after 12 years in the making of robust community outreach, engagement, education, advocacy, it's nice to see us finally get here to rezone it because the schematic that's up there, there's a 7-Eleven to one corner, and we had a social path that ran through this property that went right from the 7-Eleven car wash, straight over to a marijuana store and a payday loans and a liquor store. So we had people.
Speaker 9: Utilizing.
Speaker 5: The property. But to break that up and to create an education zone, an open space, a park is something that has definitely been a labor of love and happy to support this tonight and see where it might go forward. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Nu, I just want to support two is going to be a wonderful educational facility for kids. I just can't wait to see it happen. It's really exciting and thank you and all of the supporters. And I especially want to thank one of my constituents and Bennett, who's been a real active supporter of this program. And so she she's just as party or more as passionate about this as she was helping me with the minority or weirdness legislation we had earlier did it earlier than last year. So graduation is what you're doing and it's going to be a wonderful facility. And thank you for all your leadership in what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Using no other comments, I'll just end with that. I'm happy to support this. Thank you for the great presentation showing how it meets the criteria for rezoning. Outside of that, it's really exciting to see something come forward to change the zoning that this will be a permanent addition to our public park system and our public spaces. Thank you to parks. But on top of that, it's not just a park in a community. This is a park that that was built by the community. And having spent my entire career working in environmental education, health is the gold standard for working in this community, specifically working with kids and with youth, and doing the critical work that is connecting communities of color, kids of color to careers in wildlife, biology and natural resources. I mean, it's the it's the measuring stick that every other nonprofit that is working in this space is working towards. And so to see all of that come together where you have just this gold standard of a nonprofit partner and you have a piece of property that is vacant and underutilized and a place where we can build a park and have that nonprofit immediately activate it and just take the work, the great work that they're doing to the next level in a way that the city could never do on our own, never bring that level of expertize, that level of engagement. It's it's really exciting to see and I'm thrilled to be able to support this tonight. Thank you to our current leadership and past leadership. Very exciting day and excited to vote yes for this one. So with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Herndon. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black. Brooks.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flynn, I.
Speaker 7: Gillmor, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1212 hours council bill 791 has passed. On Monday, September 17, the Council will hold a required public hearing on council will eight five approving the service plan for the creation of the Denver Rockdale Metro Metropolitan District and a required public hearing on Council Bill 944 approving the service plans
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 12680 E. Albrook Drive in Montbello.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 12680 East Albrook Drive from S-MX-12 to OS-A (suburban, mixed-use to open space) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08272018_18-0705
|
Speaker 0: Nine ice nine as council bill 848. Has passed. Councilman Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 705 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dead 0705 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. The public hearing for Council Bill 705 is open. May we have the staff reports?
Speaker 10: Sorry. It's asking me to sign in. Yeah. Activate office. You just get my. Sorry about that. Thank you. My name is Chandler Van Skog. I'm from Community Planning and Development. As you know, this is for an official map amendment 5611 East Iowa AB from sued to SRH 2.5. The subject's eight 5611 East Highway AV. Is located in Council District six in the Virginia Village neighborhood. The lot is approximately 14,191 square feet or about a third of an acre and is currently vacant. Again, the proposal is to rezone this lot from SUD to as RH 2.5 to allow redevelopment of the parcel with two duplexes for a total of four units. So the requested zone district suburban stands for suburban neighborhood Context Rowhouse, a 2.5 storey height limit. So that's RH 2.5. As a multi-unit district, it allows suburban house duplex and row house building forms up to two and a half storeys in height. So a bit about the existing context. So the subject site, as you know, is currently zoned SUD. It is adjacent to several other zone districts to the north. You have some ex to to the east, you have more as a said to the west across Holly Street and there is some zoning as well as SRH 2.5. And to the south it's said. In terms of land use. As I mentioned before, the subject site is currently vacant and has been for as long as we have records surrounding properties and include a variety of uses to the immediate north. There is not a repair shop across Holly. To the west is our town homes and then single family dwelling units are adjacent to the lot on either side. Further to the north, south of the border, and there's an insurance office, gas station and a retail store. So in terms of the building form and scale, these are some pictures of the existing context. Starting from the upper left, you can see the existing townhomes across Holly Street. On the upper right is the existing auto repair shop that's adjacent to the site to the north. The bottom right picture shows the subject site currently in it's vacant state. And then down to the left is a single family home across the intersection there, which is representative of many of the other homes in the area. And so a bit about the process so far, this item on the planning board on June 20th, 2018, our planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. That was five zero with one abstention. And it went to Luti on July 10th. And today it is here before you council. In terms of public comment, prior to the planning board hearing, staff did receive three letters of opposition which were forwarded to the board. On that planning board, a member from the R.A. spoke in support and several neighbors were there to speak in opposition to the proposal. Since then, the applicant has signed a good neighbor agreement with the R.A. and the R.A. has provided a letter of support. Both of these are included with your packet. So jumping into the review criteria. Proposals for rezoning are reviewed against these five criteria. So the first criteria required or criterion requires consistency with adopted plans. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver are the two adopted plans that apply. Staff has found that the proposal is consistent with several strategies listed in the comprehensive plan. I won't read all of them, but generally these strategies are centered around promoting quality, infill development, increasing densities in appropriate locations, creating a diverse mix of housing types, and supporting addition of housing, particularly in infill development. In terms of the consistency with Blueprint Denver and this is a land use designation map showing that the subject property has a a land use concept of single family residential. This land use concept anticipates single family homes as the predominant residential type. It's worth noting that the historic development of this block north of Iowa has a lot of properties that are designated single family residential. But the development of this block does not reflect the underlying designation and blueprint. Denver does address this to an extent, and that it mentions that land use building block boundaries are not fixed and some areas are in a state of transition. Another aspect that we look at here is whether it's in an area of change or an area of stability. In this case, the lot is in an area of stability. The purpose of areas of stability are to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. So there is a very unique character, this area between Iowa and Florida. It's worth noting that the existing Townhomes, Auto Body Office use and retail have all been there for 50 years or more. So in that sense, they are very much a part of the existing character on this block. And that was really what staff took into account when deciding that this was consistent with the area of stability designation. In terms of future street classifications, East Iowa, ATVs and designated local. So that is tailored to providing local access primarily at slower speeds. South Hadley Street is a residential collector. This is intended to balance transportation choices with land access without sacrificing on mobility. These are generally designed to accommodate more trips per day than local streets. And the staff found that SRH 2.5 is consistent with the street classifications because the zone district enables low intensity and low scale multi-unit residential uses along streets designated for residential purposes and traffic levels. So step KPD finds that the rezoning is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver Criteria two and three have also been met criteria and to requires uniformity of district regulations. So in this case, the request is consistent. There are no waivers or special exceptions being requested. It also furthers the public health, safety and welfare by implementing the city's adopted plans and allowing development of an underutilized infill site consistent with the existing residential character in the area. Criteria. Number four requires justifying circumstances. In this case, the proposal was found to meet change or changing conditions in a particular area or in the city generally. So as outlined in the staff report, there's been significant new development at the Colorado station area as well as on the Colorado Boulevard corridor. Also, in terms of citywide changes, there's been an increased demand for housing. This rezoning would facilitate the provision of additional housing, again, an underutilized infill site. And then the fifth criterion requires consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. So the zone district purpose itself doesn't specify too much, but there is some language in the suburban neighborhood context definition which works well here. So the suburban neighborhood context is generally characterized by single unit and multi-unit residential. Multi-unit building forms are typically separated from single unit residential and consist of row house and occasional mid and high rise apartment building forms. And perhaps most importantly for this proposal. Multi-unit, residential and commercial uses are primarily located along arterial and collector streets. So staff finds that it meets criteria number five and that it separates. It keeps essentially the multi-unit and single family generally separate in terms of character. And it is located along a collector street, which is designed to handle slightly higher traffic levels. So in closing, I see that he recommends approval of application 2017 I 190 based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I apologize if I get your name wrong. When I call you up, please step up to the podium and your 3 minutes will start. First up, Andre Pavilion.
Speaker 1: If.
Speaker 10: Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Andre Coogan to eight, nine, nine North Sphere Boulevard. I'll keep this brief. Just wanted to say, you know, we've been working on this with the community for quite a while now. We actually met with the park or the Virginia Village Neighborhood Organization on Valentine's Day night with Council Cashman, Councilman Cashman present. And I've been working on it since then. We actually then realized we needed to move over and be talking with the Park Neighborhood Organization. And as as Chandler said, we have come to a good neighbor agreement that has been signed with them. It is SRH 2.5. But our our intent was to build duplexes, not to do townhomes. That was, I think, a good portion of the neighborhood concern in the previous public forums. Just very quickly, the the good neighbor agreement that we've signed stipulates that we are going to use the duplex form.
Speaker 0: Of the Rowhouse District.
Speaker 10: Which limits it to which limits any development to the same building height, the same lot coverage, the same setbacks in the same book. Playing requirements that are required under single family are under SUD, which is the current zoning. Literally, we are just asking for two more front doors. I ask for your support in this? I think, as Chandler pointed out, I think the increased density without it being harmful to the neighborhood that blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan both call for I think are applicable here in the vacant lot, being on a collector street, being close to a neighborhood center and be the presence of that zoning district across the street. Thank you for your help.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, Kelley Smith.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Kelly Smith, 1864 South 18th Street. I'm here representing Cooke Park Neighborhood. If there's any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And last up, Keith Niland.
Speaker 10: Hello. Thanks for having me. So my name is Keith now and I'm the owner of the lot at 5611 East Iowa Avenue. Personal addresses for two. Well, excuse me, 43, South Gilman Street in Denver. And I'm here to just answer any questions you guys have as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council?
Speaker 7: Yes. Uh.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Chandler. I'm sorry. Councilman Cashman. Have questions first. Okay. In the staff report, it says that the public comments, including letters of opposition, were included. But they're not on the attachment that's been uploaded here in our system. Could you describe what the what the opposition was in the staff report? It says there were two folks who who opposed the rezoning unless there was a good neighbor agreement which has subsequently happened, but that there were three people who said they were against it, regardless of whether there was a good neighbor agreement. What was the opposition based on?
Speaker 10: So I think initially the opposition was based on the allowable rowhouse building form of the district. Right. Because the suburban context, it doesn't have a two unit zone district. This is the next step up essentially from single family. So when the proposal came in for RH 2.5, people kind of saw that. I think there is. It allows ten units per 6000 square feet. So the lot theoretically, although I don't know how you would fit, it could have 20 units on it. So I think there was an initial kind of scare with people that that's what they were proposing to build. So that's kind of where the Good Neighbor agreement came from. And then the people who showed up, the people who were kind of conditionally opposed, I guess you could say, were those who spoke at planning board. And they kind of expressed concern with the potential to have 20 units, but they said that they would be less concerned if some sort of agreement was reached to limit it to duplexes.
Speaker 7: Okay. And the subsequent specifics of the good neighbor agreement are what.
Speaker 10: The specifics of the good neighbor agreement are, that they will build two duplex units. They're limited to four units total. And that and the code kind of already requires this anyways, but also that they will meet the setback building coverage, building height and bulk standards for single family dwellings. And the code requires that anyways, but it's just kind of laid out in the Good Neighbor Agreement as well. Oh, and there's one more piece which I don't I believe this that has to be listed for sale for a minimum of six months. The units. 90 days. Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 10: Could could you explain why I believe that neighbors were concerned about them just becoming rental properties right off the bat. So, yeah, so they're they have 90 days to sell them and then if they're unable to sell them, I think there's a clause that allows them to rent them at that point.
Speaker 0: Ah, thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Andre or Keith? Some specifics about what you're planning. I believe the neighbor is it the neighbor to the east had an easement across the north portion of the property. What is the status of that easement?
Speaker 10: I'll address that. So the easement is recorded and is, you know, a public document and will be will certainly be observed regardless. It's his access easement to his garage off of Holly. But we also included it in the Good Neighbor Agreement that, you know, it will not be. It will not be blocked or, you know, nothing. Nothing will prevent him from being able to use to use his garage during construction or once the project is completed.
Speaker 7: Great. Regarding what you're planning on building, which we describe as two duplexes, give me an idea about what size are you envisioning? What price point are? Is parking garage part of the project? What do you envision?
Speaker 10: Well, so I'll I'll let Keith. We haven't actually started design yet. And I can tell you that each duplex will have would have its own two car garage. I'll let Keith address address the rest of that. Thank you. So we're looking at building two duplexes that would both face Iowa, the front doors, and then use that the alleyway that he has deeded access to. That's where we would put detached garages in the back so each duplex would have a two car garage back there. And we're probably looking at depends on our price point, but probably around the 6 to 700000 per unit in roughly about 2200 feet per unit above grade with an unfinished basement. That's kind of what we're looking at. So this thing, like you said, the single family structure that we could build in that envelope, just adding that extra door, it's the same size structure. We're just putting the wall down the middle for each of those units.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you, Chandler. As you know, my heartburn was not so much about these duplexes as as more so being. Does this now signal that this ACA neighborhood is now wide open for duplex development? Is there is there something unique about their property that might not? That makes it a unique choice for this opening where the next door neighbor or the guy across the street might not be.
Speaker 10: Yes. As I as I tried to kind of outline on the staff report, I think a big part of it is support for this comes from the the unique character between Florida and Iowa. Essentially, you have the neighborhood center that's at the intersection of Holly and Florida and that's, you know, designated neighborhood center and Blueprint Denver. And kind of extending from that, it's more of a mixed use context than the rest of the neighborhood. So when we're looking at a site and looking at the existing context and the surrounding uses, you know, this is a pretty unique site and that it's on a collector. It's been vacant forever and it has a gas station next to it on one side or an outer repair shop next to it on one side. It's immediately across the street from one single family home and then a townhouse development. So the way that we were looking at it, you know, the adjacency is much more of a mixed use context, whereas if you cross the street or go immediately east or west, then lots no longer have all of those qualities. They're either not on a collector or they're not adjacent to mixed use context. So in that sense, this is a very unique lot.
Speaker 7: Right? So the next door neighbor, even though he might say, well, hey, my neighbor has duplexes, he doesn't meet those unique criteria of being on either a collector or being adjacent to commercial property. Is that correct then?
Speaker 10: I mean, I can't say 100%, you know, without seeing an application whether or not we would we would make the finding that it met the criteria or not, but just kind of at first glance from a very high level. No, the other lots in that neighborhood would not have the same strength in our view.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counsel CASHMAN Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for House Bill 705 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned, when this was first brought up, I was concerned about that that firewall. This is a single family, a neighborhood, and we have this unique property on the corner. But there's that concern about does does this open the door as a kind of a de facto zoning change, a legislative rezoning for the entire neighborhood I've spoken with? Chandler several times about it. I spoke with Sarah Showalter this afternoon about it. And I'm confident that, as the staff report states, that this parcel has unique characteristics, that the others next door, across the street, down the block don't don't present. So I'm comfortable in approving this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 2: Kathryn can each new black high brooks.
Speaker 1: When I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore i.
Speaker 10: Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Sorry. You have to find one more.
Speaker 0: 9898705 has passed. On Monday, September 10th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 880, approving the service plans for the creation of 40 2001 Arkansas Metropolitan District Number one and 4201 Arkansas Metropolitan District number two and a required public hearing on Council Bill 881 approving the service plan for the creation of the 2000
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5611 East Iowa Avenue in Virginia Village.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 5611 East Iowa Avenue from S-SU-D to S-RH-2.5 (suburban, single-unit to suburban, rowhouse) in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-10-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0855
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 855 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 855 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 855 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good evening. Lisa Lemley Division of Real Estate. So we are here. Real Estate is representing the team to discuss the contract that is coming through is an exchange contract. The city currently owns the property at 2863 Fairfax Street and we would exchange the property for like size with the property across the street at 2860 Street I'm sorry , 28, 68 Fairfax Street included in this transaction, PHC would also. Paid to the city $650,000 for future but determined park improvements that will be deposited in escrow. That is the sum of the transaction. I'm talking about the park improvements.
Speaker 11: Yes. Scott Gilmore, deputy executive director of Parks and Planning. So this this project was started back in 2015. Xcel Energy had to transfer stations that they were decommissioning. I was able to talk talk to Excel. They had one. And on Fairfax, this is the one we're discussing now. And they also had one in Westwood, the Westwood neighborhood. So we were able to acquire those two parcels for $50,000. I would add I had attended some public public meetings at the Greater Park Hill community meetings to let people know that I was working on this, trying to acquire these properties, and that our goal, the Park's goal, Parks Department's goal, was to build a park in this community that basically has a park desert. There's not a lot of parks in this neighborhood. So this was something that we were just trying to do and trying to do to build this little pocket park. So we were able to do that. In 2016, H&M Capital approached the city and said, Hey, we are redeveloping the east side of the block. You guys have a pass on the West Side, and that's the map that you have on 20/29 and Fairfax. We would like to contribute to building a park on this block. We want to make our development better. We want to make the block better. And so we we started discussions with them and we we talked about a possible swap of land. They take the West Side parcel and then on the east side they would actually work with us to build a park within that within that block. And so we've moved forward and this is where we're at now. So they would actually give a $650,000. When this if this moves forward, $100,000 would be immediately available for us to actually move forward with the design. At this time, we basically just have some concept designs. The city did have four meetings in the community to work on some concepts. Also, the Park Hill community had four meetings. The Park Hill, Greater Park Hill community actually had three meetings. They came up with some concepts. These are actually pretty good concepts and they've got some really good bones to actually start the actual design process, to move forward to eventually get to a construction document. Right now we do not have any design that is finalized or anything, so this moving forward would actually give us funding, which we do not have at this time, to actually start the design of this project. So that's kind of what I wanted to bring up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Does that conclude this staff report then?
Speaker 11: Yeah, for now, yes. If there's any other questions, we are here.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We do have 29 individuals signed up to speak this evening. This is a one hour courtesy hearing, so we'll have to stop after one hour. So while you do have 3 minutes, if you're saying things that someone else has said or you can say them quickly, please do to allow time for us to get through as many of those 29 as we possibly can in one hour. I'm also going to ask if you're sitting in this first bench, if you could please find another seat, because I'm going to call up five speakers at a time so that we can try and get through people quickly and don't lose a lot of time. Turning over. So when I do call your name, come up to this front bench and then be ready in that order that I call you to pop right up when the speaker in front of you is done. I will now call the first five speakers. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name and then the first speaker can step up to the microphone. We'll get started right away. So the first five that we have is Robin Fishman, Christine O'Connor, Jesse Parris, Benjamin Shaffer and Alison Larson. If you could all five come to the front bench and Robin Fishman, the microphone is yours.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I really did not want to be first.
Speaker 4: But I go for it.
Speaker 7: My name is Robin Fishman. I live at 2665 Forest Street. It is roughly four houses down the alley from this development. I have watched a lot of change in this neighborhood. And I. For those of you who.
Speaker 4: Tend to vote with.
Speaker 7: Your registered neighborhood organization, I want to really speak to you.
Speaker 4: Tonight. I am a former board member of the Greater Parkfield community. I am the.
Speaker 7: Former executive director of Gated Park Community. I'm very familiar with how they work.
Speaker 4: And I have great respect.
Speaker 7: For the members here.
Speaker 4: Tonight who volunteer and work very hard with them.
Speaker 7: I typically agree with them, but on this case I feel like they have really missed the boat.
Speaker 4: They have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to survey the housing or membership.
Speaker 7: That lives directly.
Speaker 4: Closest to this park. I'm four houses away, as you will hear, and I hope you will ask.
Speaker 7: The people that come up to speak post tend to live farther away from the development. I and my neighbors live very close to the development. We are most affected by it. They did nothing to survey the membership. I have participated in park design programs.
Speaker 4: Through them where I had a very open mind about whether the park should be on the east or west side.
Speaker 7: Of the street. I was told we were looking at a ballpark of $750,000 to fundraise to privately build the park on the West Side.
Speaker 4: Which I actually volunteered to do.
Speaker 7: But as my mind started to change and I started to lean toward the east side, gradually I was left out of that process. I was no longer included.
Speaker 4: On emails to even deliver fliers about those meetings.
Speaker 7: And is very clear that they have a very specific agenda about wanting it. Only on the west side of the street, the park itself.
Speaker 4: Will be built between residents and a retail development.
Speaker 7: On the West Side. It will be.
Speaker 4: Long Table Brewery.
Speaker 7: Which is a great establishment.
Speaker 4: But it won't. It will be between.
Speaker 7: Retail and housing, regardless of which side of the street it's on.
Speaker 4: Some of the concerns.
Speaker 7: That have been raised have been about.
Speaker 4: Gentrification issues, people feeling welcome to the park and will it really feel like a city park.
Speaker 7: Versus a plaza? I feel strongly that through the work of the developers and.
Speaker 4: Through the work of the.
Speaker 7: Neighborhood, we can work with the city to make sure that it feels very much like a park that is open to all and make sure that the permitting is through the city to make sure that it feels open.
Speaker 4: And welcoming.
Speaker 7: I have certainly participated in processes where I have encouraged naming it after a park resident and making sure that it is something that is less than a plaza but open to everyone. My concern is if we wait for the West Side.
Speaker 4: We are fundraising probably for a private park, which that funds those funds could be put to.
Speaker 7: Much better use, such as helping the people.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, but your time is up. Oh, thank you very much. Next up, Christine, come on.
Speaker 7: All right. Well, anyway, I'm in favor of the swap.
Speaker 4: My name is Christine O'Connor. I live at 144 South Ulster Street in Denver. I'm going to ask you guys a rhetorical question to start with. So just can you just hold this in your head while I'm speaking? But how do you expect me as a voter to support a park, a sales tax for increasing revenue to parks by 47 million over our 74 million? If you're giving away park assets. Just hold that for a minute because this is really serious, this giveaway deal. I mean, the developer, as other people will explain, is getting money hand over fist. He's going to benefit by increased property values on the east side. He's doubling his holdings on the west side. He can reason.
Speaker 6: You all know that's going to.
Speaker 4: Come. I mean, we weren't born yesterday, so I'd like you to think about that. I also have a serious ask for you, something that you could do. And I think that the city and parks have bent over backwards to work with the developer and, you know, get an agreement in writing. Meanwhile. The community, which worked really, really hard for over two years, has no guarantees in writing. None. Park grader Parkhill asked for a board to be set up. A community board? That's not even done. There's no guarantee that the extra profits will go into this board for maintenance of the park. There's a number of things it can do. I've heard you're eluding meeting. I know that many of you have valid concerns about gentrification and who this park will serve. And being on Lowry, where we have a plaza in the middle of the shopping center, I guarantee you it's not an open public park. This one also isn't labeled a park, and I know DPR is going to take control, but if you really think that there isn't going to be racial profiling and there aren't going to be neighbors and restaurants complaining if it is really publicly used, then I don't think you really know anything about parks. So I'd like to ask that you postpone this until you've required the mayor and the administration to make agreements with the neighbors as part of this deal. And I know some of you are going to say, oh, we can't do that. That's out of our purview. Then why have a city council if you can't direct the mayor? I'm just not sure what our purposes. So there's other people who are going to talk. But I also have concerns about the future of our park. I love plazas. I've been to Siena. That plaza is wonderful. We have them. You know, they're all over New York City. But there's no guarantee that this is going to feel like a public park. And there's no rationale in the game plan. All we need to have.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 11: Jesse pairs Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and the City Council at large candidate for 2019 Black Stars and more for self-defense. We are a for profit.
Speaker 8: Which is for the poor, working, poor, elderly and senior citizens in the homeless and those that are just thrown off broke. We do not agree with this at all. As a Denver native, I grew up in Parkview. This neighborhood is being gentrified just like the rest of the neighborhoods throughout this whole city. And just to sit here and listen to you all try to justify this by saying that this is going to be a public park, all while having an urban camping ban which criminalizes the homeless on the streets of Denver. It makes it illegal for them to even sleep in the park. You think that the answer is more parks instead of affordable housing? This place could be used to build affordable housing.
Speaker 11: Transitioning to transitional housing.
Speaker 8: All the above. But instead you want to build another park. Like we don't already have enough parks already. Like we'd already have enough dog parks already. We have more dog parks than we have public restrooms in the whole city of Denver. We are definitely against this. You are being very disingenuous in the way that you are going about this process. The community has literally told you they do not want this done and you still want to go through with it. You still are in bed with the bedbugs, the business developers, and you still are following the lead of Michael Hancock, who is not fit to serve. So Denver homicide allowed Blackstar some movement. We are against this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Benjamin Schaaf.
Speaker 8: Benjamin Shariff. I live on 26 block of forest, so half block away from the development. I am in favor of the land swap. I have attended the the meetings and I, I to me it is it is a funding issue. There's funds available for a park. I and I have I have not heard from the GP agency any, any form of funding available that they have. They just have been said that they will find the funding available for that. To me, as a neighbor of the park with young children. I would like to use this park.
Speaker 5: I have seen this said.
Speaker 8: For two years without any development and I'll keep a brief with that. But I am in favor of the land swap.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Alison Larson and what Alison is coming up, I'm going to call the next five to come to this frontbench, Christina Cryer, Karen Engel, Ford, Jason Cline, Hayter, Blair, Taylor and Alison Shah. Sorry about some of those names. I apologize.
Speaker 7: Alison Larson. I'm Ali Larson. I'm a resident in Park Hill. As you can see, this is a heated issue in our neighborhood. Park Hill is experiencing gentrification at a massive rapid rate. And the people that are here opposed to the land swap, as I am, are not opposed to a park or oppose it. The way this process has been handled, which is have been extremely and equitably and with no transparency. I am urging you, as our city council members, to recognize that the city is paying attention to how we are gentrifying. Are we doing it respectfully? Are we doing it thoughtfully? Are we thinking about citizens who don't take online surveys, which is one of the ways that they were doing community feedback here? Are they showing up to meetings? Not necessarily. And we need to be listening to all of our community members. If you walk around Park Hill, I will tell you that the school a few blocks to the east of this has an Afro rate of over 90%. The school several blocks to the south has an overall rate of 13%. Park Hill is very divided. There are people here that will tell you that it is one Park Hill, but it is not. And these types of things happening continue to make that divide even greater. We are asking you to put a hold on this. Recognize that there were other offers on the table to develop this land that were not given consideration. That has not been mentioned here. There were developers that people that were bringing money to the table as well. As you heard, this whole thing was started because this developer came to the table, made the offer, and nothing else was considered. That should be a red flag to you as city council, as our city is gentrifying. Developers should not hold the power. When we were at the previous committee hearings, developers, the developer, held all of the power. Happy Hands even mentioned the term a gift.
Speaker 4: This was a gift from the developer.
Speaker 7: That should not be happening in city buildings. We should not be talking about gifts from developed developers that actually are not gifts. We are giving the developer a lot of money. This would be a plot of land in the middle of a fancy development in the middle of North Park Hill. North Park Hill is a special place. It still has some diversity. It still has a rich culture. If you have not been on this block recently, there has been a long standing black owned liquor store on the south side of the block that many of our neighbors have complained about because it gets frequented by lower income African-American patrons. Yet a brewery was built at the north end of this block, and no one seems to mind that there are drunk, white, rich people hanging out on that corner as well. I just want to point out that this is a sensitive subject. We care about our neighbors. We care about what is happening here. I'm a longtime resident. I care about neighbors. And I care about how we as a city are doing things. Are we doing it well? Are we doing it thoughtfully? This process has not been done equitably, nor thoughtfully, nor transparently. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Christina Crier.
Speaker 7: Hello. As you mentioned, my name is Christina Cryer and I live with my husband and my four and six year old boy at the corner of 26th and Forest. I'm also representing multiple other Park Hill families that weren't able to be here, including my cousin's entire family and my brother's entire family, all of which live within a block of, you know, this proposed park, whether it's on the east side or the west side. I've been to multiple meetings now trying to kind of weigh the pros and cons and hear from both sides. And in the simplest form, I mean, it just seems fairly obvious that it is a win for the neighborhood and we get a park sooner rather than later. The last information and data that I received was that the park could be, you know, 5 to 10 years down the road if we do not go through with the land swap. I don't know if that's still the updated numbers. We saved taxpayer dollars by helping, you know, partnering with the development.
Speaker 4: We still keep the entire.
Speaker 7: Piece of land with the city of Denver. And the park is going to be identical, whether it's on the east side.
Speaker 4: Or.
Speaker 7: The west side. I think what we're hearing is.
Speaker 4: Frustrations that aren't necessarily related 100% to the park. I've heard that there's been some.
Speaker 7: Mistrust or perhaps people wanted to be a little bit more included. And maybe that's the case and perhaps things could have, you know, developed better. But that doesn't change the fact that the park is going to be either on the east side or the west side, and that we can have it sooner without using taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 4: If we go through with the swap.
Speaker 7: I've also heard a lot of issues or concerns might be the better term on the development itself, and that is not what's up for vote right now. We can't necessarily change what's going on around the park, whether it's on the east side or the west side.
Speaker 4: We talk about things.
Speaker 7: That are there right now, whether that's going to be there in the future or not, I don't know. But those are things that is not being voted on right now and things that we can't change. I also don't think that there's an entire person.
Speaker 4: In this room that doesn't think that there's room for improvement on this block.
Speaker 7: You'll continue to hear from other people that live even closer than I do and some of the issues that they face. I know that we have faced some issues as well on my block, and I also understand that change needs to be thoughtful and that it really does need to benefit the neighborhood. And I think that the process has been going on for months and months. So I think that suggesting that not a lot of thought.
Speaker 4: Has not gone into this yet would be.
Speaker 7: False and wrong.
Speaker 4: And I also think that we can use this as an opportunity to.
Speaker 7: Shape the block. You know, I've reached out to, you know, my neighbors. I've reached out to, you know, councilman, I've reached out to the developer and I've reached out to on a couple of occasions the greater Parkdale community, you know, and I've had a lot of conversations and tried to bring up some different ideas, you know, whether it's bringing a social enterprise into the development or creating different park activities. But the Greater Park Hill Group has not exactly been open to those conversations.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, Karen, anger fought.
Speaker 7: You are doomed from the beginning. It's current and graffiti.
Speaker 8: When I was nine.
Speaker 7: I got to live in Park Hill, 2258.
Speaker 2: From Area Street.
Speaker 7: Grew up at 23rd and Bel from 1970. My cousin lives on Fairfax and 26. I am opposed to this swap in the developers pictures of the development. It looks like a 3 to 4 story building overlooking a private piece of land does not feel very hospitable, and that has been a very key point. This is not hospitable to the neighborhood and it is not respectful of the neighborhood. Just because you live close by. It's a park. You don't own the park a block from your house. That's a neighborhood park. It is a park. Desert. So it should serve the greater area. I work at Park Hill Clinic at the Denver Health Clinic. I'm a physician. Most of my patients live in the neighborhood. They. Would benefit from having more open space. I think the city has a great asset here and they should think twice before giving away this open space. I know the developer would want to put another building and looking at how it would be, the park would then be surrounded by three sides because then the developer would have the opportunity to put in another large building. So it would be three large buildings surrounding a very small park.
Speaker 2: I can have concerns about the heat.
Speaker 7: Island aspect of it. When I went to the horse and pony shows of the that the Parks Department put on, giving us four options and no input into anything other than comment on these four options. They said they would not allow that a playground was okay and there was a lot of it. What we came up with as a community at those meetings was discounted.
Speaker 4: Uh, one more thing.
Speaker 2: Or maybe in the interest of.
Speaker 7: Time, I will bow out.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. Next up, Jason Cline had her very good.
Speaker 11: So hi, my name is Jason Cleanser. I live at 2615 four, so less than a block away. We've been in the neighborhood since, well, 1/29 and Holly and then here.
Speaker 8: At 26th and Forest four and so on.
Speaker 11: And obviously I've seen a lot of change of the city. I'm sure.
Speaker 8: Anybody that's lived here for.
Speaker 11: 20 years plus you've seen a lot of change in the city. This block has not seen much change. In fact, the only change that has come has been through buildings B, becoming empty, subsequently encouraging crime and delinquency in our neighborhoods. I've seen cops shoot at kids in my neighborhood. I've seen other kids shoot at other kids. I've seen a tremendous amount of drug use. And and that's not what this neighborhood's about. This neighborhood is about community. It's about family. It's about being respectful to its neighbors. And because of the dilapidation that happened on that block.
Speaker 8: Over the years, that it's.
Speaker 11: It's not turned into an asset that the community can really value. The developer has taken on his his wings to to to put this in play, put attainable housing in the market. And he wants to.
Speaker 6: Give the community $650,000.
Speaker 8: At the cost of a $25,000 lot.
Speaker 11: That the city paid for. Congratulations, Scott. That's a hell of a good land deal.
Speaker 8: The reality is, is that the city is not.
Speaker 11: Out any.
Speaker 8: Money.
Speaker 11: With this. They're out 25 grand, but they get a $625,000 asset because of it.
Speaker 8: The city did a tremendous.
Speaker 11: Job of really programing this project, finding out the ins and outs of what makes a park community. And I commend their group for really being forward thinking of finding the assets that that that would make that a central part of our neighborhood and our streets. Because I do think it matters that you live there because I've seen it. I've been awoken by gunfire too many times in that neighborhood.
Speaker 8: To have it keep being a.
Speaker 11: Problem. And the fact of the matter is that if you live at 20th and Glencoe or if you live in Lowry, you don't know the issues that come down here. I we do. I've seen it. I've rolled up my windows at night because of it. So I honestly, hopefully you guys consider that as part of this thing and respect to somebody that's making an investment of millions and millions of dollars to make our neighborhood not only better to take away some of the assets that weren't being used and really make.
Speaker 8: Our community a piece that we can all be proud of.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Blair Taylor.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Blair Taylor and I live at 28 Glencoe Street. I am the District five representative for the Greater Park Hill Community Board. The Greater Park Hill Community Board is made up of more than 20 residents of Park Hill. We have not officially changed our position made in November of 2017 opposing the Fairfax land swap. The city has demonstrated determination to force this deal no matter the description, discrepancy of value or lack of foresight. This deal gives land to a developer whose tenants on either side will clearly have the advantage of this plaza for their use . The developer's own website furthers this evidence by having both designed it without any neighborhood input or actually naming it the Square at Park Hill Commons. That's not a public pocket park for Park Hill. The Greater Park Hill chair requested in July a pause for decision makers to include provisions which would provide equal opportunity for added community value . Some of the things that we requested were building the park in the first phase of development. Right now the contract states the park will be developed in 2021. That's six years from when it was purchased. That would have given the community plenty of time to look at go go co-funding, which is what Westwood Park, which was completed last week, went last weekend used. Building the community produce design. It was a process that was inclusive of a really diverse group of residents. Establish a neighborhood board that would oversee and ensure the park rules accommodated all of the residents. Establish a good neighbor. Agreements with all of the adjacent tenants. Provide some truly affordable housing in perpetuity for those residents who are displaced. And promote leases to minority owned businesses. One of the residents has drawn a comparison to this deal being reminiscent of the purchase of Manhattan Island. The natives are given $24 worth of trinkets and told to be thankful in exchange for their loss of land, culture and livelihood. I hope that you've truly considered the repercussions of gentrification in a neighborhood that is so rich with history that you've not chosen to sell out to make the rich richer. We hope that the vote that you cast today reflects to your constituents your value of community, because in May we will be casting our votes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Alison Shah and I'm going to call the next five up, Tracey McDermott, Karen Williams, Shonda Harrison, Tiffany Knapp, Snyder and Hank Boots. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Alison Shai, live at 3014 for us. So just two blocks from this development, I think that there are some very significant issues in our neighborhood regarding gentrification and a very strong minority in the neighborhood that is vehemently anti-development and anti developer. And I think that some of these issues are getting mixed in with the park. For some people, these are inseparable. I actually favor the park being built by the developer and being part of a larger complex that enables the development to include commercial restaurants and cafes as part of the development. Without the park on that side, we lose the opportunity to have a new commercial expansion of that neighborhood. I think that the concerns that people have are ones that people in our community can come together to address and work on. I think that we are a strong community of committed people, many long term residents of new residents who could actually commit to making this a neighborhood park by working on all these kinds of issues that people have raised who are opposed to it. That doesn't they don't require us not to build the park to undertake these kinds of community works financially. I think it's a it's a great deal for us to get the park built with a developer who's willing to put the money into it. Does he benefit? Yes, he does. Is that a zero sum game? That means we don't benefit. No, I don't think so. So that's all I have to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tracey McDermott. Right. Karen Williams.
Speaker 4: Hello, I'm Karen Williams. I live at 26, 23 forest half block from the proposed park. I am for the land swap. I think as many others have said, it's a great deal for the city. I think the Parks and rec money that they would spend on the West Side could better be spent in other neighborhoods where they don't have someone giving them $650,000. I attended a meeting. Councilman Herndon put on bat way back in october last year. Two other park meetings, three greater Park Hill meetings. The developer has said that he will work with the design the community came up with, which we I appreciated. I'm a senior citizen in the neighborhood. I would love to be able to take grandchildren there and I just think it'd be a great deal for the city. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Shanta Harrison. Sean to Harrison. All right, Tiffany Knapp. Snyder. Kent, I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you all for hearing from neighbors. And I also wanted to thank Councilwoman Nature coming out and speaking with some neighbors who are for the land swap for the park to be built on the east side of the street. I live at 28, 34 sits. It's Mid-Block just a block away from where the development is happening on Park Hill. Resident for 12 years. I love this neighborhood. I love Park Hill and I feel I'm here tonight because I just feel sad at what this has become. I feel, unfortunately, that it's it's become a racial issue. I believe that it has pitted neighbors against neighbors. And I, I have to say that I think that the Greater Park Hill Community Board has been a big part of that. I have friends and neighbors and people that I care about on both sides of this issue. And so it's hard to get up here and talk, you know, to talk about that. But I feel strongly that the issues that are being brought up and the concerns that are being brought up are are good. It's good conversation. I think that we need to be having more of these conversations. I think people are very sensitive to the issues of gentrification in Park.
Speaker 4: Hill, specifically.
Speaker 7: North Park Hill. I, I have several neighbors of color who I have had. Discussions with about this, both for and against the the land swap. And so, again, I think these conversations are really important. So I'm thankful that we have an issue to talk about. What I don't think is that this park in where it is placed on the east or the west side will, A, provide healing for those issues.
Speaker 4: Solve the.
Speaker 7: Issue at hand? And I think what we're dealing with now is we need to move forward. I think we've been at so many of these meetings. We need to move forward with a park that has a has funding in place. It has a timeline in place to serve our community better. I have three young kids and I'm worried about the safety of the block. And like so many people have mentioned, there has not been change on the block for years. So while I don't think this is maybe maybe the development is not the.
Speaker 4: Perfect solution.
Speaker 7: For the block of Fairfax. I recognize that and I want to be sensitive to that, but that is what is happening. And so I feel strongly that a park can serve our community, can serve our neighbors. And I just feel like already it's been, you know, almost set in stone that it's going to be inclusive if it's on the West Side and exclusive as if it's on the east side. And I just don't feel like that's the case. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: And could you just state your name for the record?
Speaker 7: Tiffany Camp Snyder, really excited.
Speaker 0: All right, Hank, Boots and Hank is coming up the next five. If you could come to the front, Brad Burdick, Lehman Knowles, Moira Stiles, Maria Flora and Paul Nordquist.
Speaker 8: Go ahead.
Speaker 14: Thank you. My name is Hank Boots. And I agree with Tiffany that the process divided the neighborhood on this issue. And the reason it divided the neighborhood is because it was a very dishonest, undisclosed process. We have heard there is a letter of intent. There's not a letter of intent. The city is going to build this park. The developers couldn't build this park. We've heard so much. I suppose I'm supposed to watch my language here. But you know, what we've heard is dishonesty. Dishonesty from Parks and Rec. Dishonesty from where? Where's the contract on this deal? And all of a sudden, it shows up. Now, everybody in this room, I got a feeling if you're selling your house, you want to get as much as she can for it. And there is nothing in this process to indicate that the city had any interest in maximizing what it could get from this land. It sold to one person. It didn't put a for sale sign up. It didn't ask for bids. There's no fiduciary duty whatsoever to the people that actually own that land. Which one of them is me? So I'm very disappointed and I hope that if the city continues to swap land, park, land, what could be park land for apartment buildings, then we'll have honesty next time. We'll have people that come to us to begin with and say, We have people interested in buying this. Is there anybody else interested in buying this? That's how I was sold a car. And maybe that's too difficult a concept, but I'm really let down. And this was not a clean, honest, forthright deal for the citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Brad Burdick.
Speaker 8: Hi. Good evening. My name's Brad Burdick. I live at 2631 Forest, about a half a block from the proposed development. I reiterate all the things that everyone before me has said in support of the park. We've had concerns. I've been there for about eight years and I can honestly say that I've heard. Immediate sirens or sirens as a result of gun violence from that block more than a dozen times in the last eight years. So anything that will bring people together on that block as far as businesses, foot traffic will be an improvement for the block. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Lemon Knowles.
Speaker 13: Hi. My name's Lemon Knowles. I'm a Park Hill resident off 30th in Cherry, and I'm also the president of City Park Friends and Neighbors. This is my third courtesy hearing concerning park issues. The only issue I have or the concern I have is the process where the civic engagement was not as strong as it could be. We do need development. We do need improvements in the neighborhood. But the citizens who are there, long term citizens like myself, who know the history of the community, we really should have been more engaged from the beginning. So I was really upset when I saw the construction fence. I didn't know that that the deal had even taken place. I read about it in the Greater Park Hill News. And so, you know, it's just been very stressful for the last year and a half where the citizens just don't feel like they've been respected. So what I suggest in the future is that the civic engagement be stronger. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Moira Stiles.
Speaker 4: Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Maura Stiles. I live at 2859 Forest Street, which is directly behind where the park is planned to be, if it is going to be on the east side of Fairfax Street. My battery's dying here. So on my notes, I just want to say a couple extra things on top of what's already been said tonight. I really have been appreciating the conversation that has come up because of this issue. The conversation and the dialog that does need to be moving forward in our community. It is valuable. It is rich. It is something we should all be a part of. One of the benefits of having this park be on the east side is that we see that happening in the very near future versus an undisclosed unknown date . We really would like to have this be a much more cared for. Eyes on it. Watched block for the safety of three children, 14, 12 and nine for the safety of them on this block. I just also want to say that we do hear and care deeply about the history of pain and exclusion and marginalization that this kind of discussion triggers in our community. The issue of inclusion will be an issue that we need to care about whether the park is on the west side or the east side of Fairfax. And our hope is neighbors, as we've been discussing this as neighbors, is for the forward movement of completing the park on the east side in the very near future as a space for interaction and healing to happen. If this can get moving forward, it creates a space where the conversations and the interaction can begin rather than just there just being an empty space. That reminds us of the polarization. We as neighbors are committed to lean into those conversations. We moved to Park Hill 11 years ago because we wanted to raise our boys in a racially, ethnically, socioeconomically diverse community. And I truly hope that my boys.
Speaker 8: And all.
Speaker 4: Of our kids can see us as a neighborhood and as a community, carry the shared value of it being really up to all of us to be inclusive and to care for our neighbors. So, again, we are for the land swap. And thanks for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Maria. Flora.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Maureen of Florida speaking against the measure. I'm a Park Hill resident. Denver Parks and Recreation advocates for the land swap as a way to build a pocket park fast, cheap and good. But it's none of those things, and I urge you to vote against it. If the swap is approved, we insist that DPR build the park that was designed by the community. The swap is not fast. Happy Haines was at Greater Park Hill earlier this year and said that the pocket park would likely be built in two years. So say the beginning of 2020. The city isn't going to start construction under this contract until the early until any time before October 31, 2019. And later, if this contract drags out, I could build a park in the same time on the West Side. The swap plan is not cheap. The major is one of the major selling points. Was this $650,000 so-called donation by Tim Papp capital from Park Design and Construction. But H. M is getting value out of this. They're going to get increased rents because the park is embedded in the development and they're going to get a tax deduction . They're getting under this contract a $10 a month lease to store up to 10,000 cubic yards of dirt on what's now the plaza. And there's a great deal of value in that. That lease is open ended. It doesn't end until construction starts. And it also saves what it would have spent developing the plaza as it was initially depicted in its plans. But most of all, the swap plan is not good. The neighbors are concerned that the plaza embedded in a Jim's upscale, dense development will not be the park that the neighborhood wants. The Greater Park Hill R.A. held three community design meetings where anybody could speak their mind unmoderated. First and foremost, the community wanted play features for all age kids, specifically swings and climbing structures. A park design was created and given to council with a conventional play structure. DPR duplicated the park process came out with a set of plans that did not have a single swing or slide, no play structures other than rocks, and one of the plans didn't even have any turf. We're disappointed. We're reduced, insisting on swings and slides. So to ensure that the neighborhood gets the park it wants, we request that DPR give the R.A. a seat at the table in the park design process, and we insist that it build the park that was designed by the community. Thank you. I have pictures of the community design. I'll give them to the clerk for distribution.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Paul Norquist.
Speaker 8: Thank you. My name's Paul Norquist. I live at 2885. Dexter. We're three blocks west of the proposed development. I'm here to speak for myself and my family and my neighbors in favor of the land swap. I think.
Speaker 0: We just believe in the facts of it, that it's a like for like exchange.
Speaker 8: Of land, that there is a $650,000 allotment that the development or developer is giving to the city to build that park. And like was said before.
Speaker 0: The money that Denver Parks and Rec.
Speaker 8: Would.
Speaker 0: Have to use then can be used in another underserved community. I think we just need to.
Speaker 8: Look at the actual facts of the land swap and.
Speaker 0: Unfortunately we have to put some of this other stuff.
Speaker 8: On the wayside until.
Speaker 0: Those issues can be addressed in another.
Speaker 8: Manner. But for the land swap itself.
Speaker 0: We are in favor of the.
Speaker 8: Swap. We want this thing going.
Speaker 0: We want the.
Speaker 8: Block to change as quickly as possible and.
Speaker 0: Get this thing moving and become an asset for our.
Speaker 8: Community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I call the next five up, Andrea Robinette, Dan Shaw, Eric Penn, Darren Bloom and Miguel Cabezas Reese.
Speaker 8: Is there.
Speaker 0: Andrea or Cindric.
Speaker 8: Sandra. Sandra.
Speaker 0: I apologize.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Sandy Robinson and I live at 2875 Birch Street. And I opposed the land swap. I have been in attendance at several neighborhood meetings addressing the land swap and placement of the park on 28th and Fairfax. I've heard comments made by several residents expressing support for the land swap because of their belief that the land swap will ease some of their safety concerns. As an African-American Latina, I too have concerns. I feel that not only are these comments racially biased, but will perpetuate the pattern of racial harassment. We people of color are experiencing in the country today. I have concerns that those who express these safety concerns, those moving into the development and specifically the retailers that are proposed to surround this public park, will be given unjustified reasons to harass, call the cops and unnecessarily risk the lives of people of color. Despite the resurgence of gentrification in Park Hill, there is still a strong presence of people of color. We long term residents should not, under any circumstance, live in fear of our new non-ethnic neighbors. We shouldn't have to worry that the police will be called on us because we want to have a birthday party or a barbecue in what will be deemed a public park. And let me just say, when we are in public parks, our barbecues are not the same as other people's barbecues. My music is loud. My music is in a different language. My music is not only in English, it's not country. I listen to salsa is merengue is cumbia, and it's in Portuguese because I speak Portuguese fluently. By placing the park within the development and allowing the land swap, the city would.
Speaker 4: Not only allow.
Speaker 7: But encourage the harassment we are experiencing today. But let me be clear. I'm prepared for the harassment. I strongly.
Speaker 4: Believe.
Speaker 7: That by allowing the swap, Denver will soon be on the news and social media with our own permit parties and bet in barbecue. Becky's. So please. City Council developers and future residents and retailers know that if there is one.
Speaker 4: And I mean one, unwarranted harassment phone call made.
Speaker 7: On a single person of color, we will witness protests far reaching anything Denver has ever experienced. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Dan Schorr.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Dan Shaw. I live at 30th and Forest and that's very hard to follow. I think this is a really very difficult issue.
Speaker 3: For Park Hill.
Speaker 8: And a couple of people have mentioned that this has brought forth some really important things that need to be resolved discussed. I would just urge the city council in whatever it does tonight that a process be embedded to continue the conversation. There was a very good conversation, an excellent moderator that one of the councilman heard and convened several meetings about the park. There was a moderator from U, c, d and he did a great job really enabling people, giving people a voice. And I think that really more than anything else for me about this East or West is that it's an opportunity for us to to get to have that opportunity to to talk about these things. And so if if it wherever the park is, there has to be a really intentional process for designing it and for and for and for creating something where it is really, truly inclusive. So I mean, I think that's my really one. I want to say thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Eric Pen. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, there could.
Speaker 8: Her name is Eric Penn. I'm a community advocate and a resident and mom. Some may wonder why a resident of mom Bella would show up at a parks meeting in a Park Hill, especially when I have a pretty nice neighborhood park. I can walk a block and go to Silverman Park. Like I see families that are having barbecues and quinceaneras. The streets are always packed. They play football. We have a pavilion, we have a playground swings. And that's why I'm here, is because all of these things are the things that this city is or this neighborhood is asking to be put into their neighborhood so they can experience the things that we experience. In my neighborhood, in Montebello. And I don't think that's unreasonable. I think that's what this community deserves. It is a park desert, which is ironic being named Park Hill. But. There are some things that happen in this process that I think we've heard tonight brought out some of the disdain in the neighborhood, some of the ugly sides of people. During the community meetings, people feel that they are pitted against each other by the moderators that were hired at a $30,000 expense. They felt that there were issues of gentrification that helped divide people based on race and that the city wasn't clear and wasn't transparent in its efforts to make this park a reality. So I think what people are saying is true. We have two issues here. One is about what is an actual community park look like? What is the intention of parks in this city? What is the purpose for putting them where we put them, and what do we intend people to use them for? And then how does the city council, how do the city agencies actually interact with the residents? What is it that they expect from the residents who follow through in all the community meetings that they're asked to go to? They got resources to build architectural plans and designs. They went through all of the processes that they're asked to do and still came to find out through an open record request that a deal had already been signed with a developer. And so I ask the City Council to look and work to create new processes in outreach to the community, to develop new procedures when land development is taking place, and to vote this measure down. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Darren Bloom.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Darren Blum. I live on 29th and Fairfax, two houses up from where this this commercial development will be. I, I work from home. I have multiple dogs. I'm out on that block every single day. Whether it's summer or winter, freezing hot doesn't matter. I think it's imperative that we approve this park. We let the construction go through. We let the the developer proceed with the plans that they had at the they've outlined with the commercial on top of the residential and mixed use, which will bring a vibrancy to the to that part of the street, the community. I understand there's some concerns from the long term residents. And and I think in my interaction with the developer, he's been quite accommodating and understanding of some of the issues there. And I think if there was perhaps some more dialog, we can get through this. But the short of it is I, I would like to go forward with the swamp and get this thing built.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Miguel Cabezas Reese.
Speaker 5: Why are we here? So I was. You know, I've heard a lot at this meeting so far. I've heard some residents urging for broken windows policies which are failed. I've heard some colorblind racism, and I've heard advocacy for certain things that, you know, that we have to wait to talk about gentrification, that we have to wait to have the concern, the conversation about the displacement of communities of color. And we can't have those conversations here in front of the council. Where can we have those conversations? I have heard of City Council, Parks and Recreation Director say that there is no money to build this park and that the $650,000 to build this park by the developer is a gift. I object wholeheartedly to that characterization. This land swap is no gift. The way that this deal was made and is being pushed through council is no gift. The way that Greater Park Hills are now and the community was sidelined was no gift. And please note is that all of the people of color who testified here against were against this. This bill is not about a park, but is about a park. But we cannot ignore what else is being built, the development being built. The housing does not include any affordable housing, much less low income housing. Initially, the developer wanted, I understand, to make this a private park. That is regrettable, but more than that it is telling telling of who will be welcomed at this park, who will have the police called on them, whose children will, in the words of tenant housing, coats, commands and so entire sidewalks with their tricycles, people of color are being kicked, kicked out of the city by what some have regrettably called natural market forces. There is another term for this, which I would like and which I refer to it as economic racism. The concern from the community and communities of color is the exponential displacement of communities of color from areas that we have lived in, areas where our roots have taken hold and grown deep. I regret this bill and I urge a no vote. If this were a development that had sustainable, affordable units, substantial affordable units, I might feel differently. What we need are affirmative action, like policies that act as a tourniquet on the loss of people of color from Denver, policies that require all medium to large housing developments to include affordable housing units. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'll invite Ben Maxwell, Patricia Iwasaki, Matt Emmons and Jeanette Fidel up to the front. And Ben Maxwell, you're up.
Speaker 3: Hi, Matt. Hi. My name is Ben Maxwell. I'm the with H.M. Capital. I'm the owner of H M Capital and also PHC next year. I just wanted to come tonight and say thank you all for all for your time. Thank everybody in the community for their input. We're very regretful that this has turned into a into a fight over gentrification. We came into this I used to live in the Park Hill neighborhood at 30th and Cherry, and we came into this with let's do a neat development that supports retail, which supports local businesses, things that are owned locally in the neighborhood. People can live in the neighborhood, people can work in the neighborhood, people can own a business, have a restaurant, things of that nature. Our biggest goal with this project is to unite the community. So it's very sad that that's going the opposite direction and we hope that we can do whatever we can to repair those relationships. We are. Looking, you know, we're not trying to do even though, you know, good design does not necessarily mean upscale development. We're looking at trying to keep all of our rents at an affordable rate for both retail as well as residential. We are looking for small businesses. We have turned down large national franchises to go in this block because we really want locally owned Park Hill, Denver businesses to operate in this space. It's been our goal that this is a community center for the Park, for North Park Hill and all the yield the rest of our time to do. The neighbors who have a lot to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Patricia osaki.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Patricia Iwasaki.
Speaker 7: I live in northeast Denver. I'm on the board of taking neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Health to heart. And I have been working with Greater Park Hill Community for the past three years in terms of their sustainability efforts. I am a social worker by training. I have been working.
Speaker 7: On environmental justice issues in northeast.
Speaker 4: Denver.
Speaker 7: For the past.
Speaker 4: I'd say ten years. I really urge and echo a.
Speaker 7: Number of sentiments.
Speaker 4: That there are strong feelings that this.
Speaker 7: Ordinance and the action of the transfer.
Speaker 4: Of.
Speaker 7: Land with across the.
Speaker 4: Street has lacked transparency with the neighborhood.
Speaker 7: There are a number of.
Speaker 4: People of color and older.
Speaker 7: Residents who have lived in the Park Hill area for the past.
Speaker 4: 40 to 50 years that have.
Speaker 7: Very strong feelings.
Speaker 4: But city council in the city is not concerned about the issues.
Speaker 7: That residents are concerned about. It is not a matter.
Speaker 4: Of being for.
Speaker 7: Or against.
Speaker 4: A park or park.
Speaker 7: Systems, but it is a matter of having the. Voice and listening to people who live in the area. I'm the kind of park.
Speaker 4: That they'd like to see. There is a concern that what will be built will exclude longtime residents and people who have been a part of Park Hill for a number of years. Being comfortable to be able.
Speaker 7: To utilize the outdoor area.
Speaker 4: And despite all of the best intent of developers, I think this is a major issue of concern.
Speaker 7: I won't take any more time, but I urge.
Speaker 4: The City Council to listen to. This is.
Speaker 7: Just a small fraction representing.
Speaker 4: The voices.
Speaker 7: That feel very strongly about this issue in the community. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Matt Emmons.
Speaker 12: Thank you. My name is Matt Emmons. I live at 2880 three fourth Street. I back up immediately to the proposed development project, Fairfax. I lived there for 15 years. It's the only home my kids have known. I have a daughter at East this morning, a son of McAuliffe and then a dozen kids on the half block that we run around on the front yard and have since they were very small. I want to thank Councilwoman Kenney for coming out today and meeting with some of the immediate neighbors around the project. Perhaps less vocal, but no less passionate about the project. We are for the swap. Almost. Almost to a home. A lot of emotional speeches, a lot of emotional topics, many that I honestly can't relate to. But I'm a more pragmatic person and have a more pragmatic approach to this. And there are a series of facts here that cannot be disputed. One is there will be a park on this block. Parks and Rec is committed to that east or west side. There will be a 15,000 square foot park there. It will be eventually flanked by commercial development on either side. That issue remains the same, and it will be built and maintained by the park by the city of Parks and Rec. The issues are, when does it get built? Who built it and who pays for it? We feel like this is a bird in the hand. With the step with the developer stepping up to pay for it to provide the funds for Parks and Rec to do it. The design of the park is something that I am not concerned about, frankly. Open space, grass, trees, play structures. It doesn't matter to me, but it bears repeating that this park will be between commercial developments, no matter where it is. Be the same size. No matter where it is, it will be on the block regardless. So if we focus on those, I think we can reach a conclusion that this is good for the neighborhood long term and good for us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jeanette Fidel. She met Fidel. All right. Thank you all very much for being concise and respectful with your time. We did get through everybody with a little tiny bit of time to spare. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council?
Speaker 5: Councilman Herndon name is president and thank you, Mr. President, for getting through that so that we can get everybody through because I appreciate them coming in here. And I'd like to call Parks and Rec up to the few questions. Things that I'm just in other people in the queue. So I'm just going to ask a few questions and I will bow out. I asked these at committee, so these should not be surprising. We keep hearing that the neighborhood is not going to be involved in this process. You said this and Gordon said this. You're going to create a design committee that will who will be a part of this.
Speaker 11: Yeah. So the design committee, which we will put together, will be, of course, have some park staff on it. We do want we have committed at the meeting, Gordon did commit to having a greater greater Park Hill community member on that committee. This is going to be a public process. So we would bring that group together to actually select a design firm to actually move forward. The design at this time, like I mentioned before, there is no design of the park. There are some concepts, you know, there was a mention of swing sets and slides that is still all on the plate. We are not saying this is going to be one thing or another that is still to be decided.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And second question deals with this being a designated park. So this will be owned. This is Denver Parks. And my understanding was there was even going to be conversations about the community being involved in the naming of the park. And I want to make sure that that was correct as well.
Speaker 11: Yes. So what we would do is if this passes, if council feels that this passed and move forward, we would actually begin working on rezoning this parcel to OSA, which means that would become a public park. Once that's done, we would move forward with the design. We would work on constructing the park and wants to. The construction is done as as I've done with many other parks in this city, over a thousand acres. We would move forward with the designation of this park, which protects the park from ever being developed as anything else and anything that is not a park purpose. The other thing that I did want to mention is this would be a public park. So that means all park rules and regulations do apply. Everybody is welcome to this park. This is the community's park. So that is something that we would we would definitely stress.
Speaker 5: Again, two more questions, Mr. President. There was a conversation about not taking he to any other offers. I only know of another one which came from the owner of the brewpub who was just to the north of the XL Parcel. And I could you just speak to that offer and why that was not considered.
Speaker 11: So there was an offer that came in. You know, we had started this discussion in early 2016 with H&M Capital. The brewpub was moving forward, it was being designed. It was doing everything they knew about all these discussions. Early 2016, we actually did go to a Greater Parkhill community meeting and we actually had a presentation about this whole development. So everybody was aware of the possibility of having a swap and building the park on the east side in November. We did get a proposal from the beer pub that is on the corner and what that proposal was, there was two pieces to it. The first part of it was they offered, I believe, $150,000 to actually buy the parcel from the city and to build a private park. And then they would actually allow the city to possibly use the park, or they would actually the other part was they could maybe help us build a park. And so that was the proposal. And at that point we had already been discussing and we had a firm commitment from H&M Capital on what funding they would provide to this space. And so the two proposals just were not even close.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And my last question, Mr. President. Timing. So we should just go through we will start the process of designing a community designed park that will go on the east side. If this does not go through, then we are we are going with the Xcel substation. Do we have a funding source for the Xcel substation to develop into a park?
Speaker 11: No. As most of city council, everybody on city council knows, we have a process in parks. We actually have a sip list, a planning list. And so what happens is we put all projects on our capital improvement project list, and that is all the projects that are in all the districts, in all the city. And so those are projects that we want to get to. And so that this if this did not move forward, this project would go on that capital improvement list and it would actually have to just jockey for position and then we'd have to, you know, dirt, we'd have to see the priority and what was being done in the city. And we would just it would fall in with all the other projects in the city.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Discussion of parks. My allergies are going haywire here. Mr. Gilmore, I just wanted to ask you a couple more questions. When you acquired the park in 2010, was it an Excel substation?
Speaker 11: 2015, I'm sorry, it's the end of 2015.
Speaker 8: 2015. And it was an Excel substation.
Speaker 11: Yes, it was exactly like the one in Westwood that we purchased there.
Speaker 8: So Excel substation became city owned. What is the if you would, if we were to build that out? Designed. So we've already paid for it. We've already paid for it. If we were to build that out. Design, build. I mean, I'm asking you to speculate, but what would the budget be for a built out park like that?
Speaker 11: For a park that size, even though it's a it's a smaller park. Can you talk.
Speaker 8: About like a family structure swings? Yes, slides.
Speaker 11: So the design process, a park about that size as a as a pocket park between probably $750,000. $10 million.
Speaker 8: Right. Which. Okay. Talk to me a little bit about the process. I know that, you know, in the chambers I heard that we were testimony that the process wasn't clear, wasn't transparent. And so what? Walk me through the process as that's what's.
Speaker 11: So I have to take some responsibility for that. And back when I first started this job, I traveled to L.A. with Gordon Robertson. And we were we were traveling to L.A. They have a project where they're building pocket parks all over the city. And so when we came back, you know, my thought was we can just look for possible opportunities in neighborhoods that desperately needed them. And so when this these Excel transfer stations came up, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to possibly build parks and build a couple of parks in neighborhoods that desperately needed it. So when it was when it was available, we actually purchased it. I was attending meetings at Greater Park Hill. I was going and letting them know that I was working on this project, that I was hopefully going to purchase this parcel and that it was on the east side. And at that time we had no funding and that if we could do anything with that parcel at that time, you know, there might be the possibility of, you know, maybe taking out part of the wall because there's a big stone wall around it and possibly creating maybe a dog park. We didn't. What my commitment to the community was is that we're not just going to take a parcel on that block and just grass it and then actually maybe make up a space that just was not activated that actually could end up being more of a detriment to the community than than an asset. So we really wanted something that was going to activate the space and make making sure that that park was going to be a positive draw for the whole community. And then H.M. Capital, as we were just holding on to the parcel because we did not have any funding. H&M Capital did approach us in 2016 and said, Hey, we have purchased the East Side of the block and we'd like to possibly just discuss with you the possibility of us helping you guys build a park on the east side. This was there was never an I heard someone mention this that H&M Capital was going to build a private park. There was never once any mention of this being a private park for H&M Capital when they came to us and said, we want to help. This was always to build a public park that was going to be available to everybody. So we did get other proposals way back from other developers that never moved forward about building up a private park. And so that may be where that came from. So we did start the discussion with H&M Capital. We kind of were discussing this. I was very clear with the community that this process right here would be what would have to happen if this moved forward, that the swap would have to be approved by city council and this project would not move forward unless this this city council approved it. So really, this is now on city council to say, do we want to move forward with building this park on the east side of of the street of Fairfax with somebody else's money? Or do we want to wait and build it later with city funds on the West Side? I mean, that's what it boils down to right now.
Speaker 8: Right. So let me look. I appreciate that, Mr. Gilmore. I know that there was somebody from the neighborhood association in that area that spoke. I forgot your name. If you can come up and I wanted to ask a question of the neighborhood. Yeah. We were representing the neighborhood association up there, and. I'm sorry, I forgot your name.
Speaker 7: Blair Taylor.
Speaker 8: Blair, I'm sorry. Ms.. Taylor, on this. On that block. I'm looking at it right now. So 29th to the north, 28th to the south. You got Fairfax. You got the east side in the west side. I'm looking at the zoning in that area and that in that whole neighborhood. It's all zoned. Just on that block, the whole neighborhood's different. Is residential on that particular block. It's all Main Street. Main Street two. So it's commercial all around. Right?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 8: What's the difference between. A park on the West Side and the park on the east side when they both have mixed use kind of commercial on both sides. What's what's the difference with what the name would you feel based off of your conversations with the residents in that area? What's the main difference?
Speaker 7: I think one of the large differences is the sort of intent of the users. So the west side of the block is owned by a minority landlord. It houses a lot of nonprofits at Howard Houses, Greater Park Hill Community Board. It has a new ice cream shop that's used by families. Well, you know, it's very residential. It's one one story. It's very welcoming. There's a lot of mix of people and diversity. And I think a lot of the concern comes from when you put a green space. That is abutted on both sides by brand spanking new development that's owned by a single developer. The people who've been there the longest aren't necessarily going to be migrating over. A lot of the concern is come with what types of businesses are going to go there. We've heard it heard high end grocery stores. That's not really what the neighborhood needs. We need like corner stores. We need things that are our residents can use. We've lost laundry mats. We've lost just sort of like everyday places. And I think that people were really hoping that the park would be a place where. Families and old residents, new residents. The people who showed up at our community design meetings were such a huge range of residents and it was like an open palette. And what we're seeing when you look at the supporters, it's sort of one faction. We're not seeing a big diversity. The people who are opposed to this have real concerns and they come from a diverse background. I hope that's what you saw.
Speaker 8: I appreciate the response. And if I can add. Thank you. Can I get Mr. Maxwell right. Ben Maxwell, you're the owner of the properties, correct?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 8: Now. And your reason why? Why would you want to do the land swap? I mean. I mean, why not enjoy the park from across the street?
Speaker 3: Yeah, altruistically, it was. We looked at the whole block. We got a good portion of the block on our contract. We looked at the park on the other side. We initially had a commercial design, so we owned the park directly or the parcel directly adjacent to the Excell substation as well on the west side of the street . So we initially looked at doing commercial there and what we decided was we really wanted to support and when we were doing that, we were looking at doing 100% residential on the east side of the street and being in that neighborhood. I knew and I felt like. Retail office and residential was a better fit for that bloc than just doing a large scale residential project on the East Side. With that right now is not really a great time to build retail property. That's just not it's it's not as profitable, it's not as economical. There's just lots of downsides to building retail over building residential. So we looked at it and said, okay, well, what? Is there something that we could do that would be a differentiator and also give back to the community? And so really that was our decision on the park was not to not to get increased rents because I don't think we're going to get a dollar increased rents, but just to attract more tenants, attract more community, attract more of a well-rounded, balanced development for the block rather than what makes the most financial sense, which is residential
Speaker 8: . One more question, if I may, Mr. President. So you approached 650,000 plus commitments with build afterwards as well to.
Speaker 3: Well, initially. So it's kind of evolved over time. Initially, we we went ahead and did a design on the park because we knew that the department didn't have the money to do a design. So we went ahead and said, all right, well, we'll just design something to get the concept out there. So we did that and we also tore down all the properties that were on this this land. We've also spent quite a bit of money on the land that we're trading dollar for dollar and where we initially were going to build it. And then once we were done, go through this process of transferring it at that point to the city and doing this land swap after reconstruction was built.
Speaker 8: If you don't build the park, if the park isn't built on the site, if this land swap doesn't go through and the site that you have and envisioned for a park.
Speaker 3: We're giving the money at the time of the swap. We are giving the money the six.
Speaker 8: If this if the swap doesn't happen, yes. What happens to that property, which would be 28, 68, Fairfax?
Speaker 3: We would probably start over from scratch on our design for the whole block.
Speaker 8: And there would be no greenspace.
Speaker 3: Or no we have. So in my zoning there is a zero requirement for any open space. It's not we're not required to have 10% open space. We're not doing this to meet any city requirements.
Speaker 8: Would you still donate to Parks and Rec?
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, all that money would go to redesign the new buildings. It would have to go there.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Is anyone from community planning and development here? That would have been helpful for a land swap discussion. The question I'm trying to answer is on the parcels on the West Side, is there anything that anyone wants to talk to in the zoning code that would limit development on the West Side from possibly at some point becoming akin to development on the East Side? Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Maxwell, I have a few questions for you. Sir. So. There's relevance at some level. These parcels that we're going to swap. What would you estimate each parcel would sell for if you're going to sell a third of a .36 acres? I think it is.
Speaker 3: This are the last parcels that we purchased. It was two independent parcels and then a portion of a third parcel. And I believe we paid about 1.5 million for the land for that, for just the piece we're giving to the city and that the city is giving. Okay.
Speaker 5: So about 1.3.
Speaker 3: 1.5. 1.5.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. When you talk about affordable rents, you have any clue what that means?
Speaker 3: Yes. I mean, we looked at we looked at affordable housing on this instead of paying the the linkage fee. And unfortunately, because we have 22 micro apartments and 21 three bedrooms, micro apartments don't qualify or didn't initially when we were going through this process a year and a half ago for consideration in exchange for a linkage fee . So we went through that process for about two months with the Office of Economic Development, and basically it got to the point where just it wasn't feasible.
Speaker 5: Okay. Well, but I mean, do you know, are you planning two bedrooms? Three bedrooms?
Speaker 3: So we have one bedroom units or basically micro apartments that are about 400 square feet with a loft bedroom. Those are going to be 12, 1300 dollars a month range. So one bedroom is very affordable for this city and crazily enough. And then we have three bedroom units. Average rents for three bedrooms around the city are pushing above $2 a square foot in many apartment buildings. We're going to be at a dollar $60, 65 a square foot.
Speaker 5: Do the math for me. Was that going to mean.
Speaker 3: 2400, 2500 for a three bedroom?
Speaker 5: Thank you. So when you developed this park, how close? Would your buildings be? How close can you build the edge of your buildings being.
Speaker 3: According to zoning? We can build right on the plot line. There is a section of our building about 25 feet that is right on the lot line. The rear 30 feet is parking. So we're not there's no building adjacent to that in the front. 70% or so of the building has patios that face to the park.
Speaker 5: So your access to this park.
Speaker 3: The access to the park is all through the street. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Yeah. The rest of my questions are for community planning and development. Who's not here? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa is up for the question, but I think he also had an answer to your first question that he thinks he could answer. Would you like an answer from Councilman Espinosa? All right, Councilman Espinosa, take away for everyone.
Speaker 6: Here's the graphic. So the yellow is the single family rose mean the surrounding residential. The red area is the zoning the the current CMS two zone district. It covers both sides of Fairfax and so since both parcels mean both sides of the street are the same depth. Essentially, they're both capable of the exact same sort of development approaches.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Espinosa, also up for questions.
Speaker 6: I didn't then I didn't do the math. So what is this square footage? I mean, the square foot cost on residential sale, sort of the commercial. I mean, the the value of residential development, new development in this area per square foot.
Speaker 3: If we were to sell the.
Speaker 6: Townhomes, yeah.
Speaker 3: It would be a guess because we haven't looked at it on a for sale basis, but probably in the 325 to 350 range.
Speaker 6: Okay. Are there any so for anybody else, are there any realtors in the audience that do work in this area? Just sort of corroborate that. Okay. Thank you. And then, Scott, I've got a quick question for you. Is there anything sort of legally preventing the developer from giving $650,000 for the design and construction of the park on the former Excel site?
Speaker 11: No, I do not believe so.
Speaker 6: Okay. So it's.
Speaker 11: No.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 11: My attorney said no.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. No further questions. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Scott at the podium already. Would you be willing to put into writing what that board advisory board would look at, would look like when designing.
Speaker 11: The design committee? Yep. Yes. We could put something together.
Speaker 6: By next week.
Speaker 8: Yes, we could. Okay. Thank you. I have a.
Speaker 6: Question. I'm trying to figure out how to. Scott, can you can you. Again, I'm going to take us back to the meeting that we had on committee. And you you know, I think there is a conversation in here around gentrification, displacement, as if you don't interact with that. Right. And so I feel like I'm hearing two different things, right? I'm hearing something from the community and something that you don't understand. I know specifically that you've helped me with inclusion with Brick City at Curtis Park. And so but for whatever reason, we have missed the ball here. And that's what I'm really trying to understand. And so I want you to respond to that. And I also want you to help me talk through and help the community think through opportunities of inclusion, just like what we've done on the East Side.
Speaker 11: Yeah. So I have to take full responsibility as the deputy manager of parks. I mean, I was my goal was just to try to get a park built in this community. And, you know, if anybody made some missteps, I probably made some missteps. And and I should have been probably a little more forthcoming on how this whole process was moving forward. We were just trying to move forward, and I saw a great opportunity to get a park built and a community that desperately need it, needed it with somebody else's money. So I kind of moved forward, you know, when we got to the point and and when I got questions from Greater Park Hill or any community members, I was responding in June of 2017. There was some questions about the naming. And I know Robin Councilwoman Canete was really involved in that and there was some questions about naming it after community member. And, you know, we thought we realize that we would do that and we could work on that and that could be a community process. And that was one of those sticking points, it seemed like. And so it continued to move forward and I continued to try to engage. And then as the development started to coalesce and H&M Capital had purchased the block and then building started to come down, that is when this really, really became an issue. And I think people started seeing that this was happening. And I think the park became a target for the bigger issues of gentrification in the neighborhood and just some of the displacement and the affordable housing and all those things. And I tried my best to explain to people that I'm building a park for everybody. As you said, you know, I've worked on on community issues and in neighborhoods downtown and communities of color, making sure parks are built in communities of color, that we are building the best parks we can in all communities, because everybody in this city deserves a high quality park in their neighborhood. And that is what I'm shooting for with this. We made some missteps. We stopped we stopped our process and we slowed down. We started to engage. We you know, we went to some of their community meetings. They started a community meeting, and we went to those we started our own process. And I believe through those two processes, those community meetings, the seven meetings that were were had, that we do have a good foundation to build a park that everybody could be happy with.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you for for answering that. And I just say that the next step of inclusion when it's built is I think we're the, you know, the. You know, it really has to be that way. Yes. And I hope that and I agree. I hope that Gordon, as as we talk through that, that there even next week, we can start thinking of some implementable items from the jump that the community can put into.
Speaker 11: To and be that. One thing I do want to mention and I want to stress. Yeah, great. Parkhill did a really good job on these meetings and this concept that they came up with are very valid and we want to start our process with this community led design, and so we're committing to that.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Is there an attorney with Parks here? Turney. We really say, Oh, great.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Jason Moore, city attorney's office.
Speaker 6: Jason, I see you everywhere. And I think this is the first time. I think it's the first time like this, brother.
Speaker 5: I hear that.
Speaker 8: Okay, good.
Speaker 6: Jason, here's the crux. I think of the issue. There's a ton of mistrust in the community, right? Ton of mistrust in my community of five points and all over the city. And we as government, I think it's our responsibility to continue when there's mistrust, to be even more transparent. Right. And so that the issue for me is on this is that we don't have any, it seems to me, legal issues on refugees when we're trading land and things like that. I've seen us do our eyes to try and get, you know, what is a request for inquiry to just see if the land works and we'll get a bunch of folks and then we'll take it through a process. So there's no you did a backroom deal. Tell me about our policy is and I know it's not but but is there anything that can. Help us to improve this policy so we don't have to go through this with the community.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and it'll be a split answer. So I have my answer to what the general review of the advice I'd give the parks but real estate as a policy as well. The XO eight and XO 100. I think that's real.
Speaker 6: That's an executive order. So everybody's phone.
Speaker 5: So I apologize. Executive Order three. Executive Order 100. Deals with competitive process in contracts. And then, of course, the charter Nicole deals with competitive process and construction. Depending on the deal, depending on the dynamics of the deal, depending on what parts wants to get done, I might advise that they do requests for information or some kind of RFP process to do to cover some of the political issues that might come up. So there are the rules, there's the code. But, you know, sometimes the policy is going to kind of win the day. If if if that is what you need to make folks happy.
Speaker 6: And so on. This situation, what did you.
Speaker 5: Advise? I was I came late to this party. So this this was pretty far down the road. So Parks had begun to negotiate the contours of the deal that they were going to do, land swap, etc.. The issue of a competitive process for this did come up. I'll let Lisa Lumley finish out that answer based on some unique characteristics of the deal. I, I didn't see that a competitive process was required. But, you know, again, there there was already a lot of momentum behind the deal anyway.
Speaker 8: So this is.
Speaker 6: No legal issues with this.
Speaker 5: Strictly speaking. I don't think so. Okay.
Speaker 8: Lisa would like to.
Speaker 4: Lisa Lumley It is not often that we do an exchange and the conversations had started. By the time real estate was brought in, because it was exactly parcel four, parcel square foot, four square foot, literally across the street. That is why we thought that we could justified the unique situation of going out to a true RFP, RFI, because everything was exactly the same zone, the same. The values would have been the same.
Speaker 6: So the executive order is it's not a suggestion.
Speaker 4: No, it's not. And what it does say, though, is we would still do our clearance and releases, which we do. We do our environmental due diligence, which we do. So from that standpoint, it's the disposition that would be called out on how we would do it. And or and I will say there are certain other dispositions through our tax title that we we may handle a little differently. So everything else in Executive Order 100, though, we would absolutely be following.
Speaker 6: Last question. If you would have gotten a deal that was comparable to competitive. Would you would have reviewed that deal. Looked at that deal because there's many received the email today saying that there are three deals.
Speaker 4: Yes, we would have. And I will say I'm only aware of one other offer as well. We did see that. That is why we actually slowed the process down at that point when I was made aware of the second offer. So we did look at it to compare those. Okay.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 10: Councilman Scott. Skye, let me get this guy going to give you this ring. So that's the handout we have received today. And on the back of that, it has designed features that I assume that you're talking about as part of the design that came from the community. Is there any design feature that's listed there that is out of. Ordinary would not be considered as part of the design committee? No. Okay. So it all seems to be very in line with what you're saying with the design coming from the community.
Speaker 11: Yeah. I mean, like I said, their design process, that Greater Parkdale community had actually had some very valid suggestions and were going to, like I said, were committed to taking that design effort and utilizing that to build this space. To be clear, this is a third of an acre and this is a very, very small parcel. So everything that the community has been suggesting, it will not all fit in this park. So the site limitations.
Speaker 8: Are being assessed.
Speaker 10: All those will be considered. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Ask your question, please. Yeah. Yes, sir. There's been a lot of discussion about development of a good neighbor. Agree with the neighborhood, don't own the park or and develop there. Is there something you'd be amenable to?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. We we definitely want that with all of our tenants. And at the first meeting we presented to in the beginning of 2017, I mean, it was our hope that the greater Parkdale would really help us create a neighborhood group and take over really planning events at the park, things of that nature that. Permanent through the city parks department.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: And thank you, Mr. President. Christine O'Connor. I. First of all, I wanted to thank Maria Flores, Flora and Carrie to get in. Nancy Francis, who had given me a tour about a month or so ago of the sight of Christine. You had testified that this would that on the west, on the east side, it would be a private park. And I'm curious why you why you believe that would be a private park?
Speaker 4: No, I know it's going to be owned. I've heard like everybody else that it's going to be owned by DPR.
Speaker 3: So you feel it would be treated as a private.
Speaker 4: Treat it as and I have the same fears that Sandy Robinette and others have expressed that even though it is considered public. The intimidation factor of having restaurants and high end retail or maybe not high end. So the developer says we'll see. I'm not sure that it really is going to draw the same way, say Turtle Park draws or the park up on MLK, the block size.
Speaker 3: Right. So what is really confusing me is why the neighbors feel that the park on the west side would also not be a private park when it would be surrounded by? Eventually by. And is it H&M? I'm sorry, H&M. H&M. Yes.
Speaker 4: But it's not being it won't be developed. It would be developed by city money.
Speaker 3: Right. But on the north side is the brewpub. Yes. Which one of the folks from the resident community testified is a gentrifying factor and that would front right on the park. And in fact, the owner we have the letter offer that he made. His first offer was to buy it and make it a private park that he would regulate. Yes. That that would give me more concern than what I've heard here from Mr. Maxwell. And on the south side would also be a a an h m capital project. So it seems to me that they would be identical. So I'm wondering, I'm having a real confusion figuring out why.
Speaker 4: Why it matters.
Speaker 3: Why? You see, it seems to me that everything that was testified, the residents fear increasing gentrification, not being inviting exclusion applies to either side. And so that if we went if we killed this and kept on the.
Speaker 8: West Side.
Speaker 3: You would still have those same impacts. And tell me why you.
Speaker 4: See this as fundamentally different. I don't think the city explored options like going in trust for public land and other funding to do it themselves. I think Scott just landed on this because it was easy and he did, and DPR didn't do its homework right. I think that the fact that this developer is paying 650,000 to develop the park in and of itself indicates that he will have a say in the design. He will have a say in what happens there. He will be considering very carefully what kind of park goes in. It is not really a Denver public park that's been developed over the years and then got a slot, then found a land it. I think it's fundamentally different.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Scott, can I follow up on the question you were asked about the community design? Because I feel like I got a slightly different answer. So when I had originally asked you and I think it was Kelly who I don't I can't see who else back there if Kelly's here. But about the community design, you had shared that it didn't meet some of the specs. So because the question why not just adopt the community design? And the answer was because it didn't meet the Parks and rec specs for, you know, maintenance, but you had a number of specs that you look to for how to design a park. So can you just help bridge for me? That feedback I had gotten with the statement that everything here is on the table.
Speaker 11: So you're talking about this design right here? Yes. So this design, like I said, has some great actual some great input and it has some really valuable things. We just as we build parks and I do want to mention something really quick. H&M Capital actually supports its design more than the design that actually the Parks staff came up with. So he actually is really supportive of moving forward with this type of design. The thing that I meant about standards and making sure that things are done and in those. Department standards is making sure irrigation and making sure the benches are the type of benches that are consistent throughout our park system. Just all the amenities, making sure ADA is taken in count. So all those items that as we build parks in our city, all the items that we have to take into account, we have to make sure that those are part of this design. So this is concept. This is really, really high level. So we have to take these concepts and actually put together the construction designs. And so that takes time. So a lot of people think we can just take a design like this and just go start building. It takes quite a bit of time to actually put together construction documents and get them through the city system. Because you do 30% construction design, 60%, 90%, and then 100%. So just moving through that process takes the time and then all the departments have to actually buy off on what those standards in those designs are.
Speaker 7: Got it. And I just I think it's specificity and really being I think this is not the time to do shorthand. And so I think that that's a pretty different answer and it's a more specific answer and it's important. One of the things that's occurred in this process is setting of expectations and then not meeting them or not being clear. And so to say, the spirit of this is on the table, but that there's numerous features that don't meet the city standards for potentially legitimate reasons. Right. It's not that the community's ideas weren't good, but I and so I just wanna make sure I'm saying this right. So. So you might not be able to have a wall here, for example, because it might prevent access for people with disabilities or it might prevent drainage from working properly. But so so there are features here that are not possible. And I just think we got to be really clear and I just so so if things are not possible, we got to be clear.
Speaker 11: And that would be that would be something that would would take place during the design process where we actually really start hammering out what's going to be in this part. Like when I look at this, I see the stage shade structure and it's a it's one of the cloth shade structures as we have done parks throughout our system. We have done these and we're realizing that these are really, really delicate and they're being ripped off and they're they're being destroyed. So those are the types of things that I would really want to make sure that we're doing. We're putting in a shade structure that actually we don't have to try to change out every year because of weather. You know, there was a talk of building a wall around the park and kind of walling it in. Well, we want to really make sure that the park actually has access and that you can get in and out of it. And you don't want to build walls around the park. We want to make it as open as possible. So just some of those items, we want to just really make sure that we're working with the community hand in hand to make sure that everybody's input is being taken. But they also understand that there's constraints and things that we have to do to make sure that the park is up to our standards.
Speaker 4: Got it.
Speaker 7: So I just wanted to clarify that record. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Can you clarify whether there is anything you know, there are equally sized parcels, but is there anything in particular that changes the design from the west side to the east side? Are there any constraints that would make it such that the park would have to be or would need to be designed differently if it was on one side or the other?
Speaker 11: I actually don't believe there would be any different design. They're exactly the same size. And as Councilman Flynn mentioned, both both of them are going to have developments on either side. What we were excited about, to be honest with this parcel, is that there will be eyes on the park and this is going to be immediately you're going to have restaurants there and people will be able to watch this space. People will be able to come to eat and their kids can play on the playground. And I've heard some other comments that we didn't have swings in our in our design or slides and we can that's simple to we can add those to the design. So we want to make sure that those items are in this design, the things that the community want. And if that's swings and slides and a barbecue pit, those types of things, we can do that.
Speaker 7: So I just want to say back to some really clear that everything there's there's the idea of all these things can be considered, but you won't fit all of them because of the size. Yes. And that the way they're done may not be the exact way the communities design them, but for for reasons you can and will explain in the process.
Speaker 8: Yes, we will.
Speaker 7: Okay. I guess the second line of questions I wanted to ask, I guess I'm trying to think if I want to start with the developer, the community. I'm going to offer this to like Lemon or just Sandy. But I guess I was thinking about whether or not there has been any discussion at all with the developer, not so much about this park, but about the ways in which businesses can be culturally competent and the way that you might train, educate, interact in ways that minimize. So I'm just curious if that dialog has occurred throughout this. You guys probably have had many meetings aside from the parks. I'm just curious if that conversation has begun yet.
Speaker 13: So that's the other part is, you know, if this land swap is approved, the other part is looking into the type of businesses that will go into the complex. And Ben and I have been talking about that. And we do want to make that a community inclusive process. So any time we can get that started. But Ben appears to be conscious. He did say he was not interested in chain stores and franchises. He was definitely interested in some of the historical businesses that were.
Speaker 5: On the block.
Speaker 13: Who are no longer. And then culturally sensitive type businesses.
Speaker 7: Great. And then just just to be really clear, what if. Did you talk at all about you know, we've had a number of companies who've had to train their staff and talk about. Right, Wendy, to Sandy's point. So beyond just who the businesses are. Has there been any conversation yet about cultural competency for all of the businesses? Perhaps they may be white owned, perhaps they may be Asian owned, they may be owned by someone who's maybe not an African-American business or the employees might be, you know, of different backgrounds. And so have you guys started that conversation?
Speaker 13: We will. And that's going to be part of the conversation.
Speaker 7: Okay, great. And so I'll just ask Ben to stand up and maybe speak for yourself on this. You know, I think that there is this concept of bi right zoning where this project started and it's a kind of like we can build it and we don't need anything from the city. And then the park changed the conversation, right? In the sense that there is now you're here in front of city council and you wouldn't have been otherwise. And so, you know, sometimes that comes with an acknowledgment that where you want something from the city and you've acknowledged some places it could benefit. It changes the conversation. So I guess for you, where have you changed or where are you willing to change? Where you go on what's quote unquote on the table with regards to the development? Yeah. Given that this is no longer just a buy right situation, you're here asking for a very important privilege, which is to to to incorporate public space in the middle of your development.
Speaker 3: Right. I think this this process has definitely been eye opening and never gone through anything similar to this. So it's been a very eye opening process. And we are open to to anything that the community comes at us with. We've always thought of this as we wanted to do it as part of the community. And if we didn't want to do that, if we weren't here for the right reasons, I think we would have given up on this plan a year, year and a half ago and gone a different direction and. Our commitment has always been to what we feel. Was that? You know, developers always talk about highest and best use. And I can't stand that term because a lot of times the highest and best just don't. They're contradictory, right. And to me, the best use for this block is a mixed use development with retail, office and residential. And we've been fighting the whole time to. Preserve what we think is it will benefit everybody equally throughout that and not just build what makes the most financial sense. So we're here. We've committed to this process. We've committed to everything about it, and we look forward to all the community engagement that we can get and really putting our best foot forward and being as transparent as possible.
Speaker 7: So let me ask you about another issue of equity that was raised. You and I had some conversations early on, and you were hopeful that you could incorporate some affordable housing. I was surprised to learn that the conversation had changed. That was not something I was told about by our department, which is a common challenge I have had from this dais recently. No fault of yours. But I want to just be and I know they're not here, so I'm not even going to ask because I know they left. They were here for another bill. They weren't here for this. But can you just be very clear with me? Were you told that you cannot count units as affordable on this site, or did you make a decision that the way that you would have had to do it was not possible? I guess I want to understand whether or not inclusion of affordability could be back on the table. Yeah. Whether it's a legal issue or it's an economic or a policy issue.
Speaker 3: So technically, we've already paid the permit fees and we're already through that process.
Speaker 7: We've already paid the linkage fee.
Speaker 3: Yes, I believe so. Okay. But to that process, all of our micro units actually fall under the studio affordability. Level that's required to get the points, though. But because of the square footage, there was some when we went through that process, it was brand new. The linkage fee had just passed. And so in on fairness to officer economic development, they were unsure of. How that was going to play out, I guess, you know, I don't know the technical terms of it. So we had to make the decision of which way we're going to move forward. And, you know, even though our units all technically follow all the micro apartments technically follow under the affordability, the it didn't make sense on the whole block because of the three all the three bedroom units, the office space, the retail space. So that's why we moved in a different direction. We do do a lot of affordable housing. We do group homes all over the city that are renting out to nonprofits. So we do do our part on that and we full heartedly believe in that. We've got two that are run by September. We've got a couple that are run by Catholic Charities. We purchased the building that Catholic Charities used to have their headquarters in so that they can take advantage of $1,000,000 grant and build the 100 woman homeless shelter. Overall for Smith Road, we closed in two weeks so that they could meet a deadline for city council to get $1,000,000 grant from you guys to do that project. So we're fully on board with affordability and just didn't the technical affordability on this one just didn't work out.
Speaker 7: So I just want to be really clear. If you according to the to the Army levels, it wouldn't have brought down the rents in those units. Correct. Okay. So it wouldn't have gotten to the goal that the community was asking for. It sounds like it wouldn't have changed the rents down to like $800 or anything like that.
Speaker 3: Technically, it would it would have raised the rents to be at the affordability level.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. I think I think that's it, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Councilman Lopez, I'm going to skip over you to go to Councilwoman Ortega before coming back. That's right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me let me start with Scott. Scott, is there any reason that a playground could not be there? I heard there was a desire to have a playground there. There was some question about whether or not that would be supported. But if it's adjacent to residential.
Speaker 11: No, I.
Speaker 4: Just as a challenge a problem.
Speaker 11: So no, I mean, I would I would gather that this this pocket park is going to have a playground. And I just I had mentioned that what a amazing space this could be. If you could go as a family, you could go and have dinner. And actually, your kids are playing on the playground right there and you can watch them. You know, it's just what is going to be make up that playground. Is it going to be nature play or is it going to be traditional play? Or and those are the things that we have to determine what's going to go on this park. But I would gather that this space will have a playground for sure.
Speaker 4: So I heard your commitment to Councilman Brooks about putting together a committee to help look at design for the park. Who makes the final decision?
Speaker 11: The final decision on that committee or the final.
Speaker 4: What that is, is that ends up in that.
Speaker 11: Park. So what we would do is actually put together a committee. We'd get, you know, one or two community members on that. And what they would actually help us do is actually select help us go through the process of selecting a design firm, taxi design, this park. And that would actually get us to the construction documents that would then go out to bid two for construction.
Speaker 4: Okay. Let me see if I have any more for you before I go to Mr. Maxwell. So on the price, Councilman Lopez asked, how much is it normally to do one of these pocket parks? Your answer was between 750,000 and a million. So we have 650,000. Who fills the gap?
Speaker 11: We as the Parks Department, we have committed to fill in that gap. If the. It depends on what's going to go on in that park. We could do the park cheap, probably, and build a park for half a million dollars. Or we can build a park that truly this community deserves. And then we buy it might go to, you know, $800,000. So we as a department.
Speaker 4: Is there a cap on what we.
Speaker 11: You can't really. I mean, I would hope that we don't go over $1,000,000, but. Okay. You just don't know what the cost the final cost is going to be until you get those design documents and it goes out to bid. And then a company gives us the cost of what it's going to be to build that park.
Speaker 4: And typically, what percentage of that? Is the design.
Speaker 11: Design usually runs about 10%.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. I have no further questions for you. So, Mr. Maxwell, if you can come up. So what is the total square footage of the development that you're looking at doing?
Speaker 3: Making me do math in my head. So there's about in the two mixed use buildings, there's about 30,000 square feet.
Speaker 4: So that's both housing as well as.
Speaker 3: That's the retail restaurant, micro apartments and Office. The Townhomes is probably another 30,000 or so.
Speaker 4: A total of about 60,000, roughly. Okay.
Speaker 3: Remember.
Speaker 4: And I just want to ask you a question about parking. I heard you say there would be parking off the alley. Yes. Yes. Will that include parking the commercial?
Speaker 3: Yes. So currently we have parking on the first behind the retail along the alley, as well as parking lots of inner off of the alley. And then our plan is for the immediate future for the next two or three years to turn the we on the parcel across the street to have that as excess parking as well . So we're well in excess of the required zone.
Speaker 4: So is that where you turn down the building and.
Speaker 3: That building we did not tear down. It's a it was an operating business.
Speaker 4: Okay. So you've got parking available there? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: And then we would also turn the existing park land or what the Excel station into parking in a short term as well.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I was pleased to hear you. Your openness to the the types of businesses and working with the community around trying to have businesses that address some of the cultural sensitivity to the neighborhood and the long term history of the neighborhood. Um. I don't believe I have any other questions at this point in time, so. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, you disappeared when I skipped you. Are you still in line?
Speaker 8: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: All right. Go for it.
Speaker 8: I don't know why he disappeared. He's messed up. I have a question for the DiBella developer. When you. When you. We're looking at the park and. Planning on the block that you have. So you have the entire block. Mm hmm. From corner to corner? Correct. Why? In the middle of the development? I mean, I think I'm thinking to myself, if it's if it's an issue of and I'm not questioning your commitment to parks or anything like that. I do I do appreciate you come to the table, but. Usually if we wanted to have eyes on the park and I'm thinking of the the substations that we've had of Barnum, the Barnum substation, which is in Westwood. And then there's another substation on Colfax. And I should say Colfax. And your ears should perk up. They're both on corners. Mm hmm. Ideally, a good pocket park, if we can. If we have a choice, could be on a corner and you would have community, and then you would have, you know, folks near to follow me. Kind of sharing that corner and also because it's open but on one to almost on to visible sides, that's eyes on a park. That's street light. Have you thought about about doing it on a corner that way? It's a little bit more visible. And I think, you know, we'd be able to get away with a lot more on the corner.
Speaker 3: We did look at it. We kind of looked at what we thought was the ideal location for it. And really it came down to what was economically feasible for to make it so we could do the park and have successful development that actually could thrive. Because I think the worst thing that could happen for this community as we build a project that doesn't work, that's got too high around, it's got too much vacant space that's not full with residential and not full with commercial. And, you know, we wanted this to be one cohesive neighborhood. And it wasn't just a matter of the park. It's how does it all work together as one solid block? Like, how.
Speaker 8: Do you think you wouldn't be able to fill a rental unit in this city?
Speaker 3: There's a lot maybe not in this exact market, but this exact market is not going to last forever. And and we're looking at this as a 20, 30, 40 year investment. We're not looking at this to turn it and start to read. We're not looking at, you know, selling this off to a California buyer in the next two years after we get it done. We're looking at owning this and being a part of this community for the next 20 or 30 years. And we can't look at what the market is right now. We have to look at what the market can be and will be again in the future.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Flynn thanked.
Speaker 8: His President, his Tracie.
Speaker 3: McDermott here.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: Oh, I didn't see you behind Kara.
Speaker 8: Could you come up?
Speaker 3: When Mr. Maxwell came to Greater Park Hill community a year. Saying that he made some statements that are different than what he's saying tonight.
Speaker 4: That is correct. He stated that he got to.
Speaker 7: Design the park. He would name the park.
Speaker 4: He got to decide what events went in the park.
Speaker 3: And he decided.
Speaker 4: What? What events?
Speaker 7: When in the park.
Speaker 3: What events? And how long ago was that?
Speaker 4: That would have been.
Speaker 7: November 2017, I believe.
Speaker 3: November. So less than a year ago.
Speaker 4: Possibly. My timing may be incorrect on that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Maxwell, can you tell me why you would say something like that? Absolutely. And that was November of 2016, I believe. Okay. Our initial thought in our initial conversations was Parks has no money to do a design for the park. Parks didn't have money for the construction. And if I said it in a manner that I came across a truly regret that because that's not at all how we met it. We just said, we will design the park, we will look at some of the options to build it. We did a design on it just to kind of move the process forward. But most importantly, it was just to move this process forward and get a park built. As far when we also offered that we would contribute a significant dollar amount every year to maintain the park, but it would always be the Parks Department's park at the time. At the January 2017 meeting with the Greater Park Halle, we definitely stated that we would permit the park if we wanted to do events like Movie Night in the Park, things of that nature. I'm sorry. Let me start. You would get a permit from the city. From the city that you would issue a permit? Correct. We would get a permit from the city. One of the first things we did on our website in 2017, January 2017, was put direct link to the Parks Department permitting process on our website. I see that. Yeah. Yeah. So, Parker, our, our intention was that we really didn't want to run the park, but we would do it until the community. Let me ask you today, on one in August of 2018, what is H.M. Capital's position on your role in designing? We want zero role in designing it. We want zero role and we want to pay for it. We want to see the neighborhood get what they want. And we've always wanted that. We don't want to be a part of the design committee. Not that we don't want to, but we we don't believe it's our place. We don't want a final say on the design. We made sure in the documents that we don't get any, you know, overreaching. We don't get any design. You don't oversight. You don't intend to participate. I don't pretend to participate in that. If we are not welcome to the table, if we're welcome to the table, we would happily have somebody from our team join the conversation. But in our opinion, this is the part that needs to be designed by the residents of the neighborhood, not by us. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that's almost appropriate.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I think one of the things we're all struggling with is the idea of how you rebuild some of the trust, particularly where this is the council vote. And so I just have a couple more questions to try to lay down. I think a little more clarity of what happens. Yes. So if if this swap were to pass. Yes. We've heard from Councilman Brooks that over the course of the next week, he's going to get a greater level of detail about what the Park Design Advisory Committee I might not be saying the right name, but that that group will look like so that before we vote on second, we see what part? Advisory design process. Little more about what it looks like on paper. So I guess I'd like to get to that same point in terms of the discussion. And let's start with the East Side first. You know, would you be willing to to put on paper? And I think it would be good for you to talk to some of the neighbors who've talked about the other aspects of the development to say and maybe it's a simple we've had this conversation before that you would commit to three meetings or three discussions about, you know, the rest of the development. So things that are not in the parks wheelhouse but are in your wheelhouse. Regarding equity particularly, I think it's important we have a divide that is somewhat it's you cannot define it even though tonight it played out with with some reason some side I you know I know many of us make calls to folks intentionally to get feedback. And I know I heard supporters who are African-American. And so I think it's going to be important to get to some folks who aren't here tonight as well. So making sure so if you could think about and for the residents, I would encourage you to reach out. But would you be willing to commit to a minimum number of discussions about that topic?
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 7: And then maybe give us a little detail next week, you know, or in an email or something to give us some sense of that detail.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think we can do that. I mean, we've I personally have gone to pretty much every single greater part of our meeting over the past two years or so. Almost now I've publicly sat at every one of those meetings. Please reach out to me, here's my email, here's my phone number. And a lot of people have and I've had a lot of private one on one lunches and conversations with people on both sides of the fence. We're always willing to do that. And if we need to make it a formality, we're happy to.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think I mean, I my request might be that it be a neutral ground because I think there's some folks who, you know, feel like it needs. So it's maybe your meeting. And if you want if the community wants a facilitator, you ask and we can help find someone that you choose or you know what I mean. So I think find out what folks need. And if it's three meetings and it's, you know, something neutral and and it's separate from this person. And then the other thing I want to ask about is the west side. Go back to the west side. I think this hasn't been a major topic tonight, but is certainly, I think is an undercurrent, which is the fact that you do on a parcel on the West Side at the end of this transaction. And the question about what BI Right. Zoning looks like going forward on that side of the block. So I guess I would ask what is your willingness or commitment to engage in some process on the West Side if and when that development time comes, even though you don't have to, even though there won't be a Parks Department and even though there may not mean maybe, who knows? As far as I know, there's unlikely to be a council vote. And I think that's where the trust gap has grown, is about what happens on the West Side. So. Right, so what commitments similarly can you make to some discussion process and transparency about that site so we don't end up with these same set of feelings, but no council hearing?
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. I think we can we can outline something that would maybe work for the whole community. We're kind of going into that west side with no preconceived notions of what it's going to be over the next 2 to 3 years. We've kind of just committed to it's going to be a parking lot for 2 to 3 years. Our goal is that that that block can sustain more and more local retail and small these businesses. But we don't know that. And we've got to see kind of how it plays out on the West Side. So with that, I think we can commit to. Greater communication and transparency with the the neighborhood organization and maybe get some feedback and ideas from the neighborhood on what different folks would like to see on that side of the street.
Speaker 7: I just I think where you don't have enough information to do an outcome oriented good neighbor agreement, sometimes a process oriented, good neighbor agreement that says here's how we're going to meet and what we're going to talk about is at least a start. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Guzman Lopez, are you up again?
Speaker 8: Yeah, just one more. This may be for Councilman Herndon. Councilman, you you've been the councilman here for eight years. How high is this in terms of a priority? If if there's if this this particular site so this particular site where the park was proposed, that used to be the Excel substation, that would be 2863 Fairfax. It's going to take this conflation, this rounded up $790,000 to build this park. What's been the conversation that you've had with the Parks and Rec? Are they going to are they going to commit to it? Is this something that's been on your priority as a capital improvement? I know that they meet with those parks and RECs, meet with us usually to get guidance from us about those projects. Is this a priority for you? And if so, how, when, when, when does that look? What does that look like?
Speaker 5: So to make sure I hear you correctly, this parcel absolutely. It's a priority getting a park built in North Park Hill. No disrespect to the park at the corner of Martin Luther King and Quebec. I don't consider that an active park. North Park is the park desert. So bringing something to this is a huge priority. But as was discussed, every councilperson on this day can talk about see IP. That's capital improvement projects throughout the district that are frankly higher than this third of an acre. But so finding a way to build a park for the community, a community designed park is a huge priority for North Park.
Speaker 8: Is this project on your CIP for this year?
Speaker 5: Well, it will depend on how this vote goes.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: And just more of a note for clarification. The EMC two zone district only allows three building forms the drive thru services, the drive thru restaurant and the shop front form. So the shop from form is going to be sort of the maximum density version of development. And it's for it's one of our most sort of more restrictive based zoning as far as what that form looks like and how it addresses the street. So it's sort of safe to say that unless it's a drive through form the formally, they're going to essentially relate to each other. Whatever gets whatever the uses on either side, physically, they're going to manifest themselves the same way. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 855 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So first I want to I want to give some thanks and one I want to give thanks to the community. Whether you are first time here or many times here or part of the Reno, not part of the R.A. live next door living. Lowry, I appreciate you all coming out and sharing how your your opinions about this. You probably learned a little bit more about alley vacations than you thought you were going to before this started. But I want to say that because we we hear you, because when this process started two years ago, there was not a lot of concerns about it. And then right around the middle of 2017, because I was at that great a Park Hill meeting where there were some serious concerns and frustrations. And I held a community in October, and you came to that. And then Parks said, Stop. We are going to pull back and we're going to say, what does a community design park look like? So I want to thank the community for that, because you made that happen. So no matter which side of Fairfax this is going to go, this is going to be a park designed by the community. And so I want to applaud you for that, making sure that you're going to have a say in the design of the park. And the next group I want to thank is Parks. And, you know, Scott, I applaud you for standing up here and taking the brunt. But you were part of the team that said, you know what, we're not comfortable with how this is gone. So we're going to stop and rewind. And you can we can certainly look back and say, you should have done this differently. You should have done it better. But it takes something to say, you know what, we did this wrong, that we're going to stop and make sure that this is a community design process. And you did that and you stood in front and said that this will be a community park designated because the Greater Park Hill and their original piece back in November said it needs to be designated a park. That is going to happen and it's going to be a park with community members at the table. So it's not going to be a plaza. Because it's gonna be designed by the community. And I don't think there's a community member in this diocese and the chambers that are going to allow a plaza to be built when they're at the table. So it's going to be a park. So I applaud Parks and Rec for doing that. I also want to applaud Ben and H him gavel because he could have easily said, I'm not going to do this. And by him and I actually believe because you lived in Park Hill, so you understand this community. You're not a developer that's just coming in and trying to maximize and leave. As you said, highest and best is not always best for the community. I think you have demonstrated that you are here at the table and willing to meet because you came to grade a Park Hill. You've come to my community meetings, you've come to the meetings that Steve Charbonneau and I forgot to tell to my colleagues. Steve Charbonneau facilitated my meeting as well as the ones for Parks and Rec. You have been all of that and you've committed right here that you're going to work with the community when it comes to who who is at the table when it comes to ensuring that this park will be inclusive for everybody. That's part of it is your role. The other part is our role because this park's not going to be built tomorrow. So as a community, you have a commitment from your council person, what can we do to make sure that that is an inclusive park? And so my offer to Greater Park Hill or to any other community members, let's have that conversation because the weather is on the west or the east side. We need to have a conversation about gentrification. We need to have a conversation about some of the ills that are going through residents short and long term in this community that this council is working on diligently to try to mitigate. And we are doing that in several different facets. But let's have that community conversation about that. So those are my thanks for all the people that have been a part of this. I support the park on the east side and I'm going to focus strictly on the park because this is what the question is. You're going to get a community design park east or west. You're going to get a community design park, east or west that will be flanked by commercial, whether it be a beer garden to the north or a restaurant to the north and in commercial to the south. So that's not going to change. So what are some differences between the two? We have the ability to build the park, community design park faster because we have a we have demonstrated there is not a use of excuse me, a funding source on the West Side. So we can build a community design park designed by the community for the community. For a community that lacks park acreage. Just does. So let's do that as best as we can for the community. So I applaud all the areas, the the people that I've been a part of this. Let's continue to move forward. Let's continue to have these conversations, because if it's west or east there, as Councilman Flynn, I applaud him for pointing this out. There should be the same concerns when it comes to inclusivity. So let's start to have those conversations to make sure that that will happen. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Yeah. So you probably saw me up here sort of furiously writing things and stuff like that. I don't have my underwear in as big of a bunch as I did earlier. And throughout this whole process, I always thought this was a three story development entitlement. And it's not. It's a two story which really changes the math for me. That said, it is not. I don't blame the developer any more than I blame Target for asking for $4 million for the mall developer asking for this transaction. But I do appreciate the willingness to sort of help with these other conversations and dialog and be present, you know, because those aren't your those aren't your burdens to bear. But it is helpful when when when developers engage the community in that way, because those are burdens that are in communities. So, you know, unfortunately, he left, but there were a lot of great comments. But I just wanted to tell Eric Pena when he was here or PEN that his comments in particular really resonated with me. But they sort of speak to all those things as well. But the so is not lost. I mean, the thing the basic premise is the money could have been given to the city to develop a park on our city owned lands, but that is not directly beneficial to the developer. So that resolution, which would have resolved all of this debate, was never offered. And so that tells you something about. What is the you know, what is the value? There's a number here and we settled on on 650. Even though the you know, Scott said the park the park that size is 750000 to $1 million. So what that means is. No. Despite what I heard tonight, the developer is not going to build this park. The city is going to build this park, but the developer is contributing significantly towards that end. But they could have. And that's what I'm going to get at. So what we have on both sides of the street is a rectangle, 125 by 125. I mean, a square. Sorry. 125 by 125 feet. City owns one. Developer owns the other. If a developer wanted to create a small open space and I don't know if this is totally kosher with the market, too, and he wanted to do a quarter of that lot. That that quarter is roughly 9900 square feet. Double that for two stories is 7813 square feet. And let's use the split. The difference between 325 and $350 a square foot go, 337. That's 2,000,635 that and $32,981 of of development potential that sits in that little quadrant that wouldn't be realized if an open space was provided within the development. So what instead we're doing is we're going to, you know, within that development. So let's put it in the block. Right. Sorry. But instead, what we're doing is we're giving you land to put that size of open space, internal to that development, and then that entirety is developable across the street. There's real money there. So while I always welcome the idea that, you know, that there was a win win in a deal to be made here, the city needs to drive a hard bargain and not just give a bargain. We basically transferred the $50,000 deal that we got from Excel and pass that savings on to the developer. Who is now poised on that development that just that will report me on that portion, too, to make one mean $2 or more for every dollar that is being given to the city in this transaction. That's what I mean by there was more latitude, there was more money, a harder bargain to drive to actually maybe capture the full $754 million. Much was being made as this being a gift. And it is. But it's for the developer without more financial equity and a good neighbor agreement. Without financial equity and good neighbor agreements, our obligations to to protect the surrounding residential or some meager affordable housing units included. You know, we brokered this deal. Sadly, these are the failings of the administration. They're the ones negotiating. This council does not negotiate this. This is this is the agencies that are in this. You know, they're the ones presenting they're the ones having this conversation on your behalf. Both sides. That's your tax dollars being squandered or being or being bolstered, however you choose. But if you look and you observe history shows in this city, the disproportionately advantage advantage disproportionately the advantage goes to the developer. And this is no different. Again. I do not blame the developer for asking. I blame our negotiators for not challenging or pushing harder. So what I'm saying is this is not the deal. I would negotiate. But it is one. Sadly, too soon that I can approve. Because this project will end. But but let's not. And actually, that's not mince words here. This project will expedite gentrification in this neighborhood. With or without the park. So this park has nothing to do with other forces that are going on there. That's why we should have had those negotiations, should have been part of the conversation. If we're not going for full dollar value. What else can we capture? What other hard commitments that could have been made as part of that agreement and not basically bantered about among council members who are struggling with the fact that, yeah, this is a ginormous giveaway and these are tough conversations that the city should have been having because you guys are having them with us. But all we're doing is approving something. We're not negotiating it. And we could push back. But we're also not privy to these steps along the way. It's executive privilege. So again, if this if I had if it if I were in the room, we'd be we'd be having a different conversation. And you can tell what some of that would be. But our role is sort of perfunctory at this point. Is this is this about is this a worthwhile, valid deal? Is it kosher and all sort of legal context? Yes. And now I worry. Because there is benefit here. So I don't I'm not interested in in throwing in scrapping everything that has been done and all the efforts that have been made. But man. My message to the administration is you need to drive a hard bargain. There's people, businesses being displaced. With no place, no option to stay. And so I you know, I will be supporting this. But this is a tough deal in my book because the math. Again worked out really incredibly in the developer's favor at three stories, but that's not what we're dealing with, two stories. So it's actually far more closer to what it should be numbers wise. But it is still an imbalance. And until. But in my questions to the administration about what sort of appraisals were done, what sort of analysis was done to calculate the real value to the developer. We're Neal. When I asked for a response on that. And so this was what was offered. It seemed like a good idea because it builds most of the park. But actually, I think we could have gotten all of the park or we could have gotten that commitment much earlier about what level of community involvement there would be . We could have advanced maybe the design of that park. So it was already sort of concurrently being built, I mean, being conceptualized, and that would actually benefit the developer because they could consider they could factor in some of the underground, some of the needs of that site, and maybe there would be some concessions by the city at that point. That, you know, in lieu of of all those dollars, build some of this infrastructure because you're going to double down. I mean, you're already doing the work in the adjacent area. But again, that's not this this council's responsibility. The administration. And I'm willing to bet some of that's going to occur. I hope is because it's there's only some more win wins to occur here. So I've gone on long enough. I think you all understand where I stand. I will be supporting it. But it's it. I just wish we'd gotten more from the get go. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I share my colleague's concern about whether or not it was a great deal. I'm not as deep into the numbers as he is. I just see that Mr. Maxwell had a partial worth. A million and a half were trading him another partial worth. A million and a half. He's given us $650,000. He's going to get a park worth somewhere between that and a million bucks. So that that's that reality. I'm my main thoughts are along the lines of some of the things that Councilman Kenny shared. I think the issue of the design of the park is going to get shuttled to the neighborhood satisfaction. That's what I think. I don't know that I'm I'm waiting next week to hear more specifics about how that process is going to unfold. But the thing that really does concern me is that we take enough time to look at the other issues, the cultural issues that that have been talked about at length. And I don't know that that gets done in a week or two weeks. We've lost a year that that discussion should have been unfolding in a more comprehensive manner. So I'm really be looking at how that's pronounced. If this moves forward, you know, it's just. As the expression goes, it's not fully baked. You know, for me at this point, the park is not an issue for me. With due respect to the neighbors, the side of the street is is not an issue. It's it's the process that's concerning. And I get how that process gets shortchanged. I believe, Mr. Gilmore 100%. He saw an opportunity to build a park quickly, and he and he jumped at it. And I've done similar things in my life. And all of a sudden you realize, wait a minute, there's this other stuff that I should be considering. And while I understand it, one of one of the critical problems we face, and I think it was maybe Councilman Brooks that talked about the issue of the trust. We're fighting in everything we do here, trying to regain the trust of the public in their government. And so we need to really be extra attentive to holding public engagement as the highest value so that that's in the top of our mind as we approach whatever we're doing here in the city. So. Yeah. That's why I've got to say thank you.
Speaker 0: Then you get some. Cashman kills me. Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Hmm. You know, I. First of all, you know, I wanted to. Coming from somebody who has fought for as much park acreage as possible in a. Parks starved. District in Denver. And being able to. To turn that around, being able to create parks where nobody thought there were parks and to build parks where we had every advantage an opportunity to do so. I could tell you that that that for as much as Mr. Gilmore is trying to put a lot of stuff on himself, we couldn't have done that without. An aggressive. At least an aggressive mission to go and find park space wherever possible, especially in areas of town. That are. That are struggling and especially in areas of town that don't have access to park space. And so I know that the intent there is to to. To try to acquire Parkland as much as possible. And there was a part there was a time in this city where this administration did not like pocket parks and they were never interested in pocket parks. Now. That's the only opportunity we have. It. It doesn't. I don't feel as confident. And this is not on and any kind of personal attack. I don't feel as confident. And we have to ask that we're accomplishing those mission, that mission when we have to ask developers to do it for us. I mean, I really appreciate you coming to the table. And I appreciate the offer. But we have to be in a city. We have to have the priorities straight in this city with our budget to give parks. The opportunity to have the upper hand. And so we're not as a city behind the eight ball. Whenever somebody comes to us with some money to be able to say, hey, okay. We should have our own fund dedicated to be able to guide our principles. And that's a budget issue. And that is going to be on the ballot as well. Right. Whether or not as a citizenry, as a city does, is that a value that we have a healthy budget to be able to do this, not just for parks but for our infrastructure? Right. So I don't want to wage a war on our philosophy of parks or. On on the economy in our city and take it out on one side of the street or the other. Right. There is a part that's going to happen. It's going to be built on this street. And I do understand I do understand what folks are saying at the microphone. Folks have said, hey, we're tired of people calling the cops on us because we we have Spanish music because that happens to us. Right. We're tired of people watching our every move in our parks and they don't let us be because maybe it's because of the color of my skin. Maybe it's because the music I'm playing, maybe it's because the carne asada that's on the grill. I get that. I understand that. And for folks who are living in this neighborhood. And want to see this part happen and don't understand it and take an opportunity to understand that. People in this country are being the cops are being called on us, especially Latinos, especially African-Americans, just because we are who we are. We could be chillin in a park and that happens. Those are real stories. I don't question those stories because I know that happens. However. In my experience with Parkes part. And also the other thing I want to address and what I heard at the microphone and I get that there are some safety issues. In every neighborhood, we have issues where somebody's peddling some dope or there's some fights. I get that. That happens in my neighborhood, too. That happens in our parks. You had parks where that's been the case. Just because there's a park in your neighborhood does not mean safety is gone. All of a sudden, you're going to achieve safety. You achieve safety when people want to be in the park, you achieve safety when people want to be there and they want to have music and they want to be able to have a good time and they want to have their quinceaneras and they want to take pictures for prom and all that. That's that's when you achieve when you activate a park, that's when you achieve it. So it's not necessarily that we have space for a park and we have Parkland, but it's how we're going to program the park. What are we going to have in it? If all you have is a pretty little fountain and some trees and some ducks, that's not going to make an active park if you're going to have swings. A gazebo for families to have birthday parties. Right. That's what's going to have. That's that. That's activating a park. So I can tell you by looking at the zoning and by looking at the uses. It really is not going to make a difference in one. I'm seeing that it's not really going to make a difference on one side or the other if they're just both flanked right there in the middle of a main street zone district. In a matter of years, it may look like a mirror image of the other side. And we've had all this argument and fighting for nothing unless. You come to the table? You all come to the table, recognize that this is the dynamic in this neighborhood. What was said in these council chambers and try to be able to create a park for everybody. Right. And then also be aware of those social aspects of this. This is definitely these chambers are definitely the chambers that should be hearing stories about how the impact of gentrification in our city. Absolutely. We should be talking about that here. We should be talking about, you know, the undertones and undertones of racism in our city. Absolutely. These aren't issues that we're not just pulling some card up. Nobody give me a race card. We're not just pulling it out and using it wherever it's happening. And we have to address it. And that means every single one of us and everything we do, even in parks. And so I think that's that's the. I wanted to address that. But I also wanted to ask and this is my ask a Parks and Rec. Because of its location, because of the perception. Whatever the sign, whoever whatever this park is called, it should say public park. So that there is no question whether this park is part of your development or part of the community. So there is no confusion whatsoever. If it's. I don't know. Barack Obama public park. It could be Mickey Mouse, Public Park. But however. However you name it. Name it. Public. So that people understand that they belong there, that that's their part. I have already kind of expressed what I've. My suggestion would be it would be to put it on a corner so people can see it. So you can access it from from two sides, not just one. Right. And that's all design on your end. That's all up to you. But I definitely understand the angst. I understand the anxiety. But from somebody on the West Side who has made it my. Oh. My everything to try to. Create parks that reflect who we are. That's it. Don't walk away. Be part of it, demand to be at that table and make sure that that park reflects. Park North Park Hill. For every single all every ounce of every molecule. Glory and culture it is right. So I with that it's I'm I'm going to support it only because I you know, for for those reasons. But yeah.
Speaker 0: They. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Hey, thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for everybody who stayed around to nearly 10:00 to talk about a park in the neighborhood. But we're not just talking about a park. We're talking about something so much more. So thank you. For those of you who drove paying for parking. Those of you who all came in here going through security and sitting in those hard seats, really appreciate your passion for this city. And I think that's incredibly important. And if your passion dies tonight, depending on the vote, that's unfortunate because there's a lot a lot of stuff going on in the neighborhood. I, I used to represent this neighborhood, and I'm in this on this street every week at House of Hair. Anybody know Pope? Mr. Pope is in there. So he has been and I've been hearing this about this deal for a year and a half. But let me just say something. So MLK first neighborhood that he came to when he came to the city of Denver was Park Hill. In Park Hills, a historic neighborhood of always trying to figure out the issues around race and equity issues and equality, equity, understanding that folks are starting from a bias, understanding that folks are starting from a disadvantage in the community in Park Hill has always been historic for having white allies who support that. And it's a powerful neighborhood. I got to say tonight and it's because it's not my district. And I just got a chance to sit back and listen to everybody tonight. I'm just sad because I know who are friends in here and I see you all on opposite sides. And and that's not the vision of our neighborhood. And even though. We have different opinions of what this is. We should never let this come to the point of dividing our friendships in our community, in our neighborhood. We will not allow what's going on federally to affect us on our street corner. This this country is more divided than it's ever been. We're not going to let a park. We're not going to let gentrification. We're not going to let any of that stuff divide us. And so I just think it's important for me to say that at the outset, because that is at the crux of every conversation that I have and it's at the crux of this this issue here. So, you know, I really appreciate the conversation. Obviously, you know, the development issue I was in the barbershop, I heard that it was six stories redevelopment coming next door all the way from folks who have been on the block for 40 years and was excited to see some change. And so there's some great debate and great arguments going on. But as the facts begin to come out, you know, folks started to really talk about what they wanted to see, what they wanted to see in the park, who they wanted to see coming outside of those apartments, who they want to see coming outside the restaurants. And it's an inclusive community. I think the anger that people have been hearing, especially in African-American communities, that feeling like they're losing a sense of community. So I think. You know, I appreciate Scott really talking about some of the missteps. The process was not right. And I appreciate you starting it over. Scott and and Scott. Like I said, we've worked on many of issues and continue to work on issues. And I really believe that our parks can be that great equalizer in our community. And parks is not the number one issue in this community. I think everybody see in that there's some undergirding issues that are going on. There's a school called Stedman and Hallett that are struggling right now, struggling about to close. Right. Like struggling. And so there's some big issues in our community. And I think it's important when we come to the conversation with these issues, is that we start talking about them, we start discussing them. You know, for me to support this, I was very I'm very clear.
Speaker 8: That.
Speaker 6: I want a detailed list of the process. Gordon We've worked on a hundred processes together. You've been inclusive for people to feel like they haven't been included. It troubles me. So a very detailed list of participants and what the process will look like by next week when we vote on this for full up. Been there is ready radio Radian Development actually connects people with folks small businesses who have been pushed out of the neighborhood. I'm going to give you that contact this radian. I'm going to give you that contact this week. And the person you should sit down with is is Marcus Pope, who is in the neighborhood, who because I just don't want to talk about the small business inclusion. I really want to be give you tools to say this is how we include small businesses, especially folks who've been pushed out.
Speaker 8: Of the community.
Speaker 6: You know, as I look at the.
Speaker 8: The the the swap.
Speaker 6: I don't even want to call it a swap because it makes it sounds really bad. As I look at the transaction here, dealing with a park. I'm going to say it again, there's huge trust issues and we need to make things as transparent as possible. And I think that the city of Denver, when we when we interact with these transactions, we have to have an open and transparent process with the community so that they know and I've talked to all of you all in Parks Department, I've talked to you in real estate so that they know there is nothing going on behind closed doors, that this is for the benefit of the community. And I know that I've talked in detail. I've talked about some of the issues, but the community doesn't feel that way. So we have a lot of work to do. But moving forward, I want to see those things to be completely supportive.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. So these are neighborhoods. These these are conversations that we're having in neighborhoods all across the city. It's not unique to your neighborhood. We've been having these conversations for, you know, the last eight years that I've been back here as we've been dealing with the I-70 project around some of the the inequities that are happening to those communities. Interestingly, the city is beginning to have internal conversations about race inequity. That is occurring. It's happening with our Denver Wright process, which is very important because that's going to set the stage for our city moving forward for the next 20, 25 years. It's been at least that long since we revisited that blueprint document. And I think these are conversations we need to have on the front end of these projects, not on the back end, so that we address the concerns and the impact to communities on the front end and not wait until, you know, folks have been displaced and they can no longer even have a voice at that table because they can't even afford to stay in some of our neighborhoods. And I know this was all about a park and and where that park should be. And I appreciate the input that we have received in my office phone calls, emails from folks on all sides of this issue. I appreciate you all sitting through a long night and, you know, listening to the previous conversations that we've had here about other issues. But this has been very enlightening for me to see Mr. Maxwell's commitment to trying to work through this all and sincerely appreciate your your willingness to not not only. You know, step back from the design and put money at the table, but really willing to roll up your sleeves and focus on some of these other social issues that have been the undercurrent of this entire conversation. And I'm pleased that Parks and Recreation is making a commitment to fund the gap, even though this is not a priority in Mississippi. You heard the question about if. If this doesn't happen, what happens to the park and the commitment to have a park on this block? Well, the money wouldn't be there, but we're going to find the money to complete this park at this location, because we have a $650,000, you know, contribution towards it. So, you know, I just based on what I had heard and seen, I sat through one community meeting in the neighborhood. I was leaning towards opposing this. But really having heard tonight's conversation, I am going to support this tonight just because I think this is a genuine opportunity to try to heal the wounds that have been caused as a result of of what what has been a divide. And I know there are people in this neighborhood who have worked together on so many other issues and to be kind of split off over this one issue. Hopefully, this this I'm not sure what's happening to the wall because something is falling off the wall anyway. I think this really is that opportunity to bring people back together and appreciate Parks and Rick's, you know, commitment to make sure that this is what the community wants in terms of the park that will be there. And so I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman, you back up?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I just want to add one more thing. Just so I could take up a few minutes of everybody's time and enjoy those lovely benches. I just. Councilman Flynn mentioned it early on. I it's it's unacceptable that on an issue this important that's been on top of people's minds for so long, that we have to vote on an exception to the rules because we don't have the contract til late on Friday. So and I'm also disappointed that, again, an issue that's been this president on everybody's mind that we don't have a representative from from community planning and development to answer basic questions. I appreciate my the input from my colleague, Councilman Espinoza, but we've got a neighbors here late and a whole lot of other people here late. And I think the administration could have done a better job in being prepared to bring this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing nobody else in line for comments. I'll just close with this. I want to say thank you to everyone for coming out here, for sitting here, for taking time to add your voice to the conversation. What I'm hearing tonight in here is the same thing that I hear every day in my district. There's so much change, so much that we feel we can't control happening in our city and in our country, that when something comes up where there is a chance to weigh in, we start having all of these really important conversations , even when they're not directly related to the thing that we get to vote on, because we are all as a city, so hungry for that conversation and for solutions to the problems that we're talking about. And they're really important conversations. And we have to find ways as a community to find more ways and better ways to have those conversations and find ways to take back some of that power and control. But looking at what we're voting on tonight. For me, this is about a park on the same block that has the same zoning flanking it on both sides. And none of you know nothing about our vote is going to change those things. So do we want one with $0 or do we want one with $650,000? And that's what we're tasked with voting. I know, Scott. I know, Gordon. I was in the trenches fighting with these guys for parks that we had no money for before I was on this council and in my former life. And I know that both of them are extremely passionate about this community and extremely passionate about delivering a great park for every neighborhood and for every person. I appreciate Scott stepping up in front of everybody and saying that he may have made some missteps along the way in the process. And I know because I know, Scott, that it wasn't because there was something else going on in the background or there was some backroom deal. But it's because he's so passionate about finding ways to deliver on these parks and on a park for everyone, that when he sees something that's a possibility, he jumps all over it. And that's because we have a huge funding issue. As Councilman Lopez mentioned, we don't have the money to build these parks, to deliver these parks. We have parcels sitting right now, today in my district that have sat vacant, waiting for funding for decades. And there's no one offering $650,000 to build that park across the street or even a dollar. To do that, we need to fund our parks so that we don't have to. Scramble all over trying to deliver a park for a community that needs one. And we need to have the money to do right by every neighborhood and every kid and every person in the city. Right now, we don't have that. And so, again, it brings us back to what are we voting on tonight? Do we want to park on this block and $650,000 to build it? Or do we want a vacant parcel on this block with no money to build it like I have so many of in my district right now? So tonight, my vote is for a park with $650,000 to build it. With that, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel Herndon.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Question. Can each by Lopez.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Knew Ortega I.
Speaker 4: Susman Black.
Speaker 6: Brooks I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, I.
Speaker 8: Flynn, I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting announce results to advice. One Abstention 12 eyes, one abstention. Council 855 has been ordered published Monday, August 27th will be second reading or final consideration of Council Bill 855. Uh, Maggie Bolden, I know you're watching on Channel eight right now.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Contract to Exchange Property between the City and County of Denver and PHC Mixed Use, LLC for payment and exchange of property for park improvements.
Approves an agreement with PHC Mixed Use, LLC (PHC) to exchange city-owned property located at 2863 Fairfax Street for PHC-owned property located at 2868 Fairfax Street, and to include $650,000 from PHC for certain park improvements on the newly obtained city parcel in Council District 8 (FINAN 201842934). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-10-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-7-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0590
|
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Blackwell, you put Council Resolution 590 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 9: I move that council resolution 18 dash 0590 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not going to go into why I am voting no, because I explained that last week and so I just wanted this called out so I could be a no vote on the acquisition of this property at 700 West Colfax and 1449 Galapagos Street.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions or comments? Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Ortega Sassaman.
Speaker 4: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks Espinosa. Flynn I. Gilmore. Herndon. High Cashman. High Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: One is.
Speaker 0: Missing. Somebody.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes one day.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes when they counted. 590 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Nu, go ahead with your questions on resolutions 842 856 857 858, eight, 59, eight, 60 and 861.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and UWG 8, LLC. for the City to purchase the property located at 700 W. Colfax Avenue and 1449 Galapago Street.
Approves a $3 million purchase and sale agreement with UWG 8, LLC. to acquire property located at 700 West Colfax Avenue and 1449 Galapago Street for approximately 12,700 square feet of office space and a detached parking garage for office support staff for the district and county courts in Council District 10 (FINAN 201841586-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-27-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, August 13, 2018 Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, August 20, 2018.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0394
|
Speaker 0: Adopted. All right. Thank you very much. All right. If you're up with the next screen, next item on our screen, Councilwoman Blackwell, you please for Council Bill 394 on the floor for publication.
Speaker 9: Yes, I move that council bill 18, dash 394, be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council or Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Is there somebody from public works here? Sarah Stanek. Thank you. Come. Come on up. This has been one of the more interesting alley vacations in our city. We've had a lot of questions in committee and things have even been happening between committee and now. Just to help with a little bit of the history of this. Sarah, in the first sort of question came from a constituent about this alley where they discovered that there was a great deal of encroachment into this alley that the city owned. This was about six years ago. And at that time, the city decided they were going to cite the neighbors who had encroached and asked them to remove the encroachments that they had. Then there, about a year or two later, the city decided.
Speaker 7: That.
Speaker 4: Perhaps they would just vacate the alley and not continue with the encroachment. Do you know why the city changed its mind? Yes. Sarah Stanek from Public Works. My understanding is that we did begin in the enforcement proceedings and part of our process for encroachment enforcement is to look at alternatives. The vacation was offered as a potential alternative through the enforcement process, and we then received an application for the vacation, which we began processing. The vacation was offered by the city or offered by the neighbors. The neighbors applied for the vacation, the encroachment enforcement through that process. Again, one of the options that is presented during the enforcement process is an option to vacate. And the when we received the application to vacate, that was as we were going through the enforcement proceedings. And why does the city think that vacation would be better than enforcing the encroachment? The process that we take for all vacations of the public right of way is to review the use, review objections, notify adjacent property owners and determine if the area is serving the public right of way in this particular instance. All objections were reviewed and found to lack technical merit and the.
Speaker 7: Alley in.
Speaker 4: Question was found not to be serving the public right of way and could be vacated. Thank you. What is this does not pass and this alley does not get vacated. What will the city do then if the vacation is not passed?
Speaker 7: The alley will remain public. Right of.
Speaker 4: Way. And we will resume the enforcement process. Okay. Thank you very much. If there were a public easement put on the vacation, which there was for for a while, would Mr. Gidley be able to then have access and build his driveway? Is that alley were vacated and there were a public easement on it? Would he still be able to build his driveway? I'm not sure I can speak to that. The public works does not have a precedent for those types of easements. Within vacated once once an property is vacated once the right of way is vacated. It is private property and we do not have a precedent for determining public easements or cross.
Speaker 7: Access easements.
Speaker 4: Of private property. You don't have. So, gee, I didn't quite understand that answer. So if we did have a public easement on it, you don't know if Mr. Gidley would be able to use it. The easement the easement would be an arrangement between the property owners, the adjacent property owners, and not something that public works or the city would have a precedent for determining. And yet it was on the bill for a while before it got off the bill. My understanding is that the private parties were discussing other easements. There is a reservation and an easement for utilities for an Excel transformer that is located within the alley. And it's my understanding that the private property owners and their legal representation were discussing other easement options, but that none were filed with this particular vacation. We received a letter today from Mr. Gurley's attorney and saying that if there were a public easement, he would be able to have an alley there if there was public easement on the vacation. Is Mr. Gidley here? I would like to ask him a question about that. Would you like to come up and speak to that place, to the microphone? You have to come to the microphone.
Speaker 8: On Mr.. GIDLEY or.
Speaker 5: I'm Josh Porter.
Speaker 4: Which whoever Mr. Gidley thinks is appropriate, either himself or your attorney.
Speaker 8: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Good evening. Just tell me, could you please introduce yourself?
Speaker 8: My name is Joshua Krieger, attorney for.
Speaker 11: Gary Gidley, who you just.
Speaker 8: Saw.
Speaker 11: Resident of 260 leads Dale and one of the adjoining neighbors on this alleyway at issue.
Speaker 4: And you wrote us today to say that if there were a public easement, he would be able to create an alley even though that alley was vacated. Could you tell us a little bit why you think that's possible?
Speaker 11: Just as was recently stated, there's no precedent for it.
Speaker 8: But if.
Speaker 11: The city reserves a public access easement, which.
Speaker 8: As you noticed, Councilperson Sussman.
Speaker 11: Was initially considered here as a mechanism to kind of preserve.
Speaker 5: Access issues in the alley.
Speaker 11: And was this public access easement? We see no reason why the city can't reserve that public access easement for construction. Well, Mr..
Speaker 8: Gidley would need to continue.
Speaker 6: The alley from what is currently.
Speaker 11: Paved and currently blocked by retaining walls and landscaping.
Speaker 8: That is illegally encroaching in the alley by.
Speaker 11: The other neighbors. He would need to construct a continuation of that paved portion, a narrow strip along an edge of what is now the public right of way down to his property. And we see no reason why that can't be done under a public access easement. Lack of precedent does not mean anything is standing in the way. It would take some creative problem solving.
Speaker 8: Between the parties and Department of Public Works.
Speaker 11: But we see why that can't be accomplished here.
Speaker 4: I see. Okay. Thank you very much. Again, it means that neighbors have to talk to each other. And I want to ask questions about that, too, because the court, when they came to committee, one of the biggest issues that the committee had was they wanted people to the neighbors to work out some happy negotiations on.
Speaker 7: If the property were going to be divided, how it would be divided.
Speaker 4: I'd like to ask Mr. David Foster up here to talk about the division of the property and what the neighbors have come to an.
Speaker 7: Agreement on.
Speaker 4: About if it's vacated.
Speaker 0: David Foster, 360, South Garfield, Denver. You're on behalf of the whites. Who were the applicants on the location. So the property is you may or may not know once the city vacates, it actually is divided per state statute. It's not divided per private agreement. And so what we had discussed is whether or not there was a way to accommodate. Mr. Gidley so that he might have more property than would otherwise be granted to him via the state statute. And although we haven't reached agreement with Mr. Gidley, Mr. Gidley has reached agreement with at least one, if not two neighbors to have access and actually ownership of some property so that if the City Council were to vacate the alley, he will be obtaining more property vis a vis the Ali vacation than would otherwise be. He would otherwise be entitled to vis a vis the state statute. So per agreements he will be receiving more property than he would otherwise be entitled to under state statute.
Speaker 4: And you all have come to this agreement.
Speaker 0: Again, there is no agreement, but that is something that both the hamrick who are here today, Mr. Gidley, has reached out to his own neighbor, the Seltzers, and I know that he's reached an agreement with them, but you can ask his counsel about that. So the people that we can I wouldn't say control, but the people we've discussed and come to agreement with, namely being the Hamrick have agreed to convey property to. Mr.. Gidley.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much. I see that others have some questions. So I'm going to pass for now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I don't know if you can answer this, but I think Mr. Foster has addressed it already. But under state statute, when a public right of way is abandoned, typically the adjoining property owners equitably split, like if it were an alley that went straight up and down. Typically, the owners on either side would divide to the middle and take possession of that. This is an alley that kind of reminds me of an Irish hurling stick. It's really odd shaped and it's dead end and it's got this big area sort of buried in the middle of the block. So it's easy to see why over the years, some of the neighbors illegally encroached into it innocently enough, but but not entitled to it. And it cut off the very dead end of the alley that backs up to Mr. Gilley's property. So I need to know before I can vote yes on this. That there is an equitable distribution of the property that is agreed on. And it doesn't sound like there is right now today. It's hard to vote on something that's still in process. So can you enlighten.
Speaker 8: Us on.
Speaker 3: Where this stands from public works standpoint and maybe Mr. Gilley's attorney and the white's attorney can elaborate on where the agreement stands? It's very hard for me to change a tire on a moving car, and I feel like that's what I'm being asked to do.
Speaker 4: Yes. So public works and the city would not take a position beyond the state statute in the division of the property once it is vacated.
Speaker 3: Let me let me let me interrupt there for to ask you, because one thing I have a hard time imagining is.
Speaker 8: What would do we know.
Speaker 3: Under the state statute what would be an equitable distribution of that really odd shaped property? Has anybody ever attempted to do the trigonometry on that? Did you, Major?
Speaker 4: Looks like someone might have.
Speaker 3: You major in trigonometry, David.
Speaker 0: You know, I did not. I provided that to you, Councilman Flynn. That is a engineered depiction. And I think we need to make sure that we're using the right terms when we're having this discussion. There's the legal.
Speaker 8: Statutory property.
Speaker 0: Division and then there's an equitable right. So those, I think are could be different if if it's strictly what the state statute says, you're entitled to the frontage and councilman. Right. You're you're right. I mean, there's this kind of hammerhead. I've called it a hammerhead. And so the analysis has been done that shows who has the linear frontage along that Hammerhead and who would be entitled to certain property along that Hammerhead. I have other copies if others are so inclined to see what that might look like.
Speaker 8: Beyond what the state statute allows for.
Speaker 0: And that's one of the exhibits that you have. What I've shared with you already is you do have an agreement from an abiding neighbor, Mr. Hamrick, to give additional property that Mr. Gately is not presently entitled to. Mm hmm. So that goes from beyond the legal to what I would consider more the equitable. More property than he would otherwise be entitled to vis a vis this disposition.
Speaker 3: Right now, I'm looking at the exhibits, and I think there is one of these purporting to be just. Objectively. Here's what the state statute would show, because I thought this was based on what the proposed agreement was.
Speaker 8: There are two. There are two.
Speaker 0: Depictions. One is the state statute. All right. And then the other was more of the equitable division of property that you had asked to see. Okay.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. But right now there is there is no agreement between the parties.
Speaker 0: Again. Mr. Hamrick, who is the neighbor, has agreed with Mr. Gridley to convey a portion of his property that would entitle him to more property than he would be entitled to under the state statutory division of property. Okay.
Speaker 3: So to Mr. Gibbons, attorney, what what else needs to be done to proceed with this?
Speaker 8: Well, I'll start by saying that it's.
Speaker 11: Incorrect and misleading to say that there are agreements in place that would give Mr. Gidley.
Speaker 8: More property.
Speaker 11: Than he's entitled to. As it stands. Mr. Hamrick Mr. Lee's neighbor to the west and the seltzer family, Mr. Ghibli's neighbor to the east, each of whom.
Speaker 8: Also border on the alley.
Speaker 11: Have already quit, claimed certain areas of land to Garrett.
Speaker 8: In return for various work Garrett has done on them on their properties. So Garrett of.
Speaker 11: He'll only get what he's entitled to under state statute. We realize that. But there are no agreements in place. Garrett is now in a position to gain more land than he would have. In June, May and June, when these quick claims occurred. But as it stands right now, there are no agreements that would allow Garrett to gain more property than he would be entitled to. Right now.
Speaker 8: He's just been able to achieve.
Speaker 11: Presumably under operation of law from the statute, which by admission is quite vague. The statute has two parts to it. If it's a.
Speaker 8: Straight right angle.
Speaker 11: Public right of way. As you noted, everybody just comes out to the middle line where where there aren't where it's the dead end portion. It's fairly vague and says, you know, to the adjoining landowners, essentially it's what it says. And I think we can agree that there's probably a frontage percentage calculation that goes on. And I think independently on each side, we have kind of come to some independent conclusions about. The Straight. There are two very straight, predictable portions of the alley that will vacate those owners right to the middle. And then for the remaining hammerhead dead end portion of frontage percentage calculation will go into play. But that's really anybody's guess. I think if this were to end up in a court as a quiet title action. Right. It could be a pizza pie. It could be straight lines. It would just be a percentage. I will note that following committee in June, we on invitation of Mr. Mr. Foster provided some settlement proposals and didn't hear anything on those for more than three months until Friday before this meeting I where a map was attached to a response to that that was outdated contained inaccurate information such as the new deeds. So we were just kept in the dark on this and it was kind of sprung on us to have to analyze this.
Speaker 3: Okay. We can't thank you. That's enough for that, because I see that there's shaking of heads. And also, I don't want to get into the into the private details of the transaction, but I think that's enough. And I think we're all going to need a vacation after this. Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Questions for Mr. Foster and Public Works. Mr. FOSTER. So there are currently at least three property owners and three encroachments sorry that that are sort of beneficial for access today. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: Only two properties that actually use the property for access.
Speaker 6: And there is at least that much agreement that if we what we know is that if the land is vacated, some owners might get something and other owners might get other things. And with those two that are currently benefiting from those encroachments, have agreements among themselves that they're going to continue working together to maintain the access that that they now currently have and sort of co utilize that?
Speaker 0: That is correct. It would.
Speaker 8: Be.
Speaker 0: The only thing that I will tweak there is that there is a third owner who doesn't use the alley. It's on the other side of their fence and they don't have any reason for this particular property. And my clients have been in communication with them to purchase that should the alley vacation come to fruition.
Speaker 6: So essentially the historic utilization to date will be maintained?
Speaker 0: That is correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. So to to to my colleagues, you know, that is actually more information than we have on any vacation that we've approved in the three years that I've sat on this seat. You know, we usually approve these things and then let the state do it. I mean, let let the lines sort of fall where they may. So what we actually have is actually general consensus that the current sort of multi means shared access that has been used to date is there. So my question to public works so well. And so yeah, so I'm concluding that, yes, we have more information to preserve current access and current encroachments that the city has already now deemed okay because they don't need the land provide. So but the current situation is that is in fact right of way. So if, if Mr. I mean a script the names if the if if if Garret were to you know, we have a lot of developments, particularly in my district where there's existing alleyways that are improved to some degree, usually not improved. I have seen developers replace entire alleys as part of their development since we have the right of way today. Could could Mr.. What's his name? Sorry, Mr. Gately. Could Mr. Gately come to the public works and say, look, I will I will construct I would like to access my property from the hour from from this right away . And I would do improvements to city standards from the from the entirety, from the existing street right away across this right of way to my home. And would that be acceptable to public works if they met all city standards for alley right away.
Speaker 4: I may need to call up one of our representatives from right away services to answer that. The city has no plans at this time to improve that alley as to whether or not we would accept a private citizen essentially making that offer. I will have Jim Barwick this evening.
Speaker 8: I'm Jim Barwick with Public Works right away services and I think the whole point of the vacation would be lost on that. I don't know how to get the other people to agree to that. Like she said before, we don't get a precedent like of vacating an alley and then an access easement.
Speaker 6: No, no, no, I wouldn't. I'm talking about if if if at the time when he came in and said, hey, I want to I want access, when the city thought he had alley access because there's a right away on a map and then they realize that actually it doesn't exist. If he had said, oh, I will do that, I will construct that alley for a public benefit. Would would the city would public works review that and consider that and maybe even approve it if it most likely?
Speaker 8: Yes, if you decided to. But from what I understand out there, the. The amount of construction would take to do that would be pretty immense. But yes, the answer is probably yes.
Speaker 6: So those are the two those are the answers I wanted, because what I've been doing, I mean, I sort of this is borderline commentary, but I think my colleagues should know this is that I've seen it both ways. And it occurred to me, too, that that, yeah, a proper alley could in fact be constructed there and in fact, reached out to Mr. Gidley and suggested that approach. And that approach has never been fulfilled. And so at some point, me personally and I can take this position because this is not a quasi judicial matter, I'm like , no, the standards are the standards. You meet them or you don't. And if you're in if you're not content with with doing that and satisfying what the city expects from us, Ali, improvements, then we're at an impasse and that the appropriate thing is to follow through with the vacation and let the let the castles fall where they may because we have deemed it if we vote that way, that it is no longer a piece of property that the city.
Speaker 8: Yes, I believe that's correct.
Speaker 6: Right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman.
Speaker 10: Real quick, sir. What's the. Well, if this vacation's approved, what's the status of that Excel equipment? As in and.
Speaker 8: I know.
Speaker 4: There is an easement for to maintain the Excel transformer so it will remain.
Speaker 10: Sale. Stay. Yes.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Menu. Councilman Sussman Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Ortega, of course.
Speaker 4: Councilman Ortega So I just want to clarify. If the. Mr. is that Garrett is provided more land than what he is entitled to, as was stated by David Foster. Does that still give him access? I didn't hear that answered clearly. To be able to get to the back part of his property off of that street. So if somebody could answer that question.
Speaker 11: It would not anything around. Mr.. GIDLEY As I guess, entitlements upon vacation is buried deep within that dead end of the alley, and he would still be isolated from the actual paved portion that the other neighbors are currently accessing.
Speaker 4: So in your mind, what solves that is a public easement that would grant access not only to him but to any of those property owners off that alley, regardless of which side of the the alley, it's you know, it abuts up to the different property owners on both the east and the west side.
Speaker 11: Yes. Either an easement or no vacation at all. And the city enforces the public right of way.
Speaker 4: Okay, Sara, the map I'm looking at shows that that is a concrete alley, not all the way. There is a section of a paved roadway extending from the north about some some feet below. It is unimproved after that. Okay. And so public works is not wanting to put a an easement on that alleyway once it becomes private. Is that what you're saying is what would set a precedent? Once it becomes private property, we would have no it would be private property. The city would have would have would not have a role in placing an access easement on it. Do we not have access easements for various utilities and other infrastructure on private property around the city? We do and I will. It looks like the city attorney's office can explain a little further.
Speaker 12: Hi, this is Brandt Eisen from the city attorney's office. If we wanted if there was going to be a public access easement, we would need to reserve that within the the vacation ordinance itself. Just like we're reserving the Excel easement, it would be through the entire alley, and it would necessitate that some of the neighbors that have improvements in the alley would need to remove those improvements. Is my understanding of to have full access, obviously. So it is essentially is like not vacating at all if you're doing it at one point, the portion that we were talking about previously there was going to be a public access easement was for two separate driveways at the top part at the hammerhead part of the alley. If we were to reserve an access easement through the entire alley, neighbors would need to remove parts of. I'm not sure what what dimensions they would need to remove, but they would need to remove improvements that are currently in the alley.
Speaker 4: So I can't tell from looking at this map if there is any access from what looks like the. I'm not sure if that's the north end on this map. It's the blue shaded part where Mr. Garrett's property is. Is there any access to Mr. Garrett's property from anywhere other than that current alley off the West Side or what looks like maybe the north side? Maybe it's a cell phone. I can't tell.
Speaker 12: I don't know. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Jarrett's only vehicle access is off of Leeds Dale Drive. And when it was described a few moments ago that after the paving on the straight portions of the alley, that it's unimproved, it's unimproved and that it's not a paved alley. But the neighbors have put retaining walls. They've changed topography, they've expanded their backyards.
Speaker 8: They've planted trees in the alley. So it's improved in a personal property perspective, and that's what's blocking my clients access.
Speaker 4: Even though it's currently. Public right of way.
Speaker 11: Since it was platted and dedicated.
Speaker 8: 60 years ago. Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sussman, you back up?
Speaker 4: Yes. And you can see how complicated this particular project has been. Sara, I have some questions and that's it's probably looking forward. The city wasn't paying attention when these encroachments happened. And it has caused this kind of, you know, worry between neighbors. And I'm wondering if the city has got a plan to using perhaps our wonderful GIS system to sort of study the cities to make sure that this sort of thing is not happening in many other places in the city. As of right now, our process for enforcement within the right of way is is to respond to issues as they come to our attention. That is certainly something that we could could review what that process looks like and throughout the city, what we might be able to do to improve how those things can come to our attention . But we are not currently planning to go out and do proactive encroachment patrols throughout every alley and piece of right of way in the city. But we can we do respond when the issues come to our attention as of in this case, from neighbors or other issues that come up. I certainly wouldn't expect you to do patrols, but I would think perhaps we could invent something with gas to take a look from a bird's eye view. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Yeah, David, I don't know if you have the answer to this, but maybe somebody else does. Do you know what the value of land is in this neighborhood? Because this is not an inexpensive place to live.
Speaker 0: I mean, we've had the property appraised.
Speaker 6: But do you know what the square footage of dirt is?
Speaker 0: I we. We have an appraisal that has that. I can't give it to you right off the top of my head. I mean, it's not it's not inexpensive.
Speaker 6: So it's safe to say, though, that pretty much everyone who borders that right away today stands the possibility of gaining land, except for the well, except for the actual applicant that filed for no money.
Speaker 0: They will be. Yeah. I mean, what, because it was dedicated at the time that it was platted. So some developer gave that land to the city 60 or 70 years ago. And the city is in the process potentially of giving it back, you know, to the subsequent owner, you know, 60 or 70 years later. Yeah, they're not paying for it. It goes back on the on the tax rolls as well. And it's taxed. I just I want to just make a clarification mostly for Councilwoman Ortega, because we haven't had a chance to talk about this. This property has been planted for 70 years. And for 40 of those years, Dr. Paul Stead, who's not here, actually took care of the city's property and he kept it as a community garden. And everybody had fruits and vegetables as a result of him maintaining the city's property because the city wasn't maintaining its own property. And and so.
Speaker 8: A.
Speaker 0: Garage was built with access off of this driveway. And my client's home was built before they purchased it with access off of a driveway. And the city approved those things using this as the access point to both of those improvements. So much to Councilwoman Testaments point. Yeah, I mean, there's some ownership that I think the city has to have in terms of how this circumstance has led itself to a half an hour or 45 minute conversation on a monday night, which is the first time I've experienced this kind of a conversation here and for many of you as well. But notwithstanding all of that, this is not.
Speaker 8: Necessary for even Mr. Gidley to have access, because he's had.
Speaker 0: Access off of lead steel. That home has had access off of lease sales since 1960 when the home was built. And that is and nobody is entitled to more than one point of access. It should be noted as a clarification that this issue arose to a site inspection because Mr. Gidley had sought a permit to build a new garage off of leads. Dale which is what resulted in the inspector coming out and noticing that there was this issue of the alley because the inspector thought.
Speaker 8: That the garage was supposed to be built off an alley that doesn't exist. That's how this whole thing started, because Mr. Gidley was building an improvement to his garage off of Lisa Dale. And that's the history.
Speaker 6: So one question to Mr. Diddley's attorney as well, because, you know, I tried to remedy that very situation, but that that entire history is very clear to me. And so but so too, to that point ish, Mr. Gidley might stand the possibility of getting existing right of way if if a vacation was approved by this council, Mr. . Gidley might stand to get some land as part of the subsequent parceling out of that former right of way, you know, which would eventually essentially expand the land area of his property, which would be available for backyard or development or other sort of personal use. What that he doesn't have or would never have with Right of Way. Is that true or not?
Speaker 11: That's absolutely correct. And Garrett would happily improve upon whatever land, whatever title vests in his name after vacation. But windfalls of land and cash have always been secondary tertiary to Mr. Hadley's primary concern here, which is safe access through the Ashley Weed Stables as a state highway, frequent accidents outside of his driveway. If you know the intersection of Alameda and leads Dale it's a very busy, very congested area. The driveway to the southeast of Garrett was blocked up and a wall was created because it was unsafe. And the neighbors moved their access over to the street, to the east. Not recalling what that street is, but it's primarily been an issue of access, and we've reiterated that throughout this entire process when I've been on board for the past year. Garrett For the years before that, that safe access through the alley.
Speaker 8: As the other neighbors are also able to enjoy has been Mr..
Speaker 6: Gately, as you understand that that entire time, if you've been on board for one year, Mr. Gidley has had for that entire time the ability to go to right away with the drawings showing a proper alley being constructed by him from the road to the north all the way across. Relocating the transformer. Getting through those approvals all the way to his house. Not saying it, it would be a done deal because granted that transformers in the way. So there's a whole lot of work that could have been incurred occurring over this last year in good faith towards getting to a right of a proper alley that meets city standards the way any other developer would do, and that has not occurred. Do you understand that? That has always been an option?
Speaker 11: We are. And to my understanding, when Garrett approached the city several years ago, he was essentially told that it wasn't possible because of the improvements. It's a vicious chicken or the egg situation where the we are arguing for the legal status of the alley. The whites and the other neighbors are saying it's some sort of current physical use of the alley. So we we attempted that and we ran into serious.
Speaker 6: And there are signals from the city. We recognize that there is a legitimate hurdle with the transformer that exists in the right of way. And there is no there is. Even if we were to grant an easement, there is no guarantee that he would ever be able to access his property unless, you know, without some gerrymandering of the of that easement or some deference by Xcel, you know, this this was not we don't get to this point without serious consideration of the ramifications. And there have always been a sort of more proper channel in a more appropriate way to to address this concern. And and somehow we ended up in this situation where we have two attorneys sort of arguing both sides of of this before us. And that's actually none of this is really of a concern to at least me as a member of council on whether a vacation is appropriate or not. But thank.
Speaker 0: You. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: I really hate to.
Speaker 3: Reward an encroachment onto public property that has occurred over a significant amount of time. But it is apparent that the city has played a role in this as well. And I think I want to suggest a course of action for us, and that would be.
Speaker 8: To.
Speaker 3: To publish this on first reading and sort of pull the grenade pin on it. And the clock is now ticking. This has been hanging fire for such a long time. I think if we put this on first reading and then we hold it over for final and we can make a decision then based on whether the neighbors can come up with some sort of an agreement among themselves. I feel sort of like the the French cleric are no Amalric at the massacre of this gay and say let's just.
Speaker 8: Kill the alley and.
Speaker 3: Let the owners sort it out. So I advocate that we take a vote on this and move it on to publication.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I'll just jump on that and say that I am not at all comfortable with this yet. Still, after multiple committee meetings and tonight. But I completely agree with you that we should publish this because this is first reading, move it on and then we will be back.
Speaker 6: For some second Councilman Flynn's motion.
Speaker 0: So, well, that's the motion that's already on the floor. Conveniently so. Madam Secretary, Raquel Sussman.
Speaker 2: Hi, Black. I'm Brooks Espinosa. Flynn Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Canete Lopez. New Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 days, 112 hours one day.
Speaker 0: Council Bill 394 has been ordered published. Now, Councilwoman Sussman, do you have a motion to postpone? Second, final reading.
Speaker 4: Councilman Flynn and Espinosa. And I'm ahead of you here. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 18 dash 0394 be postponed to Monday, September 10th, 2018. That's two weeks from today.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions or comments just about the postponement? Seeing none.
Speaker 8: Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Susman Hi. Black Eye Brooks. Espinosa Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor i Herndon I Cashman can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega I. Mr. President, I'm secretary.
Speaker 0: Please. Because voting in those results. 3939 as final consideration of Council Bill 394 will be Monday, September 10th. All right. Moving on, Madam Secretary, are you pleased with the next item on our screen and Councilman Flynn? Go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 863.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the alley bounded by Cedar Avenue, South Birch Street and Leetsdale Drive, with reservations.
Vacates the alley bounded by Cedar Avenue, South Birch Street, and Leetsdale Drive with a partial special reservation in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0863
|
Speaker 0: Please. Because voting in those results. 3939 as final consideration of Council Bill 394 will be Monday, September 10th. All right. Moving on, Madam Secretary, are you pleased with the next item on our screen and Councilman Flynn? Go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 863.
Speaker 3: Okay. This is the intergovernmental agreement with the Denver Housing.
Speaker 8: Authority and Laura Speer.
Speaker 3: Can you speak to. Thank you. I just had a several questions on the agreement. I did watch some of the committee meeting on this. I'm not on that committee, but. The primary question was the mechanism under which the reasonable distribution. I have Mr. Guerrero here also. Thank you. The reasonable distribution of developable properties that Denver Housing Authority would acquire in order to distribute them around the city. I found to be sort of found it to be weaker than I would have hoped, because it seemed to me that the mechanism requires only a minimum of six.
Speaker 8: Council districts, which is just over half.
Speaker 3: Of the city, and it's a distribution by dollar amount rather than by unit amount. And because of the land cost differences in some parts of the city versus others that are more affordable, that that we will end up with what we're trying to avoid, which is a concentration in some neighborhoods and not a not a reasonable distribution which is called for in the idea. So I and I did watch part of the and Laura, you sent an email later this afternoon. So could you explain to me why a dollar, an equitable dollar distribution of no more than 15% of the proceeds was determined to be represent. What's more reasonable distribution rather than distribution of the actual number of housing units that they would produce around the city.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Council members Ismael Guerrero, executive director of the Denver Housing Authority. Laura brzezinski and I agreed to be tag team, and I drew the short straw in this question. Did she tag you? Actually, literally, yes. Okay. No marketing aside, though, in the in the IGA. As you know, there, the two pots of money that your question refers to, the land acquisition. Yes. Property Acquisition Fund. And because that is in that in the agreement that is land that the HRA will be acquiring land or properties will be acquiring and develop co-development. I'm not co-developing developing in partnership with other nonprofit and for profit developers. We don't have specific sites, obviously, and specific buildings identified for that, so it's harder to get to a specific unit count overall on a site by site basis. However, we feel that the the land value is a proxy for the number of units that will be acquired there and therefore.
Speaker 0: That will be developed.
Speaker 8: And those sites. So therefore, if the funds are distributed per the policy goals of no more than 15% in one district, our assumption in the modeling is that sites that are sort of less expensive in certain districts will have I'm sorry that as the as the land price goes, so will the amount of units that we can build on that parcel. So in a downtown area where land is might be twice as expensive will be more or more, but we'll be buying smaller parcels and getting, you know, higher density development in outlying neighborhoods where land is tends to be less expensive. They also tend to have lower densities. So we'll be spending equal amount of of dollars to get the same equivalent number of units.
Speaker 3: You're referring to zoning entitlements for zoning?
Speaker 8: Yeah. Generally to the higher density zoning close to the central business district. Lower density as you get into the outlying neighborhoods. Okay. So so we just felt that the land value was a good proxy for the number of units that would be developed on that site.
Speaker 3: So but in other words, there is no goal to have a reasonable distribution of the actual number of housing units in each council district.
Speaker 8: I think that that policy goal is reflected in the land value goal.
Speaker 3: So if it works out, it would just be through this secondary mechanism of the dollar amount that we spent on the land. But it also depends. Apparently, it could also depend on who our development partner is and what they bring to the table. That that's correct. Would that be fair to say?
Speaker 8: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: Laura, could you answer this one? Don't forget to.
Speaker 8: Tag.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The contract says that the executive director of is that of OED and DHC can modify or waive requirements in the scope of work in Exhibit A and also in the definitions in Exhibit B on their mutual agreement without coming back to the Council, except after the fact within 60 days to tell us how you changed this contract that we're going to approve tonight. And I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion that we're sending a contract out the door that by mutual agreement between the administration and the housing authority, you can modify or waive some of the requirements. Can you make.
Speaker 8: Me more comfortable with that in.
Speaker 4: Some way? So Laura brzezinski, Office of Economic Development, and Julia, few from the city attorney's office want to add to this as well. Please feel free. But the contract does state that the scope of work can be modified at the mutual agreement of the executive director of OED. Except for the minimum outcomes that are achieved through the agreements. That includes 1200 units produced through the land acquisition, and I think it's 1294 units that are preserved and created through the partnership with DOJ. Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: Okay, so you just restated what I asked, but why are why are we doing that?
Speaker 4: Part of the reason that we I.
Speaker 3: Mean, why most other contracts that we put out when there's when they change, the administration comes back to us with a contract amendment.
Speaker 4: Sure. So the agreement is built around those minimum achievable outcomes. But some of the path to achieving those outcomes, we know, will be dependent on market conditions that could change over time. So some of the assumptions that are included as part of the scope and the specific projects that may achieve those outcomes are places where we wanted to provide flexibility.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say, you want the flexibility as long as you're achieving the same contract agreement goals. I keep calling your contract. It's an idea. So as long as the goals remain the same, your flexibility within. The methods for doing that would you would report back to us but not ask us for permission to do that?
Speaker 4: Well, to some extent, there are there are parameters around what can be approved by the directors. But we are negotiating and proposing through this agreement to purchase the outcomes of the units created and preserved through the agreement.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. I have one more question. Am I reading exhibit B4 correctly that under the net proceeds member housing authorities, administrative fees or.
Speaker 8: Costs are capped at 4%.
Speaker 3: Of the of the.
Speaker 8: Property tax allocation.
Speaker 3: And the proceeds of the bonds. The reason I ask is because that's 1% better than what the housing fund we said. I think it is 5%. Eight, 8%. Okay.
Speaker 4: 8%.
Speaker 3: That's correct. So what I'm reading that to mean is that DHS admin.
Speaker 8: Costs that they're allowed to.
Speaker 3: Load onto these proceeds is limited to 4%. That's correct. That's excellent. Yes. If true. If true, that's excellent. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Ismael, you threw me off by the the the land value thing because some of these parcels are ones that you already own.
Speaker 8: To clarify, Councilman Espinoza, I was referring to the funds that would be used to acquire new sites to be developed by other development partners. So not that the property specifically.
Speaker 6: Okay. I do wish that I mean, do we have any any other sort of metrics that allow us to sort of look? You know, we've got the information about housing cost burden, you know, level of cost burden, households at different arms. But do we have there are other factors, right? Proximity to workplace productivity, schools? Do we have I mean, are we sort of heat mapping? So we actually understand that, you know, we're actually have a housing an affordable housing void. And, you know, we have an affordable housing need citywide, but we have population concentrations of people that are having the mean areas where there's there's not enough housing proximate to other aspects that would actually that actually impact the total totality of affordability for that household so that we're actually more strategically placing housing where it is rather than just simply going by by land value or something informing that.
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's correct. I think we call out other location factors opportunity neighborhoods, proximity to transit and services are some of the site conditions that we'd be looking for, not just the price of the land. Great.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Mechanic.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I frankly just wanted to comment on this bill, so my colleagues dove right in with their questions. But I actually want to summarize what it does just for the public and for the record, which is that this bill and the companion that goes with it, which is 864 together, double our commitment to affordable housing, which just for the record, is the largest commitment in the state of Colorado, even more than the state's general fund commitment to housing. They have other funds that they leverage, but for a general fund, commitment of funds that, you know, could be spent and other things, this is it's historic. And I think just a few things to make sure that folks highlight is as we move forward, which is that it brings, you know, $105 million forward in advance through bonding, which was something specifically that the community strongly asked for, that we not just do a small amount each year. There's some cost benefit to that, there's some transaction costs and interest cost and things like that. But I think there was some building consensus that it was important to bring some money forward and the administration was able to work with DHS to find a way to do that. Third thing I think is important to highlight is who some of these housing units will serve. It will be a full range of incomes when you look at the full range of sources. So, for example, there is marijuana tax dollars that are being dedicated through this provision and that will include funding for folks of all incomes. But the portion we talking about that the Denver Housing Authority will be focused on with land acquisition will particularly focus on the most vulnerable residents of our city. These are folks who are either struggling with homelessness or who earn so little that they are below what we call 30% immediate median income. These are very, very low wage workers or folks who are on fixed income, Social Security, they're on some form of disability. They're seniors who are who are very low income. So so it's important to know that this package serves the lowest income folks. And then the last thing I want to highlight is that the portion that the Denver Housing Authority is taking on, which we focused our questions on today, but is actually only half, half of this package. But this portion, this half of the package will be affordable in perpetuity, which means it won't expire. We are struggling mightily right now to preserve housing that expires at 15, 23 years and to try to re-up it all and not lose it. And so we will not have to do that with this half of the package. And so these are really important pieces that just deserve highlighting before we gloss this through in our consent agenda. No one has called this out for a vote. I don't think so. It will be a consent package vote. But because it's big and because it's important. I just wanted to take a minute to, you know, thank the administration for the creativity. And I think the marijuana industry who has been very open to a sales tax increase, that won't be easy. Right. We want to make sure that that product stays in the legal market and doesn't get pushed to the black market. So it's a careful balance. And so I want to thank the marijuana industry for their, you know, approach to this and then to the community voices who help to kind of keep us moving so that we wouldn't just rest on the package we passed in 16, but we would work to grow it. So we all committed to doing that. We all had different paths and a lot of the ideas we shared and we researched. Separately all kind of were reflected in this package. So my thanks to those who worked together and to my colleagues. You know, I think that, you know, we've blazed a trail here and we're continuing to grow it. And that's what I continually state. There is no one bullet or solution to the housing challenge we face. But each piece we we expanded nondiscrimination with a week ago to two weeks ago feels like a lifetime already. But each piece we do you know whether it's keeping people in their homes through eviction defense. You have to add up each of our policies separately, together, and then you have to watch how the impact of each one grows as we grow the program. That's how you measure the impact we're having. So with that, I am so excited to vote on this as part of, I think, the consent package. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just wanted to add my my almond and also exclamation point on a couple of points. Councilwoman Kennedy mentioned, you know, this is this has been a long conversation starting from 2014. And I think our first package of bills in 2016 was a great first step. But I think the community is very clear that this is this is good, but it's not nearly enough of what we're experiencing and the number of people that are being displaced in our city. And so the the administration are our nonprofit partners of VHA. It's incredible. But I also want to say, in doubling this fund, we're not done. And it is going to take the private sector, it's going to take government is going to take nonprofit, it's going to take the community to continue to grow this. And so although I'm extremely excited we got this done this year, I think there's a lot more work that we have to do. The other thing and 2016, it was exciting to pass the first affordable housing fund. The whole point was there was a permanent fund, but that night we put a sunset on it and excited that a part of this package is eliminating the sunset sunset as well, and so excited to move forward and making sure that this is something that's going to impact Denver in the next 20, 30 years. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilman Flynn, your up.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Just briefly, I want to thank Ismael and Laura for the answers. I had called this out for a vote because I did have those questions that I thought were were crucial to having the answers. And I got the answers here. So I'm happy to withdraw that request and put us in a black vote.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. An exciting bill that will move over to the block vote in a couple of minutes. We have one other item that's been called out, which is 746. Madam Secretary, we put 746 up on our screens.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed twenty-year Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, Colorado (“DHA”), to allow transfer of certain funds from the city’s affordable housing fund to DHA, and for the accelerated development, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing.
Approves an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) for twenty years for the transfer of the city’s dedicated property tax from the Affordable Housing Fund to DHA to support accelerated development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing serving low- and moderate-income households, citywide (OEDEV-201843652-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-10-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-8-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08202018_18-0746
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. An exciting bill that will move over to the block vote in a couple of minutes. We have one other item that's been called out, which is 746. Madam Secretary, we put 746 up on our screens. And Councilwoman Blackwell, you please put Council Bill 746 on the floor for passage.
Speaker 9: Yes, I move that council bill 746 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: That has been moved. Can I get a second moved and seconded now? Questions or comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: This is a companion bill to the first one that I called out and I will be voting the same will not repeat my comments that I made last week. So just the no vote.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other comments or questions, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 2: Raquel Ortega.
Speaker 4: No. Sussman.
Speaker 2: Black Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn I Gilmore. I heard in Cashman can eat Lopez. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 one Nay.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes, one nay Council Bill 746.
Speaker 8: Has passed right.
Speaker 0: That all other bills for introduction are ordered published except for Council Bill 80855 which council will vote separately on after the one hour courtesy public hearing scheduled after tonight's recess. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and on 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 Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, I move that resolution to be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 18 Dash 0840 18 Dash 084 318 Dash 086 218 Dash 365 18 Dash 077 218. Dash 085 618. Dash 085 718 Dash 085 818 Dash 085 918 Dash 10860 18. Dash 086 118. Dash 084 718. Dash 8079 418. Dash zero. 218 dash 023 18 Dash 0837.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, did we get them all?
Speaker 8: Yes. Our Rights.
Speaker 0: Secretary.
Speaker 8: Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks Espinosa, I.
Speaker 8: Flynn, I.
Speaker 2: Fillmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman can eat Lopez. All right. New Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: 1313.
Speaker 0: I is. 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 first reading of Council Bill 855 regarding an agreement with PHC mixed use to exchange city owned property located at 2863 Fairfax Street for PHC owned property located at 2868
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to purchase property at 700 West Colfax Avenue.
Approves a $3 million supplemental appropriation from the General Fund contingency to purchase property at 700 West Colfax Avenue in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0892
|
Speaker 0: All right. I see a proclamation coming on next July. All right. Thing no other announcements. We're going to move on. There are no presentations. There are no communications. We do have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Brooks, will you please read Proclamation 892?
Speaker 6: Mr. President, it would be an honor to read that. I appreciate the time in front of the dais here. Proclamation 1889 to recognize the annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint a thon in the city of Denver on Saturday, August 18, 2018. Whereas, through the Partnership of Denver Employees Volunteers Opportunities, we call it Devo and Brothers Redevelopment Inc. 100 plus Denver city employees will volunteer their time to paint homes of deserving senior Homeowners for Brothers Redevelopment Inc 40th paint a thon. And. Whereas, all painting will be completed free of charge from homeowner homeowners, saving the city's fixed income seniors thousands of dollars in home maintenance costs. And. Whereas, volunteers will be beautifying homes and preserving home values in Denver area neighborhoods as a result of their participation. And. Whereas, The Paint a thon is a great way to show that city employees take pride in the community and take care of the residents. And. WHEREAS, the paint a thon truly makes a difference in the lives of Denver's residents. Now, therefore, be a proclaimed of the city and county of Denver. Section one. The Denver City Council recognizes the day of August 18, 2018, as Brothers Redevelopment incorporate on day in the city and county of Denver. In Section two of the clerk in the city and county, Denver shall attest in affixed a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the Deveaux board.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Your motion to enact.
Speaker 6: Yes, I move that 892 proclamation 89 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm always honored to, uh, to bring this proclamation forward. I think Brothers redevelopment does an excellent job there. You know, Jeff, I was looking for you. Jeff Martinez, CEO, does an excellent job of taking care of elders in our community and and doing the hard work to ensure that financing is in place for affordable housing for those residents as well. And, you know, Jeff and I met each other when I first got elected. And there are several affordable housing, senior affordable housing units that needed to be attended to. And, you know, you work with a lot of nonprofits and organizations who let's just say Jeff gets it and he cares about the community. And it was it's been such a blessing to have someone who understands the community and cares about it. And I last year next door to me, one of my neighbors who's been living in the whole neighborhood for 46 years, got her house painted. And so I got to see firsthand what that did. And what you don't know, Jeff, is that, you know, our neighbor lost her husband didn't lose. You know, he didn't he didn't die. But he was he's in prison and is not able to help out around the house. And so her house is falling into shambles. And when you all came and there's a whole team of folks from the business community and from the community painting and helping out. I mean, she had tears in her eyes. And you can never measure the impact that you're having on some of these elderly folks in our community. And so this is just incredible. And also, I want to point out that brothers redevelopment is part of. The Land Trust that received $2 million from Seedat to invest in affordable housing. And I can tell you right now, it's great that the GSA coalition came together and got $2 million, the most money towards affordable housing from any community group in divorce history. But it wouldn't be possible if it wasn't because the brothers redevelopments all have anything but good things to say about this. And I'm excited about the number of seniors in our community who are going to be touched by this. So thank you for what you guys do. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make sure that my name was added to this proclamation and just. State. What an incredible organization Brothers has been. They're one of the long standing nonprofit development organizations that's been in our city for almost 40 years, maybe even in excess of 40 years. Started by Manny Martinez, who lived in West Denver, and Joe Huron, who was originally from my dad's hometown of Trinidad, Colorado. And, you know, it's great to see that it's an organization that is still around doing incredible things because we have seen some of our nonprofit housing groups that have. That that no longer exist. And so to know that they not only continue to develop housing, but have continued this annual pain to fund program, it's been amazing. I've had the opportunity to participate and it's a lot of hard work. But you know, the families who benefit are so grateful for volunteers coming out and assisting them with the improvements that they probably otherwise would never be able to afford to do on their own. So I just want to thank them for their ongoing work in our city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Great organization, awesome event and excited to support with that. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. AI Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kenny. New Ortega. Sussman Black. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and note the results. 1212 by proclamation 892 has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there someone you'd like to invite up to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 6: Yes. The man, the myth, the legend, the CEO, Jeff Martinez. Please come to the. I mean, I thought everybody's going to clap and, like, give it up. And I was like, so. It's so underwhelming. I'm sorry, Jeff, but there it is. Okay, good. There you go. Thank you. Thanks. Council President Clark and members of the City Council. You all did the best job of promoting the paint a thon than I could ever do. You just that testimony that you both shared as is so true. So right on. And that's the way, you know, so many volunteers feel after having painted a home for a deserving senior homeowner in our community, and of which there have been so many over the past decade, 12, 14 years. This is Chad LeBlanc, our volunteer manager, who gets up there and coordinates our volunteers every year. And this is that the Saturdays would be such a tremendous opportunity again to work alongside City of Denver. Employees got about 400 City of Denver employees that are going to be out on those ladders throughout the city on Saturday. And you're going to see them impacting every one of your districts, every one of your neighborhoods, from Ruby Hill to my neighborhood. Park Hill, Chaffey Park, Berkeley to Cold Whittier, Montebello, Overland. So we're going to be all over the city volunteering and you're going to have some great events. So we'll try to push our volunteers, their events when they're done on those ladders, helping our seniors. But it is a tremendous effort. We're so grateful, thankful that this is James who's come on up, James. He's working to bring up the Bring Together the City of Denver volunteers with Deveau this year. And again, just such a tremendous opportunity to work alongside the city employees in this effort.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Hi. Like he mentioned, I'm. My name is James Warren. I work as a judicial assistant over in the county court. I'm also on the board.
Speaker 6: For Devo Denver Employee Volunteer.
Speaker 2: Opportunities. As the name might imply. Our goal is to bring Denver employees into volunteer opportunities. We are. Our board is made up from people around the city, not just the county court, the public library, Denver Human Services, and the people who come to our events, our volunteers, our city employees, as well as their family and friends. For us on the board of Devo and I know for the other employees of the city and county of Denver, Civic Service doesn't just stop when we set our office. We have a sense of civic duty that goes beyond 9 to 5. Devo serves to promote the opportunities.
Speaker 5: That those people hope for.
Speaker 2: That those people look for to serve their city on a deeper level. And paying a fine is no exception. If anything, it is actually our biggest event of the year. No surprise with that. For the past 40 years, Brothers redevelopment has been and a central asset in the lives of the people.
Speaker 5: Of Denver, particularly.
Speaker 2: Some of the more vulnerable citizens of fixed income seniors in our community. But in our partnership with them, which has been going on since 2004, we've been able to dedicate thousands of volunteer hours. Last year we painted our 100th home and we've been able to save.
Speaker 5: The.
Speaker 2: People of this city.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 2: Fixed income seniors of the city, hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs. I think when people see volunteers from the city and county of Denver who work for the city in kind of Denver out painting homes or doing any of the other volunteer projects that we have throughout the year, they're able to see something that makes this such an amazing place that something that makes Denver an amazing place to call home. I think when you see civic spirit, civic service go far beyond the workplace and extend into the community and to service in that way, you get a sense of what sets us apart as a city. And so we're excited to continue our partnership with the city of Denver, with TiVo and with with Brothers redevelopment this Saturday and in many years to come.
Speaker 6: I hope to see all the letters with us this Saturday. You want to know where any of those sites are? Just feel free to give us a call and then we'll set you up to go out and visit those hardworking volunteers that are going to be on ladders, paint those homes this weekend. So thank you so much. We appreciate you and can do without you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. For our next proclamation, Councilwoman Ortega, will you please read proclamation eight, nine, eight?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, August 18, 2018.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0898
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. For our next proclamation, Councilwoman Ortega, will you please read proclamation eight, nine, eight?
Speaker 7: I would be happy to. Proclamation number eight, nine, eight. Recognizing the importance of securing an accurate and complete population count in the 2020 U.S. Census. Whereas the United States Census is a constitutionally mandated, complete assessment excuse me of the population and has performed. Decennial since 1790. Most recently in 2010. And. WHEREAS, the Census determines the allocation of seats for the U.S. House of Representatives, redistricting of state and local government, legislative districts, and distribution of more than $675 billion in federal funds to state, local and tribal governments. Whereas, Mayor Hancock has named three co-chairs Pastor Del Phillips, Dr. Jeanine Davidson and myself to lead the Denver Complete Count Committee that is in process of training key city employees and community partners to assist with this critically important citizen outreach effort. And. Whereas, in 2010, Denver's efforts were a model that cities across the country worked to replicate because of our financial commitment to marketing, outreach and staffing that resulted in a high response rate. And we will be geared up to do the same for the 2020 census. And. Whereas, Denver is a growing city and an accurate census count is vital to meet the evolving needs of Denver residents, Census 2020 will direct the amount of federal money distributed to Denver for housing assistance and rehabilitation, education and early childhood to higher education, transportation, infrastructure, senior centers, libraries, hospitals, facilities for people with disabilities and emergency planning . In response. And. Whereas. Punitive actions taken by President Trump against immigrants and refugees from various countries will require our best efforts at the local level to be far reaching. And. WHEREAS, it will be challenging to alleviate the fear of hard to count communities and to educate and encourage full participation by everyone in the upcoming 2020 census. And. Whereas, ensuring a complete census count is imperative because the data will profoundly impact Denver residents far into the future. And. WHEREAS, everyone, whether a United States citizen, a refugee immigrant or an undocumented worker, we all rely on the programs and services provided by local and state government, paid for in part by federal grants. And we're as the Complete Count Committee should address various racial, ethnic, cultural and geographic considerations of the community to ensure residents understand the census process, trust in its confidentiality, understand its importance, and fulfill their obligation to participate as is required by law. And. Whereas, Census data is highly protected and confidential, the Census Bureau is not permitted to release responses to the Census, furnished by any individual or on behalf of an individual or release information to other government agencies, including the IRS, Immigration and Naturalization Services, law enforcement agencies or welfare agencies. Now, therefore, be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver shall support and assist in the Complete Count Committee in fulfilling the goal of achieving a complete count of Denver residents. This will be accomplished by formulating effective strategies to ensure Denver's response rate in Census 2020 through outreach, information, campaigns and community engagement. Section to the complete. The Committee will harness the local knowledge, expertize and influence of each committee member to design and implement a census awareness campaign targeted to communities throughout Denver with focused, structured neighbor to neighbor outreach. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the CEO of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transcript transmitted to Pauline Nunez at the United States Census Bureau.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: I move for the adoption of proclamation number 898.
Speaker 0: Has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Most cities across the country have already undertaken their training for their complete count committees that are already seated. These are committees that are representative of broad sectors of our community. It will be important to ensure that we're recounting elderly folks, people who are homeless. We have something like eight or nine refugee communities in Denver that did not exist when we did the 2010 census count. So folks who are considered hard to count are going to be where part of our efforts are focused in ensuring that we do the absolute best effort to count everybody. Because if we do not, these are this is data that we're going to have to live with for the next ten years. And if we don't have a complete count, it may mean that we potentially do not get an additional congressional seat. We potentially do not get the resources that are earmarked to your cities based on the census count that you have for your jurisdiction. So it's going to be critical that we all play a role, including our city agencies that have any touch points with community to be getting the word out. And my hope is that we can look at trying to get a staff person on board as soon as possible and not wait until the 2019 budget, because so much of the foundational work needs to be happening right now. And, you know, Denver is geared up to put about the same amount of money in the 2020 census outreach that we had in 2010. And I think with some of the fear mongering that we have seen happening in this country, it's just going to make this job that much more challenging. And so I thought it was important to bring this forward, to put this issue on our radar screen and be looking out for us, beginning to push out more information as as this work evolves. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cannick.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I'd like to ask if my name can be added as a co-sponsor. I missed the email and I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for her leadership on this. In the past, Councilman Lopez has also been a leader on Denver's count. He's he's been around long enough for two censuses. That's a huge accomplishment. I just wanted to underline Councilman Ortega's concern about our underrepresented populations in the sense that they are important and large pieces of our community. But some, because of the the events of the day and the inhumane policies of this federal administration have been, I think , driven somewhat into more of the shadows. And that includes undocumented immigrants, folks who are here with visas or other backgrounds, because even some of those communities have been targets for this administration, even when they are documented. I did just want to add the fact that our city has issued a comment in response to the federal notice that they were going to add a new question to the census on citizenship. No such question has been asked and the short form since 1950, because it's not a best practice that we get the most information from people when they don't feel like they are being vulnerable to a federal administration that is not supposed to use this information . But to convince folks of that is difficult, especially if the person at your door is asking a question about your citizenship. So to the council members, you know, this information came to us today as a copy of it from Gaby Corica, the legislative liaison for the mayor. But for our community, I want you to know that we have protested this proposed rule that was was receiving public comment in the Federal Register, along with many of the organizations in our community. And we protested both because of our desire to reduce the fear in our community as well as to ensure an accurate count that there are, you know, in the letter well, documents, the almost 15% of our city is foreign born. And again, many of those individuals are documented. They have legitimate papers and all of the things that give them the right to be here. But even they sometimes feel nervous. So it's our job to do both to fight efforts at the federal government that might create more fear and confusion, and then to assure people of the legal rights they have and to fight to protect them, to make sure that the rules are followed. So I want to make sure that our community knows that we're working on both those fronts. So with that, I will proudly support this proclamation. And then also I just want to add, I believe, Councilman Flynn, we're coming to government and finance for this topic. I don't know if you know the date yet, but we're working on scheduling an update for council as well. So to make sure we stay up to date. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Captain Canete. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 4: Raquel Ortega. High Assessment a black eye. Brooks I Espinosa, i flinn i Gilmore. Herndon, i Cashman. Can each new. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in no results.
Speaker 4: Sorry one person is missing. 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Proclamation 898 has been adopted. Councilman Ortega, do you have someone you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 7: We do not. The staff from the Census Bureau is actually in Washington, D.C. at some training, and I will get the proclamation to them.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. That concludes our proclamations. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the importance of securing an accurate and complete population count in the 2020 US Census.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0669
|
Speaker 0: Excellent. We'll have it done. Thank you. Next up, we have resolution 80669. That's on our screens now. Councilman Ortega, you wanted this for a vote. So, Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put this resolution on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. Move that resolution six, six, nine, be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. So this is creating the appropriation for the properties that Councilman Flynn just called out. And as you all know, I. I had been asking the administration to give us a comprehensive master plan on all of our real estate needs looking into the future. As you know, we have done two contracts at the Denver Post building. One of them is a ten year contract. We did one that came through I think it was this year for an additional contract. I. QUESTION What was the status of the building that we bought over on Jason Street for the Solution Center? To my knowledge, we don't have anything in that building right now. We've tried to put the solution center at the Family Crisis Center that that property needs to be resolved. The community has opposed that. Right now. It's my understanding that's on hold. That's the last communication that we received. So we're kind of all over the place in terms of where we're going with with real estate needs. I understand the courts have a need for more courtrooms, but I think we need to understand the big picture of where we're going and what our long term needs are so that we don't keep getting these big financial requests asking us to approve our needs piecemeal. I think it's helpful for us to know that big picture. I did receive some documents that I had requested from the administration and that that was somewhat helpful. But it's it's by agency and it's only some of the agencies. And so for those reasons, I will not be supporting the request for the appropriation. And when the bill comes next week, I'm not going to support the acquisition either.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Is there somebody here to answer questions about this? How great. How many square feet is the land? And then the second question will be, what is the difference in the sales price per square foot of the building that result? I mean, what's the what's intrinsically different about the the the space of these two buildings? That one is $236 a square foot and this one is $373 a square foot.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Lisa Lumley, division of Real Estate, the I don't have it by per square foot, so I apologize while I stand up here. The building itself at 710 was Colfax is 15,000 square feet. Just a little over the land itself is 11,250 square feet. We have appraisals on both properties so that both appraised either just over what our purchase prices or right at the purchase price. So it had to do with the value of the improvements as well as the land.
Speaker 6: Right? So there was no legal description. So if they could get copies of those for both properties.
Speaker 7: Of legal descriptions.
Speaker 6: Yeah. GREENE And actually, since you have the appraisals, could I get copies of the appraisals as well?
Speaker 7: They're draft appraisals right now. But let me see what I can do to at least get you a summary. Great.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Yes. Mr. President. Lisa, could you talk a little bit about the planning for the expansion of of civic and municipal offices from here to the west beyond the U.S. Mint?
Speaker 7: Sure. So we have and the presentation which we had forwarded or tried to meet with the majority of you as Councilwoman Ortega referred to, it is not possible to do just one city plan. We need to look at our different agencies and our campuses and our buildings. And we are in the process or we have already completed studies for this particular area. We are looking at right now a court's master plan for 2019 to address the needs in this civic area that is separate from then the 303 West Colfax building that we are also reviewing and analyzing to see within a few both the facility assessment as well as a base programing assessment to understand those needs as well. While you have heard us here to talk about web building expansion and needs, what we have not seen until this year that became apparent in the last couple of months is the growth that the courts are experiencing and not just courts for courtrooms , but then it is also the supporting and ancillary services that are provided in our buildings around this general area that need to stay in this general area for the courts. And so that is what part of this request is. It's strategically looking at a couple of buildings that are currently on the market to try and keep these services in the downtown core. While we're completing these studies to understand what the long term planning is that we need to do with the courts.
Speaker 8: If I recall correctly, the we're proposing you are proposing these purchases now because these properties are on the market right now. Correct. And not because we wanted to go out and buy them right now. But if we don't purchase them now, they may be unavailable. That is correct. A significant different kind of use and potentially cost more money down the line. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pratt. I just want to point out that, Councilwoman Ortega, you mentioned that this was the measure that appropriated the funding for the purchase that we've just postponed. But this is actually the purchase and sale agreement for the second property. So I didn't know if it was your intention also to call out and vote on this supplemental appropriation. So I just want to clarify, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: Let me just respond to that. It's my understanding that that bill has been asked to be postponed as well. Is that? Is that not correct? No. If that's not correct, then I do want to vote on 746.
Speaker 0: 746 I was the one that we you in under introduction that you had pulled and then didn't pull. Yes. Okay. Then we'll get to that one when we get there. Thank you for the heads up. Any other comments or questions on this one? All right. Seeing nun. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Ortega. Sussman black eye. Brooks Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Staying.
Speaker 4: Flynn. I Gilmore. I.
Speaker 6: Herndon, i.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Can each. New. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes. One day, one abstention.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 669 has been adopted. You put the next item on our screens. And, Councilman Brooks, you have a comment on 0830.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and R&R Properties, LLC. for the City to purchase the property located at 710 W. Colfax Avenue.
Approves a $4.2 million purchase and sale agreement with R&R Properties, LLC. to acquire property located at 710 West Colfax Avenue for approximately 11,250 square feet of office space for support staff of the District and County Courts in Council District 10 (FINAN 201841587). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-27-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0830
|
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Council Resolution 669 has been adopted. You put the next item on our screens. And, Councilman Brooks, you have a comment on 0830.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a three zeros regarding the Glover Rec Center and District nine. And the community has been noticing over the last couple of years has been underutilized. And so there was a request to the to Denver Parks and Rec, my office, let's do something for the community. And so we begin to have some community meetings and had a request for proposals to have a community group use the Globeville Rec Center. And I'm just excited because this is a this is a good news story of us giving this property back to the community. The the Birdseed Collective, which is in the house right now, Karla and Anthony's in the house. Put your hands in the air. You know, I'm saying I know you all have worked really hard and put together an unbelievable proposal, and it's just it's it's it's just exciting to see the community win this and the community own this center. And I want to thank Denver Parks and Rec, too, for just a great process. I was a part of the committee and I felt like it was very fair. I felt like it was understanding of the committee. And what was so incredible is the the Bersih Collective, even though they are part of the proposal, they went out and recruited the entire community to come to the community meetings. I got to tell you, I've been to a lot of community meetings and global leaders want to see a none were as full as that. And so this is a big deal. And thank you guys for your hard work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilor Mechanic.
Speaker 1: Q Mr. President, I also wanted to congratulate the Birdseed Collaborative on this. If folks haven't seen the beautiful mural at the 38th and no, I'm sorry, Colorado 40th and Colorado Light Rail Station, it's a great example of where they had youth get involved in painting the mural. And so just a wonderful visual example of kind of the way that you have involved folks and created beauty for the community at the same time. So congratulations and good luck. Thanks.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Use Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Birdseed Collective for use of city property located at 4496 Grant Street, known as the Globeville Recreation Center.
Approves a contract with Birdseed Collective for $46,800 and for four years to occupy and provide programming at the Globeville Recreation Center for youth, young adults, adults, and active older adults including arts and culture, team sports, social enrichment, fitness, after-school activities, education, healthy meals and food distribution, and other activities located at 4496 Grant Street in Council District 9 (201842732). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-27-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0746
|
Speaker 1: And so just a wonderful visual example of kind of the way that you have involved folks and created beauty for the community at the same time. So congratulations and good luck. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That concludes us on this item. Madam Secretary, if you put the next one on our screens, and that is Bill 18 0746. And Councilwoman Sussman, will you put 746 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 1: Yes, I move Bill 746 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: I think this one has just been published. First reading.
Speaker 4: Oh, published.
Speaker 1: It's just published. Yes. But then I move that it be published.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions and comments by members of Council Council one take it to.
Speaker 4: The.
Speaker 7: Same comments that applied to the previous one. So nothing further.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thanks. I just want to point out that if we were to postpone this or vote it down, the purchase and sale agreement for the property that this is meant to fund is in the black vote and has not been called out. So we would still have a resolution next week that we would have to deal with for which we have no funding. So I just wanted to point out that. Semi interesting sort of situation that if we were to vote this down, it would gives us a resolution next week. They would then we would also have to vote down.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel.
Speaker 4: Ortega SUSSMAN.
Speaker 1: No. I mean, I saw Black Eye Brooks.
Speaker 5: II.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Epstein.
Speaker 4: Flynn. I Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman Canete, New. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: Tonight. One day, one abstention.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes. One nay, one abstention. Council Bill 746 has been ordered published. All right. All other bills for introduction are ordered. Published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, I will. I move that the resolutions they adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Item 820 9815 821. Two 825 825 826 827 684 800 819 eight 3831 895. 766 all series of 2018.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call black.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: Brooks. Espinosa. Flynn, Gilmore. Herndon, Cashman. Can each knew Ortega by Susman? Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 12, 12 hours. 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 797 approving six separate service plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts and a required public hearing on
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance making a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to purchase property at 700 West Colfax Avenue.
Approves a $3 million supplemental appropriation from the General Fund contingency to purchase property at 700 West Colfax Avenue in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-31-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0797
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill seven, nine, seven on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 797 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has moved. Been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 797 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance. We've been having a lot of metropolitan districts come forward this summer, so I have one more for you. And here is the Staff Report Council Bill 797 Series 2018 is for an ordinance approving service plans for six new metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of the area commonly known as the River Mile, containing eulogies, amusement park and surrounding areas. The districts are called the River Mile Metropolitan District number one, the River Mile. Metropolitan District. Number two. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number three. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number four. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number five. And the River Mile. Platte Valley Metropolitan District. The service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of Casey Euless Gardens at Invesco Second City LLP pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act. 30 2-1, Dash 201 and more particularly 30 2-1, two or 5.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Each service plan contains the district's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations, policy and other applicable laws. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and of other governmental entities having jurisdiction. It is anticipated that District Number One will act as the Management Management District organized to finance, construct, own, manage and operate the public improvements. Districts two, three, five are anticipated to be organized as taxing districts in order to generate revenue to pay costs of public infrastructure. The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District will act as a regional district and will specifically assist, where appropriate, in the contribution of financing, construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure related to the Platte.
Speaker 5: River and other.
Speaker 8: Regional improvements. Participation in this district is optional. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating financing, acquisition, construction, completion, operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation all streets, safety, protection, water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation and park and recreation facilities. The new metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 60 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges. The new metropolitan districts will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the discretion of the city. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $665 million. In order for the new metropolitan districts to have the financial wherewithal to provide the funding for the upfront costs of the public improve as needed in the service area, the new nature parks and districts shall have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. The new metropolitan districts will also have the ability to impose up to ten of the 60 authorized mills to raise revenue for operations and maintenance at completion. The current plan for development projects is at completion. The current plan for development projects, an estimated residential population of 15,000, with approximately 7700 resident residential units and 6,500,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space. The planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley and West Side neighborhoods with transit corridors and the South Platte River, including park and riverfront enhancements. The planned development is located in the city's downtown area plan and conforms with the area's plans. Recommendations to create a year round mixed use site and to improve connectivity within the service area. The new metropolitan districts are not currently located within an urban renewal area. The approval of the service plans establish the following. There is sufficient and sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for President projected needs. The districts are capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial or ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and services standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city and county of Denver. City staff does recommend approval of the service plans and the applicant and their representatives plus city staff are here tonight to respond to your questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We only have one individual signed up to speak this evening. So, Reece Dugan, you want to come up, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 8: Hi. My name is Reece Duggan, three through two for Town Street in Denver. I'd like to thank you all for considering these districts tonight. And I'm just here to answer questions this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to ask Andrew in some of the other ones that have come forward, we've seen 50 mills. So how are we making the determination of what that maximum of mills are that we're approving to move forward with any of these metro districts?
Speaker 8: Yes, that's a that's a great question. I'm 50 mills is our standard that we go to for our debt and operation in mill mill levies. That's what we start with. If we had a development that is showing that it has quite unique and community involvement with its public infrastructure and this this project doesn't elicit those kinds of pronounced infrastructure needs, such as revitalization of the river, including dredging of the river and an activities activation of the riverfront for an entire mile. And some of these additional community costs is what we considered when we were going through the extra 60 mills.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I'm assuming that that work will involve direct interface with urban drainage and flood control district to ensure that it's not creating any further impact downstream for communities that are already experiencing some flooding challenges like the Globeville neighborhood.
Speaker 8: Absolutely. I mean, this is the metropolitan districts don't are not addressing that tonight. There is definitely a tremendous amount of conversations that with many partners to try and solve those all of the city's problems and regarding flooding.
Speaker 7: So Andrew, what is the percentage of open space that Denver is requiring with this particular proposed development?
Speaker 8: I don't know the specific answer for that. I will bring up Stephen Ali from our Community Planning and development, who probably has that right off the top of his head.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Members of Council Steve Nally with community planning and Development. As you know, in the Denver zoning code there is a requirement for a general development plan which requires 10% open space. We've had quite a bit of discussion with the community through the Downtown Area Plan Amendment. There are a number of recommendations in that plan that talk about open space and engaging the river, the types of open space, not just one part but different typologies, a big central plaza, neighborhood parks, park pocket parks, dog parks. And so this is one step in the implementation process. There will be many more steps. We are working on a infrastructure master plan and development agreements and a rezoning that will be coming soon. And we will we love to talk about that at that time.
Speaker 7: Okay. So the 10%, does that include frontage along the river and does any of the river contribute towards that? Or they would have to create the the land that then interfaces with the river.
Speaker 6: So the 10% requirement is for open space on their property. Got it. Okay. Now their property abuts the river, right? But it's got to be on. That's where things get fun. Yeah. And the activation of the river. And so, you know, it could. It could in the future, the lines could be a little blurred. You may not know if you're on, you know, the former religious property and it may be a public park. It may be privately owned at that at that point. There's a lot that we are working through, but it's 10% on the private property.
Speaker 7: Okay. The last question is just about the. Cumulative impact. And this is for you, Steve, because you're at the planning department. And this should be this should be what you guys are looking at in terms of the vast amount of acres that are on the west side of the river, that are all proposed to have pretty high density development, that will then have further impact on the adjacent infrastructure and the adjacent neighborhoods. So how how are you all at the planning department looking at that cumulative impact and ensuring that we're we're taking that view? I mean, I use the example of the 41st and Fox, you know, area where we were seeing all these rezonings come in. But nobody was looking at the fact that we've got one road into that site and we really had the need to look at doing more, requiring all the developers in that area to do more and contribute towards not just the roadway infrastructure, but even some of the drainage issues because, you know, 38th Avenue floods in that area. So as you look at adding this many more people in traffic and higher density to the area, how are we moving to address that?
Speaker 6: That is exactly what we're working on right now. So we're working through an infrastructure master plan. We have basically every department in the city at the table from Denver, Department of Environmental Health to Public Works parks. We have urban drainage at the table. We even have Army Corps at the table, Metro Wastewater. The list goes on and on. Multiple agencies.
Speaker 7: RTD is our is our Office of Emergency Management at the table as well.
Speaker 6: So that is that is going to be part of the discussion. Not not yet. But that is definitely part of the discussion. You bet.
Speaker 7: So the the how close we build to the railroad tracks, how we buffer and protect the buildings and the people that will be in them will be all part of that conversation. That's right. Great. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Steve.
Speaker 6: Only because that line of questioning sort of made me sort of think about this. Right. There's current entitlement with the land right now. Are there any mechanisms? I don't see anything in the service plan that doesn't seem to be any sort of there's acknowledgment that we just did a master in a, uh, area plan update, but there is no sort of compulsory or some sort of requirement that, uh, future that this area be rezoning in a manner sort of more consistent with those plan objectives. So is there any way to sort of convey to us that, um, that the current entitlement will be used with this metro district and that this is essentially a preliminary step for what is being proposed in a sort of more master plan sense. Okay. So just to understand your question, you are asking, should the service plans say that the current zoning will not be used to implement this plan? That would be great. I wouldn't go that far, but I sort of did so. So as you know, the downtown area plan envisions this future state. Right, this future neighborhood, and recommends that the site be zoned in order to implement or accomplish that vision. The service plan is in the Met Districts. It's it's one of many implementation steps. It's more closely related to the infrastructure necessary for that buildout. Now, I'm doing interesting thinking, but maybe you know. But the answer I don't think I don't think it includes the rezoning that the the neighborhood or the downtown area planning amendment recommends rezoning . And and we are, as you know, going through that process. So in. So where would we. This is getting complicated because. Right. They need that GDP in order to to start utilizing start doing infrastructure, sort of not do it willy nilly, but guided by the GDP. So is that GDP going to sort of hold off for rezoning or are they going to be concurrent or, you know, since that's public works how I mean, that's so you guys so how are we marrying those sorts of components, the other things that will sort of release the ability to sort of make use of this metro district. So the current plan is that the rezoning will include or there will be a development agreement that will accompany the rezoning. And that development agreement will go through a number of topics, including the requirements of an infrastructure master plan and a number of the kind of big moves that would be necessary on the site. That's the current thinking right now. But, you know, we're I was in meetings. Today, we're we're working very hard on this infrastructure master plan to ensure that all of the major infrastructure moves are in place as this develops over time. So. Those are those are great things because those things those all those documents sort of speak to how you might go about addressing the concerns that were already voiced in your prior questions. Maybe this is more of a question for you or Andrew. But again, those tools developer agreement would be with the administration infrastructure master plan. That, again, is sort of a purely voluntary effort. GDP would be a document, but that would simply be adopted by the planning board. So the only sort of next step that this council will sort of engage on would be the the text amendments in the map amendments. Where do those where do you foresee those falling with regard to those other three documents? So we we actually envision the development agreement coming to council. There may be some vesting rights that the developer is pursuing. I don't want to get into too much detail because this we're still working on this and you guys will be seeing this soon. But that that is the thinking that when we actually come forward with the text amendment and potential map amendment, that there will also be a development agreement. Yeah. So just because, you know, I'm not totally naive to this been part of many conversations that have gone down the central by that I've not been part of several as well. I understand that. But is it safe to say for the general public that many of these concerns will be some somehow articulated and in some degree codified where appropriate in ways that we have previously maybe not done at this scale or at least in this area. I mean, I think we have precedent examples. I'm pretty sure the Broadway station rezoning package and development agreement came before council because there were vesting rights as part of that development agreement, I think. I think we have examples of this taking place in the city, but that that's our current approach, as I described earlier. Right. And so I think I just wanted those, you know, have carried that conversation a little bit further. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega. Rebecca.
Speaker 7: Yes, Steve, just real quick. When do you anticipate that infrastructure master plan to be completed? Because that's looking at the whole area and not just this one site. Right.
Speaker 6: So the infrastructure master plan that we are discussing right now is for this site.
Speaker 7: Specifically not looking at the effect of all of the development.
Speaker 6: We're certainly considering the effect off site. Okay. Of of this site. And keeping in mind the development of other sites, there is a lot of engineering, there's a lot of work that goes into an infrastructure. Master plan is very expensive. And so we anticipate that that coming after the rezoning and I don't want to put a date on it. So after rezoning.
Speaker 7: Issues like roadway connectivity, I mean, you know, we've got the Burnham yards that are not far away from here that will soon be finished with the cleanup that the railroads are doing. And that's about 70 acres or so. So when you start looking at all of the development opportunities and how people get in and out of these sites, they're going to be utilizing existing roadways like 13th Avenue, Colfax that runs, you know, alongside this location. And for me, it's looking at how how is that folded into the big picture conversation? Because just like the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative was created to look at the cumulative impact of all the projects that are going on in Globeville area at once here and along the Brighton Boulevard corridor, and making sure that, you know, there's some interface between how they all connect to one another as opposed to just dealing with each of them piecemeal. So help me understand how much that. Infrastructure master plan and that big picture look that the planning department is doing factors in all of those things.
Speaker 6: Sure. That's our job. That's exactly what we're working on. You may not see in the infrastructure master plan recommendations for the next neighborhood. However, we're thinking about the impacts on the next neighborhood when working on the infrastructure master plan. It's not just the existing streets. There are also new streets and new connections that will be necessary. I would suggest to answer that question, looking at the downtown area Point Amendment and all of the connections that are recommended and the improvements to existing network that's recommended as well.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and that's important because that affects the connectivity to downtown. Excuse me. But then when you look at the effect to the Jefferson Park neighborhood, just to the West Side, you know, and I do know that you all work to ensure that 23rd Street was a major connecting route to the site, which I know is really critical for those neighborhoods, because that is an access road that not only Jefferson Park but Sloan's Lake and in those neighborhoods to the west utilize that road. So that was really important. That's right. Let me just get to my next question really quick. And this is about freeze. Would you mind coming forward? Do you have any anticipation and I know we're not there yet, but do you anticipate using tax increment financing as one of the tools to do any of the development on the site?
Speaker 0: We do not.
Speaker 7: You do not. Okay. Has the community been talking to you about any kind of community benefit agreement that would look at ensuring that there is affordable housing, that there is a commitment to jobs, you know, those kinds of things. Can you just talk about where you're at with those conversations?
Speaker 8: Yeah, we haven't had detailed conversations about those specific topics yet with the neighborhood. As Steve Downey.
Speaker 5: Mentioned, the downtown area plan speaks to a lot of those things. I think specifically as it comes.
Speaker 8: To affordable housing. If I recall correctly, the downtown area plans for a higher level of affordability of affordability here or so, more units of affordable housing here.
Speaker 0: Should I say more correctly.
Speaker 8: Than in other parts of the city.
Speaker 0: Given its strategic.
Speaker 8: Location and its proximity to rail transit.
Speaker 7: So let me make sure I understood that correctly. Was that a higher amount of affordable units or a higher level of higher, higher incomes that would be served?
Speaker 8: I believe the area plan speaks to a higher number of affordable units. Okay. And just to finish that thought, we've been. Yeah, I know. I had to clarify it for myself. I realize I misspoke.
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 5: And we've been in some.
Speaker 8: Fairly deep discussions with city staff on what that means and what that looks like.
Speaker 7: I appreciate it. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 797 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I am excited to support this metropolitan district, primarily because of the systematic approach that we're in right now. We just approved a an area plan and went through a very in-depth time with our community and District one, District nine, talking about what we want to see in this at the 50,000 foot level . What we want to accomplish, the drainage issues, affordable housing, day care, jobs. All of these things we want to see encompassed in this area. And from there, you've got to fund it. And so this is a funding mechanism so that we can start looking at how to take care of all the infrastructure needs. And I appreciate the city, CPD, the developer, all inviting me to the table and other council folks as well. And so I'm I am confident that this is going to be an area in which we all are proud of and an area which invest a lot into the social fabric of our community. And in a development that we can be proud of. So I'll be supporting this and look forward to the coming months of negotiation of what comes out from this area. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: If past is prolog we're we're this is just another step in a sort of incremental process to sort of realizing a very different future of those parking lots and and and sort of former railyard of Denver. So I'm just I'm encouraged thank you to Andrew and Steve and to Reece particularly, because, you know, it's not every day that a property owner, you know, invites a whole bunch of other stakeholders to sort of help them figure out what what to do with their land and sort of welcomes those comments and tries in earnest to to capture as much as possible. And so, you know, this is a tool that is if you heard me talk about it before, I'm not always the biggest fan of them, but this is the sort of exact situation whereby to me it's completely consistent but is bolstered by those other those other agreements and steps that still need to be done. And and I look forward to sort of seeing some of those as much, if not all of those ideas and things that have been articulated to date are being captured in in master planning and and developer agreements and and the infrastructure that goes in with this with this metro district. So with that, I'll be happy to support it and look forward to those future conversations to sort of continue to mold what Denver will look like 100 years from now. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman can eat new Ortega SUSSMAN Hi, Black. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving six (6) metropolitan district Service Plans for the creation of The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 1, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 2, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 3, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 4, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 5, and The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District.
Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 1, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 2, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 3, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 4, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 5, and The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-24-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08132018_18-0617
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 797 has passed. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please vote? Council Bill 617 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Yes, I move that council bills 617 be placed upon final consideration and do.
Speaker 0: Pass has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council will 617 is open. May we have the staff report? Technology kept catching up.
Speaker 7: My computer does that to.
Speaker 2: To push through it. So Jeff Hurt, with your planning a development here to present a rezoning for a property in the area Swansea. And this is a Denver housing authority owned property working with Habitat for Humanity to to build 16 duplex units. So we'll be talking a little bit about the project. Actually, the applicant is here to, uh, to fill in some of the details. So this is a rezoning request in Council District nine, as I said, in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood. And so the request area is one city block. It's about 1.3 acres, and the rezoning requests is to go from E2 B So that's urban edge to unit, and the B stands for the minimum lot size, which is 4500 square feet, and they requesting to go to a PD. And so the PD it's Pdg 18. The G just means that the general PD and the 18 means it's our 18th beauty. So there's not much to the acronym there actually. And the purpose of the rezoning is to accommodate a redevelopment for residential units in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood. And this is the site plan that the applicant handed out at Ludy. And it's a it's a an evolving site plan, but it does their plan is to build 16 duplex units for a total of 32 units in this neighborhood and for them to be alley loaded. So the existing zoning, as I said, is to be the surrounding properties north of 43rd are also YouTube. And then you look south and west closer to the tracks, and it gets more into the industrial zoning that reflects the character of that area. In terms of existing land uses, there's a mix again. So looking north of 43rd, there's a mix of different types of residential units, single unit two, unit multifamily and then south of 43rd to get more into the industrial land uses. And so on to some images of the subject site. As I said, it's one city block and this block has been vacant for really its entire history. There are two small structures there that were historically there. This area was platted in the 1890s. Those structures were demolished in the early 1990. So it sat like this for quite some time. And so looking at the images of the subject property. And then looking at the surrounding property, you see the single family. Some of the original single family structures, again, 1890s era. There's been a fair amount of some redevelopment of these houses, but it's generally maintained this character. And then this is an image looking south. So across 43rd, looking toward the both the freight rail and the commuter rail tracks and you get more into the industrial one story, uh, character of that area. So I'm going to talk a little bit about what you, what parties are, the purpose of them, why they're used. And then I'm going to get into the specific request of what their the applicant is actually asking for in speed. Speed is the city used to use them a lot more, but we've been a little bit more uh, we've used them lesson in recent years. The purpose of the party in the, in the zoning code at least, is to provide an alternative set of regulations on really challenging sites that have the term uses in unique and extraordinary circumstances. So in order to accommodate the proposed development, you would need a lot of waivers, conditions, variances, things like that. So the proposal and the reason for the PD request. So in these cases, staff works with the applicant to work through kind of all the zoning options to figure out if there's a base standard zone district that would work for their needs. In this case, it really came down to the width, the subject block, which is about half the width of the surrounding blocks. And it is, in staff's opinion, a unique and extraordinary circumstance to have a block that's this narrow and also to accommodate any type of development that's sort of consistent with the surrounding built environment in terms of two rows of of alley loaded of development. And so when you look at the current zoning ETB, there's a number of constraints. So the minimum lot size and in particular the setbacks, the front and rear setbacks, when you factor all these metrics together, it creates a really, really small buildable footprint. If you did one do alley access development and so that that steered us toward the parade route. So I'm going to talk a little bit about what is actually in the PD. So the way that we do Pwds is essentially we start with the base zone district that makes the most sense. And the PD itself sort of lists all the variations from that based on district. And so if you wanted to actually look at the PD itself, which would become the sort of the controlling zone district for the site that is in your packet in the actual application. But I'm just going to go through at a high level what those variations are, and they're all related to the building form and placement. There's no changes proposed to land uses or parking or anything like that. I think that's important to note. So would maintain the the two unit and single unit allowed uses. So the variations at a high level, again, we could get happy to go in more detail on this, but at a high level, the variations are to address the narrow block and to accommodate two rows of alley loaded development. So the first big variation is to.
Speaker 6: Remove.
Speaker 2: A there's so there's a split in the zone district in the in the YouTube zone district where the front 65% of the lot has a two and a half storey allowable height in the rear. 35% has a one story allowable height. So and then the bulk plan is calibrated by that front and we are split. Two staff does not believe that that split makes sense on this block because it's so narrow and these lots would be roughly about 60 feet deep. So and it's also sort of creating its own context within one block. So there's some variations related to the building height and the number of stories and the book plane as it relates to that front rear split. And again, I'm happy to get into those details. Another variation is the reduced minimum size. So that was a big issue with the current zoning, with a 4500 square foot minimum lot area that's actually out of character with the surrounding properties and how was originally plotted. The original slide had lots very anywhere from like 1600 square feet to something like 3800 square feet. So 2100 falls within the range that works for the applicant and and it's consistent with the surrounding context. So that is in there as well. And then the remaining changes relate to the setbacks. So reduced front, rear and side setbacks. And those are those are largely consistent with the surrounding development pattern, which has a lot of nonconforming non-compliant structures that were built well before zoning was in place. And then lastly and a really important one, the UTB Zone district does not actually mandate alleys and alley access. You could technically do or theoretically do vehicular access off the street, which is inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. So one of the changes in the PD is to mandate vehicle access by alley only, and pedestrian access certainly could come from the street, but we're talking about vehicular access. So process wise followed our normal process. Planning and ordered planning board did unanimously recommend approval with a condition that was more of a correction or clarification. I'm happy to talk about that condition. And then that brought us to tonight. So there are a number of Arnault's restaurant and neighborhood organizations for this area. All were notified and we did receive one public comment in support of the request and in support of specifically residential development and going to a PD from the Elyria, Swansea, Globeville Business Association. That's in your packet as well. And so I have a number of different criteria to go through and I'll I'll try to get through them concisely. But we've got our standard review criteria that apply to all rezonings, and we've got an additional layer of criteria for Pwds. So I'm going to go through each of those and highlight a couple that require a little more explanation. So just listing out what they are. So starting with the standard rezoning criteria, so staff looks at consistency with adopted plan. So we certainly have the two citywide plans to look at. And we also have a very recent neighborhood plan in the Elyria Swansea plan that we looked at that addresses the site. So in terms of comp plan policies, so the policies that staff called out and are elaborated on in your staff report are listed here. I'm not going to go through each one of them, but generally relate to the policy in the concept of encouraging infill development and places where services and infrastructure already exist, which is definitely the case here. It's it's embedded in the grid of this neighborhood, and there's certainly services and infrastructure around it. And then there's policies related to encouraging residential infill development at appropriate locations. So staff does find the request in the request to go to a pretty consistent with plan policies. So related to Blueprint in Denver, the other citywide adopted plan. The subject property is in an area of change and has a land use designation of single family duplex. And so the area of change really points to encouraging infill development in areas where services, infrastructure already exists and also areas that have not realize their full development potential. And so staff finds the request consistent with these policies because as a vacant block in a in an established area, it certainly has not realize its full development potential. And, and as a duplex single family duplex zone district, it is consistent with that single family duplex classification. So on to the Elyria Swansea neighborhood plan. So this is the area specific neighborhood plan adopted in 2015. There are a number of policies related to encouraging or addressing the decline actually in residential population and residential dwelling units in this specific area. And there's actually a number of policies that point specifically to encouraging residential infill. And even looking at this specific site, it was actually called out in the plan as an opportunity site for residential infill. And so staff does find the requests consistent with the obvious ones in neighborhoods plan for those reasons. So I'm going to go through each one of these. I did want to highlight so these are the rest of the criteria that stuff looks out and making a recommendation. I did want to highlight criteria number four, which is related to the justifying circumstances. So Steph doesn't need to find or the city needs to find a justifying circumstance in support of the rezoning. There's a number of changes going on in this area that that support a rezoning and staff's opinion. One of the Illyria Swansea neighborhoods plan in itself is a change that sort of, you know, set a path for this neighborhood in this community in the future. And secondarily, also a big one. So with the central I-70 project and the expansion that's happened, there's been a number of residential units that have been taking out of the of the housing stock for this neighborhood. And so that's a big change that this rezoning in this Pudi, I think, looks to address in terms of attempting to replenish some of those lost housing units. And then related to the last criteria, again, standard rezoning criteria, the staff does find the property is consistent with the neighborhood context generally because the poverty itself is customized to reflect the surrounding context in terms of setbacks, building coverage, accessing off of alleys, things like that. So Steph does find it consistent with what that criteria applied to a library at any of these. Okay. Last set of criteria is the PD rezoning criteria. So these are the criteria specific to PD requests. And so I'll go through these as briefly as possible. So the first criteria is if the PD is consistent with the purpose and intent of parties themselves. So looking at the zoning code language for when and why and how the city should use parties, it generally addresses, as I said, where there is a unique and extraordinary circumstance and a physical constraint in this case. And this one I think is pretty straightforward. The physical constraint is the narrow width of the block, at least relative to the development proposed in a development that could go in and be consistent with the surrounding contacts with the alley loaded in the two rows of development. So stuff does find it consistent with that criteria. And so the last three criteria here. So I won't go through each of these, but um, I guess to highlight CPD criteria, see, so again, the development and looking back at that site plan and the applicant is here to, to elaborate on it, but looking at that site plan, there really is no standard zone district available, as I said, that that accommodates the type of development that kind of fits in with the with the surrounding context, without multiple variances, waivers, conditions, things like that, where you really get into this funky, customized situation. So PD is really designed to be since staff's opinion for situations like this and then last that the PD addresses uses that are compatible with adjacent properties, there's no change. As I said in the beginning, there's no change to the uses set forth in the zone district in the YouTube. So all of the single family unit and kind of ancillary use, as you would typically see, would remain the same as with the parking requirement. So it's really only about the building form and siting. Oh, there is another one. Sorry. So this is something like a bit of a broken record, but. So. So the last criteria is about users. This is more about building forms. And so stuff does find the party request consistent with this criteria. Because it does it it is calibrated. The party is customized and calibrated to respond to sort of the built environment around this block, which is highlighted in this aerial a bit. You can see with the parcel boundaries are in pink. If you can see you can see the original buildings and some of the newer buildings are not built to, you know, a 20 foot setback and a five foot side setback. They're really building out these these these parcels and they're alley loaded. You can see that the YouTube is on this. Without this pudi customized approach would be a real challenge to develop anything consistent with the patterns of this area. So with that, staff does recommend approval of their rezoning requests, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, so I'll ask all four of you to come up to this front bench so we can get through things quickly. As soon as I call your name. There will be a slight delay for your time to start as you step up to the podium and then your time will start elapsing. So first up, we have Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President, members of council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 2: And I am at 386.
Speaker 6: Emerson Street in Denver.
Speaker 2: I'm here this evening representing Habitat for Humanity, the applicant. And I'm joined by members of the.
Speaker 6: Habitat team.
Speaker 2: Who are here to provide some additional context and answer any questions.
Speaker 6: Should you have any? We're eagerly engaged in this process and feel that in this instance it is the perfect tool to address.
Speaker 2: All of the unique site.
Speaker 6: Conditions that were discussed in the staff report.
Speaker 2: And staff did a great job and was excellent.
Speaker 6: To work with to kind of solve the riddle.
Speaker 2: To maximize.
Speaker 6: The opportunity on this crazy.
Speaker 2: Narrow block.
Speaker 6: To get as dance as we could.
Speaker 2: To provide a permanent deed.
Speaker 6: Restricted for sale, affordable housing. We're here this evening to request your approval and vote of approval for Pdg.
Speaker 2: 18 and are available to answer any questions you.
Speaker 6: Have. Any. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Katie McKenna.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Council President Clark, and thank you, council members for having us here today. I'm Katie McKenna. I'm from Denver, and I'm the director of community development at Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver. We're here today to request your support for the rezoning of this block in Swansea, a neighborhood at Habitat. We believe that housing is the foundation from which everything else is possible and affordable. Housing is such a key piece of infrastructure and critical component in our communities. The global area and Swansea neighborhoods have been an area of a special focus for Habitat for Humanity over the last six years. With that, we we help home as Habitat for Humanity. We help homeowners achieve strength, stability and independence that they need to build a better life for themselves and for their families and for their communities. In our recent homeowners survey, we learned that 98% of people who grow up in habitat houses graduate from high school. That's compared to 79% of that's our statewide average is 79%. To me, this is important in our neighborhoods. We also learned that two thirds of our habitat homeowners have a budget and can stick to it. And seven out of ten aren't worried about paying their monthly bills because their housing is affordable. That's financial stress that's lifted from a low income family because they have an affordable place to call home. Hey. Here. In Denver, Habitat has worked with 843 families since our founding just about 40 years ago in Globeville, Leary and Swankier. We've invested more than $16 million to serve 200 families through our home repair and our homeownership programs. We're committed to these communities and to finding continuing to evolve, to find solutions for affordable homeownership. And this block is a really important part of that. I often say that I have one of the best jobs at Habitat because I get to work with all of the people. So I have the opportunity to connect with people through our community engagement efforts. We've hosted community meetings, we've attended other organizations meetings. We've connected with. R.A. is in local employers. We've canvased door to door to talk with people who don't often go to community to community meetings. We've walked around the neighborhood with residents to hear their thoughts about this vacant lot, and we're hosting homebuyer readiness classes and working with local groups to make sure that people in the area know how to buy the houses and when to apply. We're committed to making this project a source of neighborhood pride and hope and opportunity. And of course, we need to rezone it first to make that possible. So that's why we're here tonight. And I thank you for your time and consideration, and I hope you'll support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Cory Whitaker.
Speaker 1: I think we're just available for questions.
Speaker 0: If you want to, just go ahead and introduce yourself and say exactly that and then you can answer here.
Speaker 5: Okay. Corey Whittaker I'm the real estate manager with Habitat for Humanity. Address 3 to 4 or five Elliot Street. I'm here to answer any questions about the site plan, and thank you for your consideration of this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And last, Kate Helberg.
Speaker 1: Cahill, Rick, director of real estate development.
Speaker 4: For Habitat for Humanity.
Speaker 1: 3245 Elliott Street. And just here to answer any questions that the rest of my colleagues can't.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. That does conclude our speakers questions from members of council. Jasmine. Jasmine.
Speaker 5: Jeff. The planning board recommended unanimous approval with increasing the height to 2.5 storeys on the rear of 35%. Sorry if I missed it, but what's. What's the logic to that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I almost think of it as an oversight. So the, um, the proposal that was before planning board had, um, I believe it was if it's 30 feet in the front instead of 17 feet in that rear, 35%, it was 30 feet in the rear. So the, the, the package that planning board saw was to increase the height uniformly across the site and sort of get rid of that 6535 split. I think by mistake, honestly, we admitted that the rear 35% would also be allowed to go up to 2.5 storeys. So we had, if that makes sense. So. So the way it was, it was put before planning board the rear, 35% height was increased from 17 feet to 30 feet. But the number of stories didn't match that. It stayed at one story and it should have gone up to 2.5 storeys to match that 30 feet.
Speaker 5: Inside is uniform the full length of the property.
Speaker 2: Correct. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Jeff. That's okay. The alley. Because there is no alley in the original subdivision. The alley width is 16 feet. I'm just. I just want to verify. Is that our standard alley width?
Speaker 2: So believe so. I believe that there may be some allowance to go narrower, but I think that that is that is the standard.
Speaker 8: Okay. You're not certain whether 16 feet is our standard alley. I'm just concerned about, you know, services. Do you know of trash and recycling and composting pick up can be done from the alley with that with.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean so that's and this is punting on the question. I know but it is typically handled at the State Department planning stage. We did coordinate with those folks to make sure but 16 feet sounds right. I'm just I'm thinking that we've made allowances for narrowness in some cases, but I can't I don't think that that's been decided yet on this site. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you. How you doing?
Speaker 2: Excellent. How are you?
Speaker 6: I'm doing great. Thanks for leading this time, Parky. Your favorite subject on this. I remember when this came to commit. Council president. Are you laughing over there? Okay. Just make sure you're okay. On the. When this came to committee, it was an issue around parking. Can you just address and I know that came up a planning board as well.
Speaker 2: The issue of whether or not they could provide parking.
Speaker 6: Yep. Each because each of the units do not have to provide parking in the back of their in the back of the townhomes are.
Speaker 2: So I believe they do. And they they do have one space per unit proposed as part of their site plan, a surface parking space coming off the alley.
Speaker 6: Okay. So and the number of units there, they're they're you 32 total. Okay. So each unit has one parking space?
Speaker 2: That is correct, yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. There was some. There was some. I'm okay with that. Matter of fact, I'm okay with none. But there was some pushback on there, and I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any issue. Do we not talk about that in the party when we were in committee? I don't believe.
Speaker 2: It came up explicitly. I apologize if it didn't. I'm forgetting it. But, um, I didn't have it in my notes that it was a specific issue.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. And then I'm going to have come back up, Katie, and just tell me real quick, in the public, the am I level that these 32 units will be at?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Habitat for Humanity works with families, 80% of the area, median income or below for Globeville, Leary and Swansea residents where we're building three and four bedroom homes. So targeting larger families and expecting the income to be right around 47 to $49000 per year, which is also the average income of the neighborhoods.
Speaker 6: Okay. So right, about 60% of my kids are okay and all of the units are right at. How many bedrooms did you say?
Speaker 1: Three and four bedrooms.
Speaker 6: Awesome. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: See. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for House Bill 617 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yep. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be supporting this number one, because the criteria is aligned with our plan documents. And I'm very excited to see these parties begin to work in our community and especially addressing all the site plan issues. But I'm really excited about this because most of the affordable units in and in the District nine area are what a lot of elders in my community say dormitory style. And these are three or four bedroom homes for families. And so hats off to, you know, Habitat for Humanity. I was there at many of the outreach meetings. You did a fabulous job. And this is one city block. You are. And I'm just this is a is a cool night in my district thinking about one side of my district, Elijah's 62 acres, all of this crazy new opportunity and exactly the other side of my district getting new opportunities for 32 families. Today with this rezoning. So it's a good night. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Nu, I just want to thank Habitat for developing this project. You know, you're probably one of my favorite organizations across this country. You do such great service in every area, whether it's in a disaster area or just a redevelopment area like this. So I just want to say thanks for what you're doing for for Denver and for the low income families like you. Thank you. Councilman new councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to thank Habitat. They've done excellent work. They've been down in southwest Denver as well. And this is a project that will it's hard to believe that this block, even efficiently platted as it was, could have sat for. A century and, you know, 101, almost 130 years without being utilized, while meanwhile being surrounded by, you know, by a vibrant neighborhood. And so it's very good to see see it finally be able to host 32. Good sized families. And on a historical note. I wanted to point out that the original subdivision plat was signed by then city attorney John Schaff Roth, who went on to become U.S. representative. Senator and Governor of the state of Colorado. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you for that, education Councilman Flynn. I want to excuse me express my support for this rezoning tonight. This is part of my old district. District nine. And, you know, to recognize the fact that there are so many changes happening in the area and that these neighborhoods are actually going to be losing residents to have a focus on new housing coming into this community is really, really important. And, you know, I don't know how many of the residents in the community have gone through the application process and actually qualify for any of the homes. But I know there's a there's ironically, there's a strong homeownership concentration in these neighborhoods. But for those who are renters, they're sort of at the mercy of the the landlords. And we've seen a lot of people that have been displaced as a result of landlords being able to, you know, increase the rents and and get higher, you know, people with higher incomes that can live in the neighborhood. So that's having the, you know, displacement effect on the people who who are, in fact, there today or have been there. And so knowing that you all have made a commitment to targeting the LMI levels of the neighborhood as opposed to the entire city, is really important to trying to keep people in that community. So I appreciate those efforts. And you guys have done a great job in Globeville with all the housing that you built over there. And I know you have a lot of trust and respect of people from these neighborhoods, so keep up the great work. Thank you for what you're doing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks Becker.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Just a tidbit here, Mr. President, if you allow me, I think this is kind of a big deal. We didn't do this before, but I just want to have Kitty McKenna, who works for Habitat. For folks who are watching and want to know how to get involved and get on the list and see if they can get in on some of these units. Can she provide some information?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 6: She's also a Globeville resident, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. And for anyone watching, we would love it if you apply, if you're interested. The best way to get information is to visit our website at WW Dot Habitat Metro Denver. Georgie.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. And with that, seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Espinoza. Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I Herndon Cashman can each new Ortega I Susman.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Black i Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I I'm secretary. Please close voting and announce results.
Speaker 4: Sorry, I got one thing wrong here.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, my screen is locked. It says I am absent. Oh, now it says I voted I.
Speaker 0: Thanks for coming back to us.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Comfortable. 617 has passed. On Monday, September 10th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 791, changing the zoning classification for 12680 East Ashbrook Drive in Montebello. Any protest against Constable 17 one must be filed with council officers no later than Tuesday, September 4th.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 2500 East 44th Avenue, 4348 Columbine Street, 4301 & 4349 Elizabeth Street in the Elyria Swansea neighborhood.
Rezones property located at 2500 East 44th Avenue, 4348 Columbine Street, 4301 and 4349 Elizabeth Street from E-TU-B to PUD-G 18 (urban edge to planned development) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0777
|
Speaker 0: the buyers or renter source of income and under pending. Councilwoman Sussman has called out to postpone final consideration of Council Bill 705 changing the zoning classification for 5611 East Iowa Avenue in Virginia Village. I miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first items up on our screen? And, Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill seven, seven, seven on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 8-077 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. If I can get a second and seconded, uh, questions or comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: I hear you didn't click that, so. Oh, all right.
Speaker 7: That's not me. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Ah. Right. Seeing no questions or comments. Madam Secretary. Oracle.
Speaker 2: Black.
Speaker 5: Brooks II.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am a secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: Sorry. There's two missing two people.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance concerning the Airport System of the City and County of Denver; amending and restating Ordinance No. 626 of Series 1984, as previously amended, known as the “1984 Airport System General Bond Ordinance”; concerning the Airport Facilities of the City and County of Denver; establishing general provisions relating to Airport System Revenue Bonds to be issued by the City, for and on behalf of its Department of Aviation; providing the forms, terms, and conditions of the Bonds, the manner and terms of their issuance, the manner of their execution, the method of their payment, and the security therefor; providing for the collection and disposition of revenues derived from the operation of such Airport Facilities; pledging such revenues to the payment of the Bonds; providing various covenants, agreements, and other details, and making other provisions concerning Airport Facilities, the Bonds, Refunding and Improvement Projects, and Airport Facilities Revenues; ratifying action previously taken and relating to the foregoing matters; providing other matters relating ther
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0788
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 3913 I as comfortable 775 has passed. Madam Secretary, could you please put the next item up on our screens? And, Councilwoman Gilmore, will you put Council Bill 788 on the floor.
Speaker 6: And move that Council Bill 18 Dash 078, as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilman Quinn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I call this out in order to vote no, as I did last week on on first reading. And I believe that this is a very good initiative, but even very good initiatives need to have the devil taken out of their details. And I believe that we're on a path to do that. I believe that the effective date of this ordinance providing for nondiscrimination in in rental housing and for sale housing based on source of income is is not effective until January 1st. So there still is time to chase the devil out of the details that I see in here. But as it stands right now, I just called it out to vote no, as I did last week, because I don't believe it's soup yet. And I think that because we have until January 1st to look into some of the issues where there may we may actually be causing some harms in the in the attempt to do good. I just wanted to vote now. No, now. Before. One final thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Mr. President, I've had conversations with many of my colleagues and heard from more of the community since our last public hearing. So a couple of you and a couple of the community had asked me to provide some updates just on this bill. So one wanted to do that. First of all, we had some questions for the Denver Housing Authority last week, and they got back to us with the question of how many vouchers get expired after the 60 day period because they're, for whatever reason, unable to find housing. And their answer was about 308 of the 1371 issuances they've had were expired. So that's about 22%. Remember, if you add that to the 12% of folks that are leaving Denver with their voucher, it's looking like, you know, we've got about 34%, if I'm doing my math right, folks who are struggling to find housing in Denver with vouchers. So I think that's an important fact. Many of you wanted more data. And I just wanted to say for a minute a little bit about the relationship between the city and DOJ, because I think there might have been some confusion about this. Denver Housing Authority did not propose this bill. They didn't come to me and suggest we run it. This really came from the community. It came from best practices. They are a quasi governmental organization. They are separate legally from the city. And so we don't govern how they administer their programs. And in fact, in many cases, we can't govern how they run their programs because they are subject to federal rules provided by the Housing and Urban Development. So, for example, the number of days that folks have to search for housing is a standard established by HUD. So there are many ways that we might, you know, use our our collective energies to provide assistance to DHS. For example, we already have a meeting scheduled. I described this last week, but we're working on a meeting where we might say to them, is there something our pique team or our technology team might be able to do in order to help you track data, for example, and on what the time period is between getting an approval for a voucher and then when someone or applying a unit applying to be approved for a voucher and then the move in date. So we will see what we can offer as a as a partner. But we can't legislate the way that they do business, both because of HUD and because of their separate legal authority. And I just in part, you know, data is one of these things. No one has ever asked them for this data in this way before. And so I know that there's frustration, but I also just I feel a little sensitive to folks holding them accountable for something we've never before asked them for and being mad that they don't have it. So I'm just putting that out there so that folks really understand what the relationship is. The second update I wanted to provide, we heard from a number of landlords last week and, you know, many of them shared some of their concerns with the program over the weekend. I know many of us got at least one or two emails from landlords who had different experiences, who reported their on time payments and the fact that they have a lot of success renting with vouchers. And I also, when I was out at my Denver days events mostly in northeast Denver this weekend, I heard from a couple of landlords who pulled me aside and said, you know, that they were very supportive. So just wanted and wanted me to share that, that there were these varieties of opinions. Lastly, regardless of whether or not we have total agreement in our community about whether or not people can stay in business and rent units using all of these sources of income, it's clear that we do have questions about a second line of defense in the case that maybe a security deposit doesn't cover all the damage I committed in the beginning to the landlords and the associations that I met with that I would do the serious research into what these funds that provide a little extra assurance looked like and what the best practices were. I don't believe in stopping it, just looking at how much money people put into the fund or what they're named. I went the next step and my staff, Paul Kyle, went and talked to them about how many claims they actually had and whether they were effective and whether they were working. And so that research got done last Monday and it shows that the funds are not heavily needed. But as we discussed, they may be very important for the individuals who make the claims. So we did share that research with the mayor's office and the departments. They've had a minute to talk about it and I just wanted to see if Skye Stewart wanted to provide a brief update on where the administration is that I know some folks would have wanted us to legislate a fund here at the dais tonight for charter reasons. We don't appropriate money in bills like this in the middle of the year. We can only do that through the budget. But I took seriously my commitment to work on this. I have followed up on it every day. And and I'm really pleased that the administration has similarly taken time to to look and review the research. Sure. Skye Stewart, mayor's office, as councilwoman, said, she provided the research she has done to our office. And the mayor had a chance to take a look at that and has. Now directed our housing team to look into what a fund might look like in terms of parameters for its use size, the oversight where that funding might come from. So our team is starting to do that research and anticipate coming back with some thoughts on how that might work, but definitely open to moving forward with an idea like that. So I want to thank the administration for for their willingness to keep working on this. And with that, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this ordinance tonight. I think the evidence is clear that we have folks who cannot use the housing assistance they need in our city. We have survey two separate survey data is demonstrating that there is a need, that people are being turned away from these sources of income. We heard testimony from folks who are experiencing this. And because this is something that we have the ability to deter, I believe it is our obligation to help to meet more of the housing needs of our residents who are struggling. So with that, I urge a yes vote tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gage. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to support this. I even though I'm voting differently than Councilman Flynn, I agreed with all of your comments. Councilman Flynn, however, I am voting for it. I do have some concerns. We've all heard from a lot of landlords, particularly concerned about some small scale landlords. And with as with any law that we pass, there's always the risk of unintended consequences. So I want us to monitor this. We talked last week about in a year from now getting a report with feedback from tenants, from Denver Housing Authority, from landlords and the apartment association. So I think that will be really important to evaluate how it's gone. A couple of the things I would want to look out for is that. Is there any sort of additional financial burden on smaller scale landlords that would force them to increase their rents or even sell their investments? I talked to some people and they were here last week who actually owned some rentals in some hot neighborhoods and. If it's too much of a burden for them, then they might end up selling and we are going to get some housing that's not affordable. So those are the kinds of things I'm concerned about. That said, I am supporting it and thank you for doing all that hard work, Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Black Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to clarify with the council we klipsch, it's my understanding that the bill really just knows no guarantee to Section eight applicants for housing. It just it gives all the income for section eight candidate be treated equally so that they're an equal basis with all other applicants for available housing so that a landlord for legitimate business reasons can choose whoever he was among the applicants available. We hope that this will help, you know, Section eight to help us find more housing. But the main thing, it doesn't deter the rights and privileges of the landlord to select any applicant that he wants or a legitimate business reason . Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That is correct. Councilman, I think the simplest way to describe this is it is an equal opportunity. It is not a guaranteed outcome. So everyone has the opportunity to seek housing, but it doesn't guarantee the outcome. I know there was a claim made. You know that if you only had one applicant, you have no choice but to accept them. That's simply not what the law states. The law states that you can't turn someone away for a discriminatory reason. If you have a legitimate business reason and you're screening your tenants. That would all be investigated. And nothing in the law says that, you know, if you're down to one, you have to you have to rent it. It's all about the reasoning and what the legitimate business purposes are. So this is not about guaranteeing who you rent to. It's just ensuring that everyone has an opportunity.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to indicate my support for the bill tonight. I believe that the work that has taken place looking into the fund is very important. I support that and appreciate the work the administration has done in directing our Office of Economic Development to identify resources and parameters for how a program would work . I heard loud and clear the information that perhaps in other cities the funds are being highly utilized. But I think to operate in good faith with our apartment owners, property owners that may experience damages to their property that are in excess of the deposits that we should have a fund available. Obviously, if it's not being utilized, we could look at how to redirect those dollars. But I think having that in place is is very important. I appreciate the work that's been done by Councilwoman McKinney, the Colorado Apartment Association or apartment association and Metro Denver, I think is it's more properly known, DHS, for for your role in this process as well and appreciate the the briefing that you gave us around the process and how you all have worked to try to share that up and make it more timely in terms of approving people and and getting the money out the door to the landlords. I think this is critically important as one of the many steps that we're taking to try to address housing affordability for people in this city who are struggling. I know that oftentimes it will take somebody several years to finally get approved for that DACA voucher. And they're so excited because they've been waiting for this for years. And then they take it and they go to different places. And if they can't get into housing, that's a problem. So this should help to some degree in solving part of that problem. Again, it doesn't guarantee anybody anything, but it's again, one more tool in the toolbox that says if you were the only applicant and you were not considered for that housing, then you have a claim. You can you can file a discrimination claim. But, you know, I think we have a collaborative environment in this city where we have worked to. Find a way to close the gaps with so many of the different programs that we have seen brought forward. And this one, I think is going to help tremendously so that one can each thank you for your work on this
Speaker 0: . Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, appreciate very much the work that Councilman Kennish has done on this, particularly to help everybody find suitable living expenses. I've just sort of feeling the way that Councilman Flynn does that I'm not sure that the initiative is fully baked yet. We had an amendment just last week. We have suggestions that there be a fund for damage deposits that don't cover damage, although I think that's of great concern since it is the renter that pays the damage deposit. And how would we choose this kind of renter to help the landlord with but not another kind of renter to help the landlord with? We learned that it looked like it might not be possible to pre-qualify landlords so that they might be eligible for taking vouchers and maybe there would be a way to pre-qualify them so they wouldn't have to wait that even the two weeks or sometimes the month. I just feel like there's lots of things that can be fixed with this. And I hear what Councilman Kennish has said, that we could work on fixing it, but it reminds me of some of the initiatives we've had that that do pass. And then we have to go in and make sure that they'll work with what the city can do and what it can't do. I would very much like to support the concept. I believe in, you know, having complete equality on being able being able to rent a place. But I'm not sure we've got all the. I's dotted and the t's crossed in this one, so I won't be supporting it tonight though I am very much in support of the concept and look forward to perhaps improving it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I i office next to councilman. Can I sit next to the councilwoman on the dais? And I work with her and councilman new in the Homeless Housing and Homelessness Working Group. And I believe this bill, whether it's fully baked, I believe it's sufficiently baked. And I'm certain that the.
Speaker 7: Need.
Speaker 0: Is is fully baked. And we have people in need of housing that are being discriminated against because of source of income that I don't believe is appropriate. I very much hope that that our landlords will hang with us as we iron out the remaining details. You know, at the end of last week's meeting, I stood.
Speaker 7: Here for for.
Speaker 0: Quite a while after the meeting with three landlords, relatively small scale landlords, who said, we don't care about the fund we have insurance for for excessive damages. Now, I know it's not that simple for everybody, so I'm glad the administration continues to to look at what is appropriate. And my guess is we'll get there. I know that Mr. Guerrero and the DEA are committed to doing everything that they can do to become as efficient as possible in the administration of their functions. So, you know, like I say, the need is is so obvious. And, you know, we. We looked at a program recently, the live program where we're assisting our apartment owners with subsidies of some vacant apartments to help people find places to live that they can afford. So I hope that that partnership can move further along in this particular case. So I'm very pleased to support this tonight and committed to with my colleague to continuing to iron out what needs to get ironed out. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President, I. In this in this environment. I think I think to myself and and this environment that that we are in in Denver, in the challenges that we're facing with the lack of affordability in the housing crisis that we have here amidst a booming economy. I don't know how I could not support this in an environment where discrimination is rampant again. I don't know how I would not be able to stand up for this. We have to stand up for this. This is an easy step. Um. In a much more complex issue of vouchers and modern vouchers, the modern voucher program, the modern landlord tenant program or environment that's out there, that's not what this bill is set to to fix. This is a bill isn't a comprehensive housing plan bill. This is. Making sure that no matter the source of income, if their rent can be paid, you shouldn't be able to discriminate against her. I do not like the stigma. I do not like the characterization. I don't like the the stereotyping of so many folks who are who have lived in Denver, have always lived in Denver, have called this city home. And now they are struggling to continue to call this city home. Here is a good idea, a best practice around the country. It's a it's it's something that we can implement in Denver. And it's it's it's a step in the right direction, a very important step. So I am absolutely supportive of this. And I encourage my.
Speaker 5: Colleagues to.
Speaker 9: To really think about that and bake on that. Bake on the idea that the status quo was not acceptable in Denver. Take on the idea of there is no regulation. Denver. What kind of Denver would that be? So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman, do you back up? Oh, I think I forgot one thing. General, I just wanted to mention to the in addition to what Councilwoman Soares was talking about with the HUD regulations. I just want to voice input put on the record from the committee. We really think there really needs to be a meeting with HUD and bring them down here to talk about some of these issues of making improvements. I'm especially concerned by where the 60 day expiration of a voucher says 22% of all the people who have approved vouchers have expired after 60 days. And it may be in this tight housing market is very hard to find a suitable housing in 60 days. So I really think they'd appreciate if you could express that to the HUD officials. And somehow we need we've done doing our job, trying to help. And I think they just need to help us make changes that will improve the situation. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. French. Thank you, Kels. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, your backup.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to come full circle. I'm reminded that last week, during the public hearing, we did hear from Denver Housing Authority that all of the vouchers, that all the housing choice vouchers that they are authorized are being utilized. So it's not a question of if people aren't finding housing, it's because all of our vouchers are being used. And I'm reminded also that in the update we got today, that of the vouchers that have expired, we don't know the reason why they were expired. Mr. Guerrero told me before the meeting that it could be because of family situation or finding other suitable accommodations or some other such reason that that the vouchers have expired. But the fact that all of the vouchers that we're authorizing can fund are being utilized tells me that we do have some time before January 1st to to think this through and to come up with a mitigation and to work with those for whom this actually may be working a harm. Otherwise, it's entirely a good idea, and I support it completely. And if it were if it were balanced on both sides, I would gladly vote yes tonight, and I would gladly vote yes before January 1st on any sort of mitigation amendments that we can make to it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. I'll just add my thanks, Councilwoman, for your leadership and getting us here. I'm happy to support this bill tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Ortega Sussman.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. Two days.
Speaker 0: We get everybody. I think we're missing one. Oh, no, that's it. Sorry. Well, have a nice two days, Constable. 788, as amended, has passed. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to take out of order.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending Title 28, Article IV of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver regarding the prohibition of discriminatory practices in purchase and rental housing transactions on the basis of source of income.
Prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on buyer’s or renter’s source of income. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-18-18. Amended 7-30-18 to exempt people who rent out a single unit from the prohibitions in the bill.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0705
|
Speaker 0: We get everybody. I think we're missing one. Oh, no, that's it. Sorry. Well, have a nice two days, Constable. 788, as amended, has passed. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And, Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to take out of order.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 dash 0705 be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. If I can get a second. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: One woman.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Brooks Espinosa. Flinn I. Gilmore Herndon. Cashin Can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega. Sussman All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 1339 As comfortable 705 may be taken out of order. Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to pass.
Speaker 6: I move that council bill 18 dash 0705 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to postpone.
Speaker 1: I move that final consideration of Council Bill 705 with this public hearing be postponed to Monday, August 27th, 2018.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions or comments by members of council on this one? Councilwoman SUSSMAN.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. The postponement is requested to comply with notification requirements.
Speaker 0: Ah, right. Seeing no other questions or comments. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Sussman. Black Brooks. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I Herndon Captain Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting announce results.
Speaker 2: 3913.
Speaker 0: IES Final Consideration of Council Bill 705 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, August 27th. That concludes the items to be called out. Other bills for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5611 East Iowa Avenue in Virginia Village.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 5611 East Iowa Avenue from S-SU-D to S-RH-2.5 (suburban, single-unit to suburban, rowhouse) in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-10-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0668
|
Speaker 3: These photographs show some development around the site, including the there on the left hand side of the screen, in the middle of the parking lot directly to the south and the church. And then on the on the top right hand side of the screen is the cluster development to the northeast of the property. And then finally at the bottom right, there is a picture, a historic photograph of the of the structure itself. As I mentioned, the C f zone district allows suburban houses and it calls for deep setbacks and lower lot coverage that would typically characterize suburban development. And then this proposal also proposes establishing the U. O three historic structure use overlay at the site. The historic structure use overlays typically applies applied to sites and only is applicable to sites that are two structures that have been designated as a landmark by the city and county, and it permits limited commercial uses with the goal of encouraging the preservation of historic structures in neighborhoods. Those uses include limited office uses, not not including medical or dental offices, art studios and bed and breakfast lodging. And the overlay establishes limitations on parking signs and other events to to around events at the site to minimize impact on surrounding properties. There are quite a few neighborhood associations that are registered neighborhood organizations that consider the site to be within their boundaries. All have been notified several times through this process. We've not received any official public comment from Arnaud's. We did receive one appraisal document with a short email introduction from a neighbor and it has been included in the staff report. As you're aware, to adopt a rezoning, the Council must find that these five criteria in the Denver zoning code are met. With regard to the first consistency with adopted plans, this property is affected by two plans the comprehensive plan and Blueprint Denver. This proposed rezoning would further several comprehensive plan policies aimed at incentivizing the preservation of historic structures and landmarks in the city. The blueprint future land use proposed for the site is single family residential and it is an area of stability which, according to Blueprint, includes most of the city's residential neighborhoods and their associated commercial areas. And the goal for areas of stability are to identify and maintain the area, the character of these areas, while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. The waiver request in this case, staff feels, is justified because it would allow for the use of property that is just slightly smaller than what had been originally intended by the YOU oh three overlay. And Historic Preservation staff have noted that there are other structures around the city where perhaps adjusting this threshold may be appropriate and it is intended to be addressed on a larger scale in a future text amendment to the zoning code. With regard to the other criteria, this request will result in the uniform application of the CFA zone districts, building form, use and design regulations and the regulations of the historic structure use overlay. It will improve the will the general welfare of the community by facilitating the rehab and preservation of a historic structure while respecting the existing suburban development in the area. And staff agrees with the proposed justifying circumstance that it's in the public interest to apply an overlay here to allow for the rehabilitation and adaptive use of a unique historic structure that has been in nonresidential use for for many years. And then finally, this will this proposed rezoning will result in the establishment of the appropriate suburban neighborhood context, which is appropriate in this area for the single and multi-unit, residential and other and commercial use types found in this area and the pattern of suburban houses on larger lots. So with that, CPD recommends approval of this proposed rezoning based on a finding that all the review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. We have one person signed up to speak this evening, PJ Paterno. You have 3 minutes. Come on up to the podium. And if you could introduce yourself for everybody.
Speaker 9: I'm PJ Turner. I own the property. I'm happy to answer any questions. This is a property I've found after selling a property down the springs, which was actually about 15 years older than this 1900. So this is a child compared to this property I'm used to. An old property happened upon it. I thought it was cool. It spoke to me a little bit. I've been in the Greenwood Village Tech Center area for about 15 years of my business, which is 28 years old. Happy birthday, Leo. My birthday was Friday and was 28 years ago that I got into the business of wealth management. So we have, you know, clients around Denver in other states, actually just quite a practice in California. But we have limited employees. We're hiring actually somebody right now. But it's a great piece of property. I think it's going to be cool again. It was in disrepair, both the property, the grounds and I'm learning the actual building. But we're going to make a great again. I have people helping me and and giving a lot of proposals and trying to figure out ways to make it no longer a child care, but an adult care. Adult business. So happy to answer any questions. Actually the work you guys do having sat through the first part of this. So thanks for taking my little property on the tonight to and hopefully it works out for all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council Councilman Lopez. I actually think I.
Speaker 9: Accidentally push that button, so.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Mr. Potato, if you could come back just for one minute. You mentioned something about putting adult business in there. I don't think you meant that literally in terms.
Speaker 9: Of retract the statement. This is not. I just.
Speaker 4: Wanted to clarify.
Speaker 10: That. Yeah.
Speaker 9: I'm sweating on that one. Yeah. No, no, no, no. I didn't mean it in that regard.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks for.
Speaker 9: Paying such close attention.
Speaker 4: To clarification.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Andrew.
Speaker 8: Could you clarify something that became fuzzy during your presentation that I thought I understood the. The use overlay three can only be applied. Over a huge structure that is already landmarked.
Speaker 3: Thank you for asking for that clarification. It can actually be applied anywhere and it is applied around the city in places that do not have historic structures.
Speaker 8: But that's what I.
Speaker 0: Have.
Speaker 3: Uses can only be applied under the overlay to a historic.
Speaker 8: Structure. In a landmark structure.
Speaker 3: In a landmark.
Speaker 8: Structure, yes. Are we so in your opinion, are we doing this out of order? Because our next item is to landmark the structure. Should we not do that first or does that not matter?
Speaker 3: I, I don't believe it actually matters because if the if even if the you oh three overlay were applied and for some reason the landmarking was not adopted, the, the other three would not apply unless the landmarking had been accomplished as well.
Speaker 8: Okay. And the you oh three overlay can only be applicable to residential properties to residential zones. Is that true?
Speaker 3: I believe so. It's it's typically aimed at older residential properties. It was it was originally used to replace the R four zone from the from former Chapter 59. And it was applied around kind of around Cap Hill and places like that where there were kind of older mansions and other big buildings that they were looking for. Prior to the current zoning code, we're looking for creative ways to allow reuse of those of those old buildings. And the UO three was developed during the process of creating the current zoning code and applied there as well.
Speaker 8: So these limited to.
Speaker 3: Commercial residential.
Speaker 8: Uses, so these limited commercial uses could occur in residential structures that are in a unitary overlay but are not landmarked.
Speaker 3: Only those that are in the upper three overlay and our land earlier.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you for that clarify. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Seeing no other questions for a public hearing for Council Bill 668 is closed comments by members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. You'll hear more about this property during Kerry's presentation. But it's a cool, funky old house. It's actually in my neighborhood. And most of, you know, I live in a very suburban 1950s neighborhood. This house is very, very different. And we really lucked out with P.J. being interested in purchasing it and willing to landmark it. And I am actually doing this as a legislative rezoning so that he can have his office use in the neighborhood. So I hope everyone will support it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye. Brooks. Espinosa. Flinn Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and Nelson results.
Speaker 2: Sorry. There's somebody. There we go.
Speaker 0: 1339 as council bills 668 has passed calls from Gilmore. Will you put Council Bill six, eight, eight on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2900 South University Boulevard in Wellshire.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2900 South University Boulevard from S-SU-F to S-SU-F UO-3 (adding conservation overlay to existing zoning) with Waiver in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0688
|
Speaker 6: And move that council bill 18 0688 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been. Moved and seconded. And do we have a technical amendment for this one, Councilwoman Sussman? We for this one.
Speaker 2: So technical limit.
Speaker 0: All right. So, Councilwoman Sussman, will you offer your technical amendment?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, find out where it is. This one I was not told about. I move that council bills 18 dash 068 be amended in the following particulars on page one line 12 strike the date February 20th and replace with June 19th.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Susman?
Speaker 1: This technical amendment corrects the date of the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing for this designation.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Councilwoman Sussman. See no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary Rocca.
Speaker 2: SUSSMAN Right. Black. Brooks.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Katherine. Kinney. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please. Because the voting announced the results. 3939 as Council Bill 688 has been amended. The public hearing for Council Bill 688 is now open. May we please have staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening, council president, council members. This is four 2900 South University Boulevard for a landmark designation application. As Andrew just said, this is in Council District four in the Wiltshire neighborhood on the corner of University Boulevard and Bates Avenue. The property was constructed in 1926 prior to the incorporation into the city. PJ is the owner of this particular property. The current zoning is SBF and the request is for a landmark designation for this property. This was submitted to Glenmark in May. On the 21st, it went to planning board for the rezoning and then for the Landmark Preservation Commission for their approval, which was unanimous. Then went through Rudy Mayor Council at first reading and we are now at the public hearing as required by the landmark ordinance which was established in 1957. Sorry, it is required to meet the designation criteria in at least two of the following categories history, architecture and geography. To maintain its historic and physical integrity, which basically means it should look like what it used to look like. And it should be considered how it relates to a historic context or theme. This particular property, which was constructed in 1926, was through was for a dreamed of the development of the Wiltshire Park neighborhood. This was the first house that was developed with this neighborhood. You can see it on the 1925 Park Plat. This was also developed in coordination with and the developers coordinated with the Wiltshire golf course in an attempt to build an upscale neighborhood kind of in the southern part of Denver. This was developed by Elinor and Phil and Wider, who are developers within the city and county of Denver. They did the brawny Bonnie Brae development, and this was hoped to be a second version of Bonnie Brae just a little bit further south. They hired landscape architects to design the layout of the streets. It was intended that it was going to be multiple. Lots would be put together for larger homes. In 1925, owner took out a mortgage in order to help build this particular structure. He had planned to build more. However, he went out of business and so he sold this particular property and with sort of everyone else in the late 1920s when the Great Depression hit, it hit him as well. And so his business of the Wiltshire Park ended up going under and no other buildings were constructed as part of the Wiltshire Park development until after postwar. Into what we see today is more of a postwar suburb. So this property is representative of the initial dream of building the Wiltshire neighborhood but didn't really come into fruition except for this particular property. And the Wiltshire golf course. The Landmark Preservation Commission and staff feels that this meets the history criteria for the development of this of the city of Denver. The application also talks about it being a historic for its architectural style or type. This is a French eclectic style. It was constructed in 1926, and this particular style was brought back to the United States after World War One, after soldiers had been banned in France, and they brought this particular style back to the United States. It's rarely seen in Denver. It's been used more popular other places in the country, but it's rarely seen in Denver. Some of its defining characteristics are steeply pitched, complex, rough types, a lot of hipped dormers stucco walls and often seen as stone, used as sort of a whimsical detail, as if it's a French farmhouse. There are multiple pane windows and French doors and then entryways that typically are arched and stooped, but without a large porch in front of it. And so these are the character defining features of the French eclectic style as seen in this particular property. And finally, it is also significant for its geography and the geography of promoting and understanding the appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. This is both a rare and distinctive building for Denver and particularly for this part of the this part of Denver. The French, a collective style, is very unusual for Denver and extraordinarily rare in this particular area. And it's sitting on a very large lot in comparison to the other buildings that are around it that are smaller. One story ranch houses on smaller lots. And so this is both a distinctive style for the area and for Denver as a whole, as well as a rare as a as a style that's not seen on a large lot. After meeting all three of the criteria, our property still has to maintain its historic and physical integrity. Does it have the ability to convey its historic and architectural significance and being recognized as belonging to a particular place in time in Denver history? This is a photograph on the left taken in about 1935. It was given to the authors of this particular designation as they were doing the research from a former owner and resident of the property. And so you can see from the 1935 photo to today that the very the form of the building is still there. The application does note that there have been multiple additions to this particular building, but these additions are very small in scale. They're stuck structured, so they maintain the same compatible the same compatible material with the rest of the building. And there are small size and scale, and they're also easily removable. And so it still retains its historic integrity, even though there are a few small additions on the building. And finally, the Landmark Preservation Commission considered how the structure related to the historic context and themes in Denver history. This particular area was projected as an area of development and growth. It was initially started post-World War One when there were hopes that there were actually more materials available and people available to start building it. There was an initial part of the development or planning of it. But eventually, due to the decline and then bankruptcy of the owner business in the late 1920s, it did not get fully developed in sort of fits within the theme and context of the Great Depression. So the landmark staff in the Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met the criteria under history of having a direct association with the historical development of the city, that it reflected the architectural style of the French eclectic style and architecture, and that it met the geographical criteria as being both distinctively physical, distinctive physical characteristics, as well as being rare for the area that the property maintained its historic and physical integrity, and that the LPC considered how the structure related to the historic context and themes of Denver history and recommended approval for it.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. PJ Paterno, you are up for 3 minutes if you'd like it.
Speaker 9: Again. My name is PJ of Toronto. I'm going to watch my words more carefully this time. Again, I sold a property that was 1900 and purchases property. I never took the time, effort, energy to do their historical research last time. And I think there's price and cool characteristics of that building. So it was kind of fun to do it this time and learn a lot about the building. It's helping me get to the usage that I wanted. A little fun. Fact is, there's for the last 15, 16 years, it's been a daycare for autistic kids that which they used for the back doorstop for all those 16 years. As we were cleaning some things up, it looked very interesting to me and it turns out it was the missing Keystone piece above the door. So there's these lovely rocks that go around the door and there's one piece is just missing. And I've been trying to figure out to get somebody to fabricate. And all of a sudden I realize the back doorstop was that that piece. So one small improvement and hopefully lead to many others. It's cool property. I intend to you know again, anyone driving by it for many, many years will recognize it. The outside, I think it's a really great building. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for council Bill 688 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, thank you, P.J. Patino, for your willingness to buy this property and invest in it. Numerous people had looked into purchasing the property and they wanted to build townhomes there. And it wasn't something that would really fit into the neighborhood. It wasn't really desired by the neighborhood. And to find a buyer who was willing to land market and to spend the resources to restore it to its probably better than its original glory is really a gift to Denver and to the community because as we all know, a lot of historic buildings are being torn down. So I'm really, really thankful, P.J., for your willingness to do this. And thank you to all of you at CPD for helping with this. And my community is very excited about this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to vote yes on this tonight, but I do want to state that I don't concur with the. The history criterion have direct association with historical development of the city, state or nation because the subdivision never went forward. In fact, Wilshire Park is not even in our records. Was this part of Arapahoe County when it was subdivided? So we might not have the records, but it was recently it was replanted in, I think, 1955 as Southern Hills. And so nothing it's association. It's direct association with the historical development. The city is really zero. But I believe that it does qualify under to the two remaining categories. So I intend to vote yes on. I just wanted to state that I disagree with the historical finding.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Black, to you.
Speaker 1: I would like to respond to that. This the statistical neighborhood actually is Wilshire. And the Wilshire End still stands in the Wall Street golf course, and it's all part of the same community. So I disagree with you.
Speaker 8: As is your right.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, I guess you could argue that the fact that there is a different community and this is the one fragment to, you know, if it would have been significant, if it had succeeded, it's also sort of significant that it failed. It's sort of weird. It's all part of the history of that place, whether it looked all like these French structures or at all looks like what didn't happen. It's sort of interesting what we you know, what what traces and remnants we the tell tale of of of our of our location and our history as a city. Each iteration, what we sort of choose to to say is significant and what's not. But what is significant to me and worth commenting on is first, I want to thank you for for for pursuing this designation. But I also wanted sort of noted, I probably should have called you up to ask this question to sort of emphasize the point is that you made it very clear your financial your financial advisor, you run a series of companies or amalgamation of companies that all deal with money. And there's often this question about the value of preservation. And and and I would think that somebody who knows the numbers had done that math and said, hey, this makes sense for my business and for the long haul. And so so I hope that that's factored in. And I hope you do. I'm glad that you sort of postponed your improvements because you you know that there are some tax credits that will come along with this. And as you save those receipts, you'll be able to to to take those deductions year in and year out relative to that, unless you have giant receipts and you take them one year. But, you know, it's there is there is value to the structure. There's value to our place, our history, and there is value to the owner. And and I think somebody with this background on a property like this has made that that factored into that calculus part of the calculation and determined that it makes sense all around. And so thank you for for coming to that realization when others might not have, because generations down the road will sort of recognize this anomaly and go, how the heck did that get here? And what is that connection to other parts of this place, as Councilwoman Black noted. So thank you for doing that. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to add my thanks as well to Mr. Putnam for moving forward with this designation. I know this property so well, having driven by it for years and years, and it's one of those that you look at and go, wow, that that certainly has potential. But boy, it needs some love, needs a whole lot of love with 34,000 square feet, I think, and a large building. And Mr. Turner was actually directed an error to my office originally because he's right across the street from a District four, from my District six boundary in District four and had a chance to chat with him about his thoughts. And I thought it was a great idea then. Thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward. I think it's a it's something that is going to make South Denver better. So thank you, sir. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And seeing no other comments. Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 6: I move the council bill? All right, I move that council bill 18 068 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black eye. Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New Ortega assessment. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in those results. 3939 as comfortably. 688 has passed. As amended. Kalsoume Gilmer, will you please put Council Bill 699 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 2900 South University Boulevard, the Wellshire Park Cottage, as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 2900 South University Boulevard in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0699
|
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in those results. 3939 as comfortably. 688 has passed. As amended. Kalsoume Gilmer, will you please put Council Bill 699 on the floor?
Speaker 6: I move that council bill 18 dash 0699 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 699 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Effort with community planning and development. So we have a reserve request for two parcels in southeast Denver. I'm going to walk through staff's analysis of the request and our recommendation. So the two parcels are located in Councilor District four near our border with Aurora. In the Hamden neighborhood. So the following slide has a visual of what the request says because it's different by parcel. But this is kind of the overall. So it's a 22 acre to two parcels that include 22 acres, and it's a self-contained block. And the rezoning request is to go from R to A, which is an old code for Chapter 59, multi-unit zoned district. And I'll talk a little bit about what our two A means to go to SMU five and SMU eight. And I'll talk about what that means, of course. And the purpose is to accommodate an expansion, a rehab investment in the two parking garages that serve the multi-unit building and the sort of straddle the two parcel boundaries. Here is a visual of the of the actual request. So you'll hear throughout the presentation and your staff report the terms Wood Stream Village and Dayton Crossing. So that's what this means. So what stream village is the Eastern Parcel? And that is a request to go from R to A, so again, a multi-unit old code zone District two, SMU eight, which is suburban context, multi unit eight stories and then Dayton crossing of the properties outlined in yellow. And that request has to go also from R to A and to SMU five so suburban multi-unit five story for that parcel. So the existing zoning in the areas are to a and the surrounding properties, many of them are to as well. And then closer to Parker Road on this property is right off the Parker Road corridor is B2, which is also an old code zone district that's a nonresidential zone district. And you see some SMU three and you see OSA, which is open space, a city owned park nearby. So ah to a like I said, is an old code zone district. And so just some high level standards of what are to a mean. So maximum height is 110 feet and that zone district and there is a residential density cap built into that zone district of 1500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. And one funky thing that was going on with the R2 zone district you see prevalent in this area is that basically any development of any size had to do a plan building group. And so that is the case on these properties and surrounding properties. And I'll talk a little bit about what that means. So so there is a it's called the Wood Stream Village Plan Building Group. So essentially a plan building group is a sort of the short version is it's a site plan. So it's a site plan that sets forth building footprints, building heights, number of parking spaces, location of parking spaces. Basically everything that would go into a technical site planning exercise is contained in these plan building groups. So I think they work for the city for a while. And the and these were done around 1980. But there is some challenges with them because you really get locked into a specific development type and can't do a lot with the with these properties without amending the plan building group. So in terms of existing land uses, subject properties are multi-unit. Most of the surrounding properties are also multi-unit. But then you look closer to the Parker Road corridor. Then you get into the office uses and then the park certainly nearby. So have some images of both properties. And so just looking at kind of a 3D of both of them, you see the existing wood stream village property has, like I said, built in about 1980, has two and they're all connected, but it's essentially two 6 to 7 storey multi-unit buildings. And you look at the Dayton Crossing parcel built at the same time, 1981, I believe those are similar architectural style, but mostly four storey multi-unit buildings. I believe there's nine of them on those on the Dean crossing parcel. So images I've got an image library here that I'll go through, but images of the existing properties. So I'll start with Wood Stream Village. That's the six and seven story apartment building. So this is kind of the main entrance to Wood Stream Village. So you come in off of Harvard and there's access. You can get to it from Park Road and off of Dayton as well. And then just images on both sides. And you can see looking east and west on this public property, the this is the parking garage that is the subject of the Arizona request requesters that serves these adjacent multi-unit buildings. And they're looking to expand and rehab those parking structures. So just another image looking the other way. So this is behind the multi-unit building. And so images of Dayton crossing. So that's the Western parcel we were requesting to go to SMU five. So similar architectural styles. This is the main entrance coming in to that development. Mostly four story multi-unit buildings with tuck under parking and then looking on the side. And so on to some images of. So those are existing images of the existing castle. These are the surrounding properties we're about to look at. So for Wood Stream Village, in terms of what surrounds it. So this is looking east toward the Parker Road corridor. So it's immediately adjacent to a fairly large office complex. So you see the parking garages that serve the office complex that fronts on Parker Road actually doesn't have access of Parker Road. You have to come off of Harvard or Dayton. But you see a pretty large office building up to nine stories, and it transitions down from there, down to four stories of a Parker Road. And then the images of the surrounding context really reflect the suburban development pattern in the era that these were built in and in the 1980s. So mostly four storey and three storey multi-unit buildings. So looking west and most of these have that are to a with the plan building group restriction. So each of them have their own sort of specific site plan that is pretty prescriptive. So that was Woods Stream Village. This is Dayton Crossing. Images of the surrounding properties so very similar. A three and four story, some two story multi-unit buildings. So this is looking west. You see some pretty generous setbacks with some landscaping buffers that kind of reflect the suburban context. Looking north. And looking south. So we have followed our normal rezoning process. Planning Board on June 6th unanimously recommended approval of the request and then Ludie on June 26th recommended that the request move forward. There is no neighborhood specific registered neighborhood organization and we have not received any public comments on the requests. So I'll go through each of the criteria briefly to kind of see stuff's analysis and recommendation. So there is no neighborhood plan, there is no area specific plan. So we only have citywide plans to guide us here. So that means comprehensive plan and blueprint. Denver. So looking at the conference plan first. So staff started to policies in the comp plan one related to the policy to encourage redevelopment. So the evolution of these housing developments to meet the diverse needs of Denver's present and future residents. And then also to look at encouraging infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. So staff finds their requests consistent with these policies, mostly because through this rezoning request and through getting sort of getting out of that old code custom zoning framework, that's been really challenging for them. It would encourage the, you know, the reinvestment and the rehab of these properties. So these buildings being about 38 years old probably need a little bit of a facelift. And then in terms of the character of the surrounding neighborhood, looking at the existing conditions of seven story buildings, four story buildings on the properties, and then looking at the surrounding context closer to Parker Road in particular, where you go up to a nine storey office building staff finds that consistent with that character. So in terms of blueprint. Denver So the designations are one area of stability into a single family duplex feature land use concept. So the purpose of the area of stability designation is to maintain the character of an area while encouraging some new development at appropriate locations. And in the single family duplex does include some language addressing that some apartment buildings may be appropriate in that land use. So looking at its location too, in terms of it being an appropriate location. So you have Parker Road right there, which is an enhanced transit corridor with pretty good bus service. And then Dayton Way is a residential collector. Staff does find the request consistent with Blueprint Denver in the sense that it is encouraging reinvestment at an appropriate location relative to those corridors. And then there are some blueprint Denver policies related to essentially promoting getting rid of a lot of these custom old code zoning scenarios that would create some challenges. So staff finds it consistent with those policies. So in terms of the second criteria, uniform of district regulation staff finds it consistent in that it will result in uniform application of standards under the new zone districts across the across the site. Criteria three staff finds the request consistent with the policy to further public health, safety and welfare because it will implement adopt plans by supporting reinvestment in a approximately 38 year old multi-unit complex for residential development. And so in terms of a justifying circumstance, we actually just passed a code change some of you may know, whereas going from an old code to a new code zone district in itself is a justifying circumstance. So that finds it consistent with that criteria. And then the last criteria staff also finds the request consistent with the suburban neighborhood context. Because when you look at the description of the the suburban neighborhood context, it speaks a lot to large setbacks, mid-rise building forms, and then a separation of these multi-unit residential developments from single family. And so that's consistent with what's there today. So I think the zoning would would better match what's there today than what's currently on the on the ground in terms of zoning. So staff does recommend approval of the requests and I'm happy to answer any questions. I know the applicant is here for questions as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We do have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Richard Sidorov, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 7: My name is Rich Cicero if I'm the architect applicant for coal rich communities, American Institute of Architects. The owner originally pursued this rezoning because the two existing structured parking buildings there are two stories apiece and have 200 cars. These are dilapidated and need to be either heavily rebuilt, rehabilitated or removed. So as part of that process of design exploration that they will be interested in exploring potentially rebuilding those two parking garage structures and putting apartment units on top. Happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, this is actually a question for Councilwoman Black, for since I've been on here, this is the first time we've had three public hearings for my council District four. And I just wanted to know, are you finally happy that you're getting more for four? That's actually a question. It's not a comment.
Speaker 10: Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to support all of these this evening, but there are other things I'm told when I say I want.
Speaker 5: More, I'm sure.
Speaker 0: I'm sure that it comes from Brooklyn. All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: My question is for city staff. I'm sorry, I forgot your first name. Yes, chef. So to do something with the garage is why they had to go through this process.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think in the applicant could speak to it more, but I think that's what spurred the request. In terms of looking at so I mentioned that plan building group that really restricts the parking garages to their current footprint. So I think that was part of their exploration is realizing they need to amend or eliminate that plan building group. And as part of that, just getting out of the old out of the old code into the new code is something that we support. So. So an applicant could speak more to that, probably, but.
Speaker 4: Okay. I'd like to ask you, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So is the plan to only deal with the garages and then build above them and keep the existing structures?
Speaker 7: The the intent is to build on the footprint of the two existing garages, which likely have to be removed because of structural remediation. And in doing so, there's an opportunity because the parking requirements under the new zoning afford additional multiple units to be constructed. They would research putting some additional multi units on top of the garage as part of the reconstruction of the garage. The garage, the lower levels of the garage are poorly planned and have poor circulation connections to the existing two towers. And as part of the garage reconstruction, there's an opportunity to enhance the quality and connections.
Speaker 4: So any of the other structures that are on the property are not being proposed to be level than redo the entire site?
Speaker 7: None. None of the multi-unit buildings, just the two precast concrete parking garage.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that clarification. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Jeff, can you go to slide four? And this is because I'm not sure we're trying to connect. It's it's the one that shows that has in big, bold letters on the lower right corner parking structure. So it's go all the way to the very beginning right there at this point there. Yeah. Okay. Purpose to accommodate expansion of parking structures. So this is a follow up to Councilwoman Ortega's question, because I am struggling a little bit with your with your comprehensive plan justification slide. So is it or isn't it a foregone conclusion that you will be putting housing on top of the structures?
Speaker 0: Not if you could come up to the microphone, please.
Speaker 7: No, it's not a foregone conclusion. It's simply that they'd like to explore that through the rezoning.
Speaker 5: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Accountable 699 is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Council woman black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Jeff, thanks for pointing out that there's no neighborhood plan, so you don't have to get out, that there's no neighborhood plans. And Councilman Brooks, that's what I'm talking about when I say more for four. There is not one neighborhood plan in my entire district, nor is our neighborhood planning initiative coming down there any time soon. So that's what I'm talking about. So thanks for bringing that up. This neighborhood doesn't have a neighborhood identity either. It doesn't have a name. And I am affectionately calling it the Green Triangle, even though it is actually not a triangle. But it just sounds good. It's very cool. It does have Parker Road and Havana on two sides, but it also has the Highline Canal, the Cherry Creek Trail, which intersect right there. The Cherry Creek Reservoir and State Park is very close. Kennedy golf course is right there. Hensel Park is right there in Barre Park, which is an exceptionally beautiful park, is right there. That's all in that neighborhood. There's also a brand new school. It's got all kinds of housing at all different levels, at different price points. And when I say in committee meetings that we have, you know, more affordable housing or attainable housing prices in my district, this is one complex that has those kinds of rents that people can actually afford. So I'm happy to support it, of course. And who knows, maybe we will get some more housing down there also. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yes. I'd just like to say I'll be supporting this based upon the criteria that's in front of us. But what I really chipped in was to say, you know, I just contacted all the presidents in District nine and they'd be happy to give you some of our plans because of the development issue. So we're happy to support that. And I did hear from Councilman Espinosa that you have a lot of PBDEs, and so you got you got some good stuff going on down there.
Speaker 10: These are bad.
Speaker 0: Things. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. What I meant by that is know, instead of neighborhood plans, what they have is very, very, very planned zoning that are very deliberate. Now we're trying to reverse that. The so just to my questions, I'm just going to comment on it because we don't. The way the plan. I mean, the rezoning was justified. Makes sense. If we smack on the early in the presentation that the purpose is for a parking structure and then our planning justification is about encourage housing. That's where it's a little bit discombobulated for me. You know, it's one thing to get rid of old zoning because they want to do a replacement structure and they want to break themselves free of those shackles that are there. But then we should just talk generically. You know, we always don't talk about specific projects. And here we opened with a specific project, but then justified it for the right reasons. But then, you know, and so I was really struggling the whole time until the property owner mentioned that there might be housing on top of it. And then I was like, Oh, there's where the housing comes in. But then to find out that that's really an afterthought and not a primary factor. I'm sitting here struggling with with how this is congruent. And so this is one of those situations where I wish I knew less about the proposal going into it, because it is ultimately the right justification and the right zoning to get to these outcomes. But now, without the TBG, Councilwoman Black knows less about the future of this property than she did with the PBGC. And so as restrictive as PBDEs are, they do lend a heck of a lot of predictability and did some 38 years ago, as you know . And now we're going into a situation we're giving carte blanche on zoned districts with the very, very limited, you know, limited things that form base zoning does, which could be all parking structures in filled here, you know. And so so so to her point, definitely in support future endeavors for planning efforts to help better guide how these new zone districts are used in her district. But so that is a long way to say what I just said. But I think you follow me on this one and I will be supporting it because because broadly speaking, it is the appropriate zoned district for this property. But in the specifics, I was sort of struggling with it things.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 2: Black crooks. Brooks. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon in Cashman. Carnage. Lopez knew Ortega. Sussman Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please. Because the voting announced the results. 3939 as Council Bill 699 has passed seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Kelly.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 10050 & 10150 East Harvard Avenue and 2570 South Dayton Way in the Hampden neighborhood.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone land at 10050 East Harvard Avenue, 10150 East Harvard Avenue, and 2570 South Dayton Way from R-2-A to S-MU-5 and S-MU-8 (residential in the former zoning code to suburban, mixed-use) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07302018_18-0621
|
Speaker 0: Yeah, he's. He's good on the. So under Bill's introduction, no item has been called out under Bill's for final consideration. No item has been filed out under pending. No items have been called out. Did I miss anything? All right. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put out one item which is 621 up on our screens? And Councilman Cashman, go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So I wanted to let folks know this otherwise innocuous looking contract marks the beginning of Denver's new neighborhood sidewalk repair program. This is the first time in our we've been building sidewalks throughout our city for, I don't know, somewhere around 150 years. And at no point during that last century and a half have we marshaled our troops and gone around the city to see what kind of condition these sidewalks are in. And I think if you're someone who takes a stroll occasionally anywhere in the city and county of Denver, you've noticed that our sidewalks are in a state of disrepair that needs to be corrected. So what the Department of Public Works has put together is a comprehensive program. We've divided the city into 11 regions. In early August, our inspectors are going to begin going block by block in the western section of Region One, which is, I believe, part of Councilman Clark's district, mainly a councilman news district. They'll go block by block, citing homeowners with trip hazards that need to be repaired. We've gone out of our way to increase the low cost repairs that homeowners can make on their own if they choose to not do it on their own. This shadow's concrete is our vendor that will go out and make the repairs. We will bill the homeowner. If the homeowners are meet certain income guidelines, there's a reduced price available on the repairs, extended payment options. The goal is not to be punitive on any individual property, but to create a system of pedestrian passages that allow us to actually get out and walk comfortably about our city and especially needed for anybody with any degree of mobility impairment, especially our brothers and sisters in wheelchairs. And I'd like to give a special shout out to Matt Bryner and his team at Public Works, who we've been talking about this program for about a year and a half , and we were all set to go in early April until it got to that point of, well, exactly how are we going to do this? And doing repairs in a built environment is a challenging scenario. And Public Works is has done a wonderful job of getting us ready to hit the ground running. So I thank them for the work they've done and hope everyone will be patient as this program unfolds. As I say, it's the first time we've ever done this. And if unforeseen problems crop up, we'll address those. And we hope to move forward and have our city in fine shape in the coming years. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. That concludes 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 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 Espinosa, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move, the 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 18 06300658076207570758075159076307640774062107761. Sorry, I may start that one over 07610652066406610731073207360747062807300737073807440729 and 0805.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded that we get them all. Madam Secretary. All right, Madam Secretary, please look all black.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashin Carnage. Lopez.
Speaker 1: I knew.
Speaker 2: Ortega. Sussman Right. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: LEVIN Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 686 approving the service plan for the creation of the football stadium Metropolitan District and a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 788 prohibiting discrimination based on source
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Chato's Concrete, LLC for neighborhood sidewalk repairs.
Approves a contract with Chato’s Concrete, LLC for $995,214.00 and for one year for phase 1 of the Neighborhood Sidewalk Repair Program (201841147). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-20-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-17-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07302018_18-0686
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Espinosa, will you put Council Bill 686 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 18 0686 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Councilor Bill 686 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Take it away.
Speaker 11: Good evening. My name is Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance. I'm here to give you the staff report on the new metropolitan district. It's a Council Bill 686 Series 2018 four, an ordinance approving a service plan for a new metropolitan district titled Football Stadium Metropolitan District. The service plan is being submitted to City Council for approval on behalf of the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. Pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act, sections 32, dash one, desk 201 and more particularly 32. Dash one, dash two or 4.5. The land on which the football stadium and its parking lots are built is owned by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, which is created pursuant to the state statutes. This is the Seven County District created to initially fund the existing stadium with a sales tax. The sales tax supporting the stadium expired in December 31, 2011, when its related debt was paid off. The stadium is 18 years old and leased by the Denver Broncos and Stadium Management Company, LLC. The purpose of the new development on the Southern parking lots that will continue to be owned by the football stadium district is to create a sustainable revenue stream over time to contribute towards capital improvements and repairs at the stadium without having to go to the taxpayers for additional funding. The sustainable revenue stream will come from the long term ground leases that developers pay to build on the land. The new Metropolitan District will facilitate the needed public improvements and financing required to prepare the southern parking lots for vertical developers. The new Metropolitan District will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation, all streets. Safety. Protection. Water. Sewer, storm. Drainage. Transportation and park and recreation facilities. The new metropolitan district will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authorities granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges. The new metropolitan district will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the discretion of the city. The total estimated costs for the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately 146 million. In order for the new metropolitan district to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide the funding for the upfront costs of the public improvements needed in the service area, the new metropolitan district shall have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. The new metropolitan district will have the ability to impose up to ten of the 50 authorized mills to raise revenue for operations and maintenance at the completion of the current Plan for development for development projects. An estimated population of up to 2000 people in 2022 and include up to 3.5 million square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space, which will provide for a long term recurring income stream to support football, stadium repairs and capital improvements. Under the supervision of the football stadium district, who will continue to own the stadium and the property, the planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley and the West Side neighborhoods with transit corridors and the South Platte River, including park and riverfront enhancements. The planned development is located in the city's 2013 Decatur Federal Area Plan and conforms with the Area Plan's recommendations to create a year round mixed use site and to improve connectivity within the service area. The new metropolitan district is not currently located within an urban renewal area. The new metropolitan district will cooperate with the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, Stadium Management Company to support and strengthen the long term viability of the stadium facility. The approval of the service plan establishes the following. There is sufficient existing and projected need for an organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and projected needs. The district is capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and the service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Staff is here and recommends approval of the service plan. The applicant, their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to any questions you might have regarding this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you are sitting in this front bench and you're not speaking on this issue, I'd ask you to please make room for our speakers. I'm going to call up the first five speakers, and I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. If you could make your way to the front bench as soon as I call your name, there will be a slight delay to give you time to get to the podium and then your time will start. So our first five are Michael Pierce, Jerry Leslie, Tor Gorski, Rudolph Gonzalez, Craig Umba and Mack Freeman. And Michael, you're up first.
Speaker 10: I'm Michael Persichetti with RBC Capital Markets 1801 California Street, Suite 3815. I'm just here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. Next up, Leslie Tarkowski.
Speaker 1: I thank you, counsel, for hearing my comments. My name is Leslie.
Speaker 12: Terry.
Speaker 1: Gorski, and I'm standing before you as director of the Federal Boulevard Business Improvement District. We are so supportive and excited about the concept of development in the Broncos stadium and I was asked to be.
Speaker 12: Part of the stakeholder.
Speaker 1: Group and our first public meeting. My job was to stand at one of the boards where we got to hear feedback of what people wanted to see in here on Federal Boulevard, and we heard nothing but positive comments. In fact, in the weeks since this has been going on, I have yet to hear one negative comment about the concept of developing this stadium. I will continue to work on the public outreach. We're very excited. And I do want to give a big thank you to Councilman Lopez and Councilman Espinosa. When this started, we were very concerned that the master plan would be limited to the actual property line. And with the help of Jason Whitlock and Karen Goode and Public Works, they have drawn the plan to include thoughtfully West Colfax Federal Boulevard and the surrounding neighborhoods. So we can have a more holistic view and not just not just have all these different plans that are not talking to each other. So again, we're very excited and we thank the Broncos for bringing much needed development to Federal Boulevard.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Rudolph Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Hello. Thank you. City council names Rudolph Gonzales. Rudy Gonzalez. I'm the executive director of Servicios de la Raza right there on 14th and Grove, serving primarily West Denver. But I'm also coming to you as a committee member of the redesign committee for the West Colfax Clover Redesign Committee. What, Dan? So I'm first, I want to thank Councilman Lopez for his invitation to sit on this committee and to do more work. But it's important. I think this committee was very inclusive. I saw representation from the Sun Valley Housing from GI Forum, which has been a long time entity right there on Colfax and 17th, and other Latinos and Latinas who sat on this committee and worked at these meetings. And I'm here in support of this bill. And but I also want to city council to remember that when this comes to reality that we are talking about not just affordable housing, but low income housing to augment the 333 units at Sun Valley, we need more. And that's why I'm also on the West Colfax Clover Redesign Committee, because there's a lot of acreage there that also can be some of that dedicated to low income housing. We need that in Denver to keep our diversity. Thank you also for the rezoning. Right. We await the rezoning on this property. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Craig Omar.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Craig. I'm bar 1601 Water Street. I'm here as general counsel for the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. We are in support of the creation of this new special district. This, as Andrew did, a great job of describing this. It is an attempt to put into place the financing for the infrastructure that will allow us to do and look at development on the south parking lot. We are doing this as one of the many ways to try to generate. I think our estimates are over the next 30 years will need 500 to $700 million to maintain the stadium as the first class stadium it is today. So I'm also available to answer any questions.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And next up is Mack Freeman. And then if we could make room on this front bench for our last speaker, David Roy Moore will be next.
Speaker 13: Go ahead, you guys. Good evening and thank you for your time. I'm Mack Freeman, the chief commercial officer for the Denver Broncos, and I reside at 758 Franklin Street in Councilman News District. I'm here obviously in support of this bill. I think as you've heard from a couple of previous speakers, we have a daunting challenge maintaining the the taxpayer owned asset in the stadium. It's 20 years old. It's getting it's getting older. It's getting more expensive to manage. And as Craig said, we've done a deep facility dove and it's about 500 to $700 million over the next 25 years. This effort is to is to try and preempt a real problem and solve it now and and why the metro district in particular is so important to what we're trying to do is our project does not have a for profit developer involved yet. This is something we're trying to do with the community. And obviously from the Broncos standpoint, this needs to be a really important focus that we're able to operate and deliver a great gameday experience for our fans during periods of disruption. So the Metro District formation allows us the early funding to get ahead of certain things. Infrastructure wise, the most important for our forward operating is the parking. We need structured parking built before we can start addressing the surface lodge that that we plan to to develop on. I think, you know, this is sports facilities being used as as demand generators is happening all around the country. Atlanta, Tampa, Boston, L.A., Detroit, Dallas, San Fran. Many other cities are using the same plan of using the demand generator to support a new development around them. AS And thank you all for your time individually. We've had a chance to discuss these face to face, but this is a unique development and the revenue generated from these ground leases are going right to the Metropolitan Football Stadium tourist district. None of this money is going to the Broncos. And as much as I appreciate their compliment, we're trying to be to be a instigator of this development. But we are not a for profit developer. We don't have any desire to be we're trying to run this process the right way. We're involved in a in a really great public process. You heard about some of the comments about how positive they've been. They've also had phenomenal turnouts. I think we had in excess of 160 people at a stadium meeting. So we're getting great engagement from the community. And again, I'm running out of time. I just say, you know, I appreciate your your consideration. I humbly ask for your support. And I think we'd like to be a part of. Delivering Denver's next great neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker, David Roybal.
Speaker 3: David Roybal, where's Denver United? Live in Lincoln Park West, 9742 Avenue. And I just want to bring up you know, I've been there since beginning since Mike Nichols Arenas is Mile High Stadium Sports Walk. I mean, that's my neighborhood. Born and raised and growing up there, I feel that you can have fun as a kid, the community had more fun with less money. There was always events going on. Now it's expensive. Can't even afford a Bronco game, can't even afford concerts. I mean, look at all that that's going on now. I mean, the Sun Valley redevelopment, Federal Boulevard redevelopment, it kind of seems that, you know, why did it take up to this time to do it? You know, when Sun Valley was going through so much change, having the highest crime rate nine years ago, you know, I mean , that's a big thing. Not one thing was brought up about that. I mean, it's the same neighborhood. But is this going to bring the neighborhood? Is it going to bring stronger? I mean, how are the residents in Sun Valley? Are they going to be able to benefit, start their own businesses? Is there going to be more affordable housing there? Because remember, just ten years ago, people really want to park their car down there. Now, it's a culture shock. It's the other way around. I mean, look at how much has changed. And I just hope that the history and the culture is represented within this. And when they say community, I hope it is a business community. Is it the homeless community? Is it who is it when they say community, if people could be more specific and I'll speak it for the people that's been removed. My grandma lived in the Sun Valley for 52 years and I know lots of people that's been moved out and I just hope that the new generation can benefit from this change and that the people set the right example for the youngsters to stop seeing it as money and being about greed. Because it's more than that. They're putting all this money in all this project, 2000 people. And then on top of that, the Pepsi Center property, they're going to put housing there. Like, is that bringing unity? Is that bringing in new people? Is that, you know, where's the culture? Where's the history? I hope that's represented very well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Mr. President, I wanted to actually bring my Chris Parker. I see you over there with the. Chris has been involved. You've been involved just to the south with with the with Sun Valley, the planning in Sun Valley. I know the answer to this question, but I think for the record, and just for the folks who are here and watching at home that can be here, in a nutshell, what's going to happen in Sun Valley? Our folks who are living there and there's a lot of question this is a serious question from folks, our folks who are living, they're going to be displaced. Are we redeveloping it? And if if we are redeveloping it, what's going to happen? Are we pushing people out? I know the answer to this question, but I want you to address it because you've been working on it for quite a while. And I want folks to hear it in the chambers. What the intent is in the future of Sun Valley. I think Council Chris Parker, Director, Sun Valley District Trust, working in partnership with Denver Housing Authority, is my guest here as well. Thank you. And you're exactly right. I think we counted up a little while ago. We're about I think we're in our eighth year of planning in the Sun Valley neighborhood. And that was born about with the of federal stationary plan process. When that started, that really activated the overall planning process with Sun Valley. And I think that's the key is that we realize that we can't just look at, you know, drop a drop of station in, but we have to look at the whole neighborhood and really look at what the dynamic is. And, you know, we really know looked at Sun Valley. It's about six years of overall larger disinvestment. And so we're missing many services. So I think I think that's something we hear. It's deprived of services. We have concentrated poverty in Sun Valley homes. And, you know, but the flipside is the neighborhood is very vibrant, it's very proud. And it's it's been a really interesting process to work with the neighborhood and go to that. I think the key is at the end of the day, because we have we always call it the gift of time with the planning process, that this has not been a story about redevelopment coming in and then what happens with affordable housing, but it's been affordable housing led process. That's been the conversation from day one is what does it look like with development where we start with the conversation around affordable housing and then how does redevelopment occur from there? So to answer specifically with your question, so many homes, approximately 333 units of Sun Valley homes are public housing. And this gives us the opportunity with the land that's available as well to come in and triple that density. And so we are more than doubling the affordable housing and that will come at different scales with AMMA using low income housing tax credits apparently through the Denver Housing Authority, but then also with private development coming in through social impact financing as well, bringing additional affordable housing. And so I think that's that's the key that we're looking we come in and triple or quadruple the density because some valley homes itself right now is very low density site and then opportunities there. But it's actually an opportunity increase. And for all the residents here, there, they, of course, have the right first the right to return as well and the opportunity to try to develop to the greatest extent possible offsite. You know, again, there will be there will be demolition, displacement at times. But I think that that's the point, is that we can bring back that housing a much more vibrant structure. So you're looking at I mean, and Chris, quickly on a third, which is 333 units of public housing right now, DHP operator owned and operated public housing, those are being replaced 141141. Not just the units, but the bedrooms. Okay. Yeah. Then you have the other. So we're looking at tripling was just tripling for example. What are the other two like the other if we were to divide into three, what are the other two. Is that all market rate is just 33 unit 333 units market rate or is there affordability and market rate mixed in? And what's the purpose of that? Yeah. And then next that next bucket of affordable housing is going to be blended with 40, 50, 60% of the area median income. So that's true. That's usually in predominately the low income housing tax credit program. And again, those will be developed directly by the Denver Housing Authority, which they can speak to as well. And then with market rate. And I think that's part of the to the next group is market rate and that brings more disposable income to the neighborhood. But many times that market is comprised of workforce housing as well. So I think it's very, very important understand that this product is delivered in a mixed income format. So it's not it's not bifurcated with different buildings, but it's mixed income throughout. So that's a rough description. Okay. Thank you. And, Mr. President, if I may ask one more person to come up, and I appreciate that. But, Mr. Freeman, if you want to come up Macarena, can you talk a little bit about the process and this you talked about a seamless neighborhood. I we sit on the steering committee. We help, you know, we're helping participate. It's very exciting. Folks are mentioning things like affordable housing. They're mentioning things like, you know, jobs, things especially affordable housing right now in this crisis. What kind of commitments, what are what's at the table with the intent in terms of what happens on the district? And I think this is something that also the metropolitan football stadium district wise, want to. Answer that question as well, too. You're welcome to as well.
Speaker 13: Thank you for asking that question because I think I would love to have more concrete answers because, you know, we're still in our public process until we know what we're able to build. It's tough to talk about specific units or or the specific benefits. I think we're maybe two months away from being able to do that. But what I what I think I've said to every one of you is we're committed to making this a brilliant opportunity for our neighborhood. This this is a neighborhood that that I personally have driven to work in for 20 years. I worked at the old stadium and I've been there since we opened the new one. We we have we have always tried to be good neighbors. We want this development to be the thing that, as Chris Bar talked about, this Sun Valley has been sort of isolated from everything. What we can do, we can connect through the gulch to them, the bike paths. There's so many things we can do to to break down the walls that have sort of isolated that neighborhood. Again, as as you get to specifics relative to affordable housing, I've several of you, when we had face to faces challenged me on that directly. And, you know, without knowing the numbers yet I don't want to get over my skis and make promises that we can't deliver on. But I can tell you, the first thing we're going to do is try and figure out whether we can exceed some of the requirements. I know. I know. You know, we're going to get our feet held to the fire when we get to the zoning aspect of this. I get it. But I think, you know, our plan is to come to you when we get to that window and you're going to hopefully look at us and go.
Speaker 3: Wow, all right.
Speaker 13: You meant what you were saying. And so that's that's how we're operating again, until we know. You know, we've tried to again, our process has been really unique. We're not backing into the square footage of development based on what we bought the land for and the ROI we needed to return. We've backed into this rough three and a half million square foot number based on what the street and the traffic and those studies suggest the system can support. So we're trying to do this the right way and not not be guided by financials or anything, you know, specific to to return. We're trying to do what makes sense here. And I think, as I said, we're I've been in a number of public processes going back to when we built the stadium. And I would say the positive engagement that we've had in these public meetings and steering meetings is unprecedented from everything we've seen. And I think that's because we're not we're not going in with a plan and trying to jam it down anyone's throat. We are we are truly we want we want this process to tell us what some of these community benefits are so that I answer that appropriately.
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll hold my rest of my questions because I know the council members are trying to write.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: So, yeah, I apologize first to my colleagues, but I do have a ton of questions and I'll do the same thing. I'll start some and then defer. But it's along the lines of to whom much is given, much is expected. And so I you were right. And Mac, in saying, we know we're going to get our feet held to the fire. So my questions are going to primarily to get things on the record here in this public hearing so that, yeah, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire if I'm still here when this all starts coming to fruition. With that said, the first is this is not I'm not putting you on the skewer here, Chris, but I do have some questions based on your comments. You know, you're doing a mixed use development in the eco district. You know, is there if you've seen the makeup of this, what's in the service plan, the 2000 units versus three and a half million square feet of nonresidential, primarily commercial hotel retail? You know, will that be a you know, how will that impact the plans for the eco district? And your commercial viability there as well.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I want to make sure I answer the question appropriate so I'll I'll answer it in this way that I think, again, going back to the fact that we've had a handsome time process associated with this because we've had a great opportunity through the community process to going back to the stationary plan, to talk to the community and think about what the comprehensive development looks like. You know, I think we need to include obviously not just the affordable housing piece, but, you know, we as we say, a lot of words that don't sometimes land on plans, but they don't have the time to come up with strategic planning around it. So we talk about jobs without the hot buttons, affordable housing jobs, transit, lowering utility costs, things like that. By looking at this as an overall district, I think the same decision. The Broncos have been a fantastic partner in that conversation. They've allowed us to bring our conversation about development to them over the years. And so right now we are a point of at a point of many years deep in the conversation. So when we see what could be here, we don't want we want to look at this as a overall holistic neighborhood. So not every single site has to solve every single problem. And I think that's why we look at the whole area as a district. You said, how does it work as a district? We're excited because this technically you talk about the square footage of commercial that puts jobs within walking distance to all the residents in Sun Valley . So that's a very key piece. Now, is the plan done? Know that that's what Mack's referencing, that we need to get into a lot of details. A lot of things have not been figured out, but that opportunity is exactly what we want to look for, for that type of holistic, well, well-rounded development.
Speaker 5: What worries me in that response is a lot of words and nothing about how you might actually structure some sort of agreement so that you don't get a situation where it's an us and them situation. Because that's part of the historic problem in and in Sun Valley. To David's points originally and what your comments about 60 years of disinvestment is if you're doing mixed income development, the idea was, is you have a fully healthy community in the eco district. But if there's if there's a market segment that migrates to something north of Colfax and the residual properties in your development just cater to the lower end. How do we how are we structuring something so that actually there are some some some sort of cross-pollination of those two development and enterprise opportunities, not just in jobs, but in actual service and community. And and and so I don't hear that in, in your eight years of planning and whatever has transpired thus far. And that's concerning to me.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's never been part of the conversation. So I think there's a lot of details in the plan. So I think that's if we need to do a deeper dove on what that looks like. But again, they're starting their planning process. But that's always been a piece of our conversation. And why specifically, Councilman, to your point, there has been a separation physically across the neighborhood. We've done a lot of work among the parties, but also with the city and looking at different land utilization. So how do we start to close that gap, how we activate the station and take away this North-South barbell effect and actually close that gap physically because the physicality and making a walkable neighborhood is a big piece of that equation as well. But everything you're talking about is definitely in our conversation. I think we're excited to bring forward what that would look like. Great.
Speaker 5: So the thing we're holding to the fire is the connection and that in that and everything you just said there. Okay. Thank you. You can do. So, Andrew, sorry, does the city need. So you talked about why the service plan. So does the city need this facility? Why or why not?
Speaker 11: So the question I heard was, does the city need the metropolitan district? Why and why not the facility?
Speaker 5: So you said that the service plan, the metro district is there to, you know, to essentially support a service. I forget how you actually worded it in your presentation, but it's there. We're doing this metro district for a reason. Or are you just talking about for the purpose of the infrastructure?
Speaker 11: Yeah. So that so there's two metropolitan districts there, right. One one is the one that was used to help the seven counties and they used had a tax issue, sales tax issue across the seven counties to help support the repayment of the debt that built the original stadium. That that tax is sunset. Now, we are looking at putting a new metropolitan district on top of that metropolitan district that was existing. And that one is going to be used to impose a series of property taxes to help pay for the bonds that will then have proceeds that will be used to put infrastructure in place that will allow for vertical construction. The ground leases that will be used to go towards that will come from the vertical development, will be used to help support a capital program at the stadium, which will then give it a sustainable revenue stream for capital improvements going forward. So the purpose of the metropolitan district, that's a floor before you today is a really an infrastructure financing tool.
Speaker 5: So that's what I'm saying. So it's all financing this this the maintenance and operation of the stadium. So do we need the stadium? Why or why not?
Speaker 11: Do. Does a city need a stadium?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 11: If you want to have an NFL football team to have a place to play, then you would need a stadium.
Speaker 5: So okay. Now that gets back to your other answer. So actually, the state didn't pay for the stadium. The seven counties did. So the seven counties built this facility. Do they similarly? Do they? So they obviously also they need it. So what is their mansion? 146 million? Towards this end.
Speaker 11: So the question I think I'm hearing from you is what is the infrastructure that this stadium metropolitan district is matching? Is that the question here? So the stadium metropolitan district, which is the existing stadium, just because there's so many stadium districts being set here today, the existing stadium district has no revenue stream. And so without that sits, it doesn't have a revenue stream. We're putting the new proposed metropolitan district in place to create that revenue stream. So there is no if you want to say to looking forward to the new infrastructure that's being put into place, there is no match coming from the existing metropolitan state stadium district.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. And so then I the rest of my questions are towards Mal, actually. Is the stadium district property subject to property taxes?
Speaker 11: So it is a it is tax exempt. But when they do that, they do ground leases out and it'll be a tax exempt entity that is doing ground leases. And when you have a tax exempt entity that does a lease like that, much like how when there's a rustles in the web building that creates something called a possessor re interest and that possess free interest is actually creates a property tax event. The improvements upon the land are generally not part of those ground leases and the improvements upon the land are subject to just standard property taxes.
Speaker 5: So I'm glad you mentioned the possessor interest because that's our infamous Clayton property deal. Clayton Trust the Park Hill deal. But that said, once these convert to ground leases. You know, there is a revert or clause when the land no longer needs is no longer serving stadium purposes. It goes back to in the case of Denver owned land, it comes back to the city of Denver to do what we please with our own property. If we're ground leasing to an agency, I mean, to somebody that can then be taxed. How do we justify statutorily that it is still for stadium purposes?
Speaker 11: So it's an interesting question. Thank you very much for asking the. I would I think I heard you say is. The. The land has a revert or clause. I think it's a right of reentry so that if the stadium ever stops being used for stadium purposes, that the city and county of Denver has a right of reentry and that. Q I'm going to call someone up who may be more educated on how to answer that question.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Craig Amber, again. If I understand your question correctly. So the property was acquired was purchased by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. And I guess I should clarify this at the moment. The confusion created by the state legislature naming this the Metropolitan Football Stadium District is not a metropolitan district. It is a district akin to the scientific and cultural facilities district or artist. It is a statutorily created district. So I wish they would have given us a different name. So the MFS acquired the property for approximately $28 million from the city. There are land use restrictions on that property, as Andrew just referred to and as you councilman just referred to regarding the use of. It can be used for football games, concerts, parking ancillary uses to the football stadium. If it has ever ceased to be used for those things, then there is a default provision in the city after five years. If the default isn't clear, it has the right to come back. And if they want it, take the property back. We're in discussions right now with the city attorney's office and others in the city, obviously using this property on the south lot. Will I fall into one of those categories if the building is a hotel? If it's affordable housing, if it's an apartment, it's not going to satisfy that. So we're going to have to have a discussion and we'll be back and I'll have to come before city council on that thing. So I believe most of the discussions we've had with the city to this date have been if the football stadium and the football use went away. The city at that time would have the right to look at those rights. At that point, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, the original entity, probably doesn't have a lot of reason left to exist other than. Operating those ground leases. So that is something we'll have to do. We're in discussions about you're going to have to continue to discuss.
Speaker 5: So thank you for the candor and in response, because that has long been my concern. When I first broached the subject in early June, which was that this stadium district and the conversations that had to have gone on with Mortenson to produce ay ay ay ay ay estimate and the parcels that had to be considered in order to produce the map and the conversations that must be having to address these sort of statutory concerns and whatnot, involve conversations about what might go there. And all of that went before we had one meeting about what the future of that property was from a master planning, zoning, land use sort of standpoint. And so it's always felt like cart before the horse. So I hope whoever you're working with in the administration will start to be more transparent in meeting with members of council or coming to committee on progress of this. And it doesn't get too far ahead of the planning process.
Speaker 0: Councilman, I don't want to stop you too much, but I do have a question in there. Can you save some of that for comments, you think.
Speaker 5: I will say. Well, yeah, that's enough comment because that's again that's again why I'm going on record with all this. Thank you. And I the rest are sort of more nuts and bolts on the actual service plan. So I'll defer those to till later.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Mr. President. Andrew. Maybe you could help me see things a little more clearly than are evident in the map in the service plan. But the one in the service plan, inclusion of land, says the district shall not include any property outside the inclusion area boundaries except as set forth in the Special District Act and with the manager finances written approval. So the inclusion area boundary I've noticed, is much smaller than the district boundary. Can you explain where the taxable properties will be and why are the district boundaries so much larger than the inclusion area boundaries?
Speaker 11: And so to that to that is the fact that most the area is going to be actually included in the district right from the get go. And so there's only small amounts of land that are going to be included at a later date. So that is why the inclusion area is so much smaller. It's almost inverse to how we see some of our other metropolitan districts start where they have an inclusionary that is actually very de minimis and it grows to the inclusion area as the development phases out.
Speaker 6: Okay. You said he inclusionary. It looked like it was a very small portion.
Speaker 11: So. The exclusion area should is not the is is like maybe like three or four parcels of land.
Speaker 6: Five, six. Yeah, but very small.
Speaker 11: And the initial district boundaries though is a much larger area. Right. So you'll start off with a full large area as the district boundaries and then as those other parcels are developed, they will add in to the main area in the future.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. So the hundred and some odd million and improvements will be conducted throughout the entire district boundary, not just in the inclusion area.
Speaker 11: That. That is correct. Yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Light bulb. Just turn it off now. Thank you. I think also Matt cutting. With the need for the for the revenue stream to maintain mile high stadium at such a at a serviceable level as we go into the future by the way is at mile high stadium right now.
Speaker 13: I believe it's Broncos stadium.
Speaker 6: Broncos stadium that's currently. Okay.
Speaker 13: We're we're working on that as well.
Speaker 6: Okay. The pressure to achieve to maximize revenue. What is you? What is your feeling about the impact of that on plans to include affordable housing and other aspects that might not generate as much or might require subsidization?
Speaker 13: Well, I think we're again, we're trying to approach this in just a really logical way. And again, until we have square footages of what we're planning on building, getting into those specifics are tough to to handle. But I believe we're coming we're going to go to market with with something that is going to have a unique value proposition for for the people who are going to build it. And we will have things built in that they may not like. We may have some things in there built in that they do like just going through the process we're going through. I mean, being able to have the Metro District and and get to that infrastructure early and how that's going to make this more attractive. There will be some things, again, I think once we get there, community benefits, they're not things you would normally see developers embracing. But I think we hope in the aggregate that we're creating a very attractive deal. And it can it can deliver for the community, it can deliver for Broncos fans and and deliver for the partners we engage going forward.
Speaker 6: And and you're committed to a high level of community involvement in this?
Speaker 13: Yes. Again, I think our our public process to date is somewhat unprecedented for my experience. So I think we're very encouraged. And again, I, I took over management of Old Mile High in the late nineties for the city and I went to neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting and got absolutely destroyed. And we have we have tried for the past 20 years to be better neighbors, to build trust and rapport. When we had the first meetings in Sun Valley a couple of years ago with the neighbors, it was one of the best meetings I've ever been to because for the first time ever, kids and adults and others were . When asked what the biggest assets in their neighborhood were, they said the stadium, which is not what I had experienced in other neighborhood meetings. So I think we we've got a great engagement level right now and I think we we have a great ability to to, in fact, impact Sun Valley, everything the CRISPR and VHA are doing with the eco district as well as connecting all of these neighborhoods. I think there's been an awesome collaboration with both sides of the river, north and south, and trying to make this a real hub and connection point for for the entire community.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Now, if you could step there for a second. I have a couple questions for you. Would you remind us what the anticipated square footage buildout is for commercial? And then it was, what, little over 2000 residential?
Speaker 13: Yeah, all those are the breakdown is I again we got two, three and a half based on what the traffic in circulation suggested made sense. As far as that breakdown, I think we we've come to that rough mix that's out there just talking to to people in the marketplace, knowing different uses and where demand is. It also had a thoughtful approach to having a balance of all those. But those are those are definitely very early estimates of what the breakdown would be. So I I'm not sure there is there's too much depth into each one of those does break out square footage is okay.
Speaker 4: Andrew, would you come up, please? So obviously the amount of meals that are being factored into this particular metro district anticipate a certain scale for a project, because if we were talking about something much smaller, we probably wouldn't be looking at 50 mills. Correct, depending on how much infrastructure needs to be built to support that? Correct.
Speaker 11: That is a correct assumption. It's a it's not exactly cut and dry because it's also, you know, smaller sites sometimes need smaller amounts of infrastructure, but they also contain sometimes less assessed value that's lost revenues. So there's there's there is a relationship of looking at the whole in order to understand that the number of mills necessary.
Speaker 4: So I want to get back to a question that Councilman Flynn was asking about the adjacent parcels that are not currently included in this metro district. Are any of those parcels currently owned by the city?
Speaker 11: I'd have to take a look at my map.
Speaker 4: So, for example, the old public works maintenance facility that's that's owned by the city. Still, correct? Correct. And that may be one that would be added in at some point in time in the future.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 11: So, yes, if that's in the inclusion boundaries, I'd have to look at my map to reconfirm.
Speaker 4: Okay. So has there been any internal city discussion about parcels owned by the city that we should retain for the purpose of ensuring that we have affordability? You know, I don't know what kind of cleanup that site might need, given the kind of use that was on there or any other parcels that might be owned by the city. So rather than just assuming they're all going to be absorbed within the metro district. You know, was there any internal conversation about the city just keeping those sites for some of the priorities that we have identified for this city? Affordable housing being one of those. Obviously.
Speaker 11: I'm not aware of all the conversations that go on in the city. I do know that there have been conversations about working collaboratively with DHS and help and supporting their the movement of affordable housing onto this site while they're going through their redevelopment activities to create the eco district. But I am not aware of any specific ones to where we've talked about the public works facility.
Speaker 4: Okay. A couple other questions. So when we. Look at the amount of development that's being proposed on this side of the South Platte River. So we've got 62 acres. That's part of the Ilitch Gardens site. 52, roughly for the football stadium. About 80 acres for Sun Valley. Burnham yards, which may or may not happen in the in the near future. That's 70 acres. That's obviously on the other side of the river. And then just down the road at the Denver Post say we've got 41 acres. And I want to know what kind of conversations the city has had about the cumulative impact, particularly if each of these large parcels are looking at building to maximum maximum density. What kind of discussions have there been? Who's looking at that to to ensure that we're not overtaxing the adjacent infrastructure like Federal Boulevard, which is already one of the most unsafe transportation corridors that we have in the city. Some of us are involved in discussions around safety on Federal Boulevard with CDOT, for example. So can can you talk a little bit about that?
Speaker 11: Sure. So you're right, there is a there is actually a tremendous amount of development occurring when you look at, you know, the things along River Mile. You look at Sun Valley and what's going on there and the proposed development here for this metropolitan district right just south of this football stadium. And there's a lot of plans going on. And some of the city council members have been sitting on steering committees. And we look to like what does when we go through the zoning applications and things of that nature, there is a look at how does that particular development, as well as what is adjacent to that development, impact the infrastructure to not just the roads, not just sidewalks, too, but we also are going to be looking at those wet and dry utilities and just making sure that if that maximum zoning does come to fruition, it doesn't say that it will. But if it does that, the systems can handle what it is going to what what is going to come to fruition. Now, it may mean that there still has to be things that have to be built as part of that development when they come in for site plans and things of that nature and that will they talk about it at that time. But it's an ongoing conversation and it has to do as each side comes forward through the planning process.
Speaker 4: So how much of that gets covered in the rezoning conversation versus, you know, getting it rezoning, waiting for a developer to then look at putting, you know, their their overall site plan together, assuming that they're looking for one master developer to to. You know, come in and assume that responsibility for the build out.
Speaker 11: I'm going to bring up Karen from our planning department. She's. She can probably best answer that question for you.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Karen Champine, Director of Planning, Community Planning and Development. Let me make sure I understand your question. So you're asking at what stage do we start to look at the cumulative infrastructure? Exactly. That's great question. So it comes in multiple stages. So at the first stage, as Andrew articulated, there's a planning process. And as we go through that process, there's always an initial analysis to just sort of gut check the policies and the vision against sound engineering principles. So we always do that at the beginning of the planning phase. And then with a large scale site like this, we always then do concurrent with a rezoning conversation. We do and we do more detailed infrastructure master planning so that we can take a closer look at pipe sizes and all of that fun stuff so that then we can dial in a little bit more specifically, the zoning, the regulations, other development agreement needs, as Andrew mentioned, what other upgrades will be needed to the infrastructure to support what could be allowed by zoning? So that would be the second opportunity to take a closer look at infrastructure. And then the third opportunity would be when they actually come through with a site development plan, that means they're ready to go vertical, as we call it. There's a building. We know how many stories. We know what kind of units. Then we take another look more specifically to say, okay, now that based on what they're actually proposing, do we still have the right infrastructure in place? Do we need additional investment or is everything that we plan for appropriate so we can make calibration adjustment along the way once a particular developer knows more about what the project will actually be.
Speaker 4: So at which point do you all normally see a community benefit agreement tied to that process that you just described?
Speaker 1: So community benefit agreement is an official is not an official terminology in our work. However, where we have seen community benefits sort of guaranteed through the developer is at a development agreement, through a development agreement. And typically what we've seen as very good practice in the last few years is at the time of rezoning, because what we want to do is make sure that before we change the entitlement to the land, we have clarity on the other goals that we want to accomplish. So we start to look at it as a regulatory implementation package of all the ways and tools we have available to us to help implement the vision and guarantee the outcomes that we want.
Speaker 4: So, Mack, I'm going to bring you back up just for a second.
Speaker 13: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 4: So part of this is is about timing. Right. Ensuring that the discussions that are being had with the community around some of the benefits that the community wants to see, whether it be affordable housing. Looking at the impact to the adjacent infrastructure, I'm sure the city will weigh in on a lot of that as well. But. What what commitment is there that as this moves forward? You know, this is a little different because. You all will continue to own the land. This. The Metro no metro district will continue to own the land. The stadium metro district. And and there's that relationship between that and this metro district that we would create here tonight. It's a little different from from some of the other processes we've had where, you know, there's an agreement that gets crafted with the neighborhood association and the developer coming in asking for the rezoning. But in some cases, unless that is a covenant placed on the land, if that developer sells the land to somebody else, that agreement doesn't necessarily carry forward. And so, you know, there's going to be some commitment to assurances that whatever these commitments are that come out of this process with the neighborhood will carry forward regardless of whoever is selected to do the development on the land. So I want you to speak to that.
Speaker 13: Yes, ma'am. I think, you know, the the one of the big differences of this process is there is an a for profit developer who's going to move on. I still have to go to work there every day. The Broncos are still going to play there and hopefully as a part of this will play here for decades going forward. So I don't think we we look at this as, oh, we just got to get through this date and we get then we're free and clear right where I've been going to that office for 20 years and that neighborhood, I hope to be going there for another 20. So I don't think I think the idea that us falling down on the commitments we make, that's not something any of us want to live with every day. And I think I think our record in this community and in that neighborhood speaks for itself. We we we fulfill our commitments. And I think I think you should all feel confident we will be doing that going forward.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate your your response. I have no further questions at this time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Freeman. Sir. How are your knees doing? Getting up and here? Still functioning well. That's good. So I was going to address this in comments, but realized I might have misunderstood something that was said. So I wanted to ask it as a question and give you a chance to respond. So I'm well aware at this point that there is a difference between the Denver Broncos football club and the Stadium District. But at times I think that difference is is made to be more than it is. And what I thought I heard you say was that the money from the ground leases will not come to the Denver Broncos. They'll go to the stadium district.
Speaker 13: That is correct.
Speaker 8: Right. That is technically correct. But the repairs made with that money on on Mile High Stadium and should I live to be 155? It will always be Mile High Stadium no matter what you or anyone else should name it. But the repairs that go to that stadium, as well as if everything proceeds and you get this district and you get this rezoning that somewhere down the road this vibrant community which is potential extremely exciting. Will also those two factors I would assume will greatly increase the value of the Denver Broncos football club. So while those dollars may go into a bank account called the Stadium District, the benefit as well will accrue to the value of the football club.
Speaker 13: I would not argue the fact that we will benefit from what you're saying as far as valuations of teams and things like that. I think a brand new stadium would do a whole lot more for the valuation of the team. And but but we're again, trying to do the responsible thing. We've put a lot of our own money into this building, and it's in great shape. And we shouldn't. We're not we're not interested in heading down the path of a discussion of the next one. We think, again, we have the solution in front of us to get another 20, 25 years out of this building. And that's the right thing to do. The taxpayers, to the question of, you know, do we need a stadium? The taxpayers voted for this stadium. All right. And so I think we have that answer and we're just trying to be responsible and keeping it up. Absolutely. Our fans and the organization will benefit from the stadium being in better shape. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I'm sure the greater things about valuations of teams, I think that there are lots of different things that go into that.
Speaker 8: Sure. Thank you for that. And my my other question is, again, let's assume all this happens and we maintain this stadium at an even higher level with the monies that are generated. Are you able to give any sort of a guarantee as to how long the Denver Broncos remain in the city and county of Denver?
Speaker 13: Not at this point, I think. I think it's obviously you know, I think the demonstration of our commitment to pushing this process forward, we are we are the ones funding the front end of this process with no promise of even being reimbursed for this, even though that revenue will not go to us. So I think we're we're in this. We're in this and putting our own money out there to push the process forward because we want to be here. The path to even talking about stuff like that, it's not necessary if we have a functional building to do plans.
Speaker 8: Well, it's necessary.
Speaker 13: We're committing we're in a position to make a commitment like that. But this is this is part of the process to getting there.
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's. As a fan. I think while it's I understand that the technicalities of the little bit I know of life and as a professional sports franchise but assessing deals of this nature it would be nice to have a guarantee that we'll be around for 20 years, 30 years, whatever. And we've all seen franchises pick up and move on because the decision is made that dollars outweigh loyalty. So when this does come to rezoning, I think this will be a little bit more difficult discussion. Yeah, but I would just.
Speaker 13: One perspective I would share is that, you know, relative to that part of it. We still need to see this development generate the revenue, we hope. I think so. You know, the approval of the service plan or even zoning, you know, none of that guarantees that that revenue will be realized. But I think if we're in a seat where we feel like the financial future of the building is in a good place, I think we have been open. I think the stadium district would tell you that we're open to having those discussions.
Speaker 8: Thanks for those answers. Appreciate you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman New.
Speaker 14: Just those knees again. Can you. One thing I keep seeing is I 25 separate new and in the downtown area. Can you talk a little bit about the connectivity between this project and downtown? And I think that's a real asset, but I still have a hard time visualizing that.
Speaker 13: Yeah, well, I think, you know, the city has obviously spent the last ten years growing toward us. I think when when I first started working in the neighborhood, downtown felt like a ways away. The area plan obviously continues to evolve and everything's moving closer to us. Again, I can't speak for all the various projects that are happening around us, but we have made great efforts and I think tried to collaborate with all the different entities that have things going on. I mean, Councilwoman Ortega, Ortega's comments about all the stuff, you know, we're trying to be mindful of all the different things that are happening so that we can create connections. And and again, with Sun Valley break down isolation walls. And I think where we're located with the with the river, the highway, the bike paths, Federal Colfax, we have the the ability to connect a lot of the city. And even earlier the discussion about bridges. I think it's amazing what's happened in the Highlands by having bridges and ways for us to do that with River Mile connecting to the south, the Sun Valley. I think there and even to Colfax, obviously, you know, there may be opportunities in this window to to to help support, you know , some solution for the Cloverleaf and things like that. So I think we're trying to be mindful of all of our edges and trying to reach out and collaborate and connect with with everyone who's working on stuff so that we can hopefully make this is as good a project and a smarter process as we can.
Speaker 14: All right. Well, I hope that comes true. That'll be a great, great advantage. What's the timetable on this project?
Speaker 13: I couldn't tell you. I again, this is.
Speaker 14: What's your best guess?
Speaker 13: Well, I think if if if we had if we get to the end of the public process on the master plan and we feel like the for the first couple buildings that there's some sense of we know what we should do and how it ought to occur. I think I think two years is really the thought. I think I mentioned it earlier, but the parking structure and that's again back to the the creation of the metro district, the ability the first thing that needs to happen before we build any buildings is a is a structured parking facility so that we can operate as we as we build out the site. So I maybe we'd stay if everything works out the rest of this year on a on a really fast timeframe, maybe we're talking about a parking deck next year, but I don't I wouldn't say a building any time.
Speaker 14: Okay. Thanks. Last question. City risk or cost to Denver taxpayers or to Bronco fans in this project?
Speaker 13: Not that I not that I would see. Now, I think, again, we're trying to avoid the bigger risk, which is going back out to the ballot. I think for any of you that follow this and I think I raised it in in a lot of our one on one meetings, the Los Angeles building for the Rams is now north of $2 billion. The building in Las Vegas is 1.6 billion. You know, we we were fortunate in the window. We built this stadium. I think we ended up with 460, something like that, all in. So the idea to go out and talk about those kind of numbers when, again, we've invested in this building, both our money, the district money, it's in good shape. We we we were trying to avoid the taxpayer risk. To be honest with you.
Speaker 14: And the fan risk cost, too, right?
Speaker 10: Yeah. Well.
Speaker 13: You know, I wouldn't I wouldn't want to leave anyone with the idea that, you know, we're capping everything going forward. We're in a very competitive business. I think anyone who's followed our team knows that Mr. Bowling has not been about making money. Yes, the franchise is appreciated, but that's all on paper. Our ownership has been about winning and the dollars we make go right back into the football side so that we can compete. We always like to say, I know Councilman Lopez is a fan of this. You know, we our punch, our weight, and we continue to do that because we've had a commitment from ownership to to put resources into our on field product. And I think it's one of the reasons that this community is so proud of our team.
Speaker 14: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 13: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Espinosa, you back.
Speaker 5: I'll try to save you. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Hey.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Doo doo doo doo doo doo, folks. First thing for the record. Councilwoman Ortega, if this if you were talking about the public works space between the river and old Colfax and Canosa that what that is being held by. Hey, good things.
Speaker 3: So the.
Speaker 5: So the series of questions are not intended to embarrass their intended to just get things on the record. And again, things that you've already actually said. But in some cases they but just not explicitly the. But what we're approving is the service plan. And there's a lot of language in the service plan. And in later, I'll come to ask the city attorney how how. The prescriptive. This language is the. So how much? So this is speaking to section four, which is description of project and plan development. So how much mixed use neighborhood development experience does the Metropolitan Football Stadium District have?
Speaker 13: Yeah. Look, Craig answered for himself.
Speaker 3: Craig I'm off for the Metropolitan Football Stadium District Plan. We have our experience has been limited to constructing a football stadium. And those facilities, as I think has been mentioned, is kind of the first step in a long process. At some point we'll be.
Speaker 5: Looking for smack has said.
Speaker 3: They're not developers, we're not developers. Whether we look for multiple developers or a single master developer, that will be another step in the process.
Speaker 5: So the second part of that, and MCC didn't want to answer for you, but maybe I'll answer for him is how much does the stadium management company have in mixed use neighborhood development?
Speaker 13: I would I would say similarly very little. And again, not trying to be a developer of mixed use.
Speaker 5: So in the plan, how was the 2000 population estimate arrived at?
Speaker 11: So you're looking at the estimate that was in the narrative.
Speaker 5: That plan development is projected to have an estimated population of up to 2000 at buildout in 2022 and include up to 3,500,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space, which will provide long term recurring income stream to support the football, stadium, maintenance and improvements.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 5: So the question is actually going to be both. How did you get the win there?
Speaker 11: I can take a stab at it, but if you're looking for the exact count, I'll call up the specialists that worked on the study. What was your what would be your preference?
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Because 2000 is a pretty what I'm trying to what I'm trying to understand is District one also had the St Anthony's redevelopment. And in that proposal it was all five story and it was expected population was 1800 and then it ended up it's going to be something far south of that with eight and 12 story development as part of that. And so I'm just trying to understand the difference between projection and reality. So how close to this is is is this number.
Speaker 11: Sure. Let me try answering that for you. Like whenever.
Speaker 3: We.
Speaker 11: Were doing service plans or any sort of planning exercise, these are estimates. And what you do is you look at what is possible out there and you're still going to have to do the community outreach and you're still going to have that community planning effort. And that will really drive what ultimately gets in there. And then that could be a year or two from now. You may have some actual market changes and it'll drive what the market may or may not want in the future. And all of those things mean that there's an estimate today. And when we leave this public hearing today, those estimates will be wrong. They're they are estimates. I think what we get to is that there is a contemplation of a certain number of residential units that will be put in there. We had they had a real estate specialist look at what those residential units would be, how many units they would have, and an estimate of usually about, you know, what a certain number of people who would live in those residences. And then you come up with an estimation of their population and then you usually rounded up to the nearest thousand.
Speaker 5: So I'm guessing then there's nothing about this project and planned development description that is at all binding, both on the square footage or the delivery timeline that is laid out in it. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: You're saying you didn't see anything in here?
Speaker 5: No. I'm assuming these very specific statements about how many, you know, the estimated population, the the maximum square total square footage and the delivery date in 2022 are not at all binding.
Speaker 11: They are not binding.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 5: So I just want to confirm, you know, that the billion dollar stadium, which is probably easily its value over 20 years next door, does not generate enough income to support its existence, meaning 146 million. That is needed to maintain that.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 11: So the 146 million that you referenced is the amount of the dollar estimated for the infrastructure that is going to put in horizontally.
Speaker 5: 300 to $500 million. That was that was cited as what they would need to maintain it.
Speaker 11: Right. They do have higher estimations of like about over the next 25 years of nearly like 7 to $800 million worth of capital improvements to be made to the stadium of which the ground lease revenues that are what you referenced is the 3 to 5 million hopefully potentially estimated that might bring forward something to help offset those capital infrastructure costs to help maintain a productive football stadium. So they they are all estimates, but they are that is that is a piece of a sustainable revenue stream to help make future football operations possible at the stadium.
Speaker 5: Okay. I think this question has already been answered and there's no answer to it. But I still want to say that I had this question because the next line is the planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley in the West Side neighborhoods. And so I was wondering how but we clearly know that we there's a lot of ways. And so I actually appreciate the responses that came from Mac previously to my colleagues because you're it it represents a level of understanding of the complexity of the problem and an openness to having that conversation as part of this development plan in a way that I wasn't comfortable with a month ago. So thank you for for for for learning, I mean, feeling what the commentary and where everyone was going with this process. It also says including a riverfront park, including park and riverfront enhancements. I was going to ask what those enhancements were, but I think what we're going to say is we're going to have dialog, but it will be it's part of the development plan and it will be part of this infrastructure improvements. So then the next question was along those lines. So is how will a parking structure connect to downtown or Sun Valley or the West Side neighborhoods more than surface parking?
Speaker 11: How will a parking structure connect to the adjoining neighborhoods? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes. So the parking structure is, you know, as you think about the stadium, there's there's a parking lots there now and there's a requirement in order for those cars to be able to park on game day. So they need to have a facility as they start rebuilt, redeveloping all those areas in order to park on game day. Those those vehicles that come to that hold people and come to the games. So the connectivity doesn't come from a parking garage. The connected the garage is part of the entire development. It's a whole package. And the whole package of the development will connect those neighborhoods, as you've heard Mack talk about, like looking at their borders and working with the neighborhoods and working with the FHA and Sun Valley. If this is not the answers, don't lie in one particular aspect, like a building or a parking garage or a park. It's how all of those things work together to bring connectivity not only to the neighborhood, but throughout the city.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And so the reason why I'm asking that question is I'm trying to get some sense of how this project is going to be faced, because the connections to these surrounding communities, the the river connections as well, those don't interrupt necessarily game day activities because they're and so what is articulated is sort of the first thing we're going to do is a parking structure. And so it tells me that some of these connections and even as soon as next year, that some of these connections we're talking about are not primary. And granted, you probably want to cash flow on some other things before you do those. But I'm looking at this service plan and what I see is a bunch of structures with some timelines, but I don't see amenities listed at all. And so. With any sort of timeline. So I am assuming they're dead last or no.
Speaker 13: Councilor, if I could jump into that one, I think the reality is we've you know, from the first utterance of the idea of redeveloping the South lots, I would say nine out of ten questions and inquiries we've gotten from either fans, the public, the media has all been about the parking. And so I think that has risen to our priority list because, one, it's a function we absolutely have to have to operate. Once we started addressing surface parking lots to say we wouldn't consider any of those things that they possibly could go on in those earlier windows. If you if again, this is part of the public process, invite if there are things you think we ought to consider that don't could coincide in the same window as the parking structure. I'm not sure we're opposed to that. I think we've focused on the parking because it as it one is the most critical thing for us to continue to operate. It also has been the single sort of highest anxiety topic that's come out of mentioning development around the stadium. So that's why I think we've had an increased focus on that. It is not to say we wouldn't consider anything else.
Speaker 5: So then it says the district under district governance, it says the district board shall be comprised of eligible electors residing within or owning property within the district, as provided by the Special District Act. How many? Groups make up this group.
Speaker 3: Craig. I'm back in the. Current contemplation at this time when we initially create it will be it will be steady management company and the football stadium district. So two owners.
Speaker 5: Will vote on the creation of the district for how many acres? For the 52.
Speaker 10: Acre 62 acres.
Speaker 5: And. Okay. And then increase. So this is the last bit. So increased mills and increased costs in relation to the same land uses that don't have this obligation. So you're going to build retail, you're going to build housing, you're going to build hotels and commercial and all these things, but you're going to have additional millage on this and and a piff. What's Piff stand for? Again, they said, look it up here.
Speaker 11: Piff stands for project improvement fee.
Speaker 5: So so there's no added cost that won't be on other properties in the city of Denver that don't have metro districts in pass. So to some degree, that cost will be transferred over to the people engaged in that in this location, making it even more cost prohibitive to to to interact down there. How are you addressing likely inclusive inclusivity of both residences and nonresidential opportunity in the in the stadium district.
Speaker 3: Hi, my name is Jim Cobb and I am working with the Broncos in the Metropolitan Football Stadium District on this development. And Councilman.
Speaker 0: Could you repeat the.
Speaker 5: Question? So basically, I'm saying they're inherently going to be added cost to anything that you do relative to somebody doing it, say, on federal that doesn't have the burden of infrastructure. And if so, it's going to sort of inherently that added cost is going to make it slightly more exclusive of a of a place. So how are you going to address and make these areas more inclusive, both to to to residents and nonresidents alike, as far as, I mean, commercial properties and opportunities for for establishment of business or whatever.
Speaker 10: So the Metropolitan Improvement District that is.
Speaker 0: Before you tonight is is really no different than any other.
Speaker 10: Across the city.
Speaker 5: To my knowledge. And so, yes.
Speaker 0: With a if it ends up being a 50.
Speaker 3: Mil levy.
Speaker 0: On the improvements within this district. Sure that's going to.
Speaker 5: Cost more.
Speaker 3: Than, you know, across the street on federal where there's not industrial. However.
Speaker 5: Our ground lease.
Speaker 3: Yield assumptions are based on land values that we think reflect that that.
Speaker 5: Location versus, for instance.
Speaker 0: Union Station, where, you know, those values are just.
Speaker 5: You know, out of control, to be honest.
Speaker 0: And so we think from a developer.
Speaker 3: Partner standpoint, we're going to be offering.
Speaker 5: More.
Speaker 3: Attractive.
Speaker 5: Ground values.
Speaker 0: If we if you will, even.
Speaker 5: Though we're not selling the land, we'll be leasing the land.
Speaker 10: Secondary. Andrew mentioned a possessive interest tax.
Speaker 0: Versus a standard real estate tax.
Speaker 3: And as we've looked at possessor interest tax.
Speaker 10: Taxes.
Speaker 3: Around the city, they are generally at a fraction of of what a standard real estate.
Speaker 10: Tax would be. So that tool.
Speaker 5: Will.
Speaker 10: You know, provide, you know, sort.
Speaker 5: Of financial advantages for development.
Speaker 3: Partners within.
Speaker 6: This project.
Speaker 5: So when we did the stadium and I, I wasn't here for this, maybe Councilman Ortega can't speak to it. There was some sort of commitment, I think, to involve and engage small local business providers as part of the concessionaires and things like that. So you're going to be leasing these spaces. Is there any commitment to that and to sort of make sure that there is some sort of local aspect?
Speaker 13: I think we we consider all that to be part of the community benefits discussion. I think all of that plays into it, whether it's wage related or or minority women business participation. I think we view that as all part of that community benefits less that were again, we're we're looking at some of the standards that Councilman Lopez mentioned. He was in Seattle and saw some interesting things being done there. So I think, again, in full transparency, we're we're open to ideas and talking about how we can make this as impactful as it can be. But again, we haven't really gotten to the specifics, but I think we know those are part of the community benefit discussion.
Speaker 5: That's great. That's sort of music to my ears. The because the. You know, there's another opportunity here that I don't think we've mentioned, but with the eco district to the south, local higher provisions, you know, that were our emphasis to try and actually create job opportunities as this bill gets built and sustains itself. Because if the plan is 30 years, that's that's a career for somebody. And so building I mean, there's win win here, but only if we're mindful of it in the process. And I think.
Speaker 3: I believe. That does it for grandma.
Speaker 5: These assumptions? Yep. I believe that does it for my questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, you back up?
Speaker 4: Yes. Two questions. Current zoning on the property is C, Amex C, CMU 30. Is there any anticipation to build to that height limit on this site?
Speaker 13: I don't think nothing that I've seen in any drawing or contemplation has as looked at anything that I, I don't believe will be sticking with the same obsolete zoning. I think there there are more applicable codes within the city now that will be looking to move to and I don't think we'll be asking for 30. Even in even under the what we would anticipate being a different code.
Speaker 4: And it guess Karen are you guys like guiding them towards a certain zone district as they're looking to do this buildout?
Speaker 1: Yes. One thing to clarify, the current zoning of CMU 30 to 30 does not indicate maximum height in the old code. So the 30 is just a number that was assigned to the zone district. Don't ask me why, but the the height under the old code is just a floor area ratio. So yes, looking ahead, we always support a project or a site moving into the new zoning code because there are more new standards. We there's access to a lot, lot better policies and updates over time. But at this point, we have not dialed into anything specific. I mean, certainly something mixed use something with a walkable urban standards will help implement the vision. But we're not that far along to know more specifics.
Speaker 4: So you can't speak to a maximum height that the city would consider on the site.
Speaker 1: We're too early in the process to really speak about building heights yet. We haven't talked to the community about that yet.
Speaker 4: Okay. And I know that will come with the zoning, but I want to make sure that we're cognizant of the fact that part of this area is within the state capital view plane and want to not continue to, you know, penetrate that. I know when the stadium was originally built, part of the not the roofing but the rim around it had to have a waiver. I don't know if that's the right terminology.
Speaker 1: That is the old city hall view plane. The site really isn't subject to the state capital view plan. It's the old city hall view plane.
Speaker 4: Okay. I know that discussion is is being had right now with some of our folks doing development across the street and concerned about how high some of the development that may occur in this area and what impact that might have on the Mountain View from from the capital. Yeah. And I don't know whether this includes any of it at all, but potentially with the Sun Valley development, it may if there was any proposal to go very high. And you all know that the view plane ends at the river and this is all on the other side. So potentially they could do that. But so I'm just curious how much you all at the planning department are, you know, paying attention to that and trying to work within that as opposed to, you know, just say no, that's on the other side. Don't worry about it. We'll just you guys can do whatever you want.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, the site is within the old city hall view plane. So as we have the conversations around building heights for this site, we will look at all those types of applicable regulations to see what's feasible and what's not. If the heights we're talking about are not consistent with the View plane, we will take a look at that and see and see what what the right path is. And so, yes, we're very mindful of the existence of the view planes.
Speaker 4: Okay. And introduce one very last question. The pith is that on top of the 50 mills or is that within the 50 mills?
Speaker 11: So the PIFF is a fee that is not collected, administered or any way managed by the city at all. It's a private covenant that's managed by the landlord, which would be the existing stadium metro district, I imagine. But it is it's a it's a it's a fee that's based on retail sales. So it's not I would it's it's another revenue generating source, but I don't know that I would call it like on top of the 50 mills.
Speaker 4: So it's a fee for anybody that is a consumer purchasing goods, services, whatever that will be on the site at the time the development is there. Very similar to Ballmer. You know, you go there, you pay the extra because that developer was able to. I'm assuming.
Speaker 11: That. Yes, that is that is true. It's a it's a it's a it's a taxable sales, usually.
Speaker 3: An.
Speaker 11: Additional fee.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's a great question.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Lopez, do you have more questions or.
Speaker 10: No, I just want to just just to remind that, you know, a lot of this will be discussed at a later at a later date, when we actually look at the plan that's going to come before us in council that we have to adopt. And I think a lot of those questions in that process, when it does can when it does come, will come and we'll have an opportunity to really hash out a lot of those details. I think right now, I think the the district, the financing mechanism, the horizontal thermal development is is is on the table. All great questions. And for us that I'm taking a lot of notes, but I just wanted to remind that and I do have a comment on the comment period.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa, to have another question, could you make it quick so we can move on?
Speaker 5: One more on Exhibit H. That is the development summary divided into 14 blocks, but it has start dates for all the proposed developments. And I'm just I mean, I don't know if you're guy who whoever did this, you know, is the the last two buildings out of all these proposed projects. The second to last one is the A4, the only one, as noted as affordable apartment. You know, is that the you know. I don't know. Maybe that's just a question I just want to point out to my colleagues think, you know, if you look at Exhibit H 2 to 2 of 13, you will see that everything starts according to this plan in February of 19 or February of 20 or 21 or 22. And the only three projects to start in 22 are one of the three is affordable housing. And I think that's a mistake.
Speaker 3: Ah.
Speaker 0: Didn't sound like your question or comment, but I.
Speaker 5: Wanted to make it a question. I couldn't resist a question.
Speaker 0: All right. So we are going to move on. The public hearing for counsel because 686 is now closed. I will remind my colleagues that we do have a courtesy public hearing. A lot of folks are hanging out late to be here for that. So if you could please keep your comments to the subject of this bill and as concise and quick as possible.
Speaker 10: Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Mr. President. I did. You know, there was a lot of questions tonight, a lot of very good questions. We've hashed out a lot of issues, I think, in committee as well in terms of notification and what we can negotiate with, with with the district and what we know and what is being asked of us today. I you know, I I've been in the process with the with the state, with the football stadium match upon district, with our task force and kind of looking at through the steering committee, how do we how are we going to build the extend this neighborhood of Sun Valley, right. I mean, it is Sun Valley. This isn't a brand new neighborhood. It's Sun Valley. It's always been Sun Valley. But we've we've never had the appropriate land use. He's never had the appropriate planning or foresight or even population to be able to do that. And when you look at the history of Sun Valley and you look at the history of this stadium, I mean, the stadium has been there since 1948. It was a former landfill. It's the stadium isn't going anywhere. This neighborhood has been built around the stadium, for crying out loud. I think I can think of Westwood. Westwood. He was there was even the city county in Denver before Barry Stadium existed on that site. And so a lot of what's happening there has been just we haven't done it from in a strategic or a coordinated effort until now. Right. And then and how do we build a neighborhood that is seamless to the rest of the surrounding neighborhoods right there at Mile High Stadium using those lines? So it is an absolute necessity. This task force is convening and looking at everything from transportation to land use to what, you know, how do we envision it? Where does it open? Where do you access? So there's a lot of that, right? And in my heart and I'm very excited about that process, however big. And I want to make sure I mean, I know that Max spent a lot of time up here, man, but the Broncos spent a lot of time up here answering questions . But at the end of the day, this is the football stadium, metro district, and this is indeed the public entity, the governing entity of the site. Right. And with every public entity like this, it has to be held accountable to public priorities. Right. To though, what are those public? Public priorities, right. When it comes to housing, we have an affordable housing issue going on and a crisis in Denver. We got a lack of connectivity. We have aging infrastructure. And so it's it's looking at jobs. It's looking at opportunities. So when you think about this and not just necessarily in the built environment, but you look at it as an opportunity. Right. It's a highly under-utilized opportunity that's and that's in front of us, an opportunity to create local jobs. And now opportunity to create opportunities for local businesses. An opportunity to create housing that is also affordable. I mean, just because we have housing in Sun Valley that was affordable, you heard Chris PAs up here doesn't mean that that we can't meet that mark as well, too. And it's a heck of an opportunity to create this neighborhood that is seamless. And I want to really point out that at that at that word, seamless, because of a lot of these developments around the country are on these sports arenas. And sports facilities are seamless. The good ones are seamless. And you want to kind of build that in. And you want to make a neighborhood that doesn't just operate for eight home games out of the year. You want something that operates year round and you want that opportunity there. And I think when you look at that in that valley, you know that Cmax is going to turn into something different. Right. When you look at the land uses on the on the south side, that's a it is. I mean, sorry to see Sammy the C it's a CMCs eight, it's an IMX eight, it's an IMAX five cinema x five in some areas and some value so that that'll all work itself out. At the end of the day, I think we do have an opportunity we have been engaging with, with, with the Broncos on the conversation of community benefits with the ministry on this idea of community benefits and what that looks like. Right? Those jobs, those business opportunities, those burrito vendors that turn into restaurateurs. Right. Or I can think of myself when I was just a kid living in South on second and play in Valverde. I was 14 years old and ride my bike down to the stadium and I worked for it for 25 an hour, taking tickets, sweeping concourses. Right, and working as an usher. Although it was an opportunity for me, it was one of my first jobs. And I work there with so many other people who did so many different things at that stadium. So if you can amplify that and use this as an opportunity to amplify that, that's a neighborhood that does create that's an economic engine for the rest of the city, but also for that immediate neighborhood. Right. We have a housing crisis, but we also have an opportunity crisis. And I think this we can we can use this as an instrument to be able to move that forward and also maintain an iconic piece of architecture in our city, an iconic history and something that's helped put us on the map. So I do look forward to that. I have been in conversation. So I have you know, I talk to my colleagues as well, too, and we've heard from folks in the community and at least I know for the remainder of my term on this council is to make sure that that this that we do reach those kind of agreements, that we do reach that kind of acquire them. Right. To make sure it's an opportunity for the community. The last thing I did want to address. Well, something that Mr. Roybal said from the neighborhood. So why all at this time? Why is it all happening on this time? We have all this pressure of development, all this build. It's because it's been ignored for so long. Right. And so if you see those street pavers cruising down there, if you see that plan rolling through and being adopted, if you see all this happening, it's exciting time. But we want to make sure that folks who live there now are still able to enjoy it. And that's a and that's a big deal. And these are those commitments. We have a commitment from the Denver Broncos to sit down with the stadium, to talk about with community, to talk about what exactly those benefits look like. Right. How exactly can we expand those opportunities? And then and then coming back and being able to to bring something that not just is done to the neighborhood plan, just for planning sake, some document, some pretty little documents going to sit on the shelf collecting dust in the city, but something that is actually going to be living in implementable and also have that social side of it, that economic side of it as well, too. And so with that, I do have a lot of I do anticipate the plan moving forward. Hopefully it comes forward. I know that we've had a lot of public engagement and I feel good about it moving forward. I had a lot of questions on the on the map district and the timing and the that coming to council. We like to see these things come to council way ahead of time. We like to be I'll be brief and make sure that.
Speaker 3: The the.
Speaker 10: Council and the executive branch are communicating when it comes to this. But I do support this moving forward and look forward to the plan, bringing the plan to this Council for adoption as well as a a robust and I think unprecedented community community benefits agreement as well to. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I spy Ismael Guerrero with DHEA in the in the crowd. And so I'm going to continue on the housing part of the service plan. Why I think it's a mistake to put it last or near the end is is a 60% Army unit, can can can house can capture an apprentice sheet metal worker or electrician or something like that. And so it's a chance for them to, while they're learning to trade, live affordably and in with the potential amount of development that's going to happen in Sun Valley. And now this hopefully they can find work proximate to that. And I understand, Ismael, that, you know, the the metrics of building affordable housing, they tend to like having a bunch of amenities there in order to support. And in land you have LAX that right now but getting people into the neighborhood early gets them established as part of the neighborhood. There's a mistake that we made in Stapleton, which is we built all Northfield before we started putting affordable in, when if we could have gotten them there, these units there, then we could have maybe again helped create jobs, you know, find work opportunities in the neighborhood and from from early on. So I think there's too much opportunity here. The city has too many resources to not move quickly on housing down here, where the opportunity lies, both in the eco district and closer to the site. Once this planning process is concluded, I do think that it is a bummer that this service plan does not include the federal boulevard parcels to the north of 17th because that's in the view plain shadow. So if you're going to ever have a fighting chance at breaching the view plane with some from some buildings, it would be the ones that are behind the building from Old City or Old City Hall view plane. And so having those included in the plan would have given you an opportunity to sort of think about that entrance on both sides of Decatur Boulevard rather than half of it. And I've said that before, and I'll make my case here again. The so I just I do have concerns that with this language and the ability to do everything that it does, that we might the group might start marching forward on something that is is incongruent with any potential plan that might get adopted, and then you'll have to work around it. And so I would like this council to possibly consider a temporary moratorium on development on these in the in the plan district area until the plan is adopted. Yeah. So that is something that I want to throw out there. The but and it's partly because of what you said about this being a hub. It is. It could be a hub. I mean, it already is. Right. That stadium in a park was part of the whole conversation 20 years ago, and it gets way more used than the old stadium did. Omar I never had people jogging around it all the time, and you can go there at any time of the day and you will find people utilizing that as in a minute of public amenity and building off of that and figuring that out. How do we just how do we activate it but not actually can be a passive sort of activation when it's not in use and still be there because it's clearly going to be prominent. So the fact that you're thinking that way and the fact that we as a community already recognize it that way, this process will, if done right and can build upon that. And so the structure is there. So that gets to why I will be supporting this is as Andrew made it very clear, this is just the enabling language. It's not determinant. But I think we've made it very clear in all of our comments and continue to do that, that we can create enough partnerships, synergy around this place, the proximate proximity to downtown, where it is centrally located with all those transit options that we can sort of pair. However, we need to pair with all the different agencies in the state to sort of make this a real vital part of Denver going forward and this tool. Is one that you guys can use to be wildly successful in that process. So I will be supporting it for that. But I'm going to throw this in there because you set it back. And this is only especially because Mr. Bolen is not about making money that yeah, this is a $146 million contribution towards the naming rights of that stadium as Mile High Stadium. And I do think to your other point, that that actually would increase the valuation of this team more than having the ability to negotiate that on a sort of rotating basis. Because the reason why people from those seven counties wanted in on this team, you know, on the stadium is because of that team and is because of that history of the old stadium, Bears Stadium, becoming Mile High Stadium. He had no problem naming many Mile High Stadium, Mile High Stadium. Let's make mega mile high stadium. Mile High Stadium as well.
Speaker 3: Gentlemen, before.
Speaker 0: We get too far down the tangent on naming, could you stick to the bill?
Speaker 5: So, I mean, to me, it's all rolled up because we're community building and we identify this region invested in that stadium. This metro district is investing in its perpetual maintenance, locking in the mile high stadium name. Is that investment that the sort of the community contract that that will always maintain value for that organization and so that so with that, I'll be supporting this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I fully understand, Mr. Freeman, that you cannot guarantee how long a sports franchise in this case our Broncos, is going to remain in any given location. And I don't mean my comments to be confrontational. I hope when you come back with your conjoined twin, the stadium district, with it with a rezoning application that we have a Kumbaya moment and we all do a conga line through through the chambers. But these agreements that we talk about, whether it's some sort of a neighborhood agreement with the community or a development agreement with the city, those are our chance to guarantee something that will last. I mean. The Broncos are not leaving Denver is what I want to believe. Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Colts left Baltimore. I have no idea where the Raiders are at this point and don't really care. But I think they're gone again, aren't they? Off to somewhere else. So in all seriousness, these agreements are critical to the future of the city, because unfortunately, I can't imagine a Denver without the Broncos as horrifying as I personally find that. So when this comes back a while, my loyalty to the Broncos, which is strong and needs when I'm sitting in this seat, needs to take second place to my loyalty to the residents of the city and county. So we will have a good discussion on on what those plans turn out to be. But tonight, at this point, glad to move this stadium district forward. And I appreciate the and the answers from all around these difficult questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez, you back up for some quick.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I just wanted to I know that the statement was made out there about development. And why not now is because we want to make sure that the community I from from my part as the councilman in the area want to make sure that the community is engaged in the process of making those decisions. We can make easily make those decisions at those standards, but not even an understanding how big of buildings that we're going to build or what we're going to actually put on that site or what that foreseeable future it looks like. I want to make sure that the community is engaged and we are in that process. They are at the table. I want to continue to make sure that they're are the framers, because without community, there's no ownership. You want to make sure that there's ownership for from here on out. And that neighborhood, that neighborhood could be named. I mean, we can name the neighborhood, Mile High neighborhood, right? It can be the new neighborhood amount. I'm just getting it. Sun Valley will always be Sun Valley. And I just I wanted to thank the Broncos and even R.T. for making sure that.
Speaker 3: We're up to date and.
Speaker 10: Looped into the process and actually coming to the table, making sure that community's at the table as well, too. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I think there's one thing that's evident from the conversation that you all have a lot of work to do. This is step one, but a lot of work to do on this community benefits conversation, a lot of work to do on how this will be a responsible development and what it means to our city. But tonight, we're voting on this service agreement, and I will be supporting that with that. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman.
Speaker 1: Black tie.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I.
Speaker 1: Gillmor, I.
Speaker 2: Carson.
Speaker 1: Can I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: Lebanese.
Speaker 0: Lebanese. Comfortable. 686 has passed. Moving right along. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 788 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Service Plan for the creation of Football Stadium Metropolitan District.
Approves a service plan for the Football Stadium Metropolitan District in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07302018_18-0788
|
Speaker 0: Lebanese. Comfortable. 686 has passed. Moving right along. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 788 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 718 788 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. I need a second. It has been moved and seconded before we open the one hour courtesy public hearing. I do want to offer an amendment that would exempt people who rent out a single unit from the Prohibition Deauville. Council will have an opportunity to ask questions, offer comments and vote on this amendment after the public has had the chance to speak on the amendment and after the public hearing is closed, with the hope that if there are comments on the amendment, that the public is allowed to speak on that before the hearing is closed. So with that, I will move that Council Bill 788 be amended in the following particulars on page six, line 24, after where insert a person owns and makes available for renting, sub, renting, leasing or subleasing only a single unit or where that is the amendment. It has been moved and seconded the amendment. In the in the current drafted bill there is an exemption for a duplex. If you live in a duplex and you rent a single unit on the other side of that duplex. This amendment would extend that exemption beyond just an attached dwelling to if you live in one unit and you rent a second unit, that would also be exempted. This came up for me at a neighborhood meeting in one of my communities that has a lot of long term residents who often have inherited a home from a parent who also lives in that neighborhood. Just have one property that they're renting. They're not really landlords. They have a full time job. They have a family there. They don't have the resources to hire a professional property manager. They're not extremely sophisticated at property management and struggling to manage that property. And so it's extending that instead of saying it has to be attached in a duplex, it is wherever that one unit is at that it would be treated as exempt, but only that one unit. So that is the amendment, if anyone would like to add that to their comments as we go through the hearing on what you think about the amendment, and we will be voting on the amendment after the hearing. So the public hearing for Constable 78 is open. May we have the overview, Councilwoman?
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. And I think the public for your patients and it's hard being the second or third hearing. So the origins of this bill is, as most of you know, came from community and also a discussion at the Housing and Homelessness workgroup. I want to thank Polly Kyle and my staff who did a lot of the research. There are two simple propositions before us tonight. The first is ensuring that families have access to housing they can afford. We can't just build our way out of that challenge. And so this is a way to expand access to existing units. So that's the first proposition this bill was designed to meet. The second is you should not be turned away from buying or renting a home that you can afford just because of how you pay for it. So we've had a lot of discussion in the process leading up to tonight's hearing about renters. We've previously presented data on folks with disability being turned away from renting, folks with vouchers being turned away. We've also had individuals who have shared stories, either through surveys or with our office, about being turned away because of child support income or because of student loans. On the ownership side, the best practice elsewhere is that these housing ordinances apply to for sale and renter. We did some learning through the process about the for sale side and really this is about turning folks away from even competing for housing based on how they're planning to pay for the house. How does it work? It's first of all, income has to be verifiable. It's not just based on the word of someone that they receive a certain source of income. They have to be able to show verification. Landlords have the right and the power to verify the income to ensure that it's sufficient. That is their decision on what sufficiency is, and then they need to have legitimate business purposes for their decisions. So, for example, if you're in a rental situation, if you take an application on a first come, first serve basis and you rent to the first qualified applicant, nothing in this ordinance requires you to rent a particular unit to a particular tenant. It just means that you have to use legitimate business reasons for making those decisions. You can't base the decision solely on the source of income that someone is presenting on the ownership side. If you are selling your house, same thing. If you take the highest bidder with the fastest closing date, that's a legitimate business reason. Nothing requires you to sell your house to a particular buyer. So what can't you do? We can't advertise. Which happens right now in Craigslist today. I promise if you go on Craigslist, you're going to find an ad for a house that says no one with VA should apply. You're going to see an ad for an apartment that says no vouchers accepted, no more discriminatory advertising. Second of all, you can't prevent someone from applying and competing for housing. And third, you can't deny them solely on the basis of their income. There is a complaint procedure in the bill. It's a bit faster and more focused on administrative revenues remedies. The goal here is that you can appeal to the court house, but this isn't a race to the courthouse. This is about a very common sense administrative investigation. And the goal here is to prevent discrimination before it occurs. So the bill is going to be effective January 1st, and that is intended to allow time to do education, to do prevention, and make sure that we help everyone come into compliance. So there has been quite a bit of discussion leading up to tonight's hearing about administrative questions. A lot of those have focused on the voucher program. Just for public transparency, we've been asked and we've committed to sitting down with any administrators of voucher programs to talk about whether we as a city have tools that we can offer to help. If our peak performance folks, for example, or maybe our technology folks, might have solutions that might help with the administration, you know, federal rules or federal rules. But if there's administrative things we can help with, so we'll be sitting down with any programs willing to meet to to see if we can help with any administrative barriers. Secondly, we've had a lot of discussion and questions about additional protection where there may be damages to a unit that exceed beyond a security deposit. So we were asked and we did Holly, again in my office, did some really extensive research. It just wrapped up on Friday. We just got the kind of memo finished today. And I just want to share with folks, since this is new information, since committee, there are more than a dozen funds that exist to help kind of provide backup protection. They serve slightly different populations. Some of them are just for individuals who may be homeless. Others might cover a broader range of voucher holders. Those that we could get data for at the city level had very few claims. I know we've heard a lot of comments about the risk level here, but the cities we got data from had 0 to 5 claims per year. That was the most there was a. A program that had some higher claims, but it covered an entire state. So so the programs that existed are not heavily used, but they may be very important for the individuals who are using them. So several of the programs such as Seattle were disbanded because they were not used enough. So, so, so not all the programs are still in existence that we researched. I personally and I know others on this council remain open to the proposition that if the fund may be useful and important for individuals, we should keep talking about it. Just as a point of process and legal authority. The Council, under the current city attorneys interpretation, does not have the authority to initiate a spending bill from this dais. So we do not have before us any amendments. We can't amend the bill to do that tonight, but the conversation can continue. So I know there were a lot of questions about that, so I thought it'd be helpful just to discuss that before we take public comment. With that, I look forward to hearing from the public. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. We have a one hour courtesy hearing, and we do have 22 individuals to sign up to speak. This evening's of. Everyone takes their full time. We will run out of time. So I would ask if you can get your point across and leave some time on the clock. It would be much appreciated to help us get through everybody, I'm going to call the first five speakers up. If you could make your way to the front bench to be ready to jump in and I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. As soon as I call your name, step up to the podium and your time will start. The first five speakers are Thomas Bell, Shelley, Thomas Rocco, Gemma Germano, Gianna Patterson and Maria Furio. Thomas Bell. You are first up and go for it. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the Denver City Council for taking this issue up with our country facing an affordable housing crisis.
Speaker 10: And Colorado being.
Speaker 0: One of the most. Sorry, could you just state your name officially?
Speaker 10: Of course. My name is Thomas Bell and I live at 2139 South Fork Street in Denver, Colorado, in Councilman Clark's district. And I just want to say that as a single father of two young daughters and a nontraditional college student myself who relies on student aid for my income, I was actually really surprised when I learned about this issue last year, and I was even more surprised to learn that the states and municipalities who have passed this legislation did so mostly about four decades ago. So I'm glad to see Denver finally catching up as we are facing an affordable housing crisis throughout the country. And with our economy being the best economy in the country, people like myself who have grown up in this city are finding it increasingly hard to find access to affordable housing. And I know, Councilman Clark, I sat in your office several months ago with the former director of Hope, Eric Sullivan, and he told us that a solution like source of income, the prevention of discrimination against source of income isn't really viable right now because the prices are so high that the vouchers and things like that don't even cover that. I reject that thinking as a reason for not passing this legislation. I think if we're able to help even a handful of residents of the city and county, then we should do that. So thank you very much for taking this issue up and I strongly encourage you all to support it and not pass the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Shelley Thomas.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Shelly Thomas. I live in Lafayette. I invest in Denver. I have nine rental houses here. This is what life is like as a landlady. You get a letter from Denver Sewer and they say, we've put a camera down the sewer line and there's a problem, the transition from your sewer line to our sewer line, and you have 30 days to fix it. That bill was $4,120 last year. My sister and I own a property together. We put a brand new roof on it. We went ahead and trimmed the tree. This cost a lot of money, but we don't want to be slumlords. We want to be good landlords. And we have small houses 720 square feet, two bedroom, most of them some three bedroom. And then the hailstorm came through and we got to put a brand new roof on again just a month after we put the brand new roof on, that's a 1500 dollars deductible from my insurance. I had 1500 dollars deductible on a multiple of my properties, and that's how they're moving to 1500. So that's a lot of money when all of a sudden you had to put on nine new roofs and you have siding damage, etc. And then this year the windstorm goes through last week and on this tree that we trimmed so that it would be a healthy tree, a branch fell off and hit the roof of the house so we can have another 1500 dollar deductible on our insurance. It's always something someone called a couple of weeks ago and said The sewage is backing up in my house. I can only hope that we can clear the sewer line, 67 year old sewer line. That's why the house is affordable. It's not new. So it only had to spend $10,000 to fix the sewer line. And so you say, you know, this is just one more layer of bureaucracy. Let's go ahead and have me hope to goodness that I don't have five tenants would be tenants apply for one of my houses and I have to say no to four of them. And one of the four that I say no to has a voucher and says, Well, I'm going to go complain. And then I can go to the process of trying to go ahead and say, no, they didn't have the best credit, and if I win or lose, I still waste a lot more time. I'm 52. I'd like to retire in 13 years, but if I can't run my own business and choose my own tenants with all the financial liabilities I already have much less worried about a $5,000 fine for violating your rules. Then I can sell my properties. I can invest in stocks and bonds. I don't have to have affordable rental housing in the city of Denver. So an unintended consequence of making me be a partner with the city of Denver is that I might decide to say, Well, thanks, but no thanks. And when I fix up those houses and sell them, they're not going to go to investor, they're going to go to homeowner occupant, and that affordable housing unit will be off the market. So it's making the situation better for people. You will make it worse. Some of the houses, I think I'll just tear them down and I will build a nice new $800,000 house and I can go ahead and sell that for more money this time.
Speaker 0: So I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much, Rocco Germano.
Speaker 15: Councilman Clark, you did very well with the Italian surname. My name is Rocco Germano, and I'm representing the National Association of Residential Property Managers. It's a trade association where professionals get together with ethics and the know how of doing property management. We we depend on our owners to tell us whether or not they'll accept vouchers. And with the robust market that we have, it makes a pretty sticky situation. I've been through two depressions here in the Denver area. I've been a realtor for 35 years, and affordable housing is nothing new. My dad was born 100 years ago in what was called North Denver or Little Italy. They had the same problem. They were immigrants over here. It was hard to find housing. So it's not that we're, you know, the bad guys in here. In fact, we're here to to say we want to work with the ordinance. And perhaps one of the amendments that was proposed, we very much feel that that's that's more of a linchpin in making the voucher system work. You got to protect the owners as well. And if they have a bad experience, someone exceeds the limit of what their deposit is. They're not really inclined to take vouchers. And I think that's one of the problems. They would be more inclined to take vouchers if we had the city contribute, say, double that amount, because look at it this way. If you double that amount and if they leave the property without any repairs, no money spent on behalf of the city. So, I mean, I'm here to to say the positive things that we can do to alleviate the affordable housing situation. We're here to partner with the community, and that's what we base our our business on. So do take that into consideration. I think that was a wise idea. I go throughout the country twice a year to conventions and I talk to realtors from all over the United States. And there are other solutions other than just, you know, business as usual. I think this is a very innovative idea. And if there is one thing you can take from from my remarks, let's let's explore that. That amendment, double the deposit. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Tianna Patterson.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Tiana Patterson. I am the state and local policy director for Enterprise Community Partners, and I'm in support of 788 because it would benefit all income levels. I think I've visited many of your offices and told you my story of experiencing source of income discrimination. But for those that I haven't, when I was in law school, I had funds that would cover my housing and I ran around two apartments offering to pay six months at a time, pay my rent six months at a time. I went along with my school schedule and I was turned away and I ended up having to get my mom when I was 26 years old to sign to cosign an apartment for me. But what I did, what I haven't shared is that I was in a state of absolute panic for three weeks. That's how long it took me to get an apartment that would accept six month payments and accept a cosigner. And it was just I couldn't understand how I went through taking the LSAT, getting good grades, moving to a new city, not knowing anybody, and then realizing that everything else was lined up in my life except for where I was going to live and study and sleep and eat. And that was about a month before school started. So it wasn't a great way to start off what is arguably one of the most stressful graduate schools to go to, to choose to go to in your life. And there was no option of graduate student housing for law students either. So I think this is just really important to remember that we're talking about thousands of people not restricting it to one income group and not thinking about this only in stereotypes or risks. But sometimes someone had a literal pile of money that they were willing to give you and you turn them away. And so I just think this ordinance is common sense. And I think that to, you know, to put my policy hat back on and leave law school behind for a second. And I, I support this amendment and I support the exception, Councilman Clark, that you've entered that you put forward. And I'd also like to mention that the Neighborhood Development Collaborative property owners, landlords and developers also is in support of this ordinance as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Maria Fiorito. And I'm going to call the next five up if you could come to the front bench. Charles MESSICK, Charter Chair, Robert Jim Llorens, John Lucero and Eric Fevola. Go ahead. Microphone's yours.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Maria as Ines Fiorillo. I represent Apartment Concepts Unlimited at 100 Fillmore Street, Denver, Colorado. 80206i am a Denver native. I am a landlord. I would love to accept vouchers, but the problem is the program is very burdensome and it's very tangled and.
Speaker 12: It's very difficult to.
Speaker 1: Get through. I hear you talk about that. You want to add more administrative support and try and understand better what's needed on an administrative level. And I appreciate that very much because without this law I would like to accept vouchers, but it doesn't sound like we're quite there yet. I feel like I personally have reached out to Denver Housing who hopes I touch them? Who administers the housing program, the HUD program, and volunteered my time to help work with them to come up with ways that make it easier for landlords to work through the program. I've not been able to get a response back to that. I chose being a landlord as a career. I knew I was going to be in real estate somewhere. My father was in real estate. I chose it because I think it's very important. I feel like I have a really important job. I provide shelter and I provide housing to people. This is a human need. This is one of the basic human needs. And I work really, really hard.
Speaker 12: To make sure that I do that.
Speaker 1: Tiana, I would have accepted you. We have a program in our company that if you can prepay six months rent in the deposit, you don't have to show source of income. You still have to meet the other criteria. We work really hard to come up with ways to get people in homes that are going to be great residents and reward them for being great residents. But honestly, we can't renew leases on the voucher program. It takes months to renew a lease. It takes an amazing amount of time just to get someone in the door, to get through the inspection process, to get your. If you make one mistake on the paperwork, they send it back and you start all over. They will not pay you. They will not respond to you. It is really, really hard and it's exhausting because you're already working a lot of hours to get your job done. It's a 24 seven job if someone doesn't have heat in the middle of the night. I worry about that. That bothers me. Every time people pay their rent, they bring in a work order. We have to adhere to everything and take care of them. We want to make sure we can pay our property taxes and we want to make sure that we provide safe, comfortable housing as well. So I guess I'm just asking if maybe you could wait until you're ready.
Speaker 12: To.
Speaker 1: Pass this. And I'd be happy to volunteer my time to work with you in any way to to do that. But I just feel like we we need a little more time to put it together so that everyone has the tools to succeed. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Charles MESSICK.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Charles MESSICK. I'm a regional manager for boutique and warehouse apartments. I manage apartments throughout Denver. I also throughout Colorado. I'd like to thank you for looking into this issue. I'm not really a proponent of the program, but I'm not a detractor either. I am someone with vast experience working with voucher systems. I have managed thousands of units across the United States and still manage properties with vouchers in Denver today. The question that comes up is why do we need an initiative to force landlords to accept vouchers for sources of income? The reason I'm hearing is that there's not enough communities that participate in the program and that people cannot qualify for places to live. And the reasons landlords do not want to participate is because participation requires the owner of the property to suffer from increased administrative burden, increased bad debt expense, increased vacancy and decrease and control of the lease terms. If the owner had the ability to offset these additional expenses, then people of the program would be a more desirable customer. The apartment associations are already taking some steps and working with people in order to try and solve some of these administrative problems. And we are actively working with housing to reduce the administrative burden by streamlining the process. But what we're asking is the city's participation in making this process more attractive for the owners who want to participate. This initiative basically offers the stick, but we also need the carrot. Please consider a couple of things. A 1300 dollars administrative fee is something that we've suggested to be collectible by the landlord to help offset these administrative expenses, perhaps a renewal, a ministry administrative fee, and a fine to offset uncollectable damages after after move out. A limit to the number of units in a building would directly correlate to this particular thing. Right now you have a duplex where one side is owned, but if you have a ten unit building and one person is not in the building, that's a 10% vacancy. And currently the city of Denver has a 96% occupancy level are 4% vacancy. So maybe a 25 unit building or more has to do this. But people with less would not have to suffer from this as much. And then finally, the ability to do variable lease terms on vouchers right now. Voucher programs are for 12 months only and they have to end at the end of the month. And that is not really good business practice for landlords nowadays. They like to do variable lease terms where a person can have their lease end in the summer when they're not moving in. It's now or something to that effect. I think all of these types of things would help actually make it a more desirable program. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Next up, chair Robert.
Speaker 3: My name is Shah Robert and I live at.
Speaker 4: 2714 East 13th Avenue and Councilman News District. I'm the Family Economic Security Program.
Speaker 3: Manager at the Colorado Center.
Speaker 4: On Law and Policy.
Speaker 3: CCP does research.
Speaker 4: Education and advocacy on behalf of low income Coloradans. 30 years ago, landlords could legally refuse to rent to families with children, and most.
Speaker 3: Did, resulting in fewer than one third.
Speaker 4: Of apartments being available for families with children. It made things very difficult for struggling.
Speaker 3: Parents of young kids by greatly limiting the available.
Speaker 4: Housing stock.
Speaker 3: I was director of the Denver.
Speaker 4: Women's Commission at the time in 1988. Congress made such discrimination illegal, and it was a very big deal. Congress recognized that families needed access to the same rental opportunities in order to raise children in a stable setting.
Speaker 3: Stable housing is associated with better.
Speaker 4: Health and better educational attainment for children. For every 100 families living at 30% of the army, which is roughly 25,000.
Speaker 3: A year for a family.
Speaker 4: Of three.
Speaker 3: There are only 26 available units. If affordable is.
Speaker 4: 30% of their income.
Speaker 3: Three fourths of these.
Speaker 4: Low income families are paying more than half their income on.
Speaker 3: Rent. This crowds out their ability to pay for other basic needs like transportation.
Speaker 4: Childcare and food.
Speaker 3: And currently, only about one in four eligible Coloradoans, who live below.
Speaker 4: 30% of Amy.
Speaker 3: Receives a housing subsidy which allows them to pay.
Speaker 4: A third of their income for rent. Subsidies are so hard to come by. The DHS holds a lottery only two days per year to distribute housing choice vouchers.
Speaker 3: For those who win one of these housing choice vouchers, they have only 60.
Speaker 4: Days to find a landlord willing.
Speaker 3: To accept it or they lose it in a.
Speaker 4: Tight housing market. Finding a landlord.
Speaker 3: Who accepts housing choice vouchers.
Speaker 4: Can be difficult. This bill can make it easier and help families attain economic stability that are that's critical for a family to achieve their full potential. I ask for your support.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Jim Lorenzen.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Jim Lorenzo, and I'm president, owner of Cornerstone Apartments, and I also live at 310 Jersey Street. Cornerstone is the largest apartment management company in Denver. Please know we do not care where the money comes from. To pay the rent, we process over $55,000 each month in section eight payments. The source of income is not the problem. Here are the concerns that my apartment owners have. Our normal application process takes less than 24 hours once and new applicant is approved. We can move them into an apartment the next day and they can start paying rent immediately. It takes 30 to 45 days to get a Section eight resident approved and moved in through DHS. This means for my owner is going to lose at least one month's rent to participate in the Section eight program. We manage a 40 unit apartment building with Section eight residents in the Highlands neighborhood. It costs $5,372 per unit per year to manage and operate this building. In comparison for our market rate apartments, we average $4,012 per year top rate. On average, it costs more than $1,350 per year to manage a Section eight apartment. I also serve on the board of the Archdiocese Housing Inc, which provides low income housing across the state. He operates their low income buildings at an even higher cost per unit than Cornerstone. And I guarantee you that the 4100 and excuse me, $4,012 per unit per year that we incur in operating costs, that DHEA and chaff cannot come even close to operating their properties. If we experienced damage in the apartment that exceeds the amount of the security deposit, we can hold a market rate resident responsible. With a Section eight resident, we have no recourse. My question is how can the city in good conscience require an apartment omer owner to participate in a government program that costs a month's rent at the beginning of the process, adds more than 1350 dollars during the course of a one year lease. And then in the event that the resident causes excess damage to the apartment, they have absolutely no recourse. This is not a source of income issue for apartment owners. This is a cost issue for us. And this audit ordinance needs further study before it can be passed. And I would appreciate your support on that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, John Lazaro.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Councilman John Lazaro, 2195 Decatur Street. I'm testifying tonight on behalf of the Denver Metro Association of Realtors, is the largest local realtor association in the state with over 7000 members. We appreciate Councilwoman the commission's work to promote fair housing and for her willingness to reach out to us. When she made the decision to have the bill apply to for sale as well as rental property. Realtors have a long commitment to fair housing. Having worked at the national and local levels and every amendment to the law at the federal and local levels. For more than 100 years, realtors have subscribed to strict code of ethics. This code includes a commitment to provide equal professional services regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin. And as of 2009, sexual orientation and in 2014, we adopted gender identity. Realtors are proud to lead the way toward greater equality and housing opportunities. And earlier this year, we urge Congress to adopt fair housing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. When my parents purchased their first home in 1956, they could not buy in the neighborhood they desire to live in, even though they could afford to. Their experience inspired me to be a fair housing advocate. My entire career as a fair housing instructor at the Denver Board of Realtors and served as president of the Colorado Community Housing Resource Board, which was a nonprofit and fair housing watchdog for HUD, including protection regardless of source of income in fair housing is important, especially in this competitive and more expensive market. Please note that in some circumstances, some properties do not qualify for certain types of financing, such as FHA or VA. As such, many sellers agents include in their listing notes that these properties are not eligible for either of those programs. This is not income discrimination, but information that's included to assist the buyer and the buyer's agent in homebuying process. We were initially concerned that the ordinance would prevent a seller who was presented with multiple offers from taking the offer that was in their best interest. Specifically, they wouldn't be able to take a higher cash offer or traditionally financed offer over FHA or VA. However, after extensive conversations with Councilman McKinney and the city attorney's office through Councilwoman Kinney's it, we determined that nothing in this ordinance prevents the seller from taking the offer that's in their best interest. Because of this fact, the Denver Metro Association of Realtors is in support of the bill this evening. Members do have concerns, as you'll hear a few more about the landlords side of the ordinance. So we respectfully request that the city carefully monitor and report back on the number of sources of income discrimination complaints that are received on the rental and also for the resale site. Again, thank you for your time and commitment to promoting fair housing. We too are committed to this notion of want to encourage your support of this ordinance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Eric Zavala and I'm going to call the next five up, Marianne Thompson, Chelsea Thomas, David Roybal, Chris Lopez and are connected.
Speaker 10: Hello. My name is Eric Sevilla and I live in Lewisville, Colorado. I have a few rentals in the Denver area and I would just like to point out that. After I leave here tonight, I'm going to be making some calls to tenants that are applying for a house that we manage and as sole proprietors and hardworking individuals . This is an important aspect for us. I know that there's I'm not in support of the bill, by the way, but I understand and I appreciate the concept and the attempt to try to bridge this gap. But in no sense is there any discrimination against people individually as far as good people being able to rent properties. This is about a level playing field of having to be forced to do business with the city of Denver and have a third party on a lease, which is now the city of Denver. Because not only are you signing a lease with this tenant that you're meeting and greeting and having a future relationship with for the next 12 months, 24 months, 36 months. We now have a silent partner that's being forced on us, which is a rental authority that's going to have to come in, do inspections on the property, which is, in my opinion, a violation of privacy issue. The $5,000 fine that is proposed here is a fairly astronomical charge and. The and many of the landlords that are out here, I know that there's just probably this assumption that it's all these big conglomerations and big corporations that are running these apartment buildings. But there are a lot of us individuals that stay up and work until ten, 12:00 at night just to make ends meet and provide good housing and take great pride in doing that for people. And it's not about. Discriminating against to where people get the income from. This is about the level playing field of the extra work that we have to do. If we have to start taking vouchers, if we're forced to, because we're accepting this responsibility of scheduling extra inspections, losing last time, I doubt somebody is going to be able to be around for me to call on some kind of a government staff at 9:00 tonight when I have questions about how to get this done. There's a difference in how small businesses operate versus government entities. And with all due respect to you, volunteering and doing what you do to promote this great place that we live in in Denver, I object to the way that this is currently written. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Mary Ann Thompson.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Mariana Thompson. I represent Denver. Homeless out loud. First and foremost, I want to thank Robin Carnation each and every one of you for bringing this needed subject to to the table. I experience homelessness from 2012 to 2016. Now, I had a voucher and I was discriminate Section eight voucher and I was discriminated. I did not know about fair housing at the time because I had no one to help me through the ropes. I do not know that. Oh, someone could just turn me down because. Well, I think that this one bedroom would fit more of a couple. But that's not what you said when you turned around and you had your advertisement to same thing with AP old age pension. I ended up with breast cancer. I was in transitional housing, so I ended up being forced on. To make a long story short. Folks, money is money, right? Whether it's turnip, whether it's A&E, whether it's OJP, whether it's SSDI, whether it's Social Security. There are people.
Speaker 4: Right now on the street.
Speaker 1: With A&E pending SSDI. It takes almost four years or more for them to get their SSDI. Most of them because of mental illness that I have volunteered with. So we have.
Speaker 4: People on the street. I get it that we don't have enough housing.
Speaker 1: I get that. I do get that. At the same time, what I don't feel that anyone should be turned away for housing based on the source of income. Just like Robin said, if it's legal and it's verifiable, what's. I mean? I rent it many times privately. The same. Same thing goes. You. You have to bring in your paycheck stubs. They verify your income. What's the difference between that and a a A&E or AP? Anyways, I just want to say that we are discriminating.
Speaker 4: Just like years ago, people did not.
Speaker 1: Have a roof over their house or could not live in a neighborhood because of the color of their skin or their gender or whatever. Let's make this a let's pass this and make this another way that more people can have a house and have keys.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chelsea Thomas.
Speaker 1: Good evening and thank you, council members. I've heard a lot of different perspectives tonight from some small investors and also larger corporations. I own two and five, six rental houses and I live in Villa Park along with them in Lopez's district. Speaking at this to you guys, from a very small perspective, I find the the current wording very worrisome. I own a share of multiple houses, six total. But even if one of those if I rent it out and I get multiple applicants and I accept the best tenant for the property. My main concern is what if one of those people that I sadly had to turn away decides that I discriminate against them based on their source of income when that wasn't really the issue at all? What are my recourses as a small landlord with very little financial resources and any kind of large backing? Who's going to stand on my side from the city's perspective, or is it going to be the city trying to defend the person that they think was discriminated against instead? I think that there are some unseen consequences here. Small investors like myself who work for myself and for my family. We take a lot of pride in what we do. We really care about our houses and we really care about the people who live in them. We have some great tenants who actually moved from one house to another because they just like working with us. Sturgess I think it's a really complex problem and I'm glad that you guys are trying to work on it, but I think that it does require further study. We're really not there yet. There are huge questions and I've heard some of them voiced, I'm not going to repeat them, but I appreciate all the research that you've done , Councilwoman. I still think that there's more work that needs to be done, especially with smaller landlords who have some different perspectives, perhaps than the larger corporations, even looking at the larger entities. I will say that just this weekend, my sister, who owns one of the houses with me, my younger sister, she said, hey, do you want to buy my share of the house out from me? Because I don't want to deal with this. I'm scared of what's really going to mean in the long run, and I'm not sure if I can handle it. I can't handle the pressure and the stress. And I, I basically said to her, well, if it's really going to be that stressful, maybe we'll sell the house completely and buy a house in another city and county where we don't have to worry about it. So, again, talking to this unseen consequences, decreased housing supply, I think maybe people have mentioned. If this is a cost that the landlords have to take on, it's going to also mean increased rents. And because we're going to offset that some way, it's not just about us making money, it's about us offsetting the costs that we incur. So please, please, thank you for your time. But I think this is this requires a little bit more thought and maybe even some more input from some of the people that you've heard here tonight. Definitely willing to work with you if you need somebody for that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Roybal. I don't see here anymore. Chris Lopez. All right. Are us connected?
Speaker 1: We'll be connected. Yeah. Hi. My name is Brittany Catalina. I'm a resident of Denver and I'm an owner of Be Connected, which is a startup business that focuses on the gaps. Focuses on the gaps between the public and private sectors that affects people's ability to get into housing. We do this specifically through education and streamlining services. I hear a lot about the HUD processes, the reasons why owners can't work with voucher holders. And one of the things that our business is doing is specifically working on those gaps. A background does come in from HUD. Also, I have lived experience. I grew up in project based housing too, so that's where my passion within housing comes from. So anyone who wants to talk about some of those issues that are affecting owners ability to take some of those voucher holders, our business is very much decreasing those number of days and we're starting to track that so we can combat some of the things that are coming through. But anyhow, one of the gaps to service that our business has looked at and feels like is a huge issue and barrier to people. Getting into housing is a source of income. This disproportionately affects people with disabilities, elderly students, working class sectors, veterans and other verified incomes. In 2016, the Center on Budget and Policy and Priorities did a study on Colorado, specifically looking at the Section eight renters, not the supportive housing vouchers that we see, not the state vouchers. What you see so specifically with Section eight, renters are closely to 30,000. Section eight renters.
Speaker 3: Specifically.
Speaker 1: These renters where 30, 34% elderly, 25% adults living with disability, 7% of adults living with children and 5% of adults with disability who also had children. In addition to our state providing.
Speaker 4: Just over 15,000.
Speaker 1: Units within project based housing. Specifically bring these up because I feel like one sector is putting a lot of effort in. We're spending a lot of money into housing. We bring it up. We cannot build out of this issue. We have to challenge it. Currently, we are 172,000 sorry, 23% of Colorado's renters are 30% am. I am below. Currently we are 127,000 units short. We cannot expect us to build our way out of this. Instead, we need to educate ourselves and challenge the current issues that are happening within housing. I believe that it has to come both from a public and private sectors, and we can't just continue to build. We have to provide avenues for access. And one of the ways is very much bringing up who are these renters? It's marginalized renters. It's your students. It's not just S.E. We also work with marginalized renters. We work all the way up to 60%. Ami, every day we're getting questions. We're tracking that so we can start to challenge some of the biases and things that are coming up and provide some studies. So thank you. And we are in support of 788.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up is Suzanne Thomas and then I'll invite Aubrey Household, Kim Hilton, Robert Fischer and Debbie Wilson to the front bench. And Suzanne Thomas, you're up.
Speaker 1: Hello. I'm Suzanne Thomas. I live at 32 six West Eighth Avenue and Paul Lopez, this neighborhood, Villa Park. And I'm here to say that it seems like you're trying to solve a problem with the wrong approach. The problem is with vouchers, they're difficult to use. They cost a lot of money to the landlord. You say to somebody, you have to take them. I make $45,000 a year cash flow, offer 15 rental houses. I do not own them free and clear. My youngest mortgage is two years old, is going to be 28 years. I'll be 80 years old when it's paid off. The other one, the oldest one, is 12 years in. I'll be 70 years old when it's paid off. That's when my cash flow will increase. In the meantime, you're asking me to take a voucher that I may not get rent for six weeks. On a project it's renting for 1400 dollars. That's almost $3,000, up to $3,000 I could not get. If I multiply that by two or three houses a year, you're taking away a great portion of my income. And you said, well, that's just what it costs to do business in Denver. So what if I choose not to do business in Denver? Does this help the problem of housing or does it make it worse? Now, part of the reason I don't have a huge income is because I do have affordable houses. One house I purchased, I've got a gentleman who 75 years old, he's lived there 30 years. I gave him a lifetime lease for $350 a month. And yes, I take students with student loans, but I do not want to be in a situation where I'm facing $5,000 fine. I don't want to be a situation where I'm working with the government as my partner. I don't want the additional administrative hassle. I already work late at night painting houses, making them cute for people. It's not going to do tomorrow night because I'm here tonight at this meeting and I want to say you need to solve the real problem and you say that we can't build enough. And that may be true. But encouraging landlords like me to leave the city of Denver or to build big houses that are not eligible for the programs is not going to help. I do recommend that when you look at the to use zoning, I talked to one lady at a meeting at a library and they said we don't want to allow landlords to build a use behind their houses because too many of them would do it, would get too many rental units, it would annoy the neighbors. And I understand totally why you wouldn't want to do that in most of the neighborhoods in the city of Denver. And I don't know if Paul would agree or not, but Villa Lopez, I mean, Villa Park, we've got a lot of houses that are 600 square feet, two bedroom houses on 6000 square foot lots. And I think you might want to approach this in the sense that if as a landlord, I was allowed to build a second small rental, I'd rather do that than have one giant expensive house. But if I build that second small rental, even if you allow it and say, no, I have to take vouchers and maybe I get the rent and maybe I don't. Maybe I just build a big house and sell it or rent it instead. And that doesn't help the problem. It makes it worse. And that's what other people have mentioned tonight. We are small business owners. We're not rich. We don't have a lot of cash flow. And this exemption for one house, I appreciate that. But for me, that won't do any good. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Ari has told.
Speaker 1: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Aubrey Household, and I'm the advocacy manager at the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, and I'm also a Denver resident. And I'm here in strong support of this ordinance. Tonight at CCH, we house about 3000 families each night, and that is through our own properties, as well as through our partnerships with landlords , through the community. We work with hundreds of landlords to get some of these tenants in who have these nontraditional sources of income like vouchers. And there might be some fear there. And so what we've actually had to do is create a position at the coalition called Housing Navigator, and this person has had to work specifically what these landlords to build relationships, kind of dismiss some of that fear that's there and some of those stereotypes that exist and get some of our clients in. And our landlords have had really great experiences. They keep coming back doing this year after year. And one of the things that we haven't talked about tonight, and that is some a high point for a lot of our landlords, is that in many of the vouchers that we work with, aside from Section eight, we work with about a dozen. And many of those have wraparound services that help keep people housed successfully. And so if there is an issue, there is somebody there that is able to help remedy that right away. So that's something that keeps people coming back. I also want to mention that we conducted a survey in January of Colorado residents, primarily in the Denver metro area, and we asked about source of income discrimination. And what we found was that of tenants who said that they had been discrete or that they had been rejected for rental housing. 47% said it was because of their source of income. So we've heard from some really well-meaning landlords tonight, but this is a huge problem and we can't ignore it all across Denver. And this body has recognized the seriousness of the housing crisis. Denver has done a lot to invest in some tools to address it and get people into housing, tear down some of those barriers that we have. And this bill just ensures that we're able to fully utilize these tools and those aren't going to waste. And I just want to mention that we are in support of the amendment and to exempt just one unit, but we don't want that to go any further. But one unit we think is fine and we're also in support of the fine for landlords who may incur more damage. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Kim Hilton.
Speaker 1: Hi, everyone. I'll make this quick. I know it's been a very long night, so I'm just going to read.
Speaker 15: And if I don't look at you.
Speaker 1: Guys, I apologize. I know we're all getting tired. My name is Kim Helton. I am the CEO of Ego Summit Property Management were based in Centennial, Colorado. We manage over 700 single family homes in the Denver area.
Speaker 3: We have discussed why we are here today with our owners and found the majority.
Speaker 4: Say they will sell their homes to avoid.
Speaker 1: The fines if forced to take vouchers without major improvements to the current current.
Speaker 3: Voucher programs already in place. If sold.
Speaker 15: These developers would likely.
Speaker 3: Gobble up these family friendly.
Speaker 1: Homes at sale and convert.
Speaker 3: Them to high priced.
Speaker 1: Condos for the.
Speaker 3: Upwardly mobile professional. Some improvements.
Speaker 1: Examples that are needed are quicker payments at start up to avoid lost income for months.
Speaker 15: After new move.
Speaker 1: In quicker responses from.
Speaker 3: Caseworkers when problems arise.
Speaker 1: Protect the owner if the resident damages the home, have more penalties to the resident.
Speaker 3: Who is on the voucher and cover.
Speaker 1: The loss.
Speaker 3: Beyond deposit, enforce and improve the policies you have.
Speaker 1: Hire more staff. Train the staff to be consistent under one procedure, straighten. Strengthen your infrastructure. This has nothing to do with the person or how they get the money. It has to do with the programs in place that do not protect.
Speaker 3: The owners at all.
Speaker 1: When problems arise. This would be a loss to Denver and to our company. We would charge an additional 20% per annum for the extra staff compliance and inspections pricing would then.
Speaker 3: Be based on Denver and non Denver.
Speaker 1: Properties. We are putting the cart before the.
Speaker 3: Horse without first looking at.
Speaker 1: All of the problems. You might then find the owners are not the sole cause of what you consider discrimination claims.
Speaker 3: We need to keep.
Speaker 1: This voluntary and.
Speaker 15: We can address these concerns fully without.
Speaker 1: Rush. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Robert Fisher.
Speaker 15: Good evening, council members. My name is Robert Fisher and I'm an advocate with the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition. I'm here to support council bills. Seven, eight, eight. I think this bill would be good for Denver, Colorado, and it also would ensure that persons with a source of income, limited resources, income would not be a barrier and accessible and accessing affordable housing. Denver has experienced a rapid growth in population. Rents are rising and neighborhoods are without an adequate supply of affordable housing. A 2017 report by the Urban Institute called Denver and the state of low and middle income housing states that rental cost burdens for low and middle income families are 46 to 82% of their total incomes. This report also states that the new housing units being built in Denver are for residents of low to moderate incomes or those of 50 to 120%, and by those who are 50% to below 30%. I am I there's no affordable housing for them. I think this bill would help them a whole lot. This population is being displaced and becoming homeless. More than half of the displaced people are 55 and older. Many are families. This bill will prohibit the discriminatory practices on the basis of income and give all those who choose to live in Denver. Denver a chance to participate in all aspects of life, including affordable housing. I am 60 years old. I have multiple disabilities. I've been displaced and I live in my car because I'm below 30%. Am I? I would love to have a place, but you know what? It doesn't seem to be possible in Denver. I am on an anti placement policy network and I'm working alongside Councilwoman Robin Keech and Councilman Brooks. Denver is about one of ten cities selected to participate in a network of advancing strategies that will halt the forces that are pushing low income people, marginalized people and people of color out of the cities. At the same time, this network is creating the conditions for our cities and communities to thrive by developing new and innovative ideas by path.
Speaker 0: Sorry, Mr. Fisher, but your time is all up. Thank you very much. Yeah. Next up, Debbie Wilson. And I'll invite our last two speakers Andrea, Shira Boga, Fleur and Andrew Hamrick up to the frontbench. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Members of the council. My name is Debbie Wilson. I'm with the law firm of Springer and Braden Wilson and Pontius and I live at 3193 West 36th Avenue in north west Denver. And I'm here because I heard about this source of income proposal. And I am very much an advocate for affordable housing. I represent many thousands of landlords and tens of thousands of doors in the Denver area. I reached out to my clients and just said, Hey, what do you think about this source of income legislation? And I was deluged with dozens of phone calls and emails from my clients going and mostly my smaller clients. I have to be clear in a panic saying city council is not going to really consider this or think about passing a mandate, forcing us to take vouchers. And they, you know, went off into a litany of horror stories. But I think one of the things that well, I just want to say this right away, all the speakers have made excellent points, but I have a lovely client who takes cash vouchers, stashes dealing with the VA, with our soldiers and sailors that come back with mental health issues, disabilities. And he has become because he wants to help those that group an expert at navigating the complexity of HUD and the Veterans Administration and BASH And he takes the vouchers and he has kind of a boarding house and has all these wonderful people in there and some services to help with mental health issues . And if you pass this ordinance, it will destroy that program, because then he would have to take anybody with any kind of source of income, and he would be prohibited from saying, I want to focus on this group and help our soldiers and sailors. So sometimes the unintended consequences of some well-meaning legislation has some real devastating effects. I have clients that deal with CCH and they love them. I mean, the programs she just spoke, they have some good people at the program and they will take the vouchers, but they won't take DHEA and DHEA. The THEA programs and HUD are complex. DHEA does wonderful work. And Mike, many of my clients deal with them, but my smaller clients, you know, they have maybe ten units or less, really struggle to understand the complexities of HUD, of the program dealing with the front end costs. We've already had some people testify that, you know, you unlike conventional housing, you don't have to take your your unit off the market while you're screening and going through the leasing process. But with Section eight, you have to and you're often taking it off the market for a month before you get approval. And the inspector out there and that's the realities of this program guessing, just saying $1,000 a month is a rent. That's $1,000 out of pocket and that person may not even pass.
Speaker 4: The approval process.
Speaker 1: And you're out that money. And so the smaller landlords go, wait a minute, I, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: But your time is all over. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much. Next up, Andrea. Chair above the floor.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Andrew. As you do, what I've learned has really good, good job. I'm the lead housing organizer for 9 to 5 Colorado. I was living yesterday in Councilwoman Black's district, and I was moved to Councilman Espinosa's district. So congratulations. And so we're a grassroots member based organization that works on policies to lift up women inside and outside of the workplace. In the for the past few years, we've been working on housing. Specifically, we did a survey between 2015 and 2016 of almost 10,000 tenants to identify the biggest barriers. We didn't specifically ask tenants about being turned away for source of income, but we did collect anecdotal stories of of people being turned away. And not just for vouchers. Just a reminder, this is not just about vouchers. People are being turned away for a lot of different types of income. One of our members who's not able to be here today, Nicole, as a housekeeper, told me this, I have Section eight and cannot find a place that accepts that. I also have experience with both my child care support and student loans being denied as usable income. Me and my kids were practically homeless. Homeless because I was a single mom finishing my degree and wasn't working, so nobody would accept my income. I had a credit score of 803. My student loans and grants would have qualified me along with the child support, and I had a willing cosigner. I was turned away left and right. I was consumed with looking for a place. Aside from the many application fees, it was a nightmare. Currently in Colorado there are no limit. We have very few rights and so if we're talking about leveling the playing field, we should really think about actually creating more rights for tenants. And we ranked 43rd in terms of how tenant friendly our policies are. On a recent study on a website called Rent Cafe, and this is not this would not mandate people to accept anybody with a voucher. If people don't have the right credit score, if they have a background, if they don't make enough money, it's you. Landlords would still be able to turn those people away. It just gives people a chance. And I mean, right now, the decision really is, are we going to do more to prevent homelessness and pushing people further into poverty, into situations where they're unstable, don't have jobs, or are we going to help those folks and perhaps put a burden on landlords that may or may not happen depending on if if vouchers even are come about in their in their units. So I really think I encourage you all to think and prioritize our homeless population and folks looking for housing right now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Last up, Andrew Hamrick. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council Councilman Cashman?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who to direct this to. I'll ask my colleague, Councilwoman Connie Chung. If you don't have it, we can ask someone else. How many vouchers are there? That would be part of this program.
Speaker 12: So there are just under 6000 housing choice vouchers that are issued by Denver Housing Authority in Denver County and more than 5000 of them, in spite of the stories we're hearing tonight, are housed in Denver. So 12%, about 700 or so, are unable to find housing in Denver and have to go to other counties. They can report their their voucher. As I mentioned, there were probably a dozen other programs. Some of them are very small. We administer a couple of them through our partners or the city funds a couple of them through partners. So there's not I don't have I was unable to find a total number of all the voucher, specifically when you add those other programs in. But the housing choice voucher program is the largest.
Speaker 8: Thank you. My other question to Mr. Guerrero, would you mind stepping up to the mic? We hear a lot about the problems with dealing with with DHS and getting paid. And it takes too long for people to be able to move in. Can you address that, please?
Speaker 9: Yes. Good evening, everybody. Good to be with you at this late hour. And obviously, I always enjoy talking about the our voucher program or any of our programs at the Housing Authority. I'm Ismael Guerrero, the executive director of the Denver Housing Authority. And just a couple of points since I have the mike, too, to share about the program. I think, as Councilwoman Kennish mentioned, we are the largest housing authority in the region. We actually administer about 6700 vouchers, currently only leasing up about 6000 because of the current funding shortage from HUD. So we don't have the funding to be fully leased. We are second largest voucher administrator in the state. The Colorado Division of Housing actually administers more. But in Denver, we have the vast majority of the vouchers for over the last ten years, the housing authority has been ranked as a high performing program. Our Housing Choice Voucher in the Sea Map program, the Section eight Management Assessed Assessment Program through HUD, has ranked our program as a high performer, meaning we're in compliance, meeting all our deadlines and monitoring reports. So at a national level, we are a high performer in that region, in that area, and also on an annual basis, we work from anywhere between 2520 800 landlords, private landlords in the city of Denver who choose to participate in the program. So we have a large number of landlords, private landlords that we work with on an annual basis. I think we are always open and looking for ways to improve our operations, the efficiency of our program and to ensure that we provide good client service to our residents as well as good service to our our landlords who are one of our only or precious relationships that we manage and value in the city. Among the things that we have done as part of our continuous improvement program. Just to in response, some of the concerns you heard today, we have been working on a way to streamline our initial this process and currently we can do from initial issuing of a voucher to lease up as quickly as two weeks. We've improved the way our our inspectors go out. They have 24 hours to schedule an inspection. When they go out there, they bring their they lease with them so the lease can be signed and executed once the inspection is completed. There are always, you know, challenges and initial lease up or initial setup if it's a new landlord or a new tenant. But we're doing very well at that. A two week process that we are committed to. Not every lease up goes out smoothly. Unfortunately, there are extenuating circumstances and that's why, as we were hearing the feedback today, we'll be looking for ways to continue to improve that. Some other things that we've done is to ensure that most of our I think all of our landlords at this point are on auto deposit. So we cut checks weekly and we can process checks and deposit payments on a weekly basis to landlords as they get set up. And then we've also been focusing with our tenants institute of what's called the Goldstar program. So that's one where our tenants, before they are issued their voucher, have the opportunity to go through an orientation program and really how to be good tenants, what the expectations are from landlords, what it means to rent a property if they haven't previously, and how to ensure that they can maintain their tenancy once they do lease up . And so those are just three examples of things that we're doing. But as I mentioned, we're always open to additional improvements that we can make in our processes.
Speaker 8: I believe that you are. Why does it take two weeks to get someone moved in?
Speaker 9: Why does it take that?
Speaker 8: Why does it take two weeks?
Speaker 9: So that that goes from the time that a tenant. So, again, this is unfortunately and as you heard, it is a program that comes with some administrative oversight and administrative requirements. It is. Many of the program requirements are HUD regulation. So we don't have a lot of options there. Among the probably the biggest delay in that process, the two key steps are the housing quality inspection that has to be scheduled and the unit has to be inspected, pass inspection as part of the process.
Speaker 8: And who inspects.
Speaker 9: That? The Housing Authority? Our staff. Yep. And again, we've instituted a policy of 24 hours from the time we're notified that a tenant's ready to move. Has selected a unit to when we make contact with the property owner. Then it's a question of scheduling availability till we can get in there. A second step is the reasonable rent calculation that we have to do to ensure that that unit that the rent that's being requested is reasonable given comps in the area. So those are sometimes two additional steps that would otherwise have to be followed.
Speaker 8: Sure. On an ongoing basis, once a client moves in. How long does it take to generate the monthly rent.
Speaker 9: We pay on a monthly basis? It's automated, so once they're in the system and set up, the checks are deposited into the landlord's account on a regular basis.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Guerrero.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I think your microphone.
Speaker 1: Can initiate some of the speakers this evening said that this law would require them to take people who had Section eight vouchers. Can you please clarify that? Yeah, it would require.
Speaker 12: Them to consider them where they had adequate income. So the vouchers typically have a fair market rent value estimate. Of what kind of rent? Think of it sometimes it's called a hunting license, I think. You can go look for an apartment with a 1100 dollars rent, or you can go look for an apartment for either a 1300 dollar rent or whatever it is you're authorized for. And so if you you have to consider those individuals, you wouldn't be able to put an ad up on Craigslist that said no vouchers need apply. But, you know, if you had a $2,000 apartment in, the person only had authorization for 1100 dollars. Obviously, they would not be eligible for that unit. You could tell them that you would, you know, whatever the conversation would be. But so it's about being considered. It's about a chance to compete. It's not about a requirement that you have to take any particular tenant.
Speaker 1: Okay. So just wanted to clarify that. And then I know that several people are concerned about fines. And, you know, everyone we heard from tonight is a small business person that owns a small some rental homes or small apartment buildings or something. And I've heard from people in my district in that same situation. And so can you explain how those fines would work? Because personally, I also would be very terrified of a $5,000 fine. So can you please.
Speaker 12: Thank you. In fact, it's a very narrow fine if you you guys, I think, have the ordinance in front of you. But it is only applicable where one of two conditions is met. The first is that the individual was refused housing and there's no replacement unit available. Right. So if there's you know, if you have a, you know, multiple units and you refuse them a unit, you went through a process, you were found to have refused the unit. And you're willing then at the end to offer them another unit, then that's it. There would be no penalty or where there's an order to stop discriminating. Right. So maybe there's been multiple cases of discrimination, the or the advertising. Again, it comes up the department issues an order and says you may no longer turn people away who call you and say, you know, hey, I've got this thing. Can you can you take me? No, no, I don't take that source of income. You have an order that says, stop doing that and you violate the order. Those are the only two circumstances where the fine applies. So if you have a first time instance where this occurs, there is no penalty unless you're unable to make the person you know, give them access to the unit. And again, that's at the conclusion of a process whereby there's been both a department investigation as well as the potential the landlord has the right to choose a hearing officer and be heard. The one other thing, if I can sneak it in real quick because it hasn't come up previously, is that the ordinance allows the individual who's involved in a complaint to withdraw the complaint at any time. That's intentional in order to encourage the potential for mediation of results. Right. So the goal here is that there's a lot of pathways, very narrow circumstances where a fine applies. And it's really where you've disregarded in order.
Speaker 1: And who does who? Who would one complain to? What agency is this?
Speaker 12: So this is an amendment that we're running tonight to the to the Denver Anti-Discrimination Ordinance, sometimes known as data. And it is administered by the Human Rights and Community Partnerships. So they have an individual who is in charge of taking complaints. Has been doing it quite a while. And they all already take complaints against for all the other types of discrimination that are in our ordinance. So they have some experience. We will get them more training during this lag time before there is an affected data so that they can see this particular training for this particular method.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And I have just one more question. Okay. So Mr. Lorenzen was here earlier, but I think he left and I had a letter from him, as I'm sure we all did in our mailboxes. But he referred to a normal application process takes 24 hours. So this is probably for you, Mr. Grant. He says once a new applicant is approved, they can move into the apartment the next day and pay rent. It takes 30 to 45 days to get a Section eight resident approved and moved in. But you just got through telling us it takes two weeks. So this is not the standard. And then I believe Debbie Wilson referred to if someone has applied. That you have to take it off the market. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: So two points there. One, I think, to Mr. Lorenzo's earlier comment, certainly in today's housing market, where in our city the high cost of housing and the low supply, I know and you know, we have experienced that when a unit becomes available, there are easily ten applicants the same day, you know, knocking down the door, trying to get that unit because there's such a short supply. So certainly understand that today units are being rented very quickly to, you know, same day people are coming with their check because they need the unit, as I mentioned earlier answer to do an initial lease up with us. It does take we've got a process that we can do it in two weeks if everything goes, you know, as as planned. And we can get the inspections scheduled quickly. In particular, the the the the off market question, I'm not sure the pilot exactly there it is certainly once a unit has been a tenant, has identified a unit that they want to lease and the landlord has accepted that tenant for that unit. That's when we received the notice for tenant. Thereafter, rental requests for tenant occupancy. And that's what kicks us, kicks off our process. So it may be that during that two weeks to even the first month, while we're getting the unit inspected and the initial payment process, that unit does have to be held for that tenant because the commitment has been made by the landlord that that's that that unit will be available for them.
Speaker 1: So that's after the landlord has already accepted that tenant.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So back to you, Councilwoman Canete. If. If if the landlord wanted, if it was available, as Mr. London's paragraph says, it's available that day when two people apply and one person can start paying rent the next day, and one person is applying with vouchers. But it's going to take two weeks. Can the landlord accept the tenant who can start paying rent the next day?
Speaker 12: This is where I have to be honest, where decisions based on specific facts as a legislative branch, I cannot comment. Right? So what I can tell you is that the investigator in this case would look at all those facts and evaluate whether there was a legitimate business reason for the decision or whether the decision was discriminatory. And so that's the training they'll get. That's the training that all of the other states and cities that do this will provide. We're going to, you know, do some cross training and all that stuff. But I think that, you know, I just can't theorize as to what an investigator or hearing officer would rule in a particular case . Okay. Cause that's pretty, pretty fact specific. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Got it. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman, new.
Speaker 14: Council is just following up on that question of you have two equal or three equal candidates. They all have in common the Section eight, you have verified income and they're all qualified from the income level. The landlord can choose whoever they want, right?
Speaker 12: Yeah. I think that it may be helpful to use an example, let's say with gender, for example, you know, if you have three folks who apply and two our men and one is women, it's not illegal to rent to a guy. It's not you don't have to rent to a woman. What you can't do is turn the woman away because she's a woman. Right. And so that analogy, I think, is the best way to kind of then go back to the income thing if they're using legitimate business reasons. Right. They don't have to rent to the voucher holder, but they have to be making it for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. So this is about guaranteed opportunity. It's not about guaranteed outcomes.
Speaker 14: Right. Okay. So the listener does have the freedom to choose on a legitimate business premises. Candidates have a longer employment status. They've been in employment as long as they could be a legitimate reason for that. This person's better. Okay, just an example. Let's just go to we've had a lot of small homes being used as examples tonight. So that situation there where you have multiple candidates, we're in that same situation. Right. So that small business owner with a single family home they're renting really has a great advantage in that situation. They're not they shouldn't feel at a disadvantage. Right. Because they have multiple and for legitimate business reasons, they can choose whoever they like, whether it's Section eight or not. Right.
Speaker 12: Yes. I mean, as I understand your question, the ordinance, the same answer applies by.
Speaker 14: Manager.
Speaker 12: Small but smaller, large, I think the same answer.
Speaker 14: So you have a large where you have multiple units that are vacant. Okay. And then you then you have, you know, four units that are vacant, three candidates, one Section eight. Then that Section eight candidate will really be able to get the one of those units right. There wouldn't be a strong business reason to not allow that person. Right.
Speaker 12: Again, I'm not I'm not going to make legal conclusions for for a department that's going to administer it. But it sure sounds like it'd be tough facts if you if you said, nope, I don't have a unit and there was a vacant unit, that would be a tough act to overcome in an investigation.
Speaker 14: Was real clear. So if you've got multiple candidates you the landlords really know the disadvantage that the seemed like to me. So, Ishmael, let me ask you a question around this, this whole issue of getting approval. Okay. So you say a resident gives the landlord 30 or 60 days notice and you have a candidate that comes in . Could you do a pre-approval before that rental unit is vacant so that landlord will not lose any money? You understand what I'm saying? Yes. Can you can you say if the landlord says yes, I'll read to you, but I've got to get approved and get it all, all taken care of and ready to get payment. As soon as that the person leaves and you're housed here. Is that is that possible?
Speaker 3: So the.
Speaker 9: It's trying to think through our process. I think the important thing to know is our families who have vouchers are effectively pre-approved in terms of eligibility, income, background. You know, we do a basic criminal background check before they're issued a voucher, so they're effectively eligible for the for the program.
Speaker 14: What I'm talking about is the inspection and the comparable right area that sounds like that's going to take the most time. But if you've got enough time to do it before that apartment becomes vacant, then landlords not going to lose any money.
Speaker 9: Right. And I think the only there is hesitating is just thinking through procedurally or operationally how that would work. And the challenge could be doing the inspection of a unit while it's still occupied before the prior tenant has has moved out. It's certainly something that we would be open to exploring. And I think as councilwoman offered earlier, you know, working with with other agencies with that kind of process improvements to see any and every way that we can shorten that timeline to pre approvals to ensure that the that the landlords are not losing any as they say a vacancy lost because of the time it takes for the tenant to be able to move in.
Speaker 14: And if a place is inspected and does it have to be inspected again and again for every new person in U.S. aid that has to lease? Are you going through the same process for every one that there's the leasing that you did, whether you inspected it six months ago or not?
Speaker 9: So there are currently we have to inspect every unit on initial Lisa. HUD has allowed us. Now there's some streamlining happening within the HUD housing choice voucher program. One is biannual inspection, so we don't have to inspect the unit every year. We can go to a two year every two years before it has to be inspected again. And then on larger properties are on when way our project basing vouchers or committing a number of vouchers to a property, we can do a sample inspection. And that's primarily on new construction, however. So the HUD rules are shifting a little bit to be more streamlined. And that's why I hesitate a little bit, because I know there's some statutes that have been changed, but HUD has not issued the regs, the regs and how that's going to be implemented.
Speaker 14: Like you could do. Some of that pre-approval will be a lot easier because you're not you know, you're not putting out any money until actually the person takes hold of them.
Speaker 9: Yeah, exactly. And we are also encouraging some of our tenants who are issued new vouchers to lease in place, meaning if they already are in a rental unit, to consider working with the landlord to lease that same unit rather than look for a new unit, just certainly because of how tight that current housing market is.
Speaker 14: Okay. Thank you. One last question, Councilman Kennish. I was really surprised to hear that the other cities or the the actual usage is so low. And actually, you said Seattle discontinues further one of the reasons what happened. What what are the reasons for that?
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 12: I think one of the facts that wasn't shared very clearly tonight is that every landlord is allowed to and still encouraged to use a security deposit. And so it's the best way to protect themselves from damage. And so if landlords follow that best practice and they have damage to their unit, that is the first place you go to get reimbursed. These funds in other cities only kick in then after. So if you have damage that exceeds the security deposit, that's when you would go to these funds. And I think the short story is that there aren't that many cases where the damage exceeds otherwise. Landlords would have done claims in these in these programs. And and so, you know, I think it doesn't mean it never occurs, doesn't it? But it just means that for whatever reason, either the security deposit is covering folks. The other thing that got shared tonight that I'm a little I just want to correct the record. There was a statement made that there's no recourse if you have, you know, an issue with the voucher holder. And I just want to share the fact that nationally and I don't know if numbers are different nationally, a third of voucher holders are working, which means that they have wages in addition to their voucher. And among so a third are working. Who are the rest? While the majority of the rest are seniors and disabled folks, most of whom qualify for SSI. You know, some of these other there was our sources of income in addition to the voucher. So if you do have a situation where you have damage or something, you can go after, you know, go to a collections agency or go to a garnishing of of income sources. There are some other recourses available. So I don't have data on how many landlords in these other cities are using those other methods. But but there's only a small percentage of voucher holders who are who are probably are homeless residents who may have zero income. Most the vast majority have another source of income. Along with their voucher. So there is some other income to go after if you have an issue with the tenant. Not saying it's easy to collect, but it's also not easy to collect from folks who cause damage, who don't have vouchers.
Speaker 14: So we'll just just make sure I understand I didn't quite understand. Your answer to the first question was because they actually didn't have people that were using the program whatsoever.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 14: They were just people who were using the program that that were denied.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Let me just give you a few examples. So there were 90 households eligible and three claims made in Portland, Oregon. There's just there were 299 households eligible for another program in Portland and 333 claims were made. That's over the course, by the way, of seven years. So these numbers are over multiple years, over different funds. So in Norfolk, Virginia, they had 12 claims over five years, six claims over four years. So so I'm just, you know, so they had households in these programs.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm just.
Speaker 12: Going.
Speaker 14: To say because you're talking about claims, right? I was just talking about the actual people who actually were accepted and rented apartments.
Speaker 12: Hundreds and hundreds of people getting apartments.
Speaker 14: Okay.
Speaker 12: Less between zero and five landlords a year making claims against the fund.
Speaker 14: So that's just a different story. You have a lot of utilization, but really a few claims for problems, right?
Speaker 12: That's that that is with the data we were able to collect.
Speaker 14: Thank you very much, David. Sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you so much. I think my question was was answered with when I when I came the age, when I made sure just how many of those calls do we get about with folks who have that delayed payment? And how frequent is it? How often? Is this systemic? And if it is, I mean, what are we doing to address and fix that problem?
Speaker 9: I don't have exact data for you, Councilman. I can tell you, as I said, we have we have, you know, over 2000 landlords we work with who choose to be part of the program annually. We we do annual surveys of our landlords to make sure we understand where the the issues are and, you know, try to find continuous ways to make improvements to our program. It's never perfect. And and we've historically had a high utilization rate of our vouchers, meaning, you know, 98 to 100% of our vouchers found landlords to lease to them. I think obviously the last decade or so, with the high cost of housing and the rents accelerating astronomically, what's happened more and I think really the focus of this ordinance is about families having choices, more choices than they currently have in a tight market. But I'd be happy to look into that data and get back to some of those specific numbers.
Speaker 10: And I want you to repeat that.
Speaker 9: 98% utilization. Historical. Yeah. So in 1998, percent of the vouchers we issued were able to find actually 100% in more normal housing market. We're able to find a landlord to lease to them.
Speaker 10: Do we know what that is now?
Speaker 9: We're currently at about 90%, both because of the the higher rents we're having the pay per voucher. As you can imagine, the news out of D.C. continues to be pretty grim in terms of the funding levels. So our budget for the voucher program has been decreasing as have been our admin administrative fees. So we're only able to utilize currently about 90% of the vouchers that we would otherwise be able to.
Speaker 10: And it's I mean, my question is more towards and.
Speaker 0: I would I would do.
Speaker 10: Absolutely appreciate that. Mr. Rivera. My question, I think, ma'am, kind of was because how many times are we getting reports that folks who are participating in the program aren't being able to get a response from DHS or anything when it comes to that income that should have been coming back in, that that cashing in, that voucher, making sure that their bottom line is taken care of as a landlord. The last thing we want is as we I mean, move something like this forward and essentially, you know, go after discrimination, be able to take take that out of their right. The last thing we want to be doing is stumbling across our own feet.
Speaker 9: Yeah, absolutely. And that's I understood your question. And as I said, I don't have the data for you. I can speak anecdotally that it's not it's not a high percentage of the calls that we get.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Ismael. Rather than just sort of doing pre inspection when it's sort of hard to access and whatnot. Couldn't we just have a a gap program, a sort of pre HUD program where, you know, if you're going to do an inspection, if you can do a 24 hour turnaround inspection, the inspector will know whether that unit can be brought up to HUD standards and whatnot, so that maybe we could actually do a a move in that meets our city requirements. Until that, you know, with some time I mean, to cover that time before while the unit gets brought up to HUD standards and then and had the voucher go into effect. Could we do something like that?
Speaker 9: And it's something we'd be certainly willing to explore.
Speaker 5: Okay. Because I think then even during that time, you could sort of make sure that that that tenant goes through your Gold Star program, you know, so you're sort of sort of a win win. They're getting in quick. The landlord Lord doesn't have a vacant unit. They're getting trained on how to be a good tenant and their guaranteed source of income will be valid. So then I have a question for Robin. Was there any in if it came through email, I apologize. Was there any addressing my concern that I articulated in committee with regard to the language in here that it's directed towards application for rental housing? But we had there was a concern about VA loans on purchases.
Speaker 12: I'm not sure I understand your question. When this was first discussed in the Housing and Homelessness workgroup, we did only have it applying to rental housing because we couldn't kind of come up with this scenario or any facts. We had survey data and other data that we are having problems on the rental side. When we put the draft bill out for public not public comment but yeah, public review. We put out a public review draft. Then we started to get some calls from some realtors and some folks who'd had the experience with the for sale side being told, you know, you can't even compete for this house, we won't even talk to you. And so that's what prompted us to go back and make the ordinance. The rest of this ordinance, remember, is about all forms of discrimination, and it applies to all housing, rental and for sale. So we thought, okay, well, that's why every state and city has the supply to both. So we went back to that default. It now does cover for sale in rental. So does that answer your question?
Speaker 5: So we're not concerned that we feel that this language covers discrimination against a loan source.
Speaker 12: Yeah, there is a chapter in here that is specific. Let me just find it real quickly. It's the housing section here. Transactions in real estate, property exhibiting, listing, advertising, negotiating, agreeing or transferring, whether by sale, lease sublease. So the this is all language we're not amending. This is all language that's already in the ordinance. So if you read, you know, what we're doing along with the clauses that are already in there, it is our view that that that is covered. It also later on in that I guess this is page five. One, two, three, four, five, page five. You know, to refuse to lend money, you know, to make available for purchase acquisition. So so I think it does. I will just add, though, to to some folks who say, well, hey, I've got a property that's not eligible for VA loan or FHA has some condo complexes, for example, that they refused to buy. The ordinance has a specific exemption that says if there is any applicable federal, state or city law or regulation that makes the source of income not legal, you don't obviously have to take it. So that's in our bill to make sure that we're not trying to put folks in a double bind.
Speaker 5: So that situation that was the concern wasn't a discrimination problem. It was a program problem. Right. Or else we would have just cited this existing code and said, actually, you need to follow up on this.
Speaker 12: Right. Because the veteran veterans I don't know if military status, I'd have to look back at the ordinance and see if military status it might be a protected class. But the VA loan as a source of money was not covered by the current ordinance. Okay.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you. And then lastly, Ms.. Patterson, can I ask you a question? Since you were the first person I ever spoke about, this ordinance in your work started this whole thing for me. I just would like to know why you support the amendment.
Speaker 1: The the one.
Speaker 5: Time I saw.
Speaker 1: Something because it's I did a lot of best practice research, as you know. And this exemption is in line with what we've seen other states in the city's doing much, too. Councilwoman, can you just point.
Speaker 5: So one of my concerns and I would maybe you can tell me what your research says about it, is that the lament that is prompting one unit owners is essentially the same sort sort of lament that you get from people that own multiple units. So why would that make a difference, especially if some of these single units are in affordable areas?
Speaker 1: I was actually I was going to take you out to see Councilman Clark, but I was actually swayed by his counsel, his experiences in his district.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Okay. So then this is to you, Councilwoman Clark. So the experience that you articulated in your district was something akin to a constituent who had a somebody a relative pass away and their property then turning over and becoming a rental for their next of kin or whatever. And, and that being a, you know, they may not have the means to to maintain. That is a I mean, I don't know. My concern is, is that, you know, you could have a situation that complies with the law where you have a duplex, where one side is occupied by a resident, I mean owner and the adjacent unit is occupied by their tenant. And that would be a situation that would be exempt. Where but then if the owner dies and the two units then become willed to somebody, to a family member and no one moves in to that unit, the two units would be Eliot mean would be not exempt because they're now both under one owner and in but if but if both halves so you have a duplex where two units the rental but if both houses are owned by separate renters that's again okay. Two to 2 to 2.
Speaker 0: Can I jump in?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: I think I think that what it comes down to for me and for hearing from my residents in the Valverde neighborhood, is that when you when you have one. And so it will take it out of that specific example. But when you have one house that you're renting, you're not really a sophisticated landlord. You're not going in paying a property manager. You're not, you know, reviewing multiple leases. And and in that world, there are a lot of different instances that could lead to you having that one property that don't make you a sophisticated landlord or somebody who has a lot of money to spend on a property management firm, somebody who can navigate a system that is more paperwork than just putting something to market and renting it. And, you know, yes, you could have someone who passes away in a duplex and now you inherit a duplex. You could have somebody who lived in a nine plex and passed away and gives you the whole nine plex, but you are automatically then dealing with multiple leases. And so for me, that threshold of having a property that you're renting versus having multiple leases that I do think that's different. You do step into a role where this is more than just a property that you're renting and you're dealing with more of that. So that seemed an appropriate threshold.
Speaker 5: So then explain to me what the difference is, right? If you're if somebody passes away and leaves you one property versus ten properties, why is that any different for you on what your obligation is to renting it out?
Speaker 0: Because again, I think you can manage one property without being a sophisticated landlord with a professional property management company. I think if you've inherited a ten plex, you can't. And that does take a level of sophistication that then makes navigating a system through vouchers doable without that extra burden of of because you can say, hey, I have ten different units. I have a diversity of income. I have I have to manage multiple leases. And so I can take on managing a level of sophistication that I can't when it's just, you know, my one lease, one place. I also think that the bill as written says that if it's a duplex and you live in half of it, that that one rental unit that you're renting because it is connected to your house is exempt. But if you were to own the house right next door to you because that's where your mother lived and they are not physically connected, then it draws a distinct distinction there that is not logical. And so if we're going to exempt, you know, a duplex to say you have one rental unit, but it happens to be connected. But if that house is right next door and it is not a physically connected, then you're not exempt. I think that's also kind of trues up with the existing exemption that is in the ordinance for the duplex.
Speaker 5: So I like it better if we just for all practical purposes, we ignore the scenario that was presented, which is that, yes, you can have an unsophisticated owner that actually owns two properties, their home and another property. But the idea that somebody would would leave you a property and then you are now burdened. You know, you're you're making the distinction that somehow you have to you know, if you get multiple properties, you have to then become sophisticated or you're you're somehow different than if you were just given one piece of property. And and I don't see that. I mean, I think you're you're almost unfairly treating the person that gets multiple properties will to them as opposed to a single unit. And and so I think personally, if we if we'd had if this had come up before tonight, I think what we maybe want to do is do an exemption for, you know, 12 months after, you know, somebody was deceased or something like that. So that property owner could get sophisticated on being a landlord if they're going to choose to be a landlord versus just unload the property.
Speaker 0: I think you're getting hyper focused on one example. I do think there's a difference between saying, hey, I'm going to run one ice cream shop and I'm going to run an entire franchise of ice cream shops. If we if we there is a different level. And I do think that there are a lot of people, whether it is an inheritance or they are trying to do what some of the small landowners in here are doing. I do think there's a difference between taking that step and maybe it's the house you used to live in and you decide to keep it when you move in instead of selling it to build wealth. I do think there is a different level of what you're prepared to take on when you have one of them than when you have multiple. When you have multiple, you do step into a different space that you're operating a bigger business than if you are one. But I won't pick it. I think, you know, we may just need to agree to disagree on this, but I apologize for that one specific example tripping up.
Speaker 5: But I do want my colleagues to recognize that if you're if you're in a if you're in a position to own two properties, that chances are you're you're sorry.
Speaker 0: I'm being reminded that we are in question. So do you have any more questions or you can add your comments when we get to the comment period. But if you have any more questions for me, then let's do that now.
Speaker 5: Are we going to have separate comments on the amendment versus the fine? Yes. Great. Yep.
Speaker 0: Okay, so y'all good for now. Yeah. Councilman Flynn. And thank you for the reminder.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up first on what Councilman Lopez was getting out with Councilwoman Kennedy. Something that hadn't occurred to me, but in the inclusion of for sale property, I'm just wondering how who would be the party doing the to discrimination. Because the one time I sold a house when I moved out here 37 years ago, my realtor, my representative just brought me the money offer. I have nothing to do with evaluating who their lender was or whatever. So is the lender potentially the person who could be charged or complained about for discrimination or how does how would that work with for sale versus rental?
Speaker 12: So pardon the lawyerly answer, but the ordinance talks about persons. And so we have the city attorney's office clarify who's a person and a person in our city code could be a corporation association. So there's a broad array. So I think it would be up to the way that the complaint process is written is that, you know, that you ask the person to identify any persons who were involved and then it would be up to the department to determine who who did it. So. So maybe the realtor never told them that the owner that they told someone on the phone, don't bother putting in an offer versus, you know, the the owner. So that would be up to the department to investigate. And the ordinance is, you know, the way that person is interpreted should cover regardless of whether it's an individual or a company or, you know, whatever the entity is.
Speaker 6: Okay. That seems very murky to me, as opposed to the clear cut, you know, the leasing agent doing it as I can't imagine the seller of a property getting that deep into the details of where the buyer is going to get their their money from.
Speaker 12: So I don't know realtors if any of them are still here.
Speaker 6: John has left.
Speaker 12: Yeah, but I will say I will say this. There were we found no documented complaints involving for sale in our research. So it appears that most of the complaints show up on the rental side. So there's not a lot of case law. There weren't a lot of controversies. There weren't a lot of media coverage. We just couldn't find much. So I don't know that it occurs very often.
Speaker 6: Okay. That might be why it's murky to me. Mr. Guerrero, maybe you could also I buzzed in after you started talking about some numbers, and you said that typically in in prior times, you are 100% of voucher holders would be able to find accommodations. And now maybe 98%. Is that what you were saying?
Speaker 9: No, I'm sorry if the numbers were confusing and I just go back five years ago when rents were a little lower, our HUD funding was a little higher. We were able to lease up 100% of the vouchers that we administered, about 6700 vouchers currently in the last year we were in what's called a shortfall situation, meaning our budget authority was ran out before we could lease up all the vouchers we had available. So we're currently utilizing 90, about 90% of the vouchers we have available.
Speaker 6: And that was the second question I have. The 90% figure you quoted was it wasn't that 10% of voucher holders couldn't find accommodations that you could not fund 10% of of the total vouchers that.
Speaker 9: That's correct.
Speaker 6: Thank you. What was the 98 number then? I think you said 98%. Yeah.
Speaker 9: Historically, we've run that 98 to 100% utilization. Okay, that's all.
Speaker 3: Do you know how.
Speaker 6: Many 6700 voucher holders are now housed? About 6000 in the city and 700 in the suburbs. Is that what.
Speaker 9: You said about. No, I think Councilwoman Kennish had the right numbers. We have about a little under 6000 current households leased under 6000. Just under 6000 in numbers fluctuates. We're in a lease up mode right now and about 12% or so, 10 to 12% are currently leasing outside the city of Denver.
Speaker 6: Of those approximate 6000. Okay. What was the 6700 them, as I just said.
Speaker 9: 6700 is yeah. I figured about ten years ago. Currently with HUD, the Housing Authority has 6700 vouchers that we administer. However, our ability to lease those up is subject to our budget authority.
Speaker 6: All right, I get it. Okay. How many voucher holders are unable to find accommodation? Of the do they expire at a certain point? Like, do they have so six months that.
Speaker 9: We've had to put time. So his per HUD and and in our own internal policies we put limits on once you are issued a voucher, how much time you have to find a unit. And we've gone we're currently at 60 days. So once you are issued the voucher, we want you out there looking and trying to find a unit that's available immediately. And I. I'm sorry. And I understand. And the the the success rate of those families who are finding units to lease up.
Speaker 6: Say that again. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: Of the of the once the family's issued a voucher. I don't have the data for you and the percentage that are able to find a unit in that 60 day period. And the percentage that are not.
Speaker 6: Oh, okay. That'd be really important to have, because, again, I'll.
Speaker 9: Be happy to get you that.
Speaker 6: Help to judge. How how big is the problem that we're trying to solve here? Mm hmm. Ah. 100% of people who get vouchers, finding units. And if they are, why are we doing this?
Speaker 9: Yeah, as I said, I think at times we have had I think it's as much a question of choice in terms of which units and in what neighborhoods they're able to find those units. Right. By, you know, currently it's landlords who are choosing to participate in the program, which means that certain area, certain neighborhoods may have more exclusions or not be accessible to families where you are. And we have and this is part of our challenge with the funding is we've raised our rental, our fair market rents so that our vouchers are competitive. As competitive as can be in the in.
Speaker 6: This market is higher.
Speaker 9: Cost market. Yes. Right.
Speaker 6: And I do understand the choice expanding the the available choices. But if 100% are nevertheless finding accommodation, I would like to you say you don't have that figure offhand, but would you be able to get that before final next week? Absolutely. I'd appreciate that. All right. Thank you. That's always present.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I have two questions. The first one is, while since you're there, let me just ask you, what is the average length of time that it takes someone to get approved for a voucher? Not once. Once they've once they've come through your doors. But there are people who have tried year after year after year to get approved, to be on the list, to then finally get a voucher. And then once they get one. This is part of the challenge they're dealing with, right? Yes. So do you have any of that? Well.
Speaker 9: I can tell you that. So we do. We open up our registration for the housing choice voucher on an annual basis. We've averaged or have seen numbers as high as 25,000 families apply or register for the lottery in recent years. I think this last year we had just under 22,000 households submit their interest card in a 48 hour period.
Speaker 4: Are they limited to just Denver residents?
Speaker 9: That is open to any. It's an online registration, so anybody is eligible to apply. You do have to apply. Anybody is eligible to apply. And it's at an annual basis. Certainly the past several years we might issue 500. And in a good year, maybe a thousand vouchers to that to the families who've applied.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the demand far exceeds the accessibility?
Speaker 9: Yeah, without a doubt.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. I want to follow up with a question to my colleagues. So I'm done with you for now. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinney. Have you explored any sources that potentially might be available for the fund in the data you shared on other cities was very enlightening to see that it's really a safeguard for the landlords, but most of them are more than likely utilizing the deposits for addressing the damages to their units, and particularly when they exceed the value of the deposit. That's where a fund would be very helpful. So can you just speak to any potential sources in Denver that might be available or maybe even foundations, national resources, whatever?
Speaker 12: Yeah, we had not gotten very far. I will say that I did ask OED to look into sometimes they have you know, I don't want to say weird, but, you know, odd little funds that have restricted uses that might just kind of be waiting for the right thing that fits the niche. And so I did ask them to look at their smaller funds to see if any of those might be a fit for this. Obviously, there's the housing fund if it's deemed to be eligible. I had not yet gotten to the point of asking the city attorney to analyze it for eligibility, but my guess is it would probably be eligible. And then there's the general fund, so. So we hadn't gone down that road, but.
Speaker 4: So that would be a next step, assuming this would pass tonight to then look at what kind of resources might be available to create a fund so that. You know, I think we'd probably see a similar situation where the vast majority of the people would be, you know, respectable, taking care of the property, happy to just be in housing. But there are those just like any other renters, not limited to low income folks or somebody on a restricted income that tend to not take care of somebody else's property when they rent it. And I've heard, as I shared in committee, some horror stories about people who rent their home out as short term rentals, who have had their properties destroyed by folks who rent it out just for, you know, a weekend or a couple of nights. So anyway, that would be a next step.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I think we would have to engage with the administration because we'd be doing this, you know, heading into budget season and understanding so that that, you know, if that's the will of this body, we will happily continue that conversation and see what the options are. I would say this, though, I think part of the reason Seattle discontinued their fund is because they had money sitting there unused and felt like it was better to put it where it would be used. So I think any fund we would have should be very modest because the data just doesn't support a large quantity of funds being set aside. We I didn't mention it specifically. I'll give you all this memo that we just finished today. But you know, the metro area, MDH II, Metro Denver Homeless Initiative and the Metro Mayors funded a fund specifically for veteran vouchers. It also was underutilized. They are redeploying the funds because they didn't feel like it was appropriate to leave them sitting there unused. So if we do do anything, I think it should be very modest because you don't want to take funds that could be doing something to directly house someone today and set them aside. So so I think that that's my only thought is this is if we do this, it needs to be probably pretty modest because the data just hasn't shown this large demand.
Speaker 4: Okay. I just want to express an interest in in this particular piece, because I think it is important to have something in place for those extenuating circumstances where damages might far exceed the cost of a deposit. So thank you. Those were my only questions.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Black, your backup.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I was going to ask the same questions as Councilman Flynn asked, but just to verify, you are going to get back to us and let us know about the 10% that aren't finding places if they are, because people are not accepting vouchers or accepting applications from people. Without us.
Speaker 9: I'll be able to offer my assignment as I took it was to get back with the number of families who are issued a voucher, but they're not able to find a unit to lease. We don't have we don't get information about why they were not able to if how many applications they may have submitted, we'd have to actually go out and talk to those families individually. And so we don't have that data available, just a percentage that are not able to lease up in the time period that they have.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, as we move forward, I think that would be really important information to have if if this does pass. Mm hmm. I think that we need to get that kind of feedback from people. And I know you have a study, but. Yeah. I was hoping to get more information about that, but anyway, thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, you all done? All right. Seeing no other questions, though. The public hearing for Council Bill 788 is closed. We're going to start with comments on the amendment or then vote on the amendment and then we'll move on to the bill, either as amended or without the amendment. Based on that, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to be abstaining on the amendment tonight, although the the rules for conflict of interest are fairly narrow. I believe that any appearance of impropriety. And so this this amendment could benefit my my personal family. And I don't feel like it's appropriate for me to take a position that might be perceived as a conflict of interest. And so I'm not opposed to it, but I just don't feel like it would be appropriate. So I'm going to be abstaining tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Councilman Espinosa, you may be surprised to hear that. I'm going to ask the same questions that you were asking about. And I talked to Councilman Clark about this earlier today. I don't know where you draw the line, where someone you've called someone owning one ice cream shop or someone owning a franchise. These people who are sitting here at 10 a.m., I don't think they own franchises of ice cream shops. They own a couple places. Think your name, Suzanne. She says she makes $45,000 a year and is painting and making her business. Yeah, right. Right. At any rate, I don't think I don't know where you draw the line between. As Councilman Espinosa said, it's it's. You don't have to comply if you have one other place. But what if you have to? What if? What if I've got somebody in my district who owns a garden court? The original garden carts from the fifties that have, I don't know, five or six little apartments around the garden. And they live there. Why would they have to comply and somebody wouldn't? And if the point is we want to avoid discrimination, then then nobody should be exempted from it. So I'm having a really hard time with the line that is drawn.
Speaker 0: Is that a question or comment that you want me to respond to?
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 0: To me. Yeah, I would just say again, I think that there are other cities who have done this. They have drawn a line and it's not an easy line to draw. And maybe there is a better place to draw that line where other cities have. I think one is as low as you can draw that line and there are other cities that have drawn it higher. There was no proposal on the table except for the bill already has built in an exemption for one if you're in a duplex. And so for me, for us to draw the line on one, but only if it happens to be connected to where you live in, was not the appropriate place. I took the next half step to say it is one across the board. So I guess I would argue that if you're torn on that, then we should probably be considering an amendment to take out the exemption on the duplex as well, because then that is a line that is less logical than one across the board. But any other questions? All right, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: And just to reiterate that, I just if we're saying that this process is onerous and difficult for anybody, why is it okay that I mean, why why create an exemption? And yeah, you know, it's either good for everybody or it's not good for anybody. And and and so if it is a struggle and you're saying essentially acknowledging that by virtue of the amendment, then maybe we need to fix those problems. And I think we only create a give us some sort of cushion by alleviating the mean by by by not imposing the problem on everybody. And so I think you're probably if you if you if you go ahead, remove it from the duplex, but then maybe you're going to you're going to get in a situation where the city needs to step up to the plate on any real legitimate problems that persist in and exist. So I just I don't I don't I'm just I struggle with that, you know, sort of acknowledgment that this is a difficult thing for one person with one property, but it's not a difficult thing for one person with multiple properties. It's a weird distinction to me. So for that, with that, I won't be supporting the amendment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: I think, Mr. President, I will support your amendment and I see the logic behind it. And for small operators, in fact, I would I would have supported it if it had exempted and say several or up to a half dozen for small operators, particularly in an environment where we just heard that every 100% of the vouchers that are out there are being utilized. There is a big difference between small operators who have a unit or two or a half a dozen or a handful and cornerstone management and some of the entities that do wide scale property management, there's a huge difference in their ability to handle the paperwork and their ability to carry the losses for up to a month and a half before they get their first check is magnified greatly over some of the folks we heard who manage one to or six units. So I think it's very appropriate, particularly since the since the the bill was authored with an exemption for a single unit that happens to be a duplex. It makes perfect sense to say that at least one unit that is separate should be exempt as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. The only comment I wanted to make is just to reiterate that vouchers are a small part of what this bill is about. Right. And it's about student loans, and it's about the. Veterans benefits. It's about so many other different sources of income. So I will be supporting the amendment as I agree with that. It's a reasonable half step. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I really like the bill. I think the the the I wanted to thank Councilwoman Committee folks.
Speaker 0: Just to remind you, were just doing comments on the amendment so we can vote on the amendment and then we'll move to the comments on the bill.
Speaker 10: Write the amendment that what? I'm sorry. Threw me off, ma'am. I don't think the amendment does much, much damage. It's hard to draw that line, however. I'm not. Worried about the one unit that somebody is renting as an impact to the whole. I think there's a lot more out there where it's actually company policy and it's a lot. I mean, those are folks that control a lot more units and just one. So for me, I mean, it's it's something I can live with. I don't think it's it's necessary. However, if it if it does achieve a level of compromise, if it does identify, hopefully, the folks that you're intending to alleviate in the building, great. But I. Support it from now.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. It's interesting to me that by exempting anybody, we are assuming that it is a difficult process to use some kind of voucher. And I do appreciate the thought that we're not talking just about vouchers. We're talking about VA and other things. So making an exemption means we assume this is going to be a difficult. Job for anybody who is renting somebody, something but we haven't heard yet from at least the H.A. is how difficult is it? Now I'm going to support it too, because I'm assuming it is difficult, but if we find out that it's not difficult and that perhaps people aren't being turned away for their source of income, then I also would be asking, you know, why are we doing this in the first place? That being said, I would suspect that if we here if we learn some more data. From Mr. Guerrero that we could make other amendments by next week to include maybe four or five of the places that you rent instead of one or none. I suppose there's opportunity for amendment next time too. Okay, thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments on the amendment. And that's a reminder. We're voting on the amendment on the bill as a whole. Madam Secretary, can we do roll call on the amendment?
Speaker 1: Black, I.
Speaker 2: ESPINOSA Yeah.
Speaker 3: Flynn I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor I.
Speaker 1: Cashman I can each abstain. Lopez.
Speaker 3: I knew.
Speaker 1: Ortega.
Speaker 2: Sussman Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: I just want to make sure all the numbers are here.
Speaker 1: Nine, ten, 11.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes when they went. Abstention.
Speaker 0: Nine eyes one day on abstention. Council Bill 788 has been amended. Jasmine Espinosa We now need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 17 mean council vote 18 0788 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Now comments on the bill as amended. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to everyone who testified whether you were in support or opposed. You've been here a long time and you've offered your heartfelt words and they are appreciated. I want to again thank my staff member, Polley, who did all the research, the community folks who brought this to our attention. I want to thank the apartment association and the realtors. I reached out to both of them when I started working on this to make sure that you all had a chance to be heard and you really took it seriously and engaged date for being here. My colleagues on the Housing and Homelessness workgroup were small but mighty, and this really grew out of a conversation about what more could we work on? And also the Administration and Office of Economic Development and Human Rights Community Partnerships. The mayor's office spent time helping us think through some of the pieces. So and also I just want to do a shout out to my state representative, Leslie Herrod, who kind of brought this bill to the attention of the state with her work. So we I think that a couple of things that really grounded me in taking on this bill. The first is that there is no one single silver bullet to any housing challenge that the city faces. And so if you accept that as a reality, the way that you have to do this work is you have to take each opportunity to grow your impact. And so today a number of us were with the Globeville area, Sentia community, doing their first investment for a community land trust that will probably result in dozens of homes, dozens or dozens. But a small number eviction fund that all of us contributed to is going to help a few hundred people. The new units that the city is building and preserving are helping thousands of people. And so you have to start adding up each of these things together. And then you look at this bill and you think there are additional households being helped. And so cumulatively is how we have to count our work on housing. You can't count any one, bill, and say, here's what we've done. You have to cumulatively count. And so that's what this is about. It is also about the idea that there are barriers that we can lower and there are barriers we've talked about most of the night for individuals. Right. We've talked a lot about renters. So I'll focus there and I think about, you know, the the testimony tonight that this isn't just about low income renters. You know, women who experience divorce might experience a change in their income. And child support is what allows them to be able to afford housing with the number of bedrooms they need for their kids. And they may not be low income, but they need then come to qualify for the housing. And that's so this can touch people at all incomes. And it's not just about lowering barriers for individuals, though. One of the things that we know is that communities end up with a more diverse housing base when people have mobility. I'm in a number of conversations with Councilwoman Ortega, and the question comes up from communities are we really building an integrated city where folks with different incomes live throughout the city, or do we just put affordable housing in one neighborhood and we put it in that neighborhood over and over again? Well, if we're serious about that answer, if we're serious about saying that people should be able to live in a variety of neighborhoods in our city, maybe near the school they want to go to or near the job that they work at. This is one of those ways, and the research shows that this creates more mobility for families. And what is mobility provide? Right. I just want to draw the fuller picture because we've done these outlines tonight. But the fuller picture is the mobility provides access to maybe a better education, maybe to the better school, maybe less transportation time . So rather than that, 12% of voucher holders, 12% of voucher holders.
Speaker 1: Who are.
Speaker 12: Living in another county, maybe they're away from their child care providers, maybe they're away from their elderly parents. Maybe they're spending that time on our highways creating traffic. But all of these types of impacts that we all start to get affected by, right? So this isn't just about the individual who gets that choice and the individual who gets that mobility, but it's about the community that they're part of and it's about the ways that our community works more functionally when people can live where they need to. So that's the story we're writing tonight, the story about additional impact, the story about opportunity, and the story about saying that people of all incomes should have opportunities to live in a variety of neighborhoods in our city. So tonight's only our first reading. But it. Is an important milestone. And so I am so pleased with the engagement folks have had. I, I do want to caution I hear that we're going to have more debate about this threshold. And I will say this. We had a lot of public process leading up to tonight, and the idea of an exception was not floated at committee. It was not floated in some of the workgroups where it might have had more chance. If folks are planning to continue that conversation, I would ask you to reach out to Enterprise and the coalition and some of the folks who spoke here tonight and expressed concern about widening that door. I think that, you know, they deserve that engagement. And I would caution against raising the threshold higher. And so I believe one is is not unreasonable. But I do believe that starting to grow that door then creates a situation where people who do have a profession of managing homes and have the ability to study the rules. For me, the one person exception is someone who's maybe less likely to know about it because they don't do very many leases. They're less likely to maybe know that the law exists. If you do this as a living, then then your ability to learn about the rules and follow them is greater. So it's about your capacity? Not for me. It's not about the vouchers. It's about knowing what the rules are. And I think that that capacity, if you're doing this as a profession, you really need to know. So so I would caution against that. In the week that comes, I would encourage folks to to talk to those who express concerns about it today. And I want to thank those of you who have expressed your support so far and encourage a yes vote on this bill tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman each. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I am in support of this bill. There is absolutely a need. There are so many people in Denver who need a home and no one should be discriminated against for any reason. My biggest concern, as I think I've heard expressed tonight, is the burden on property owners like the people who are here tonight. I understand that there have been other opportunities for people to speak up. This is the first time that I've heard a lot of these stories and I really feel for you all. So. As I said earlier, I have a real mental challenge with where you draw the line. And so I would like to talk about that more, but. Councilwoman Kennish, I'd like to know that if we pass this, that we can gather data for a year and see how it goes and see, you know, work with DHS. We heard from people that they've had issues with payments and timing, and we're getting different information. And I would really like to see in a year if we could have a task force with stakeholders like the people who have been sitting here for 5 hours, as well as tenants, and just look at it and see if we solved the problem, if we caused a problem for these small business owners. So I would really like to talk to you about having some kind of commitment doing that. And my final comment is, I agree, we need mixed neighborhoods. My district has a lot of apartments that accept vouchers, and we have a lot of nice amenities in my district also. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black, Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr..
Speaker 6: President. I want to thank Councilwoman Kennedy and the task force and the community that that drew this up, because I support the inclusion of these nontraditional financial resources in the calculation of a person's ability to pay rent, even though they're not really income per se, necessarily, but because it's right, if you have the ability to pay the rent, that's what matters. But this bill addresses only half of the equation. For me, it's not balanced against the risks that are being shifted to the property owners. It gets us only halfway there. Many localities have adopted source of income anti-discrimination laws. Not all, but many have balanced the added risks that it shifts onto private property owners, many of whom are small operators with only a few units. By establishing a risk mitigation fund, Seattle may be defunding its program, but the state of Washington's legislature created a statewide risk mitigation fund two years ago that covers all the cities in the state, including Seattle.
Speaker 3: Such a fund.
Speaker 6: Doesn't diminish your legislation, Councilwoman, I believe. In fact, I believe it complements it and helps it be more effective and makes it work better. It helps get units back on the market faster and it helps increase voluntary compliance. And I would encourage. I appreciate that you're continuing to engage and to consider that. And over the next week, I will reach out to some of the stakeholders that you mentioned. It provides it does provide a recourse for landlords whose property suffers excessive damages, but whose former tenants paid substantially through vouchers or child support payments or student loans or financial resources from which landlords have no recourse for recovering those damages and that little real income from which to pay damages. This isn't good for those individual property owners, even if only a few. Even if only five claims were made in in Portland for those five individuals, that could be devastating. That could be their lifetime retirement investment. If it were a single unit or if it were just a few units that they own and that they're managing. And so I think that fund, it's good for turning around vacant, affordable rental units to the next tenant because damages can be repaired sooner. Any tenant, any tenant can cause excessive damage to a property. This isn't about alternate sources of income. Any tenant can cause damage to property. I see one of them. Our landlady's nodding her head. In fact, I could probably point to homeowners who aren't taking care of their property very well, as a matter of fact. So this isn't about the source of income. It's about the ability of the property owner to to get whole and turn that property around and get it back on the market quickly. So who causes the excessive damage isn't the point. It's the fact that tenants, most tenants who have W-2, wage income landlords have some pretty good recourse through a court judgment and perhaps garnishment. But this bill places the risk of potential substantial financial loss on the property owner, while leaving the owner with a diminished ability to recover those damages. Without a fund, a landlord cannot recover damages from a person's child support. Or a housing voucher or a student loan. Data from the cities that have these funds show they're not frequently used as the councilwoman read. I think that's a very good thing. I think that bodes well for us establishing a fund with a very small amount. But for those, as I said, for those few who do suffer those extensive damages, it could be it can be life altering and very, very bad. I had a constituent in my office last week who heard about this, and he had a $20,000 repair bill after a tenant. I see more nodding of heads, a $20,000 repair bill from a tenant who had left significant damage to systems in the House for a small operator of a handful of rentals. A fund, even if it's limited and capped, can be a lifesaver for that person, especially if it's that person's retirement, if that's their nest egg for retirement. But even more, a risk mitigation fund can ensure that rental units return to the market faster, be available to new tenants sooner than if a landlord is stuck with drawn out costs and repairs in a city with an affordable housing shortage like Denver. This would help us. Thank you to the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless for expressing openness to a risk mitigation fund. If that were in here, I could support this. Mandating landlords to participate in what has historically been a voluntary program. But not offsetting the added risk is an imbalanced approach that I cannot support tonight. I do respect, Councilwoman, your continuing consideration of a fund to balance this program and I support the includes the inclusion of vouchers and other nontraditional financial resources. We might not be able to initiate an appropriation on our own tonight or next week, although I would dispute that. And we have we've exchanged some emails on this, if you haven't if you couldn't tell by now over what council powers are. But we can create the program and funded in the 2019 budget, since this ordinance is an effective until January 1st. If this bill were amended to create a risk mitigation program, I would vote yes. But because of what I see as an imbalance transfer of risk without it tonight I have to vote no and hope that maybe we can address this next week on final. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I grew up in my my whole life here in Denver, and I was a renter for a very long time. My family were renters for a very, very, very long time. I always. People ask me, how many times have you moved in your lifetime? It's in the throes. I used to. I lived all over my district, rented all over from one duplex to the other. And the hard part was sometimes I never really understood why. Because both of my parents were working. All it took was for my dad to have an accent sometimes. Sometimes even as a city councilman just a few years ago. This is just buying a home. All I had to be was Mexican. And going all around our neighborhood and being told no. And of course, I wasn't throwing my name out there and saying, well, I'm the city councilman. I'll do something, you know, nothing like that. It's just the fact that. No discriminatory practices. And if that's just that, that's somebody who. Can pay the rent. There's only sin is just my last name. Imagine if you had that coupled with. Of how you think about folks in this city, the working class in this city, and especially people of color. We're on the ropes. They're on the ropes in our own city. And for folks who are struggling to find it, to be able to find a place they have a place to get a voucher to be in this program is a feat in of itself. The be so fortunate to actually get in the program, be able to use a voucher to actually find a place. Is a feeding of itself and then to be turned away just because of the source of income. That's heartbreaking. And nobody in here is accusing anybody of all you all in grouping anybody together. It's the practice that should not. I mean, it's the practice that, uh, that this language and that this question in front of us that this bill is prohibiting. It's the practice of discrimination. Plain and simple. If you don't discriminate, you don't have an issue. If there are I mean, if there is a legal question, as long as it is a legitimate reason. As is as with the language as it. If you're acting in good faith as a landlord or and there's a legitimate reason and you're going by with the rules and the laws going to now reflect what's in other cities, then you should have nothing to worry about. I supported the amendment because I get that. I get the logic there. I could understand it. There's a little bit of a balance. But at the end of the day, we wanted to go with this language and I agree with this language. I support this bill going after discriminatory housing practices. It's just not right. And there are some bad apples out there that ruin it for the bunch. But at the end of the day, discrimination should be prohibited in this kind of manner. It's hard enough trying to survive in Denver. It's even worse when somebody is closing the door on union.
Speaker 0: Just because.
Speaker 10: They don't like the way you're paying. Or what you're paying with. So thank you for the for taking this up, Councilwoman Kenny. I'm glad that Denver is going to join the ranks of other cities that are that are visionary with this. And, you know, to afford to live in a lot of our U.S. cities is becoming a challenge. Denver's not alone in that. But we can do something about it. So thank you. I appreciate that. Count some Canadian folks in the community at this point, these folks that showed up tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: The and the problem with 100% of the vouchers being used is it's a drive until you qualify. Scenario and and thousands of those vouchers are being Denver vouchers are being used outside of Denver. And so it's not enough to say, oh, they're all getting used when they're not they're not being used by Denver residents. They were here. But now they can't they can't live here. The. The problem. The real problem I have with the and this is a good problem to have because I represent Northwest Denver, which is the area that has been rampant displacement and gentrification. And, you know, this is the poster child for that problem in Denver before it got to Reno. And five points to the degree that it is now is that I have huge sections of my district where an ADU is allowed as a use by right and they're not getting wildly built. There's not just this huge boom boom of 80 use getting built in those areas where they're allowed. But I do get constant requests to add edu ability in areas where they're not allowed because those are the areas that are most desirable and the highest property values. And the argument that is always made is it will increase affordability. You know, let us do this because we can solve Denver's affordability, affordable housing problem by by letting us take high value real estate and put some small units on it. There's some logic there, but at the same time, it's like anything else. The market goes where the market goes, and if it's a very high desirability area, it will still command the same dollars per square foot, which will be high. There will be fewer of them. And and they'll be smashed into areas that are desirable. And those other areas where it's already allowed that are not as marketable will continue to languish. And that's okay. That's market is what the market is. But now what we did by basically saying one owner, one unit is we've now created a real nice comfortable carve out that that you can actually build that. ADU That's supposed to address affordability, but you can discriminate on income on it. And that is. Why? It doesn't make any sense to me. I get somebody doesn't have sort of the wherewithal or the practical, you know, the understanding of it. And maybe it's a burden if we're saying it's a burden. But there are whole sections of the city where it where the people have stars and short term rentals and stuff like that. Counter to what our rules are. And because it's largely profitable, even with higher taxes and they have the means to figure it out. And we just lumped everybody in and that's fine if we're building wealth. And that was our that's our sure that's our goal. But this isn't affordability. You know, this is about, you know, nondiscrimination are towards fixed I mean, towards certified income sources that are. That are I mean, it's an affordability there's a strong affordability component here that we just we just we just discriminated against based on the number of units that you own. And so that's I mean, that was that prior prior thing. But it is it is part of my frustration with this going so far, but not going all the way. And but I did want to talk about the fact that people you know, the complaint here was that this is going to drive up costs and costs will be passed on to the homeowners, I mean, the renters and whatnot. Well, this body has made has done a lot of things to boost the desirability of the city, the livability of the city, all of which drive up rents. And owners don't line up in here and say, hey, stop improving the city or we'll have to raise rents and capitalize on that increase in value. You know, I will argue that in my time in office, we have seen a far more substantial increase in property and rental prices because of the things the city is doing right. Then this bit of legislation is going to do for for existing property owners. And the problem is, is you are right getting this right, too, and getting it more right if we had made it applicable to everybody. Also improved this city as a whole. It's a problem. Part of the reason why Portland is harder and Seattle is more expensive is there getting it right for a lot of people? And so it is going to be a fund later on and that's going to help drive prices up. And it is a big problem because they all can play against each other. But guess what? You, the property owners, multiple units are still going to be the big winners. You can cover your costs. You can cover your expenses if you incur them this way. You have the ability and the latitude to do that. Or you can, you know, exit. You know, you can figure out your exit strategy. It's not a it's not a terrible time to sell right now. And so, I mean, it is a terrible time because your values are going up. So I wouldn't do that. But, you know, it's so I just I'm I will be supporting this measure, but I am not you can tell I'm not happy because we have real housing. Real multi, multi bedroom family size housing problems in northwest Denver. And we are losing families like they're going out of style up there. And the only way we can replace them is seemingly to subsidize heavily projects. And that is coming out of your pockets as well from your income taxes and your property taxes now. And those are very expensive units to build as opposed to just housing people with subsidy or other certified incomes in existing units and using. And that's a sustainable model that's in tons of embodied energy in those in those properties. And this is a more aggressive approach to this bill and a stronger push for a fund are the better way to do this. And I thought we were near perfect on the bill before it was amended. And this is the situation. We replaced the near perfect with the good, and I don't quite get why we would have done that, but we did that nonetheless is still better than where we're at today. So I will be supporting it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman. No.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be supporting the bill tonight. And I think it's all again, like you said, it's all about the recognizing all sources of income to make housing available. And as much discussion as we've had about homelessness, we know that housing is number one. It's always housing first. And if we can help people get off the street to fight homelessness, to give them a break is well worth it. Just to listen to the stories that are just heartbreaking of folks who finally get off the street and find a house housing, whether St Francis Inn or any or any other kind of like Colorado College for the Homeless or anyone is just they're just so proud to be have housing off the street is it's a great great thing we're doing I think one thing we did, you know, we got a real light shone on the Denver Housing Authority. So you've got a great opportunity here to to produce some data. You sort of set a standard in two weeks tonight. And so, you know, it'd be a great to Councilwoman Black hit the nail right on the head and to do some reports, provide some data, do some evaluation of how the process works so that making it as efficient as possible. The other thing I found disturbing, too, is, is the 6000 and the 6700 vouchers, you know, it's all you know, just because there's no funding for 700, I just worry about giving false hope to people who get approved. And then there's no money there for housing. And I know it's not your fault, it's just the HUD funding issue. But I just worry about that. And I also say I don't think enough attention is given to the story about the 22,000 that apply for vouchers that no one can even crack the surface. So I think that's something that's troublesome to me, but at least I'm supporting tonight. Well, I think this bill will help a little bit. And and I. Appreciate Councilwoman Kinney's work on this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly support this bill with or without the amendment that was passed with or without any kind of a fund. And I'm open to considering the funds that have been discussed, but I'm troubled the more I think about it. We have one of the most difficult businesses to succeed in is the restaurant business. And we have hundreds and hundreds of people have put their their life savings on the line for restaurants. And don't say I'm leaving because it's too tough. Dry cleaners, boutiques, auto repair businesses all put their life on the line to make their contribution to our city. So I'm going to continue to, as I said, consider the arguments that I'll hear from my colleagues about the wisdom or lack of it for a fund. If I was a landlord, if that was my chosen line of work, I'd be thrilled if someone mitigated my rest, my risk. But like I say, I mean, look, find me a small business around Denver. Please find me a small business around Denver that wouldn't say the same thing. Please mitigate my risk. I don't know who who has who gets those funds. So why should we put. Tax money. And I'm asking that question, and I'll be glad to hear from any of you as the week goes on. We can't take it now, but please contact me and let me know that, because it's troubling me right now. I was fine with the concept. I spoke with the councilwoman about it through the week, but as I'm sitting here thinking, I'll also need to justify to those other businesses around the city why we're not mitigating their risk because they make an equal contribution to our life experience in Denver. And I know affordable housing is important, but grocery stores sell food and restaurants sell food, etc. etc.. Made my point. I'll be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clark. I'm happy to support this bill, too. And I want to really thank.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Canete for taking the leadership.
Speaker 1: On it. But then also the the three women that came and talked to me from Enterprise, Colorado.
Speaker 4: Coalition for the Homeless and 9 to 5.
Speaker 1: You sharing your stories and your passion and advocacy.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for the work on.
Speaker 1: This and I look forward to following the data and really understanding a little bit more what a reserve.
Speaker 4: Fund would look like. And B, I share Councilman.
Speaker 1: Cashman's concerns about, you know, if this.
Speaker 4: Is your chosen business, if this is your chosen.
Speaker 1: Source of income, there are certain risks that go along with it. And, you know, we talked a lot about vouchers, but really at the end of the day, I.
Speaker 4: Want to look at this from a.
Speaker 1: Very high level and Colorado is an out at will employment state employment is not guaranteed. And so a lot of the sources of income that we've listed in this bill are more stable, more guaranteed.
Speaker 4: Than an hourly wage job. And so I'm happy that I'm going to be able to support this. And we heard a lot of individual stories, but I think of the.
Speaker 1: Thousands of folks and especially families with.
Speaker 4: Children who.
Speaker 12: Have these sources.
Speaker 1: Of income and have been turned away, voucher or not, and have been discriminated against. And so, you know, at the end of the day, I'm happy to support it. I would not be in support of increasing additional units that would be exempt. I understand the one off unit, but.
Speaker 4: Anything above that, I would be concerned that.
Speaker 1: We're we're hurting the very folks that we're trying to protect by guaranteeing that they won't.
Speaker 4: Be discriminated.
Speaker 1: Against for the different sources.
Speaker 3: Of income. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to say thank you to Councilwoman Canete and members of the Housing and Homeless Committee and all the organizations and individuals that engaged in this conversation. I think all of that input has helped shape what we have before us tonight. And I just want to add that I, I do support us having a fund. I would not call it a risk mitigation fund as much as it being a, you know, a I don't I don't agree that we should have a fund that should be available to every landlord to participate in the program. But if we have someone whose property has been destroyed in excess of their deposit, then that's what the fund should be for and we should have a cap on that. So that's what I would love for us to explore by having some, some resources available for those extenuating circumstances. Because I think the vast majority of people who are desperate for housing will do everything they can to take care of it and be happy to have a roof over their head. You all know, I serve on the board of a nonprofit housing development organization, and I see both sides of this coin. You know, the challenges of being a landlord, but also meeting the demand of people who are low income that really need housing and struggle to find it. And we provide housing for people that have vouchers as well as others, because we serve a mix of income levels. And so I understand and sympathize with the the challenges and the impact of of being a landlord, which is why I think having a housing fund to assist in those situations that I just explained would be really important. I also think that the counseling that's being provided by DHS for folks that come in that are looking for housing, the nonprofit I sit on does homeownership counseling, you know, for people that want to purchase a home. And oftentimes these are folks that come in as renters that also want to be homeowners. And wherever we can provide that counseling, I think that's extremely helpful. I think the counseling on the side of the landlords is equally as important to ensure that as somebody wanting to come into the program to understand what the procedural steps are to make it easier is extremely important to make it smooth for everybody, because we want this to be a seamless operation for both the people seeking housing as well as the landlords willing to participate in this program. So I will be supporting this tonight, and I think the amendment was a good one. I would not support it going beyond that either.
Speaker 3: So thank.
Speaker 0: You. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, the hours late, these people have stuck with us. You're back up. After having expressed how you're voting, I would implore you to be a speedy as possible. But you're your backup.
Speaker 5: I just want to let people know that I am going to the stupidly. I don't know the answer to this question, but I will be following up with city attorneys and whatnot to find out if if you own each separate property under separate LLCs, is that separate owners or not? I just don't know. So I just want you to know that going to ask that question things.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I just want to really think, Councilwoman, for your leadership on this, the Housing and Homelessness Working Group, for all of the work, all of the people in this room, both for and against, who've been a part of this process and taking time out of your lives to sit with here with us for over 5 hours tonight. This is what makes our process work. Thank you for being committed to it. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm very excited to support this tonight. And with that, Madam Secretary Rogoff.
Speaker 1: Can each I.
Speaker 2: Lopez.
Speaker 10: All right.
Speaker 2: New Ortega assessment.
Speaker 1: Black Eye.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Flynn now Gilmore.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Cashman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I'm a secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes One Day.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes one day. Councilor Bill 788 has been ordered published as amended. Final consideration will be Monday, August 6th. On Monday, August six, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 688, designating 2900 South University Boulevard, the Walshaw Park Cottage, as a structure for preservation, saying no other business before this body.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending Title 28, Article IV of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver regarding the prohibition of discriminatory practices in purchase and rental housing transactions on the basis of source of income.
Prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on buyer’s or renter’s source of income. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-18-18. Amended 7-30-18 to exempt people who rent out a single unit from the prohibitions in the bill.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07162018_18-0580
|
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Moving on. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? And Councilman Herndon, will you put Council Bill 580 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, miss.
Speaker 12: There's no need for a vote.
Speaker 8: Oh, it's 580. Did we already get to no one?
Speaker 12: There's no need for a vote. But I would like to make a brief comment.
Speaker 8: A comment? Okay. Never mind. We don't need it on the floor. Councilman Ortega, go ahead with your comment.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I was able to get my question clarified by Councilman Espinosa. This is for right of way an alley property being vacated. And it wasn't clear that this was part of the original sale of the property, that the acquisitions were built in to the sale price that we approved some time ago when we sold the property to the developer that's going to build on this site. And he did clarify that the cost of the alley and right of way was included in that sale price.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I believe that concludes all the items to be called out. Did I miss anything, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 5: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you. 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. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilman Herndon, will you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: That was 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 series of 2018 711 712 713 704707 717 7284728666687709 718 779. 780 1673680580689 670 2685. I believe that's it.
Speaker 8: All right. I think we got them all. Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black eye. Brooks. I Espinosa. Flinn. I Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. Can eat Lopez. Hi. New Ortega Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I. I'm sorry. Could you please close the voting and announce the results? 3939 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill six, for one referring a measure to the eligible voters in Denver to extend the
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating portions of right of way at 17th Street, 18th Street, Pecos Street and the alley bounded by 17th Street, 18th Street, Platte Street and Interstate 25, with reservations.
Vacates portions of 17th Street, 18th Street, Pecos Street, and the public alley bounded by 17th Street, 18th Street, Platte Street, and Interstate 25 with a partial reservation in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07162018_18-0641
|
Speaker 8: the wall you'll see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of this hearing and must direct their comments to the Council as a whole. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from any personal or individual attacks. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 641 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move the council bill 641 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 8: It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. And we're going to start with Councilwoman Black. You have a technical amendment, so your motion to amend.
Speaker 4: And move that council bill 18 Dash 0641 be amended in the following particulars on page four, Line 12 After rivers, insert canals on page five, line seven after rivers insert canals and on page six, line 19 after rivers insert canals.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Comments by members of Council.
Speaker 11: Councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is a technical amendment specifying that canals are included in the intended use of the special revenue moneys funded by the additional sales and use taxes.
Speaker 8: And any other comments?
Speaker 11: All right.
Speaker 8: Seeing none. Madam Secretary, can we do a roll call on the amendment?
Speaker 5: Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I Herndon. I cash in. I can eat. Lopez All right, new Ortega.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN All right.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 8: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes 12 As Council Bill 641 has been amended for one hour. Courtesy Public Hearing for Council Bill 641 is open. May we have the overview from our very own?
Speaker 11: Good evening, President Park members of council. My name is Jack Rothman, legislative analyst for City Council. Give you a very brief overview on Council Bill 641. If you have questions, feel free to answer those as well. This bill essentially does three things. The first thing the bill does is positive. The question poses the question to the voters of the city and county of Denver. November six to approve a quarter of a percent sales and use tax. This tax will be solely dedicated towards parks and open space. None of the provisions of this bill will take effect unless that tax is approved by the voters. The additional tax will result in approximately 46 million additional funds each year. Next thing the bill does is create a special revenue fund. This fund will be exclusively used for revenue derived by this additional tax and will be administered by the manager of Parks and Recreation. No more than 5% of this fund could be used annually for the administration of this fund. The fund also includes evidence of effort provision to ensure that the funding will be spent on the approved uses. The Manager of Parks Recreation must submit an annual report on the expenditures to council the Mayor, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the auditor. The lesson measure also must submit a five year plan of the expenditures, starting within the first year of adoption. The lesson this bill accomplishes is to prescribe what the fund may be used for. The acceptable uses of the fund are acquiring additional land for parks, open spaces and trails, developing, improving and maintaining new and existing parks, including Denver's mountain parks, open spaces and trails. Restoring and protecting waterways. Rivers. Canals and streams. Purchasing and carrying of trees. And operating. And maintaining any additional acquisitions and capital improvements to the city's parks, mountain parks, and open space. And with that, I'm happy to field any questions on this bill.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. Tonight, we do have 25 individuals sign up to speak and it is a courtesy hearing. So we only have an hour. So I would ask that if your comments can be shorter than 3 minutes to make sure that we can get through everybody or as many as possible, please do. If you're sitting in this first seat up here, I'm and ask if you could please move so that we can get speakers lined up and get through as quickly as possible. I will call up the first five speakers and I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. If I call you up, please make your way to this now empty first bench. And as soon as I call your name, there will be a slight delay. But then your time will start as you step up to the podium. So our first five speakers are Harriet Lemaire, Jonathan Capelli, Jesse Perez, Chairman Sekou and Hillary Patel. If you five could come up to the front and Harriet Lemaire, you are up.
Speaker 11: First.
Speaker 8: The podium is yours.
Speaker 4: Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Time is of the essence. My name is Harriet Lemaire, and I'm the director of the Highline Canal Conservancy. And I'm here to. Well, first, I want to introduce Alanna Webber and Brianna Winters from our staff. I'm here because of the young people. I'm not going to be around if you see this money invested in the community. I may not be here to see that, but you guys are leaders and you have opportunities sometimes to reach your hand well into the future. And this is one of those opportunities and I think it's so exciting. The Highline Canal moves through now, as you know, 11 different governmental jurisdictions. I wanted to mention that it travels through four counties and Denver is the only county that doesn't have an open space tax, a dedicated fund. And we're challenged as we think about the long term future planning for the canal, what that means for Denver. So the minute I heard about this, I thought, this is true leadership. This is an opportunity not just for the Highline Canal, it's an opportunity for your existing parks, but to find new entities, new miles, new acreage, find old ditches, you know, find all the infrastructure, intertwined nature throughout this community as richly as we can for the benefit of all the citizens in this community. There are 17.6 miles in Denver and over 100,000 people roughly living in the adjoining neighborhoods. And you know which neighborhoods there are. Of that population, that's 13% of the Denver population, 20%, 26% of those people are Latino that live along the Highline Canal, 19% are African-American, 4% are Asian, and 4% represent one or more races. So more than 54% of those people living that close to the Highline Canal are not white. So let's claim these entries. Let's claim these parks, the adjacent old infrastructures, old ditches, whatever you can find. Let's get this on the ballot. Let our voters voters vote for it and embrace this community as one of the richest, greenest communities for all people forever. Thanks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Jonathan Capelli.
Speaker 9: Thank you councilmembers for taking the time to listen to our comments today for your engagement with me and others over the weekend to discuss this and particular thanks to you Council President John because of your obvious passion to about, you know, green space and open space and parks and recreation as evidenced by this bill, our ordinance. I'm not speaking on behalf of DC today, but as a resident of District ten and also as a board member of all in Denver, in many ways we support much of what this measure is trying to accomplish and fully agree about the importance of everyone, including especially children, having access to more open space. On a personal note, parks in open space are a very serious issue for me because of my grandmother's passion for them. This is a woman who lived in a pretty low income area in North Philadelphia, and despite really sort of difficult circumstances in all her free time always took kids in the neighborhood out to the Pokeno mountains and to parks that were even in the in that city that the kids weren't even aware of were in their own city before. There any studies or anything supporting, you know, the connection between parks and childhood development. Intuitively, she knew that it was really important to make sure that everyone had access to this. We're not quite as a park deficit as North Philly was in the in the eighties, but it's still a big issue. So, however, there are some issues with this ordinance that really affect our ability to fully throw our weight behind us. We agree that no person or child should be barred from having access to plentiful, high quality parks. But if we're really about providing access to everyone, then we have to critically examine whom our investments are going to serve. Are we building a green city for everyone or just a green city for the slut class that will be able to afford to live here in the future? Health, transportation, education and housing are not and should not be treated as competing priorities, but they certainly have better outcomes when they're coordinated together. So to ensure that happens, we need to consider a couple of caveats to this ordinance. I believe one or we believe it's all in Denver. One is a lower tax rate potentially, and a sunrise, which leaves room for investment and other priorities. Number two is working in a responsive community and a community investment plan that's responsive to the individual economic situations of different neighborhoods in the city. And three, a comprehensive anti displacement strategy that's coordinated with EADS, anti displacement strategy to make sure that the unintended effects that new parks will have to mitigate the unintended effects the new parks will have and are already accelerating and skyrocketing land values. It's also important to note that there's a slight inconsistency inherent in choosing to not modestly increase sales tax to raise funds for low income programs because of that, because it's deemed too regressive. But then increase in that tax anyway to pay for something that doesn't yet have socioeconomic equity worked into it. If we work in the aforementioned bullets, I believe we'll be able to address that issue and move forward in a responsible way.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 9: And Jesse Paris. Your next city council at large. Black Star action moment for self-defense. Denver out loud. We are against the sales tax increase. Denver currently has the urban camping ban. So how is this going to benefit us if we can't even occupy these parks or these trails already? Spaces? It seems really hypocritical that you want to increase taxes on Parks and Rec, but yet there is no tax for affordable housing or, as we love to say, attainable housing in the city of Denver. So, yeah, Denver, homicidal La Blackstar, some movement. We are against this. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 6: Yes. Excuse me. Chairman Seiko founder organized the Black Star Action Movement for self-defense and also the next mayor 2019 City Council in Denver. We stand. The Post. To this increase in tax, which is no more than a increase in taxes on the poor who can't afford another penny being spent on amenities that are not for us. We need jobs. We need housing. We need apprenticeship programs for the carpenters, unions and other unions so that we can come up and have the opportunity of participating in the success of the city that the mayor conveniently ignores. So why do we pay for this? We work hard for our money, and we refuse to be coconspirator to our own grouping by paying for it. Absolutely not. Now, to consider this as a buddy, you got to be kidding me. Out of all the prior or teasing things that needs to be done and time, you are voting for a sales increase tax, excise tax for the squirrels. Damn a home that we ain't gotten for the ducks to take a shit, but we ain't got no place to sit.
Speaker 8: Mr. Speaker, please watch your language.
Speaker 6: Oh, excuse me. A laboratory. What do you call it? What do you call that thing? The little box that use it. And Mrs. Porta Potty. We ain't got a porta potty to do what we need to do, nor a pot to throw in it. But this is for the ducks. This is for the squirrels. You got to be kidding me. What that says as a body is that you have no respect for the poor whatsoever. Whatsoever? Because where's our tax? And how come it ain't on the agenda before all of this mess? Come on, y'all. You got help me? It takes teamwork to make the team work. And you don't do that by excluding the masses of the people and participating in some of their lives. And I've been down there for 12 years. Saying the same thing. Ow! Ow, ow, ow. And over and over and over. And over and over and over. And you don't get. You don't get it. So why should we still come down here? Wow. Well, I'll tell you right now. I'm expanding every possible avenue to give you every opportunity to do the right thing for the right reason. Because. Just zip for me. This is it. This is it. After dip.
Speaker 8: Mr. Take your time is up. Talking. Your time is up. Next up, Hillary portal. And, well, Hillary, come up.
Speaker 11: I would invite. But invite Wade.
Speaker 8: Shelton, Brad SIEGEL, David Richter, Mark Thompson and Ann Elizabeth to work your way up to the front pew. You're the next five. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: I'm Hillary Patel. I live at 1124 South Milwaukee Street and I'm on the board of All in Denver. Thank you, Councilman Clark, for your lifetime commitment to Parks and Recreation and our community and for meeting with us to discuss our concerns about this proposal. Overall, we support continued investment in the park system. Parks are a critical part of Denver's quality of life and health, and it's clear to us that they haven't kept up with our city's growth. What troubles us is the size and scale of this tax. During an unprecedented time in our city, at a time of widening income inequality, unrelenting displacement, and decreasing federal funding for social services. Is this proposal the best response? Are you going to ask Denver voters to approve the highest sales tax increase in recent memory with no plan for how funds will be spent and no ability to decide in the future if we want to continue taxing ourselves for this. Have unintended consequences been planned for? Shouldn't we coordinate our public investments to enhance our community while reducing the top two expenses for most households housing and transportation? After all, these are your priorities for 2018 and 2019, published and released to the public just six months ago. The thing is, nobody gets everything they want. Advocates go for it. We have many competing priorities. We all go for as much as we can get. And after a rigorous public process, we do the best with what we can. We make the most of what we're able to get. We should leave room in Denver for taxes to support future needs. And those needs are now. The question should be, how will Denver be a city where everyone matters during the Trump administration? Please reduce this tax, add a sunset mechanism and provide a plan for how investments will be aligned with the mayor's new neighborhood equity strategy announced today. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, we'd show.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President Clark. Members of City Council. My name is Wade Shelton, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the Trust for Public Lands Denver based Colorado program. And as a Denver resident, I wish to offer a strong endorsement of the bill to offer Denver voters the opportunity to create a dedicated source of funds for the city's parks, trails, and open space. The parks trails and open space. The trails and recreation opportunities in Denver improve our quality of life and are an important investment in our future and for Main Street to mountain tops. Denver boasts a diverse park system, including 6000 acres of urban parkland, 244 city parks, 28 recreation centers, and 14,000 acres of land in Denver mountain parks. And over the past 11 years, I've had the privilege, as have many of my colleagues at the Trust for Public Land. I'm working with many of you and many communities around Denver to help complete land acquisitions, to create new parks and activate and create and redesign old ones. Whether it's Quattro Ventures Park in Denver's Westwood neighborhood, New Freedom Park, a park for refugee families and athlete populations in East Denver, the River North Park in Denver's Reno neighborhood, or the Montebello Open Space Park in Montebello. We've been part of a lot of great projects that are ensuring all Denver residents, regardless of their income or what neighborhood they live in or what walk of life they come from, have the same access to the outdoors. But sadly, that many of those projects would be impossible to complete today, given the growth of the real estate market in Denver. We're looking at $200 a square foot for downtown real estate. And despite the best philanthropic efforts, the trust for public land, great outdoors, Colorado and the city and county of Denver. Your great Parks Department cannot meet the needs of our community. The longer we wait to restore and maintain our parks trail open space, the more it will cost us in the long run. By making investments today, we can afford avoid more costly problems in the future and leverage millions of dollars in matching funds. Every front range county. But Denver has local dedicated funds for parks, trails and natural areas. And we're missing out. Our parks and trails provide affordable recreation close to home for everyone. And I get to I'm fortunate enough that I get to experience going to Denver City Park every day because I live close to it. But everyone in this room, every citizen in this city, deserves to have those same opportunities, and that will help create the quality of life that health lifts up everyone. And not just those of us who are lucky enough to live near a watch park or a city park. By referring this funding measure, Denver voters will have the opportunity to approve and maintain our parks, trails and natural areas and quality of life now and for generations to come. And I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Brad SIEGEL. My name is Brad SIEGEL. I reside on Detroit Street in Congress Park. Chairman Clark, congratulations. Glad your mother was here earlier.
Speaker 11: She's a schoolteacher.
Speaker 8: She actually impacted my own son and gave him a love for creative writing. She does really good work. Tonight, I am speaking as a co-founder of All in Denver. We are a nonprofit advocacy organization.
Speaker 11: That believes.
Speaker 9: An equitable city is where all people have the opportunity to.
Speaker 11: Prosper and thrive.
Speaker 9: Overall, we we support.
Speaker 11: Continued investment in.
Speaker 9: The city's park system. We view parks as an important.
Speaker 11: Component.
Speaker 8: Of a thriving and equitable.
Speaker 9: City.
Speaker 8: However, as have been voiced by prior speakers.
Speaker 9: From our board, we do have concerns with the size and the.
Speaker 11: Scope of the initiative the council is getting ready to vote on tonight. We would.
Speaker 9: Be more supportive.
Speaker 8: Of this.
Speaker 11: Proposal if it had three.
Speaker 8: Characteristics.
Speaker 9: One, if it was smaller, a smaller tax, lower tax, and also had a sunset mechanism. So as.
Speaker 11: Hillary and and Jonathan mentioned, that voters.
Speaker 8: Could look at this again in five or ten years and see if it's something they want to.
Speaker 9: Continue to. It needs to be guided by a community based.
Speaker 8: Plan.
Speaker 11: That will make sure that there's investment in our neglected neighborhoods in the city, but also make sure there are.
Speaker 8: Anti.
Speaker 11: Displacement measures in place so.
Speaker 8: That we're not accelerating property.
Speaker 9: Values with the best of intentions and displacing.
Speaker 11: More people over time.
Speaker 8: Thirdly, we also want.
Speaker 9: To see how this aligns with the top priorities of this council. This council was very.
Speaker 11: Clear back in January that affordable housing and transportation are the.
Speaker 8: Top two priorities for Denver moving forward. We remain we don't see how that.
Speaker 11: Connection has been made in this proposal. One other concern we have.
Speaker 9: Is opportunity cost. This is an aggressive, aggressive tax proposal. This would be the largest sales.
Speaker 8: Tax initiated by Denver City Council in modern.
Speaker 11: Memory. It joins an already crowded ballot with.
Speaker 9: Transportation.
Speaker 11: Scholarship and mental health initiatives as well. If all.
Speaker 8: Of these initiatives are passed or some.
Speaker 9: Of these initiatives are passed, we are concerned. Where do we go to three, four or five years from now.
Speaker 11: When we have a whole new series of challenges and we need revenue and we've tapped out the community's.
Speaker 9: Appetite to support it.
Speaker 11: So in conclusion, we do urge restraint and accountability.
Speaker 9: If you decide to move the initiative forward. Thanks.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, David Richter.
Speaker 11: Mr. President Council. My name is David Richter live at 252, Pennsylvania. I'm Councilman Clark's representative on the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The bill.
Speaker 8: If you get a little bit closer to the microphone, we can't hear you. So just just right under the microphone there. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Okay. Sorry. Sort of.
Speaker 8: No, just keep looking. Okay.
Speaker 11: So the bill you're considering has been drafted, I think, with more than just an appreciation for the challenges to maintain the existing park system, but also in recognition that because of the growth our city is experiencing and will continue to experience, the concept of a park of the city in a park is becoming kind of wishful thinking . Does Denver need more parks? Well, you've heard the the Park Square rankings from the Trust for Public Lands. I know you've seen the outdoor downtown master plan. Does Denver need more services? Look at our deferred maintenance backlog. Look at the stress on our parks and our pools. Our fields, our rec centers, our courts. Let's not even to wade into dog parks or Scott will get up and leave the room, try to find a ranger when you really need one. Consider the budget impact of threats like the emerald ash borer. Costs like that. In terms of protecting our tree canopy or restoring our river and our streams. And I say all this despite really the excellent work I think the DPR continues to do. In addition, of course, the efforts, the kind of irreplaceable accomplishments of organizations like the Mt. Park Foundation, the Park People, Greenway Foundation, just to name a few. Well, every year Prabowo sends a white paper to DPR as guidance for planning, prioritization and spending. And this year, under the Revenue Goals and Spending Authority section of the paper we sent to DPR. I quote. Additionally and with emphasis. Parab again advocates for a dedicated and sustainable funding source for new land acquisition. Counsel, I know you're engaged in game plan and blueprint as we plan the future of our city. I think this bill gives you the opportunity to put some teeth on it and I support it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And next up, Mark Thompson.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Clark, and congratulations. Members of council, thank you for the brief moment. I'm not going to speak in favor or against this tax. I don't know a lot about it, but hey, I, I, and my family enjoy parks and open space. The members of our organization enjoy the parks of our city. Another thing that we enjoy is opportunities for the youth of our communities. And it's been a year now. July of 2017, we came to the City Council. We spoke with individuals regarding requiring apprenticeship.
Speaker 8: Mr. Johnson rules to require you to stay on topic.
Speaker 6: On this because again, you are asking for an increase to a sales tax on the use tax and you're talking about building again with it. And I'm asking the city council and I'm asking the mayor of Denver to tie requirements of apprenticeship participation in those projects. We have failed the youth of our communities. We continue to fail because over and over again we got $5 billion worth of work contracted in the city. And we are failing the youth and the citizens of our community.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up is an Elizabeth and I will invite the next five speakers to come to the front. Scott Robson, Darryl Watson. Ian, to for you, Bill Karl and Bart Berger. And Elizabeth, you're up.
Speaker 6: Members of the Council. I am here to strongly support this text. Some of my comments will be responsive to other folks and I'll ask you to connect the dots. I'm East 50th Avenue and North Washington Street in Globeville. The reason that I support this is because I think there is a maintenance deficit we've recently experienced in in Argo Park over there, an effort to get the water jets fixed and discovered that despite the sincere willingness and availability of folks in the park system to deploy people to do this, there are only two maintenance folks available to to execute the needed repairs. Regarding and I think that what we have here is I understand the potential impact of the use of this money it can through some of the capital expenditures create some improvements. Argo Park certainly can use a bathroom. I've read the very entertaining bathroom master plan for the parks and it's a well done document and I think we can be talking more on that level. I think that the two obstacles that we have found toward toward the bathrooms and the drinking fountain that mean the bathrooms in Argo have been regarding vandalism and the expense for putting in the sewer system. And I think there's ways we can work with this. The favorable way that they use and I agree the camping ban, it would be great to revisit but they use benefits intergenerational homeless within Globeville as an example, we have intergenerational homeless many times. Families are having reunions during the day at the park, even in the evening. This is how they stay in touch. Meet me at the park. We have this program with the city of Denver that is hiring homeless on jobs and eventually leading to more permanent jobs. We certainly are wanting to have when I say we, the miscellaneous numerous conversations I've had with people in my own neighborhood, I don't represent anybody. But anyway, we certainly can look at employing homeless in the parks through relationships with those that are actually our permanent homeless folks who are consistent homeless folks. Also, I think that we can look at the apprenticeships programs as a as an as an affiliated part of this. I would support those sensitivities and those priorities. I don't want this to be an either or with this level of taxation. Our parks do have deficits. And I would ask you to work very closely with parks, have a community community accountability relative to our optimum master planning over time to help us enrich the parks to to recognize that part of the sanity of a city under extreme stress with changes and building environments needs parks systems that are optimized both in the comfortable, the utilitarian comforts, the comforts, meaning bathrooms. And we want to encourage our Elyria and Swansea and neighbors to be coming over to our beautiful developing network of Parks and Parks and Globeville over the next seven years to help with the stress reduction and then the revitalization of their of daily energies and would certainly be wonderful to have this feeling is that your.
Speaker 8: Time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Scott Robson.
Speaker 9: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 11: Scott Robb Sentiment District ten Resident Congress Park. Thank you for the time on this issue tonight. I'm here to speak in support of this initiative. I serve as the executive director of the Civic Center Conservancy, a nonprofit downtown here, and also had the privilege over a number of years to serve as the director of Denver Parks under Mayor Hickenlooper's administration. So I have seen firsthand the difficulties that this city has without a lack of funding source like is being proposed here tonight to fund the acquisitions and the over $100 million in park maintenance backlog that is necessary for a world class city like us to move forward. I think this bill represents a few things. First of all, I think this help solve inequity issue. The acquisitions that will occur from this funding source on an annual basis will more than likely occur primarily in underserved neighborhoods. And that is where we need to invest our money across this city for the quality of life of our family and children in our most underserved neighborhoods. It also is just a general quality of life answer that we're trying to solve here. We as a city and residents have intentionally helped increase density and growth of this city over time. This bill helps offset that through new park acquisitions, through the the breadth and depth of new parks that we will bring to the city. It helps offset that that density and growth that some of us are feeling a pinch around. And last of all, I think it represents a fair initiative that is at the right level where we stand today. And the point 25 sales tax. It represents a fair level to both citizens and frankly, to those visitors that come to our city, the majority of which pay sales tax. The majority of residents are not taking the burden of sales tax. It is those residents that visit us. And that's a great thing for those of us that live in the city. So I want to let you know that are our board of directors with the Civic Center Park Conservative Conservancy have voted unanimous unanimously in favor of this. That's not something that we take lightly, but we would like to see this move forward. It's long overdue. We've been talking about this in this city for over a decade. And as a world class city, it's time. It's time that we begin to fund our park system in a whole nother way and get to a level that this city deserves our families, our residents and beyond. So thank you for the time tonight.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Darrell Watson.
Speaker 9: Good evening, members of council and community members. My name is Darryl Watson. I live at 26th and Lafayette in the beautiful Whittier neighborhood. I am the co-chair of the Denver Game Plan, the 15 year masterplan for Denver Mountain Parks. Denver Parks and Recreation Centers on behalf of the other co-chair, the amazing Florence Navarro, who is not able to be here tonight. We're here to speak in favor of this this bill, the primary opposition that we've heard, the focus has been on the tax rate. Whether this bill will target negative, neglected neighborhoods and communities and whether it aligns with the city's identified higher priorities. I'll hit on each of these within my brief remarks. The 0.25% tax increase places Denver competitively still below at a total tax rate of 3.9% compared to a current tax rate of 3.65%, which is lower than most of our neighboring counties and communities. The game plan process of which I've been involved in over the last 18 months, from its first meeting through now the final meetings of this process, every community outreach, every discussion we've had with community members, they have resoundingly stated that they wanted a dedicated funding source for parks. I've been involved in the parks process for well over 20 years as one of the former presidents of the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. And within that 20 year period, each time each community outreach and process folks have communicated their desire and interest in identifying a dedicated source for parks. Denver And our funding for parks were ranked now 26. We often call ourselves a city within a park. Slowly but surely that is not the case. This plan will align to the city's identified higher priorities of investing in mobility and will have a focus on revitalizing parks and most neglected neighborhoods in the city. I live in Whittier neighborhood. We have five pocket parks. When you exclude Fuller Park, the four other pocket parks that we that we have in Whittier have been not kept up. There are needles. There are broken bottles. The poor children in my neighborhood deserve a parks that they can play in, that they can have birthday parties in . They can enjoy living in Whittier. Every advertisement about the city of Denver. Every rationale for why Denver's a great city is built on this city. Being a city in a park, displacement in affordable housing, all priorities of council. So is reducing non permeable surfaces, increasing air quality and quality of life. This plan will get us to the latter without changing council's and a mayor's office focus on reducing displacement, increasing affordable housing in a great city, in a forward looking city. They all can be done. We are tired of being place in the back of the line. Bringing it to the people of to vote. Finally, it's something that this council is allowing. And we ask you for your support.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you for interview.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya. I'm a resident of LAMB of Lincoln Park in District three. I want to say congratulations. Joe and I had a chance to sit on the park with you. It makes me feel amazing to know that we have a parks advocate leading city council, and I think it's going to be reflected in the choices we make under your leadership. I'm here in support today. I was at the State of the City address and I heard a lot about the city beautiful movement. And 100 years ago, well, today we have another opportunity to seize opportunity to grow our park system. It provides a whole host of issue benefits, including public health. I have been a tireless advocate for public health, and I believe this is an opportunity to build public restrooms and our and that's related to alcohol policy that we're discussing currently. I think it's an opportunity to bring drinking fountains. I was a teacher. I believe children deserve access to water fountains in their parks. I think it's a chance for us to restore and protect our history in our water fountains. You know, most people don't know, but it's the 100th anniversary of the Greek fountain in City Park. I think there's an opportunity to protect those amenities. I think it's a chance to modernize our facilities. The mayor announced he's ready for 100% renewable energy. Solar panels on buildings, I think probably fit into this. I think we've had a conversation around I-70 and air quality. Perhaps it's an opportunity to use this money to improve air quality in the recreation centers. You know, I also want to take a chance and address this equity conversation. And I've been an advocate for a park, a public transit to Red Rocks. I think this ties in to improving the amenities. And if we can get the transit there, we can access it. You know, the arsenal now has transit and we created a little park in between the sliver of land in there and public transit to provide that for people. You know, I want to say, this is an opportunity to buy land. You know, we're not always going to have that opportunity to buy land. Part of a golf course is one. We're out of heights. This one, you know, a few years ago, there was a piece of property here, Soccer River, who was part of the city, beautiful movement. Imagine an entire civic plaza that went from the Platte River all the way to the capital. We missed that opportunity. We don't have to miss that opportunity in the future. You know, we could be like Green Gables and Lakewood where they missed their opportunity to protect a park and instead they haven't. You know, I want to touch on trees and parkways. Parkways and trails. By the way, our transportation, it's not all just about cars. There are people who get equitable transit on a bus. You know, I do think it's a great leveler for the community. Everybody goes and they hang out in the parks. I do think it is connected to housing and density. As we increase density, we need parks. I am in support of impact fees and I'm glad that you ensure this isn't this is a we're doubling down. You're made sure that this isn't money that's going to be taken away from parks in the first place. You know, lastly, I guess I want to talk about some of the concerns. I mean, some of the concerns I've heard are about housing and transportation, which I talked about. But some of the other ones relate to just oversight. And I believe under your leadership, there'll be great oversight. You know, with Denver in her neighborhood cooperation, they've talked about how they'd like to see park oversight invested more in the parks. I hope this doesn't become just a find that you guys are ambivalent to. I'm pretty sure you'll be involved in. And so that's why I'm in support today.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next, Bill Carl.
Speaker 11: Bill, Carl and I actually get to live in a Denver park on top of Lookout Mountain where Buffalo Bill's buried. I'm the concession there. My family has been there since 1956. We've also run the trading post at Red Rocks and currently run the largest echo they come out Evans Tourism Works. And with that, I'm also a member.
Speaker 9: Of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation with Under Bar Burger.
Speaker 11: One of the things that was addressed was training youth to serve in the trades. And one of the things Bart's been working on is the historic core project there at the camp.
Speaker 9: At Mount Morris. And and every board meeting we have that's mentioned that we would like to develop more.
Speaker 11: Youth involvement with.
Speaker 9: Restoration of these parks.
Speaker 11: I'll give you two things I wanted to say. One is with the parks, how busy they're getting. I've been there all my life at Red Rocks. We used to do about 40 to 45 shows a year. It's well over 120 now on Mount Evans. We used to kind of be by ourselves up there next week. It was kind of lonely. Now, on the weekends, they're lining up from the Bergen Park side and the Idaho Springs side. And you have to you can't even get across the street the power of social media. It's the TripAdvisor reviews.
Speaker 9: It's the Facebooking at Red Rocks. This is the greatest place I've ever been.
Speaker 11: These things are going to keep going. And Denver has the best stuff. It was laid out at the beginning that Denver had the best properties west of the west of town, in the mountains. And there's there's parks and land that haven't even been developed yet. And it's going to take some money and. There's never enough of it, of course, but it's going to take some money and the people are coming and they're here this morning just to see the example of how tourism works. My first sale today was $89 at Buffalo Bill, a bunch of T-shirts. The city gets.
Speaker 9: $8.80 of that.
Speaker 11: They were here for the Emagine Dragon concert at Red Rocks, which is sold out tonight. It's just this effect of a good place attracting more and more people. We all know what I-70 is like on the weekends. Genesee Park is coming. It's going to be amazing. The Buffalo are going to have a lot of company and it's going to take some money to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Bart Burger. And then I invite the next five to come up. Jim Peterson, Leslie Talk, Gorski, Jeff Shoemaker, Erica Walker and Fabio Hilliard. Gordon.
Speaker 11: Thank you, President Clark. That has a ring to it. I'm Bart Berger, cochairman of.
Speaker 8: The Denver Mountain Parks.
Speaker 11: Foundation. And, you know, a wise man once said that the time to plant trees is 20 years ago. In the early days of the 20th century, Denver's leaders understood the importance of parks for the quality of life in Denver. Their dedication to creating our parks system is legendary. Moreover, they're their understanding that one of Denver's unique characteristics is its nearness to the cool air and open spaces of the front range foothills. In typical fashion, Denver took the remarkable step to build roads and parks outside of its own boundaries to provide for her citizens something no other city in America could. They created this with a voter approved, dedicated funding source, and the result was a 14,000 acre necklace of parks from Lookout Mountain to Daniel's Park, from Red Rocks to Mount.
Speaker 8: Evans that are unparalleled in their.
Speaker 11: Popularity, even if people.
Speaker 8: Don't know.
Speaker 11: Much about them. The dedicated funding ceased in 1955, then, only until recently began its long, slow deterioration. Out of out of sight became out of mind. But with the city we are beginning to turn that around.
Speaker 8: And creating a dedicated funding.
Speaker 11: Source again for the parks and in particular the Denver Mountain parks once again will honor the legacy that we have been given in the 21st century. We have the opportunity to provide a quality of life and a spectrum of park amenities that, quite frankly, people come here expecting. We dream of a great city, and the great city is equal to the sum of its parks. Denver has a reputation for leadership, creating a dependable, dedicated funding source for Denver's parks. Most certainly the mountain parks is part of that, and this small tax will enable us to do what our citizens already are expecting that we are already doing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Jim Peterson.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Counsel I'm Jim Peterson, LAKEWOOD. On behalf of the Trust for Public Lands Denver based Colorado program, I wish to offer a strong endorsement of the bill before you today. The Trust Public Land is a national organization whose mission is to create parks and protect land for people to ensure a healthy, livable communities for generations to come. We have a national vision that every resident will live within a ten minute walk of a quality park. Parks are essential city infrastructure. They are central to our quality of life. I'd like to give you six reasons why Council should approve this measure and give Denver residents the opportunity to make badly needed investments in Denver's parks, trails, trees and open spaces. First, community parks connect people to their neighborhoods, to their city, and to each other. Parks help build strong communities and give local residents the opportunity to celebrate diversity and community identity and heritage. Second, environment parks play a key role in the health of the city's environment. Parks protect natural resources. They help us adapt to a changing climate by providing badly needed shade and absorbing carbon emissions. A robust trail network gets people out of their cars helping protect our air quality and by providing kids with close to home access to nature. Parks help build the next generation of environmental stewards. Third economy parks provide valuable services, including stormwater retention. And helping cool surrounding neighborhoods in the heat of summer parks, boost the city's economy and growth by enhancing our quality of life, which attracts new businesses and workers and helps to retain existing ones. Fourth, health parks provide badly needed close to home opportunities for exercise and connecting to nature. This boosts physical and mental health and well-being. Further parks safeguard clean water and mitigate air pollution. Fifth, inspiration parks enrich our daily lives with beauty and nature. They showcase public art, reflecting the cultures, heritage and character of surrounding neighborhoods, and provide parks, provide a respite from the hustle and bustle of a rapidly changing and growing city. Put simply, Parks nurture the spirit. Which is something we all need in this increasingly busy and overloaded world. And finally, our kids. We need to invest in Denver parks for our kids. Today, the average kid spends 7 minutes outdoors in unstructured play compared to more than 7 hours on screens. In an age where kids can hold in their hands devices that connect them to the world in devices that are designed to distract and hold attention more than ever, we need parks that are close to people's homes and parks that are filled with exciting, interesting and fun amenities. For all these reasons and more. I urge you to support the bill before you tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Leslie Tartakovsky.
Speaker 4: Hi. Thank you for having me. My name's Leslie to our Gal Ski, and I currently serve as the president of the Denver Recreation Parks Advisory Board. Councilman Clark, first, I want to congratulate you on your new chair. I when I first met you as a fellow member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, I knew that you were destined for greatness. So I'm very happy to see you sitting there, but not the least bit surprised. I will be very brief because Mr. Watson touched on most of my points, but a couple of things that have come up, as is the discussion regarding oversight and one of the parts of this bill is annual revision and and oversight by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Equity is one of our most fundamental concerns in the city of Denver, and I think the job that we did. For the geo bond.
Speaker 12: Getting funding.
Speaker 4: For Westwood Park or Sanchez GVS recreation centers and funding projects in areas that have been consistently underfunded gives me a lot of hope and confidence that this will absolutely be a great failsafe going forward for this tax. Finally, I want to thank you for not making the decisions yourself, but for putting this in front of the voters , because, yes, I did hear what Mr. SIEGEL said. This is going to be a very, very crowded ballot. But there is nothing more Democratic than having each voter look at their own household budget, decide what is a priority for them and decide what they can afford to vote on. So thank you again for sending this to the voters in their consideration.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 9: Jeff Shoemaker, proud resident of the Wilshire neighborhood. President Pro tem gilbert. Congratulations. President Clark msh. Members of denver city council. It is a true honor to stand before you this fine evening, this historical, significant evening. A night I've been waiting for for over ten years. And the time has finally come. 35 years ago, Federico Pena was inaugurated as mayor of Denver on the promise of imagining a great city. And three and a half decades later, it is my belief that Denver is indeed on the verge of becoming a great city, but only if we do a greater job of investing in our parks, be they urban or mountain or investing in our waterways. Speedy, the South Platte, the Highland Canal, Cherry Creek, or its other tributaries. These priceless natural resources are at a crisis. Members. You know this you've got the numbers I put before you $400 million of immediate needs right now, today, just to get our park systems and our waterways up to today's standards. And that's not speaking about five years or ten years or 20 years from now. And that's not factoring in the thousands and thousands of people that are coming into this city every single year, in great part because of our parks and our waterways. And you've heard that we are indeed, sadly, the only county in the metro area that does not have a dedicated source of funding for our parks and our waterways. But tonight, this night, you can change that. You can move this measure forward to allow the voters of Denver to decide if they want to take the passion they have for our parks and waterways and back it with their wallets. And it is my humble opinion that if you give the voters that chance, they will respond strongly and overwhelmingly with a yes vote. If you choose to move this measure forward tonight, I promise you two things this very evening. Number one, I will continue to work tirelessly on this measure over the next four months and beyond. And number two, I will initiate every single one of my requests to any and every voter with whom I come in contact with one word. And that word is please. And so in conclusion, Mr. President and members of city council, as I ask all of you one final time, to move this opportunity forward to our fellow Denver citizens. I do so humbly. I do so personally. With my final word. Please. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Erica Walker.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Erica Walker, and I'm with the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. Thank you so much for taking our comments today. I am strongly in favor of giving Denver citizens the opportunity to vote to increase support for the parks. It's interesting to note that this opportunity has historic precedents. In 1912, Denver voters approved a tax that provided dedicated funding to create the Denver Mountain Parks System for more than 100 years. The Denver bound parks have allowed residents and tourists alike to enjoy some of the most beautiful land in our state. Unfortunately, in 1950s, this funding slipped away, and as a result, the mountain parks declined significantly. But now we have an opportunity to create another dedicated funding source. I believe that we owe it to future generations to take this step today. More than 100 years ago, Denver displayed visionary leadership in establishing the Denver mountain parks. This was three years before our national parks were established and more than 50 years before the Colorado State Parks were established. By restoring dedicated funding to our parks. Now, Denver will be continuing this important legacy of visionary leadership. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up for Abby Hilliard and I'll ask the last five speakers to come to the front, Kim Wan Farrell, Brandon Routh, Heimer, David Howlett, Katie Fritz and Frank Roe. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Congratulations to you tonight. I'm just here to say thank you. There's never a good time to do something like this. It's I think it's been longer than ten years we've been working on this. But but it is time to take this step and move this forward to the people of Denver to make the decision. I'm a fifth generation Colorado native. We've been in every park, probably in the entire system at some point. And my children and grandchildren continue to enjoy and thrive in these parks. But they're sad and they're tattered and they need our support. So thank you. I am hoping that you will move this initiative forward and I appreciate your bravery in doing this at this time and look forward to working with you all on this. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, can Kim Yuan Farrow. Sorry about.
Speaker 4: That. No problem. Good evening, counsel. I'm Kim U.N. Farrell. I live at 41st and federal. I'm the director of the Park People. We are a 49 year old nonprofit organization that supports Denver's Parks, Recreation, Resources, open space and urban forest. We have raised millions of dollars for Denver's Parks and Recreation System, capital improvement projects, maintenance projects. Our Denver Digs Trees program has provided more than 50,000 free and affordable trees to Denver residents. We've engaged with many thousands of community foresters, volunteers, residents across our city to make our neighborhoods more livable places. Never in our 49 years has the park people gotten involved in any political issue like this. But this is an issue that is so critical to the health of our park system, to the health of our city, and to the health of our residents that we felt we needed to bring our voices to the cause. We and kind of the collective Denver Parks and Rec, the park people, other allies of the park system cannot continue to plug with our fingers. The leaks in a sinking ship as $127 million in deferred maintenance alone grows by an added $39 million every year. We need to take care of our local parks, our open spaces, our trails, our trees with adequate stewardship and with new investments so that they can continue to take care of us, of our community as our population increases, as traffic congestion worsens, as air pollution increases, as our paved surfaces expand, and as our cities get hotter. These aren't just nice amenities that we want to have. These are critical elements of green infrastructure that we need in order to keep Denver livable. They are critical for individual health, for social and community health, for environmental health, and for economic health, as so many of our speakers have already spoken to, they impact the everyday experiences of our lives, and every person in every neighborhood in Denver should have access to the benefits provided by these resources. It is an equity issue. It is related to housing and transportation. It is all of that and. These are the things that make Denver a great place to live and to work and to play. And we do not have the resources that we need to properly care for them right now. A dedicated funding source for parks and open space has been a discussion that goes back more than a decade in Denver and actions long overdue. It's backwards that Denver is the only county in the metro area that doesn't have a parks and open space tax. Land is being so rapidly developed. There will never be a time like now to acquire more land for parks and open space. It will only get harder and more impossible and our communities will suffer. So please place this funding proposal on the ballot so that Denver residents can decide. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Brandon Wright timer.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Brandon Wreath Heimer. Congratulations, President Clark on being president. I was the proponent for the Denver Green Roof Initiative, and I'm here today to speak in favor of this bill. I believe the voters should be given an opportunity to vote on this issue. Our parks are severely underfunded. Our green space is rapidly disappearing. The cost of land increases every day and the ash borer is coming, which is something we cannot forget about this bill. If voters pass in November, it would do a huge service for the future of Denver. We're the only metropolitan city in the area to not have an open space or parks tax. And the quarter percent that's proposed would place us in the middle of jurisdictions and surrounding counties. I strongly urge all of you to allow the people of Denver the opportunity to vote on this in the fall. And just to be clear to those who oppose this, this is just a question for the ballot. This isn't set in stone. I believe we should always let the people vote. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, David Hallett.
Speaker 1: President, Clerk and member of the Denver City Council. My name is David. I'm a Denver resident. I want to thank you tonight for this opportunity to speak this evening on the proposed park funding bill. The park funding bill will provide much needed funding to address the demands of a city experiencing rapid population growth. The need for the additional 46 million in annual funding is important to ensure that Denver is providing amenity for all of its residents. The additional 46 million would help Denver leverage other funding opportunities, including public and private, nonprofit and foundation sources, thus increasing total funding amounts on a yearly basis. Denver's parks, open space, waterways and related needs have clear public support for increased funding, according to recent surveys. The Parks funding bill is broad based and aligns with the city's mobility priority, the city's goal for improved water quality, achieving fishable and swimmable waterways, rivers and streams, and providing access for all Denver residents to new and existing parks , open space, pedestrian and bicycle trails and mountain parks, as well as addressing social justice needs and enhancing environmental education opportunities. I urge the Denver City Council to place the funding proposal on the November six, 2018 ballot to increase the sales and use tax by 0.25% for parks and related needs. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Kate Fritz.
Speaker 4: Name is Kate Fritts. I am a Denver resident. District eight. I am the co-chair of the.
Speaker 8: Did you pull the microphone?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, I'm short. I'm the co-chair of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. First off, I'd like to thank council for bringing this matter to the voters. It is a tremendously important step, I think, forward to protect a cultural resource within the city that is unique and special and provides an amazing opportunity for its residents. I would like to also thank you very much for specifically including the Denver Mountain Parks, which are 14,000 acres of opportunity that I think is unique to any city in the country. We are special and our park system is special because we have these parks and it makes us different and they are important. What is unfortunate is that all too often access to open space for so many people is restricted to their ability to afford to get out of the city. What this bill does, it gives the voters in Denver the opportunity to just say, no, we want to have these opportunities within the city and to close in mountains. It says we want this access to be available for everyone who lives here. Not simply the people who have access to cars and can get on I-70 and go to the mountains. It says, we will invest in the infrastructure of this city because it is important for kids and for people who can't afford to do that. To be able to have parks that aren't broken, that aren't full of needles and that aren't trashed, to have shelters and historic structures in the mountain parks that link Denver's present and its future to its past, that give an opportunity to the citizens to see and understand why Denver is unique. Why it is special. What this bill does is that it lets the voters in Denver step up and say, this is important to us, and it's important not just if you have privilege. It's important to everyone because it should be a level playing field to have an outdoor opportunity. It should be a level playing field to be able to go to the mountains and have access to open space on hiking and fishing and mountain biking, or just standing in a stand of pine trees or aspen trees and understanding that when you do, your heart rate drops and when you do, you understand the beauty and you can go back to your life. That is why this is important. That is why I thank you very much for your support and referring this to the voters so that they can make this decision to invest in their city, both the parks within it and the parks outside of it. So thank you very much. Congratulations on your election. I appreciate it.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And I believe our last speaker is no longer here, but as Frank Rose here. Looks like not. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Zach, could you come up and and take a few questions on something we discussed a couple of weeks ago? I think when this went through my committee and that is under the section 39 to 23 I'm sorry, section 39 to 24 on the fund itself. Paragraph F, maintenance of effort. One of my concerns about this, and I think a lot of the concerns that folks expressed is that this new source of revenue not replace or supplant current effort in the general fund budget for parks. And reading the words in the bill now. I'm not sure that it reflects what I had expected to see. So I'm wondering if you could explain how this would work. I had thought that the maintenance of effort would be set at 2018 funding levels in the general fund and that we would not have the general fund at least go below that level. But tell me how this would work when this new revenue can be used for all the things we're doing now out of the general fund, how will we prevent and how will we monitor from year to year that this new money doesn't end up replacing the money we're now spending?
Speaker 11: I thank you for your question, Councilman Flynn. A couple of things here. The moneys are still used for the prescriptive uses, so you can't just supplant anything in the general fund. It was sort of it was under it was then the five buckets up in section eight is is common in legislation. Sometimes it's taken out. We went with it, not prescriptive. RO If you remember with the state when the recession, if you have a prescriptive amount and the maintenance of effort, you end up with this ratchet effect. And so this would allow the manager of finance to lower the threshold if there was a recession and the general fund shrunk by that same percentage.
Speaker 10: Okay. Explain to me again, though, paragraph eight, the number of there's five prescriptive uses, but they all seem to be uses that we now find out of the general fund in particular, what caught me was developing, improving and maintaining new and existing parks. We maintain existing parks out of the general fund. How are we if we can maintain existing parks at this new fund, how are we preventing it from replacing that current effort?
Speaker 11: Sure. So these do exist within the current general fund. However, there are additional expensive expenditures within the parks and recreation budget, such as recreation that would not be allowable under these expenditures. Not allowable.
Speaker 10: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask you, I mean, in in the crafting of the language and the communication with both folks in the community advocates and. Parks and Rec. What I want to address the issue of equity. I had comments were served later and I'll say that for them, but I want to make sure. Denver is very lopsided in terms of its park system and where the acreage is and where it is not. And, you know, it's been a lot of fighting and scraping and politics just to get receive a little bit of that equity. How are we sure what mechanisms are in place in here to make sure that that continues to be the case if we are going to. Contribute every single one of us into this is pot. So we can actually make sure folks live within a mile of any park. What mechanisms and policies are in place to make sure that happens.
Speaker 11: So, Councilman, I think there are two provisions in this bill that would address that. One is reporting requirements. So every year the manager of Parks Recreation will report back to council on the expenditures of that year. If there's something that the Council feels that is not an approved measure, they can take action at that point. The Manager of Parks Recreation will also need to submit within a year the five year outlier of what they anticipate expenditures are, and I'm sure the Council to weigh in on those. They'll be every five years after that there's a typical five year capital improvement plan.
Speaker 13: So at the end of the day, we are saying, I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to jump in. Councilman Locke, as you know, from from the very beginning of the drafting, for me, that was hugely important. My district is a tale of two cities and that I come all the way right up to Washington Park on one side, and I go all the way to federal and Tennessee, where we have a strip that if you look at any map of Denver parks, it shows a strip of parks down Tennessee. And if you drive down there, it is nothing but weeds. And there is a huge inequity in our city. I've spent my entire life before I came to this, taking kids from all of these communities on field trips to the river and trying to connect them with our parks. And and I think that the problem is that we struggle to keep up with our parks and to deliver on those parks. And it's a fundamental tenet of why, when I was helping with the drafting this came for it was to make sure that it doesn't matter where you're born, how much money you make, what zip code you live in. You should have a world class park that you can safely walk to. I was very lucky growing up in Denver that, you know, I got to grow up four blocks away from Wash Park and that was my backyard. And every single kid should have that opportunity. And we need the funds to make sure that we do so. That is, you know, a fundamental importance for me and why this is bringing forward so that we have the money to deliver on that dream for everyone. I also, you know, because you brought up some of the comments that are brought up and, you know, I won't for a second say that we don't have to absolutely do everything that we can. And I was encouraged by what the mayor had to say in his speech today about preventing and providing resources for displacement and gentrification . But I think we have to be very careful to before we go down a track where we start saying we shouldn't invest in these neighborhoods because that's a side effect. We need to cure that side effect. I don't think at any point for you, Councilman, as we were going through the bond process, if someone had said, no , let's not invest in a rec center in Westwood, because because there might be some displacement and some gentrification. I think we all and I won't speak for everyone, but it's my hope that we all would have jumped and said, no, let's solve that problem. Let's not make investments. Not, Oh, it's not. Stop paving roads and building sidewalks and building parks. Everyone deserves that. So I don't know if that gets to the question you're asking or not.
Speaker 13: You know, it does speak to the spirit in which you've drafted in. And I just hope I mean, I know that I'm here for another year as a councilman to see that a strong majority of the council and future councils do believe and continue and have and protect the pillar of equity. I mean, I like that it comes back here because sometimes it's like like other agencies, it can become a tool and it can be a tool that the executive branch and I want to make sure that we at this that this fund is not just an animal that lives in the executive branch, but it also lives within with multi with the legislative and executive. So that we do have a whatever the makeup of this council in any any kind of council in the future become that that equity is a certainty and that that stops at least here. So I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Zach.
Speaker 8: Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Ex-Im Think you can try these, Zach? But they might be for Scott. And it's more for my comments later on. What are the number of parks that we have in the city and county of Denver?
Speaker 11: That is definitely not free.
Speaker 8: Looks like Scott Gilmore is here.
Speaker 11: And can come up.
Speaker 9: Scott Gilmore, deputy executive director of Parks and Recreation. Approximately 260 parks, 6000 acres. That is in the metro area and the city and county of Denver. Then we have an additional 40 plus parks in the mountains that make up the mountain park system, and that's an additional 14,000 acres. And those are in five different counties.
Speaker 7: And I know that you have all these statistics in your head, so I like hearing them. This one less of a statistic. Do you have any sense about what the wait list is for playgrounds, parks that are sort of have aging playgrounds but need them?
Speaker 9: No. I mean, I could get the information. I don't want to give you anything that's not accurate. I mean, we are working down our list of priorities. We have a we did a master plan for playgrounds probably around eight years ago. And we are working through that list to identify the we identified the playgrounds that were in the worst condition. And we have been working through that list, replacing those playgrounds as we move down the list.
Speaker 7: But that that is. Would you say that I mean, might get you in trouble? Is it moving at the rate it is necessary? No, it's available. Okay. And are there any do we have any prospective parcels with immediate with no immediate plans for development as a park.
Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean, we have we have land that we are holding that we do not have funding to build parks on. We do have land in Stapleton. We have land in far northeast Denver, Green Valley Ranch Park Field. We have some areas we probably in the far northeast, we probably have about 40 acres of land that we do not have funding to build park land. There's additional acreage in Stapleton and there are some other parcels throughout the system that Jolan has a park in his neighborhood. I think it's the car dealership parcel that is nothing.
Speaker 7: So we have ample need for this. Yes, we do. Great.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 8: Anything else, Councilman?
Speaker 7: No, thanks.
Speaker 8: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 11: Yeah. Thank you, Sack. Simple one. So at this point, two 5% on a $10 purchase, that equates to what I believe it's a quarter.
Speaker 8: On a $10 purchase. It's 2.5 cents.
Speaker 11: Believe. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Anything else, Councilman Cannick.
Speaker 14: Thanks, Mr. President. Congratulations. A couple questions. My first one is about maintenance. And I think this kind of gets at the question that Councilman Flynn was asking about folks. We're talking about things like cleaning up needles and stuff. I think of that as like a maintenance person doing a service in a park. I guess I have the impression from our conversation that we were talking about hard maintenance, i.e. capital, like I'm painting, appealing, retaining while I am maintaining a an area that has soil erosion. And I was thinking that we were more in the capital maintenance realm than the services maintenance realm. And so I couldn't find a definition in the ordinance of maintenance specifically. So I just if someone could help kind of, you know, whether that's in the city attorney's office, but just can you clarify what your intent is? And then let's check to see if the language matches intent.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Do you want to speak to the language or. Okay. So, you know, on intent, the the the number one intent was to make sure that this was new money and back to what Councilman Flynn had brought up. It is not a lock in where we're in the general fund right now because we did just very recently have a recession that every department, including police and fire, were asked to cut. And it wouldn't be fair. I felt and other members were helping with drafting to say, oh, parks doesn't have to cut because of this money . Outside of that, it has been left fairly broad. And so I would say that while the focus is on catching up with deferred capital maintenance, there was especially a concern with bringing new parks on and with the, you know, things like emptying the trash cans. I told the story in committee that I had constituents who started picking up the trash in the park and were putting it in the trash and called me and said, Hey, can we pick up the trash can more often? Because that same trash is just blowing out and we didn't have the resources to empty those trash cans. So, you know, I'm not sure what the the legal read on that is, but my the intent would be that that's part of the plan. And if at any point this body or proud felt that it was an inappropriate use of those funds, but certainly if there is a park that is not being used and is not safe and accessible for kids, I didn't feel that we should expressly prohibit our Parks Department from saying for this park, that's the need for that park over there. It's a bench that's broken. And for this one, it's a playground. And here it's that they don't have a park and we need to buy land. But for this park, the thing that we need is another person and it is not explicitly prohibited unless the legal interpretation is different. Okay.
Speaker 14: Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel I would suggest that we do not need to define maintenance in the ordinance, that it's a commonly used term for actually maintenance separate and distinct from capital improvements, which are also covered in the bill. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Second question actually was for you, Kirsten. One of the speakers early on asked the question about, you know, we that we couldn't do anything to change this. And, you know, obviously under TABOR, we need voter approval to increase the tax. I'm just curious about what are the mechanisms for adjustment. So, for example, if if it turned out that tax burden became an issue or, you know, is there what is council's authority and or would it be referred to the ballot like could voters change the amount, for example? So I just wanted to get clarification since someone asked that. So with respect to adjusting the tax, the TABOR requires that a policy change in tax that results in an increase must be approved by the voters. But you all could adjust it lower without a vote necessary without a vote. Or we could refer for voters to weigh in if that was it. Nothing prohibits us from asking the voters about an adjustment in the future. That's right. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. Councilman Clark, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, and I will acknowledge they're not they're not just in the vein of technical questions. I think it's like, you know, we had a lot of policy concerns that were raised. And so could you just speak a little bit to your consideration of a sunset? Not a lot of questions about sunsets.
Speaker 8: Yeah, a lot of questions about that. It was something that, you know, I thought about. I you know, I think as we've been going through the affordable housing, we've learned that there are ramifications to having a sunset. And that limits what we do in some of our suburban neighbors have taken parts of their dedicated sources of revenue and said land will never be cheaper. We should bond on that land. And so I felt that, one, it gave freedom for us to really look at what do we need? Part of the problem is we've never had the money or any future promise of that money to really look at what do we need from a land standpoint? Land can be very expensive, especially when we have such a big deferred maintenance, annual problem and hole. So, you know, I think that was part of it. And I also, you know, I believe that the need for us to make sure that every person has a quality park will not end. And so fundamentally, I felt like that I also, as we've seen through both green roofs and social consumption, this council's not been afraid to jump in and fix things when they're fixed. And, you know, I'll say that the day that every single, you know, person in this city has a high quality world class park that they can walk to safely, that is that is kept at the level that our citizens want. And we don't need this any more than I'll be the first one in line up there to say, Hey, it's time to make a change. I just don't think at the where where we're at and what this level is. There's also a lot about is this too much? The problem is, if it's not this much, then we can't even start the conversation about acquiring land in those park deserts, in those communities that don't have that safe walk. And so I felt like this was the minimum amount to even get us on track, and we shouldn't sunset that perhaps down the road. Many communities have looked at increasing their taxes beyond their .25 to Jefferson County with 0.5, Boulder with 0.6. And perhaps when you look at we've got our house in order and we've started to grow, but we hit the next wall. That might be appropriate in that conversation. But we're so far behind and we've let this go on so long that I didn't feel that it was appropriate or responsible to sunset this.
Speaker 14: Another thing that was another question that was raised, and I think what I heard from folks is that there are people who are in this realm of of parks and open spaces, their focus and passion, who feel like they've been part of a conversation for a decade. For many others in the community, this proposal came as a surprise. They were not at that table. They did not feel like they were part of that debate. And so what can you share about what other sources that you or others that you worked with thought about? So what made the sales tax the right source, for example, as compared to a development impact fee, which has sometimes been thrown around by the community? So.
Speaker 8: You know, I'd said and I've, you know, said this and as people have asked me this over email too, that there's no tax that is a perfect tax and that it should never be taken lightly to increase any of those taxes. There are bad parts of all of them. Part of it was looking at where can we model after best practices? Where can we learn from and not invent something new that might have ramifications? Every single one of our neighboring counties has this as a sales tax. There is a clear roadmap. There are organizations like the Trust for Public Lands who have helped multiple jurisdictions craft those, work on those, go back and make edits to those. So it was the pool where we could learn very quickly how to do this effectively. Development impact fees. You know, if you look at the amount and again, how much do we need to generate? We need to we need to stop the annual gushing of resources where we're getting further and further behind. We need to start catching up on the stuff that we are already behind and then we need to deliver on acquiring new properties as Denver is growing as fast as they can and development impact fees would have had to have been so much bigger than what we did for, say, affordable housing to generate the kind of money that we need. And that was a difficult conversation to get through. So that was one that, you know. Looking at again, I think it was lessons learned, best practices. And then how realistic is it to actually generate the money that we need to solve this problem from each thing? You know, some of the other things that were considered was there have been we've talked a lot about property taxes. We've we've re-upped the job on, which wasn't necessarily a tax increase but certainly was more taxes on people would have had to pay had they not. We have activated some property tax for affordable housing. And as we talk about housing, not that all of this isn't connected and everything you have to pay for goes into that. But with a sales tax in Denver, only 24% of that is paid by Denver residents. And so the burden on the Denver residents was also something that was seen as a plus of the sales tax.
Speaker 14: I guess I wanted to just clarify two questions. And, you know, Kirsten or Jolene. So, one, you had mentioned bonding. So if we had used a different source, like a development impact fee, just refresh me again. Could we have bonded against that if that's something folks wanted to do to build a park?
Speaker 8: I am not.
Speaker 14: Generally told she was not available for bonding in the affordable housing realm. So I just want to confirm that that is my understanding. But we haven't I haven't looked at that issue. Okay. Got it. And again, this just gets to we are in some ways today having the policy debate right about the why this source. Last question, I guess is about the timeline. So refresh me again with the latest date. This could be referred in order to kind of be on the ballot. It is. So we're on first reading tonight.
Speaker 8: Yes, we're actually in final reading.
Speaker 14: To final reading. Okay. Correct. Sorry. Sorry. So I think the early the latest would be, I believe, September 9th, that needs to be in by September 9th. Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: Thank you. I have several questions as well. And Scott, maybe you might want to work your way up here. I'm going to ask a few other questions first, but I do have one for you as well. And Councilwoman Canete, you asked a couple of my questions, but I want to elaborate on them a little further. So on the. So let me let me start with the issue of somebody made reference to being able to maybe use these dollars for recreation facilities as well. And I want you to clarify whether or not these dollars can actually be spent on capital improvements for recreation center buildings.
Speaker 8: No, they cannot.
Speaker 12: Okay. I just wanted to make that really clear. So any adjustments that might be made in the future, could recreation facilities be added without having to go back to a vote of the people? I'm looking at you to help answer that question.
Speaker 14: Uh uh, yes, absolutely. I, I guess I would have to go back and look at whether there's a time frame on that. But, yeah, you could do it without a vote.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. Um, on the issue of equity, I just wanted to ask Scott if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone for a minute. What what are the standards that exist? Because as I travel around the city, I see a drastic difference in the quality of maintenance of our parks. Depending on what neighborhood you happen to be in across the city. Is is there a standard of maintenance that exists for the maintenance of our parks?
Speaker 8: Yes, there.
Speaker 9: Is a standard of maintenance that we we definitely try to meet. Some of it's based on the use of the park. It's based on the size of the park. It's based on if it's a community park, neighborhood park or a regional park. We we strive to make sure that all our parks are maintained at a high level. So as everyone knows, if there is parks that you see that are not maintained at a at a level that is appropriate. You can always reach out to the Parks Department. You can reach out to me directly, and we will address that.
Speaker 12: I have one more for you. And this is on. It's how we. Set priorities for. Looking at where we. Prioritize the spend of resources. So, for example, we'll be able to utilize these dollars along some of our R River corridors. As you know, we've been trying to address some flooding issue in the Globeville neighborhood. But if we had, for example, Ilitch is say, well, we want to have some of that address next to our site because we're in a floodplain. And as we look at redoing, you know, a whole new development for that site, we'd like the city to pony up some some of these new dollars to address some of the flooding in in that area. So how would we prioritize Globeville over an Ilitch project, for example?
Speaker 9: To be honest, I do not know the specific answer to that question. So I'm not going to try to give you an answer that I don't know.
Speaker 12: All right. Thank you. That's it for you. I appreciate you answering that question. Let me go on to my next question, and this is on me a second here. So I think Councilwoman Kenny asked the question about bonding. On kind of why the sunset was not said is you you address councilman Clark to be able to potentially create the opportunity for bonding. I guess we need to get that clarified. And I'm I'm not comfortable with us just moving this forward tonight without really knowing the answer to that question, because I think if it potentially impacts our bond rating, if if we begin to kind of reach that ceiling on our bond indebtedness, that would be a concern, because if we then find ourselves having to deal with some kind of unforeseen emergency that we have to issue debt for, but we're at our ceiling. Are we? You know, I think that's something we always need to be cognizant of and take a very careful look at. So I would like for us to be able to get the answer to that question, I think.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry. Can you clarify what exactly your question is around the bonding?
Speaker 12: It's if this fund that would be created, if the voters pass it, if the dollars can be used to bond. And we want to do that up front, similar to what we're going to do with our housing money. Have we taken that big picture, look at our debt capacity in the city and ensured that we're not bumping up to that ceiling on, you know, being unable to address unforeseen future emergencies that might exist.
Speaker 8: There's nothing in this bill that says it has to be or would be bonded that would become for or have to come forward as part of the plan. Or the Parks Department would say, this is what we need to do. And that would then have to go through the whole process, including council approval, before we could go through that. So and the question was around sorry, the question was around the sunset and why not have a sunset? So I guess, you know, I had arguments. Beyond just it limits our ability to ever consider that why I didn't include a sunset but there's nothing in here that says we will bond against it now would have to come through.
Speaker 12: And I guess for me it would be helpful to know, number one, can these dollars be bonded? Because if they cannot, then maybe there's no reason to not have a sunset at some, you know, time set into the future. So for me, knowing the answer to that question would be extremely helpful.
Speaker 8: It is. And again, for me, that was one piece of a sunset answer. But it is my understanding that any revenue source for the city that is predictable, you can't it's harder to bond against the total capacity of a sales tax because it goes up and down. But certainly taking a portion of that would be eligible to use for bonding. But I don't know, Kristen, if there's something that I misunderstood.
Speaker 14: So, Councilwoman Ortega, we will take a look and get you an answer. I know this was fully vetted with finance, and so I'm sure if that was a concern that they would have voiced it. But we will get you that answer after tonight very quickly.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then the last question I have is about. How we make decisions. And I don't know where this gets done, if it's done in the mayor's office or if it's done at our finance department or our Parks Department, where we have large developments in this city that we require, they do, you know, a percentage of their development as open space and, you know, where they are very large. Sometimes we get some fairly decent sized parks, but what happens is they develop the park and after a year they turn them over to us. And then we assume that maintenance responsibility. Yet in the projects that include metro districts, they include maintenance as part of their overall development. And I'm assuming the parks are part of that. But yet we, the taxpayers and the City General Fund assumes that maintenance responsibility. And yeah, I raise this every time we have these big projects, but we never really have a policy discussion around whether or not we should continue to assume that maintenance responsibility or whether those developments should pay their own way in maintaining those parks that are built within their in their development. And is there anyone that can address where that policy decision is made that we just assume those parks? I mean, one great example of that is the little over I-70 that's going to be the playground for the elementary school. I mean, I understand Parks and Rec didn't really even get to weigh in on that decision of assuming that responsibility. I'm not even sure you guys are are up to the task of doing that. But it was part of the idea that got brought forward to this body of council that that's a commitment that was made that Denver is going to maintain what is a cedar asset, which makes no sense to me at all. So is there anyone that can answer that question about how the policy discussion is made around whether we accept these these parks that we require to be built as part of these developments?
Speaker 11: Councilwoman, I'm not sure if I understand your full question, but I do want to say that I think this is all done, as you mentioned, on a case by case basis. I don't know that Parks has an overarching policy on how this is hand over if it's a small park, if it's a see that project?
Speaker 12: Director Haines, do you have anything you want to add to this?
Speaker 15: Good evening. Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. Thank you for the question, Councilwoman. And as I said, it does often happen on a case by case basis. The the requirement for open space generally comes out of a planning process, a general development plan that requires a 10% open space requirement. And that can happen in a number of ways, including the dedication of land for a dedicated park that could become a dedicated city park or just an open space. And in some of those instances that could they could be maintained by the private development. So every every one of those cases is unique. I will say this. If the park or if the land is dedicated as a park, it becomes one of ours and we assume the maintenance of it. That doesn't preclude, however, additional agreements with entities around maintenance of those or additional maintenance for those park facilities.
Speaker 12: By the city or by the.
Speaker 15: Developer, either by the development or a metro district in this case. So there could be separate agreements for maintenance in any of those parks.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions at this time.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. You look good up there, by the way. I have some questions, and I think, you know, Councilman Ortega answer or get a chance to ask some of them around equity. And, and I think there's a lot more conversation around that. Um, but, but I'll just go in the interest of time, just a prioritization and strategy. And, you know, I just want to hear a little bit about. The prioritization of this bill in front of us today. And I know that there's other groups that have been working on it. The Parks Parks Group has been working on this in game plan. But as far as conversations at the city council, 11 level, four hour prioritization, help me understand how you're working on that and include the executive branch as well.
Speaker 8: And I'm sorry, are you talking about prioritization against non park priorities or prioritization in the completion.
Speaker 0: Of this bill going through City Council and other priorities that. Prior to terrorizing it and making sure that we support it. You know, like we're working on this for a while.
Speaker 8: But not the not the difference of priorities within the bill you're talking about done right.
Speaker 0: This bill. Yeah. All the other issues.
Speaker 8: And you know, this is a conversation that I have had with the administration since the first day I was elected or the first time I got a chance to talk directly to the mayor. You know, again, I spent 17 years of my life working in Denver parks every single day. And not for the public sector, not for the city. But I got to see firsthand what was happening on the ground floor. I served on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a lot of the great people, came today for a number of years before I came here. And I've also been on the the game plan task force. And, you know, this conversation about this dedicated stream has always been a huge priority. It's always been in the white paper. It's always been in game plan. You know, I don't I don't know. To be fair, I don't know that this council has sat down and gone through it. We just now had Jerry Donato come and present in committee on what the priorities, what our goals even are in the sustainability sphere. And so I think that there is a lot going on and we govern over a lot of different things. And I don't know that this council has had specifically this conversation, but the community has and those the game plan document, the blueprint document, those are all that go out to the community. Now, not every member of the community participates in all of those conversations are certainly people who participate in all the parks ones and haven't been participating in our conversations about transportation mobility or about housing. But those are public documents that have public meetings and have a stakeholder group just like the rest of our plans. And this is in those adopted plans from the city. Now, all of that aside, you know, sometimes, you know, we could sit and say, okay, let's take everything that we need to do and let's put them in 1 to 5000 order. And sometimes you look at where the opportunities are. And Brandon, who's here today, was the one who was galvanizing a group of citizens to put this on the ballot in November. And when we first started talking about that, he was going to go similar to what he did with green roofs and draft something, put it on the ballot and we could deal with it afterwards. But he was very, very receptive to sitting down and talking through this, to working with our legislative staff to do the research behind it, to put forward working with the trust for Public Lands, who's done this in multiple municipalities and say, okay, here is an adopted goal and vision of the city and we're going to do it, but very willing to work with us on it. And then we got to a crossroads, at which point he said, I'm Vaughan, we're going to go start getting signatures. Or if you all would like to take this through the council process, then I will defer to you working it through your process. Similar to there's another measure that is potentially on the ballot that I believe there's a meeting later this week to have that same conversation. Is that item that's coming forward something that was, you know, next in line for this council to take action on? Well, or do we take an opportunity to have input on something that is an adopted goal of our city? And, you know, I think certainly a priority. So I think it was a combination of those things. That's part of what led to a truncated, you know, process specifically around this bill. You know, if we could say, hey, let's do this this bill just like this, then it's a little bit different. But we had an opportunity to be involved in a process or not be involved in the process. We had the experts who have crafted this for other jurisdictions, and we do have all of the people who do participate and do show up to private meetings and do show up to game plan meetings and do fill out those surveys, not just the blueprint Denver ones and who have been asking for this and working on this and begging for this. And that was my world. That was the community that I came from. And so, yeah, it is unfortunate that we are it's really hard to have every conversation with everybody, but I wouldn't discount that this community that has been working on this, you know, I sat with Bart Berger when we first were looking at this, and he pulled out presentations that the community had put together from 20 years ago, from 15 years ago, from ten years ago, from five years ago. But nobody on this council, they could never convince anyone on this council to give the voters that choice. They had done everything from polling and been ready to go, couldn't convince the administration or council to take it on. And so I think, you know, that was the the underlying conversations that were going on in the framework that this came from. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a lot there. A lot. And I actually appreciate because I think I think I heard something that I hadn't heard before. And it was, you know, Brandon in the community group as the impetus to speed this up which jumps. I'll leave that for comments, but that's helpful. Let me ask you this, Mr. President. And this is the thing that I'm concerned about. One of the things nine out of ten people say driving in their car. Mobility is the if not most important issue with housing. It is. And and our sales tax is at a place right now where we can take advantage of funding items. And you are totally taking advantage of this with the with the parks, which I appreciate. Do you think about because I know that mobility is really important to you, $1,000,000,000 for sidewalks in the future? You know, I think we're $800 million for bike lanes all over the city if we want to get there. Do you think that this tax will the opportunity costs in the future will limit us from taking advantage of future opportunities in a year from now?
Speaker 8: I don't believe so. I will also qualify with that with I am I can't see the future and I can't read the future. But I believe that Denver voters are very smart. I think that they weigh everything that's put in front of them and we'll see what they think about this. I think this is a good solution to a problem that's being asked for. And I think that this is something that voters want us to put in front of them. But I don't believe so. I believe voters right now and our citizens in Denver are eager for us to put in front of them solutions to the problems , to the things that they're asking for. And I think that they would be willing to pay more than we expect if those are good solutions that come out of this process that we can put in front of them. So, no, I don't. I also, you know, I was councilman's husband and I sat on the Mayor's Mobility Action Committee. And through that process, there were over 20 possible funding streams that were identified during the year of mobility to take advantage for mobility. I hope we will start moving on those. Only one of those in that bailiwick was sales tax. And so I also don't think that we have to tie all of our future needs to this one. You know, a year ago, all we were doing was talking about property taxes. Now we're talking about sales taxes. I think there are other opportunities. But I personally no, I don't believe that this prohibits us from those other priorities.
Speaker 0: I agree with you, Mr. President, that the Denver voters are smart. And that's why I'm I'm concerned for the for future. Let me just ask Scott Gilmore, one. There you are. You said something that around the equity of maintenance of parks. And I just wanted to chime in on this. You said. Part of kind of the algorithm to see who gets kind of taken care of is use use of parks. And the thing that made me a little nervous about that is sometime in our neighborhoods, especially the pocket parks, especially in northeast Denver, the parks are so bad . Why would anybody use them? Because they have needles and everything around. So your analysis around use of parks.
Speaker 9: So it's based on a standard that our department has come out with are our parks team. Some of that standard, what I meant was the type of park more, say, a natural area type park, a more natural park based on versus more a more urban type park. So those parks are definitely at a higher maintenance level than a more natural park that you would just maybe walk through to to look at wildlife.
Speaker 0: Great. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, Mr. President. Going from the general to the specific about priorities in the ordinance, it has a list of ways in which the moneys can be spent. Would you please talk about is are these the priorities that the group would use to decide how the money would be spent? That is, the acquiring of lands is number one. And the developing and improving and maintaining existing parks is second. And would you please describe who is going to make the decisions about how this money is going to be spent? Yeah, we I'd like to have some clarification about that.
Speaker 11: So to answer your first question, Councilwoman, the or the rank order number there, it's not a rank order, which is how follows in the DRC, a paragraph different would have been ABCD. They're not rank order. They are all equal priorities. As far as the bill is concerned, the second question is the manager of Parks Recreation. They have their experts on staff. They know the park priorities. That's why the the parab rab, the person advisory board and the Manager of Parks Recreation will have control of this fund with approval from Council on the plans.
Speaker 8: And to clarify, I did work with the administration to clarify that this money will be budgeted through the annual budget process every year. So we will participate in that through our budget hearings so that parks can have one unified budget. And we don't end up with certain parks that were bought with the new money and are getting a higher level of something, a two tier system. So certainly not in priority order, but also it will be part of the budget season and then the required report out to Parab and to us on top of the budget, how we how we normally budget our dollars for showing accountability of how the money was actually spent and then a five year plan that is renewed every five years talking about how the how the funds, what are the priorities, how are they going to meet the intent of this ordinance over the next five years through the expenditures are additional on top of through the budget process.
Speaker 4: Okay. This was one of the concerns that you as you heard, too, from some groups about how they are going to prioritize. So let me just make sure I understand the answer to the questions. When you're going to spend this money, all the priorities have the same value. But of course, once you spend money, you're going to have to start creating priorities. We need this, we need this. We need this is it is the order of those criteria going to be left to the Parks and Rec and to the, uh, for, say, a proposal to parab and, and then a proposal to the city. I mean, oh, is that going to run through?
Speaker 8: I wouldn't say that they're all considered equal because there may be a bigger need or an opportunity that arises. So it allows the flexibility to not say 10% goes zero, 20% goes here. And then the 10% wasn't enough to do something or to provide, you know, uniform maintenance across the system. So they will be based on the need and the priority. And that need and priority in year one may be very different than that need and priority in year ten. And so it also allows the flexibility to adapt that with the you have to show us how you did that every year in real dollars and you have to show us the vision for what are those needs as we see them over the next five.
Speaker 4: Okay. Because the answer was that they were equal priority. So I was this particular is 5%.
Speaker 11: Down the line is right no priority is more important on in the as written than any of the others.
Speaker 4: That they're situational. The priorities are. Absolutely. They're not they're not written here. Right. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Councilman Espinosa. You're back up.
Speaker 7: Yeah. He sort of wanted to. Well, I. You said a few questions for you since we're asking a lot of the sponsor. Where where do we rank? Again, it was sort of mentioned how we rank among our surrounding counties. So I know you've done a lot of legwork in in trying to get to the point where you would support, sponsor and carry this measure. And I'm happy to co-sponsor it with you as well. But you did all this work. So where do we rank among our neighboring counties?
Speaker 8: So just on dedicated sales tax, Douglas County is a 0.17. Jefferson County has 2.5. Boulder is a 0.6. And every other county is 0.25. On top of that, there are additional jurisdictions and cities that are not combined city and county like we are, that also have either a dedicated sales tax or another impact fees on top of that. So because it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison of Denver as a combined city and county, what's included if you pull up in this bill in the system as a comparison that is just off of sales tax and some I'm sorry, some of them use that exclusively for acquisition.
Speaker 7: And then you did some research on Pierce Cities as well, not just our local areas, but other cities that we love to compare ourselves to our peer cities. And what are they doing? So what what did you find there?
Speaker 8: And I will ask Jim Peterson from CBO if you wanted to. I don't know if you know those slides. The slides are in your deck. They're presented in committee. But they do take us and compare us to Boston and Chicago. And so I can't remember what they all are in terms of per acre, of parks, per person, amount spent per person out of the budget on parks, percent of population living in a ten minute walk to a park, all of those metrics. So there are some specific pure city comparisons in there which do show that we are behind the eight ball. But I think all of that gets aggregated into this park score that the Trust for Public Land and a phenomenal tool on their website where you can pull up any city that you can think of, pull it up and it will show you the map. They'll show you the areas that aren't within that walk. And so, you know, in the last just, I think eight years, we've dropped from being ranked seventh to 28th, 26th. So from seventh the 26, because of the growth with the growth that we're experiencing, we're not keeping up.
Speaker 7: So, you know, I think you captured it well in saying that in a nutshell, we're behind the eight ball. And in other comments I've heard you make tonight in responses to questioning, you're under no illusion that even this level of investment will, will, will ever sort of fill fully correct course. You're hopeful and you would be happy to see this. You know, future councils address this, ask if it becomes prudent at a later date to remove it. But but at the same time, the reality is, is that if the city grows, we're still behind.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I believe that this is the lowest amount that we could put in front of voters and realistically say that this has a chance to fix the problem and we can't predict the future and future growth. But if we had done this ten years ago, if we'd done this 20 years ago, that's a different amount. But with as far as we are behind as as as much as that is growing every year and with the growth that we're experiencing, I think this is the lowest amount that we could put in front of voters and say that we could solve this problem.
Speaker 7: And then one last question. You know, it would be one thing if council were acting tonight to impose a tax on all Denver residents. But but you're simply asking me to ask you to put that question out to voters. Is there is there any fear in doing that, in just letting voters decide?
Speaker 8: I think that's absolutely correct. That's what we're doing is we're letting voters decide. And, you know, that's that is all that we can do and the rest is up to them. And so I think that they have been asking for us to ask them this question. And now here is the question there. We can put it forward to him.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman. Can each.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. You are in the unenviable position of chairing your first meeting as chair. You certainly chaired many meetings and Councilman Brooks's absence, but your. So I just want to be very transparent, ask you a question. So I have a question I want to ask you, but I need to lay some groundwork for it, which are clearly comments. And so I'm happy to wait and do that in the comment portion, if that's the way you prefer it, versus kind of feeling like I'm laying too much groundwork in the Q&A and we've done this before during debates where you you know, especially with bill sponsors in particular, where questions will continue. We're not in a quasi judicial role here. So I don't know that it's a big deal, but I just wanted to ask your preference on that.
Speaker 8: How about because I just noticed that we have a council person who's in the Q hasn't gone. How about I just come back to you at the end of questions and we'll use you to comment or question us transition. Okay. How about that? Thank you. All right. So, Councilwoman Ortega, so okay with you, I'm going to go to Councilman Do because he hasn't got a chance, councilman.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I just want to ask again about make sure I'm real clear about the five year plan on priorities versus the annual budget process and priorities that that Parks and Rec would have. How how do you keep those separate? And how and how is that going to be made sure that this new money's not going to supplant additional operating funds?
Speaker 8: Yeah, there are essentially and we've gone through this in in different pieces. And so I'm glad you asked that question. There are three places where we have a touch, where the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has a touch to check in on all of this. Number one is that the Parks Department has to create and then every five years update a five year plan showing, okay, this is what passed. This is how much money we have here. The needs here are what it can be spent on and give us that vision for how they're going to achieve that with the dollars over a five year time period. We then and that will have to be presented to Proud, which is an open and public meeting and presented to council. So we have a touch there on, okay, how are you going to get there? What is that vision? Because right now we don't have this master plan for where do we need to acquire land because we've never had money to do that. We don't you know, we don't have that sitting there. So they're going to have to speak to how are they going to accomplish that? Every year they then have to report out separate from the budget process on how exactly that money was spent as opposed to this five year vision. But how were the dollars spent in this year so that we can again look at what was the intent of the ordinance and how were those dollars spent and was it in line with this five year plan? And then on top of that, the money then also goes through our budget process. So when we sit down and we have our budget hearing with the Parks Department, they'll say our budget used to be $78 million. Now it's, you know, 70 it was 45. And here's our total process. Here's our total department and here's how we're moving everything forward, including those dollars. And that's where we also get that touch on it. Or are they drifting away from preserving that general fund? Is everything else in the budget growing and it's shrinking and they're actually stealing general fund money away when the intent of the ordinance is for this to be new money. So those are all the touches that we get of those same things, go through the Parks and Rec Advisory Board and both of those public processes.
Speaker 11: So any priorities that Parks and Rec has now won't be used for this new money. Right.
Speaker 8: I think there's a lot of places where the existing priorities of our parks, they certainly want to get every playground up to date. And I think they want to acquire land where we need it. You know, I talked about the the piece of land in Golden Triangle that they tried to acquire because they knew that was established park desert and just didn't have the money to get there. So I do think that, you know, those overarching goals are always the goals. We just haven't had enough money to put those goals into that five year action plan. How are we going to get there? Where are we targeting? Where do we need a pocket park? Where do we need a regional park? How do we solve these gaps and and and that road map?
Speaker 11: So this builds a real assurance to voters that this will be new money and new additional money that we do not have now.
Speaker 8: This is written as strongly as Zach and the attorneys would let me within the confines of TABOR to that end. So without Taber could have made it maybe a little bit stronger, but it is written as strong as possible that this will be new money.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: Councilman, do you want to finish your line of questions? Okay. So I wanted to ask either Director Haines or Scott Gilmore if you could clarify whether or not our golf courses are included in the amount of acreage that was defined when you described how many acres of parkland we have in the city. Scott, you were the one that gave us those figures. Can you just tell us whether that included our golf courses?
Speaker 9: Yes. Yes, it does. Those are acres that are included as part of the 6000 acres of the city that does include the golf course.
Speaker 12: And then I just wanted to ask you additionally, if if you would potentially see this fund being used for any single project. So, for example, we know there's a need and you all already own the land next to Capo Simonetti Park that potentially addresses some of the flooding issue issues in Globeville. So, you know, building out that master plan or potentially using it for purchasing Park Hill golf course. So help me understand how you all envision that versus.
Speaker 9: I'm going to let happy come up. Okay, speak to that one.
Speaker 12: Versus a little bit more equitable distribution of the resources.
Speaker 15: Thank you for the question, Councilwoman. I think it addresses a number of the questions that council members have had around the equity and the priority setting. And obviously, we haven't looked at that in detail and don't have an answer tonight. But I will tell you that part of the the thinking that we use in establishing our priorities, some of it is based on the data. So we use, for example, Scott mentioned the playground master plan. We do have data around the park desert and where we do not meet the ten minute standard in the city we use . And this is captured in our game plan that will be adopted fairly soon. And it and it goes through a set of priorities which include, by the way, at the top of that list the the idea of equity. And we we use demographics in a neighborhood as well as the amount of parkland, the accessibility to parks. I mean, so these are all criteria that we use. And I would I would mention to those of you who recall the process we use during the most recent bond and when we came forward with our set of recommended projects and priorities, we shared with you a set of principles that guided that thinking, some of it based on data and others based on just principles around equity, access, condition. You know, if we have a historic property or a fountain, it's about to fall down. You know, those those kinds of emergency repairs have us have a place in our priority setting system, but we do share those. And that's something that guides us not only in the recent bond process, but also guides our thinking in terms of our budget, our city budget requests each year. So that would get set out in advance. And then you would have the opportunity as council members and the prob certainly would and do to determine how much the principles that we have recommended are reflected in the projects that we're bringing forward. So we could look at a particular project, but I think we would be applying those principles before we said this money is going to use for this project or that project and have the opportunity for others to weigh in on it. I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 12: Yes. So let me ask you additional question about comments the mayor made today about looking at race and equity in across the city. How do you see that applying differently than what you just elaborated on?
Speaker 15: I think it's right on point. The issues of equity we use, for example, health data, we use income data, we use data around the accessibility, the ten minute standard, the condition of the facilities in a particular neighborhood. So all of those, I think, are were really the heart of what the mayor was proposing.
Speaker 12: So in areas that, for example, don't have the same basic standards of infrastructure around the parks, no curb, gutter, sidewalk, is that going to be something that you see being prioritized in areas where those don't exist?
Speaker 15: So that may be a little bit different question. We're already working on the issue of sidewalks and mobility with respect to parks and working with public works. We prioritize some of ours. We use some mobility standards. So in a neighborhood, if our park is the only way to provide access, that does become a priority. But with regard to mobility issues, that would be a collaborative process.
Speaker 12: Okay. Let me say I think I have one additional question. And this is for you, Councilman Clark. You and I had a brief conversation today, and I brought this up when. When we met. Initially when you were proposing this talking about. A separate process for how we would then prioritize. So. And I just want to ask how much thought you've given to maybe having a separate ordinance that maybe more clearly defines the process in which we would then prioritize? So if this passes tonight and this would not be a companion that would go to the ballot, but it would be something that we would do. And it's not unusual for this body. So, for example, in the past, when we would adopt, you know, a. When we would move a bond list to the to the ballot, we would prioritize that in a separate ordinance. And just wanted to ask your thoughts about. About that. So that I think that would give a lot more voter confidence to ensuring that there's going to be more robust public input into how we prioritize the list of the projects that would potentially be funded, because essentially this becomes a windfall of new money to the Parks Department. And yes, we know that we've gone through the bond process. We know we've gone through the game plan process. But, you know, this this whole process was done kind of in isolation of looking at other big picture priorities for the city. And, you know, it kind of leapfrogged in front of everything else. And so, you know, some of the comments you've heard from some of my colleagues around, ensuring that we're going to be able to address some of those other needs into the future. And for me, part of that is, you know, can we be can we realistically fund those if we reach our bond indebtedness, you know, which is a whole separate thing that I think we need to get some some clarity on. But can you just speak to that?
Speaker 8: Yeah. I mean, I'll start by saying I talk about parks all day long. How long you got? We can stay here all night if you want. And so I'm.
Speaker 12: Talking to hopefully for setting the priorities.
Speaker 8: I know. So I am totally open to any any discussion about that process. You know, you and I talked just a couple hours before council, and so I don't know what that process looks like. And we certainly need to loop in our Parks Department to make sure that that process works. I think we also need to take a good look at our awesome probe, which, you know, I pointed out is one of the only oversight board that we have where we get to a point directly, people to it and that is protected and charter and look at where those pieces are. I'm certainly open to having those conversations and what you know, this bill is limited by what can be in it, Per TABOR. And I'm completely open to having discussions about how we tackle more of these issues and specifically how we look at, you know, planning for this money moving forward.
Speaker 12: Okay. Let me just say that I think our prep board does, in fact, bring some expertize. And I'm not suggesting they not be included. I'm suggesting we have something broader than that that ensures that we've got more robust community input into defining some of the key criteria in which we then set those priorities, very similar to what we did with our housing fund that created, you know, the House, the adoption of a housing plan.
Speaker 8: And the other thing that I'll just point out is we've just gone through a 18 month process in looking at game plan. And I don't know if everyone has seen that framework, but this is a great time to be coming forward and looking at the framework that the community and all of our stakeholders have worked really hard at providing that framework for some of those and using that to launch with the new lens of We have new money. Should the book, should this council choose to refer and should voters choose to pass?
Speaker 12: That's the end of my question.
Speaker 8: Councilman Flynn, did you have a quick one before I get back to Councilwoman Cannick? Yeah. Yes, I.
Speaker 10: Did. And it came up during Councilwoman Ortega's questioning with Happy Hour Haines, our executive director. So I don't know if you can answer this right now or not happy, but in looking at our under parked areas, our underserved areas, I think Councilman Lopez and I represent what may be the most severely under part in terms of acres per capita other than Councilman News Central City, which is a function of density. Where is the opportunity, however, to add park land in areas that are almost fully developed? Are we looking at possibly using eminent domain to acquire properties? The only open space in my district that I can think of that park right now and it's urgent, is the Loreto Heights College campus that's being sold in the process of being sold and working with the developer to maximize, to the extent possible, new open space there. But elsewhere the largest what swaths of open space in my district would be maybe Fort Logan National Cemetery. So where do you see the opportunity to add parks, for instance, in council districts three, four and three and two?
Speaker 15: And thank you, Councilman. Great question. And I don't have a complete answer to that, certainly. Um, uh, and say in areas that are, um, fully developed, it takes a great deal of, of creativity to figure out how you can, um, identify the right places and the opportunities for acquisition. So it may boil down to acquisition of private land. And I, and I will just say this we've been engaged in that in any event over the years. Where we where we recognize a parcel or we work, for example, in partnership with an organization like Excel that is has a surplus property or is is looking to get rid of property. We have partnered over the years with our friends at the Trust for Public Land who are diligent about looking for those opportunities for acquisition around the city in in a fully developed city like ours, it takes a great deal of creativity and, you know, we won't have many more opportunities like Stapleton in Green Valley Ranch in the Central Valley, where it was all part of the development plan. We've got to be very, very strategic and and creative on how to get that job done. But I'll point out, one in the southwest area that was once a trailer park, nobody ever thought that. I thought about that as a park. And yet, you know, today it is a it is a reality. So those are the kinds of efforts that we would be undertaking and we would be looking very much at those under parked areas of the city.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you very much. I would look forward anxiously should the voters approve this to the first five year plan. And I'd ask you to focus particularly on South Harvie Park South, where there are no parks, and Brentwood where there are no parks. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Think pass first, Councilman.
Speaker 8: Thank you. All right, Councilwoman. And thanks for your patience. Lay the groundwork. Ask your questions.
Speaker 14: Thank you so much. Mr. President. So I was thinking about, you know, how a sales tax measures that go to the voters are often approached. And I've I've seen kind of two different categories. I've seen those that have the guaranteed outcomes, which is like our bond project, right? You're going to get this project, you're going to get this many lanes paved. You're going to get this many acres of, you know, parkland, you know, and then and then there's some that are a little more open ended. And I think that's where you get into more of the process. Right. And so our housing fund did not go to the voters, but we did our best to approach it as if, you know, we were doing that kind of thing. And and it was the guaranteed process approach which didn't say whether or how much was going to be for sale or how much was going to be rental or how much was going to be deeply low income. And so and I was looking back at some of the language, but, you know, so the process that we went to had a whole bunch of details that, you know, as Councilwoman Ortega mentioned, are a little bit absent from this one. And I want to just share some of the lessons that we learned in this process that I think this department's going to experience. So the first thing you're going to learn is the money will arrive on day one. And in fact, the plan will not arrive until about when the budget is being adopted for year two, it'll be too late. You'll have already had to start the budget process five months, six months before the plan is ready. So you in theory, will actually have to have two years of spending before you have a plan. So that's something we didn't anticipate and there is a whole bunch. So and when I talk about the groundwork I'm laying, there are things that have to be done within the ordinance and then there's things that maybe need to be done in parallel, even if they're not done. And this is one of them that I think we underestimated the level of distrust, the level of confusion that can occur when you have to spend two years worth of revenue before your plan is inked. So I want to flag that as an example. The second thing, we have a game plan and it's great. I think none of us can imagine the kind of metrics you're going to get asked for. So for every dollar we spend in construction, how much is generated in maintenance needs each year and then in operational use each year? What is the metric by which? Because when people are faced with choices, don't just say, Well, should we build more or should we maintain more? What you're going to want to know from your department is stuff that I promise you they don't know yet. You're going to ask them things like, if we put 20% of this money into maintenance, what standard would we bring the entire system up? Would we bring it up 1%? When we bring it up 3%, would we bring it up 4%? And so there are going to be brand new metrics that will blow your brains that we're going to need to make good decisions and we won't make perfect decisions and some of the metrics won't be available. You're going to need consultants. This is the short story. There's just no way I think you're going to be able to kind of do this. So, you know, is there and this is one of those things that's a little different because this is kind of coming a little bit more from the council community advocacy than a partnership. And that's okay. I don't I hear very open minded partners who say that we respect the. Charter. And if this happens, we're going to be your partners. But for example, to get some commitments about what does good help look like and what might we need to think about in a first year budget to make sure that we're preparing ourselves for success? Another thing. I didn't get a chance. I was trying to pull up the crab ordinance. I think you made a really smart decision, which is to use a little of the infrastructure you've got. But what's interesting about crab is it's appointed based on representation of districts. It means it doesn't have, for example, things the Housing Advisory Committee had, which is finance expertize. You know, since it's not centrally appointed, you can't assure racial diversity because if every council member appoints their own person, there's no way to control for. Right. What the racial diversity might be or what the economic diversity is. The mayor has a few more seats. He can appoint a little bit to account for that.
Speaker 4: But you've got.
Speaker 14: And then the question of time and what you know, you know what ability that body has to dedicate. I know they do hold some public hearings now, but I think these are all things that to get to. Councilwoman Ortega's point are things that we learned we didn't know and that, you know, in this context, we as a city would learn. And I think that when you add then this question of the equity layer, I think that what I believe is that this isn't just a value and it isn't just hard data. There is actually a practice here. And it's you know, I think, you know, we just several of us were just in Minneapolis with local progress, hearing about some of their work. And, you know, Seattle is model this. So I think that, you know, one of the things that it might be worth it to do is to think about, so what are the practices and even just language in the ordinance or or whether it's inside the ordinance or outside that we want to be prepared to say, for example, that needs to be that it needs to be considered. And I think that. We are not in such a hurry that it might not be that we can't take a minute to have two conversations. And the two conversations that for me are emerging from this hearing are one. Let's just take a a week, two weeks and look at what the best practices are on equity in parks planning and parks stuff . And we may have a lot of them in our game plan, but let's just peak at what the literature tells us. And let's hear from some of the communities asking this question about whether there is a need to have a reference in the ordinance or whether there's a need to have something we can commit to outside the four squares of the ordinance. That would help put us on the same page, because the communities that have traditionally been excluded from parks conversations are the ones that have not been at the table for the ten years. Right. And so to me, one of the purposes of these hearings is to tell us if we're going in the right direction or the wrong direction or if we have everybody at the table. And I fear that there are some folks we haven't had at the table and they need a minute to catch up. I didn't hear a no, we can't. But and then secondly, to have a pretty serious conversation with, you know, the administration and your community leaders to say. We need a little something to think about what's charting us in year one or two, because I think to say to the voters, like, we'll figure it out in a five year plan that'll be ready for year three. And we don't have any sense of what are the two most impactful things we might be able to do in year one. I think is missing the boat and I frankly think it'll be make it hard to pass. So if if you're here tonight and you're like, I'm gung ho and I want to pass this thing. I think the second piece is really going to be able to kind of give you something to talk to the voters about that's legit rather than just saying, hey, the department will figure it out because it's a lot to put. I mean, I think that that's my experience. It's a lot to put in a department that's running all of the other things. It's running with no preparation. And I think that, you know, so and I think that to Councilman Ortega's point, it may include a few tweaks to the process. And I know there was a quick mention that some of this can't be put in the in the in a TABOR ordinance. And so I don't I don't I don't know if that's a factual, truthful thing that that we couldn't, for example, say that one of the things that needs to occur is there needs to be two public hearings prior to the finalization of the plan. Right. May be one in the beginning. I mean, we put things like, you know, the the you know, the the fact that in the housing ordinance, for example, we put that, you know, there would be, you know, data use a database approach or we put in that there would be a public hearing. And so I wonder if if that kind of language couldn't be bolstered slightly. So so it's I just may throw the Tabor question out real quick and then you can hear where I'd come in for your questions. But.
Speaker 4: Um, so. Kirsten Crawford Legislative.
Speaker 14: Council the one thing I would say to this whole conversation is that to the extent you're going to start prioritizing how the money is spent, if it's if it's done in here, I think that's okay. But if you're trying to do it separately as an ordinance, I think you would run into a problem with the charter, quite possibly because they're the charter of the Department of Parks with almost total discretion as to how that money is spent. So I think if you do want to make those priorities, it would need to be in something that is.
Speaker 4: Referred to the voters.
Speaker 14: So let me just follow up with that.
Speaker 4: So would it, for.
Speaker 14: Example, would it be out of the purview for, for example, for Councilman Clark to be in negotiations or discussion with the department and to say, like, it's going to take us a year to do a plan? Our view is that the primary goal of year one is to set aside a small portion to purchase parks opportunistically should it come, and then to use the remainder for park, you know, for projects, for example, that are already on the list just for year one, and to make that a verbal discussion about intent rather than a legally binding commitment. Again, I think there is things that live outside the language here that that might be helpful for the community conversation. Yeah, I mean, I think that I would always promote from a legal position that you work closely with the administration, and I think that you could do it that way as well. Yeah. And so so I'm just throwing out some pathways. So I think there's some homework. I think it's really important for Prep to have a conversation about how prepared it is for this role. And and this role says it's a receiving role. It's not an advising role. It says Prabhas shall receive the budget shall receive the the proposal. And so the question for Parab is, you know, is there anything you need that would be different to be successful and or is that the right process? Is there you know, are you the should you be holding a hearing? Should we be asking you to hold a hearing to make sure that occurs? And how about expertize parab? How is it that you're going to get the expertize you need? Is that just staff or do you think that you need access to some some expertize and some consulting or something in terms of some of the other folks who've spoken today who are might be very talented but aren't necessarily members of Prep. So I think there's homework for Parab and you know, they can't speak. But you know, I'd be curious if they'd be open to taking a week or two to do that. I think the question for you is, would you be willing to take a little time to have a discussion with the equity community about what the homework is? It might be there's language and it might not be. It might be to say, here are the three things we need to do between now and November so that we can talk about this and have some shared language. And then maybe if it passes, then there's other homework. So it doesn't I mean, I'm not saying talk about amendments, but you might want to be open to that. And then the third thing is, would you have a conversation with the administration? I think about a little more meat on the bones in terms of this process. And it sounds like we do have a charter limitation we're running against. But but just to get some clarity that this is not just I just don't know that you're going to the voters with a blank check will be as successful as a little more and it might mean some tweak to the process in the ordinance. Yeah. So three, three, three homeworks maybe.
Speaker 8: So I completely appreciate that. And I think that the, you know, especially having gone through that and having that expertize for me, you know, a couple of things that I'll say is I think that one, because this was originally driven by the community and they need time to get signatures and we're committed to getting this on the ballot. They took a chance with us as well. And part of that was a commitment to for us to either do this or leave them time that they can do this. And so. Well, we may have one deadline for actually getting on the ballot. We have another one for living up to the commitment that I made to the community that we would take this on, because they said, even if you're if you're not going to do it, if there isn't the will on this council to refer than we are. And so I do worry about handicapping the promise that and maybe that doesn't affect anyone else because I'm the one who made that commitment. But that's important to me. I also think that it is it is difficult to work with the administration. They're awesome in general, but and especially with our awesome parks staff and appointees, when it's something that the administration hasn't decided, whether they're supportive or not. So it puts it in a place where are they working to pass it? Are they working to kill it and can that be accomplished once it's on the ballot line? So we refer it. Then I think that pulls the lever, that opens the door to those conversations about what do we do in year one? And because now it's real. And so, you know, for me, I think and I'm absolutely open to sitting down with all in and with any other group that wants to talk about how this can. I am very open to continuing the conversation about what else can we do through code or through verbal commitments or through a press release that now that this is going to be on the ballot, the department and the administration can make commitments to what they would do that they might not when they haven't decided where they are on something. So I'm very open to having those conversations. But I do think that at this point, bringing it to a final reading, I would like us to vote on it tonight. And if it is not the will of this council to refer at this point, then I have a different set of homework. But even if it is. The will of this council to refer. I still have a lot of homework and I'm very committed to doing that.
Speaker 14: So if I may, Mr. President. So I guess this I just would like to then throw the question, I guess, a little bit, too, to my colleagues to say I think I think the point is persuasive about about the departments in an awkward position. So maybe that's too much to ask. But I think that it's quite possible that this language could be tweaked, for example, to include a reference that equity shall be a consideration in the expenditure of the funds and that there shall be a public hearing held, you know, no less than 90 days prior to the adoption of the plan to ensure that there is some public input sooner. I mean, it seems to me and I, you know, I don't necessarily want to write an amendment on the floor. So I think that a week to.
Speaker 8: And I'm sorry, was that because I'm guessing you're not going to pose that question to each individual. So can we close the public hearing and then you can get into that and.
Speaker 14: Come and I guess I'll pose it to you, which is to say, you know, we can I can try to draft an amendment to try to add a little bit of what I heard from the community to the bill tonight. Or we could think about a one week delay. And I think folks could probably speak to whether or not they're headed for support and this helps versus whether or not we might tank this thing next week. I don't intend to tank this thing. I'm a co-sponsor because I believe we can't grow without it. But I think that it can be stronger if we take the input and we do a week's worth of work to to add some language. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 11: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 8: Councilman Ortega, you back with a question, not a comment.
Speaker 12: I'll wait and sorry for comments.
Speaker 8: Okay. Councilman Espinosa, your questions or comments? What's that? Comments. Comments. Okay. So no other questions. Council. The public hearing for Constable 641 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate all of your efforts in bringing this forward and. You know, trying to address what what I think is a great need in our community. I hope that. We can look at a one week delay that gives us the opportunity to identify some of these key priorities that should be in a process that ensures voter confidence that it is not just a blank check to the Parks and Rec Department, and given the authority that's been given by the charter to the manager of Parks and Rec. They could choose to put the money into one project or, you know, create it however they want to apply it. And I think by having some criteria that. Really kind of defines how we prioritize these moneys is is really critical to people having that confidence that there's, you know, some of these key issues are going to be addressed, equity being one, geographic disbursement being another, taking care of parks that, you know, have have had such a state of disrepair across the city is is another key priority. I mean, looking at some of our medians in the city where, you know, depending on where you're at, some are maintained very well and others are not maintained at all. And so it's that equitable distribution of the resources. This is new money. It's a new day. It's different than what exists today. And so we could create it however we want to. And it gives us an opportunity to be a little bit more thoughtful. So my recommendation is that we do a one week postponement and allow for the opportunity to just have that check in with some additional folks to identify some of those process issues and be able to, you know, I want to get there to be able to support this. But without that, I'm I'm real concerned. I feel really disconnected from from that process in terms of ensuring that the public really gets to weigh in. And, you know, that's regardless of whatever input that we've already had into blueprint in game plan, I mean, game plan is a long term look at the needs of the city. It was not intended for us to find a check and just immediately try to knock out every one of those projects. It was to to look at the long term need of the city. And, you know, if we had this conversation with every other city agency, they would all have a list of priorities that they would want to see funded. And so, you know, the fact that this was kind of in isolation of this body really being able to weigh in on policy priorities for the city independent of the budget process that we normally go through. I guess I just. I'm debating whether to just move a motion that we delay for a week, but I want to.
Speaker 8: Let everybody have a carbon.
Speaker 9: First.
Speaker 12: Comments from from other folks. But, you know, I feel that strongly about the process. Of having public input, that we really do need to delay this to weigh in on what some of those key criteria are that, you know, even if per the the comments made by the city attorney, if we adopted a separate ordinance that defined a process, we don't really have the authority to dictate that because that authority's already given to the manager of the Parks and Rec Department. And so how do we get there independent of of being able to fold it in to this process here tonight and have some some serious commitments to getting that done? So anyway, that's where I'm at right now.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman or Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 7: Well, I applaud the efforts to sort of. I don't know. Conflicted. Conflicted or I don't know what the right word is right now. It escapes me to confuse what is a simple ask of the voters into something far, far more complex. Yes, I understand that this would be a tax burden that would then subsequently, in the future years or with all the ballot measures coming forward, that this would increase tax burden to a point where we might hit a breaking point sooner. The fact that we have education, transportation, mental health and parks on this ballot, if this goes through, speak to the need that these things weren't addressed in $5 billion worth of other expenditures by the city. And the fact that we don't have a housing, we didn't have a housing component in the Gabon and we don't have a housing component. I mean, housing bond is because we worked with this administration or others worked with this administration. And to Councilman Clark's point, the administration isn't. The most flexible are amenable to these sorts of things. So sometimes people have to act. And I'm glad to hear that. Brandon People are prepared to act because I know my constituents wildly supported the Green Roofs Initiative and they would wildly support this as well. So. The my frustration is, is that we have, you know, this talk towards the end about equity is important. But demographic, demographic shift. And we can't do a plan based on who is there. The park is permanent. It gets built and it stays there regardless of who lives around it. Who makes up that community? Otherwise, my park at 38th and Navajo Osage or Osage Park before it was Columbus Park, too. And, you know, and cater to the Italian community there or the Scottish community that was before that, or the Latino community that put in the kiosk or who's there now, which is neither of the above but some of the above. So we can't you know, parks are one of those things that is more about mean jump, not demographics, but geographic and access and amenities. You know, these are physical things that that these dollars are intended to address. And we have plenty of public input. There are council representation for every one of these parks except for the mountain parks. But it's all of us. There's there's there's two at large. As that will also represent each one of those council members has a proud member. And there's an essential component of this to go to prep you know in so yeah it's not perfect but guess what. Six months after the vote we can tweak it still so and then if it's onerous and it kills you know the city because there's too much taxes in the future council can 86 it completely go to zero we can't up it but we can lower it and that was made very clear so. You know. It's just it is it is just a matter of getting it on the ballot and it is not as bad as it could be. Sorry, Brandon. You know, we know what that looks like. This is not that. It is. It is. It is. It is been thought about. It is considered. It has the mechanisms and it is not going to be onerous to have it. We have enough need, enough enough demand that we could figure out how to to navigate a struggle. If we're not, we should have the we should have the foresight. I mean, if this gets a voted in November, we can we may we. When I got on the council in July, we made tweaks to our budget before the end of the year. We can make tweaks to our budget to start to capture this, even if it's sort of premature and still get it to private and still get community input. That is not a slow process when there is this much need. So that was my deviation is a frustrated because I just get that way but. Um. You know this. We already talked about that. So our standard operating procedure right now is, you know, I mean, this idea of development impact fee, I'm all for it. Sorry, developers, I think you have an impact and we should be addressing that and have proud to support anybody's efforts towards that end. But when you do a developer impact fee, there's still going to be pressure to locate it, co-locate it relative to those developments. I mean, that they both Stapleton didn't put their parks outside of Stapleton. You know, they put them in their development. That's that's smart. That's logical. Our standard operating procedure to let developers pay for a new park construction is part of their metro district, you know, and then turns over to the city after the fact. That, too, is specific to that community. Those things are not happening with this proposal. This is equitable by its very nature. If we put pressure on the administration to address those needs, and that's our responsibility as as legislators and as taxpayers and as as the electorate in this city. When we did the Metropolitan Football City District, that will be a hearing we have in the end of this month. We did a tax just like this for a football stadium, just one, not a 301 football stadium. And so for a couple of dozen men, men only to play on and half of them are from out of town.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 7: And the field can only be used for a fee. It is not a free field. And your tax dollars went to that. So for a little more than double that amount you can tax, we can support to expand and improve a network of over 300 parks and 20,000 acres that are available to everyone. And that in that's art I mean and that and the fact that our lands are not exclusive and there is no goal and there is a goal to make parks proximate and apart. Part of this is a goal to make parks proximate to every resident addresses by very normal reservations about the use of sales tax, because this is a far more egalitarian use than a stadium or a stock show or a convention center or any of the other things we use tax dollars for. So I won't continue to go on my tirade. It's just that this is this is a fair thing to put before the voters. And, yeah, it'll be a lot of asks and people will really have to dig deep in my own personal preferences. We put it on mental health and we put it on parks. I believe in mobility, but this is tied too much with roadway. I would put that down and then come back, but we make it very clear. So that's me rambling on a whole bunch of ballot measures. This one is one that I wholeheartedly support just getting to the voters because the community, just like other needs, have asked. And I'm happy to help with a housing portion as well. But that's my $0.02. Thanks.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Councilman, it's a weird night to be in this chair. As Councilman can already pointed out, generally as the bill's sponsor, I would have gone first in my comments. I was going to defer to go last, but I'm now going to jump in just to say a few things. I appreciate the conversation, just to speak specifically to the conversation about the delay. I appreciate that conversation. And it's hard because every time we talk about something that isn't easy, which is pretty much everything we talk about, there's always an argument and to delay and it's hard to tell what what is behind that. Some people who are going to vote no ask for a delay because that gives more time to convince other people to vote no. And sometimes there are real and legitimate reasons to delay. For me, the person who I am. Everything that has gone into my life to define me is about equity in parks. I took literally thousands and thousands of kids on field trips to the South Platte River. I was on top of Ruby Hill when there were bullet holes in the playground and the trees had been tagged. And when a car pulled up at 10:00 in the morning and started doing donuts and I had to run for shelter with 60 kids trying to add positive engagement and introduce kids and create a space in our third largest park, right behind Wash Park, where there was not equity, there was not the investment that we were making . We were able to make that investment and we started to write some of those wrongs. I, I took a group of teenagers who had been expelled from the Denver public schools, and half of them had ankle bracelets on, and they showed up to do the field trip that I usually did with fourth graders, where we were going to go and paint for gold and look for crawdads. And they were all swearing left and right and mad about this, except for as soon as we started turning over rocks and they found their first crawdads and we found a praying mantis climbing on a tree, and they were then posing for pictures, doing, you know, like gangster photos with a praying mantis on their shoulder. Everything changed because for the first time, they had access. I for me and who I am and the commitments that I made to the community that was looking at running this and to the community that has spent their lives waiting for this moment, waiting for a council that had the courage to at least take this on and refer it to the voters. I can't get here and then delay, because if it's not enough who I am and the fiber of me to believe that I will work I will work with our equity partners. I will work with everyone between now and hopefully when the voters pass us to address these. I don't think these are things that need to be solved in the ordinance. And for people who have waited decades of their lives to get to this moment. We need to have a vote. And if it is the will of this council to vote this down, then I can go back and I can talk to the community and I can say I delivered on my promise to get it as far as I could and we can sit and decide whether they want to take this directly to the ballot or take a second shot and refile it and take a couple extra weeks. So as the sponsor of the bill, I am 100% committed to solving the things that have been brought up. I don't think that they need to be solved here. I think that we need to give this community the answer about whether we are ready to do this or not and then give them the time to work on this for November if we are. So that was my comment. Just because I want us to go too far down the path of delay or not delay without people knowing where I am on that issue. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. If if this is an either or vote about housing our people or expanding dollars invested in our parks. I'm voting no on this. But it's not that. And I think the Denver electorate should be under no illusions that whether it's sales tax or bonds or impact fees or tourism fees, we need more money for housing. We need more money for transportation. And so I think this does need to go to the voters, but the voters need to be aware that there are are choices that they're going to have to make depending on how they feel they can spend. This is on $10. If you're making a $10 purchase, it's going to be $10.03. If you're making $100 purchase, it's it's going to be $100.25 and $1,000. It's $1,002.50. Different people in this room tonight and certainly watching this on TV and among the electorate are going to have differing opinions on how that impacts them. I'm willing to commit to spending this extra amount of money and also willing to consider some additional requests on other needs that our city has right now in my district. We're looking at developments that will come, one particular development that will come before council, one that didn't need to come before council on a total of about 2425 acres of former sea dog property that. The city was unable to buy. Because we don't have any money to make those level of purchases. Now, I don't know that I would have recommended that we buy 25 acres and make it all parkland. There's other needs. I would definitely want part of that parcel which is projected to have for affordable housing. But it would have been nice if we at least had the option to say, you know what? Why don't we take five acres? And by that. For Parkland. And then look at developing housing and retail and commercial on the rest. Today, we don't have that option. This is not a case of taking a park system that is a one primo shape and really pushing it to the next level. We've got enormous deferred maintenance on our park system right now. We as has been stated in a number of ways, we need to add additional acreage. This is extremely important. I mean, we're looking at Parks Department right now is considering a major change to our alcohol policy in the parks. Where once it was 3.2 beer and now we're looking at possibly allowing full strength beer and wine. In all our parks, we're looking at adding the ability to permit hard liquor and the sale of hard liquor and beer and wine in 180 additional parks. Right now, we have permitting of that sort in about 20 of our parks. We have. We don't have the Rangers to begin to enforce the existing laws in our parks. We need additional humans. We need additional land. We need additional policies. I. Councilman Clark, I think you're right on the money in the need for this. And as far as equity goes, if previous generations had not thought to give us Paco Sanchez Park, we wouldn't be prepared to do the improvements that are being done in that part of town. That being said, I would support a week. I this is my view. I would because I hear the questions that have been raised tonight and. You know, I really think for the at least the vast bulk of us on council, I have a hunch that we're preaching to the choir on the need to to expand our parkland . If we take a week. I would be stunned. If we didn't end up with a stronger bill that passed with a greater majority. That's that's just the way I assess where council is on this right now. Yeah. You know, we're not going to improve equity unless we come up with extra dollars, that's for sure. But I do think we could strengthen this bill so the voters outside this room that may have more questions would be more likely to vote for it. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this tonight. I. Support everything you just said in your comments. Councilman Flynn, I just want to bring up the Trust for Public Lands Parks Index, and it may surprise you to know that my district is actually the worse off for parks. Councilwoman Sussman is second and yours is third. So I. I encourage everyone to be acquainted with some facts. I do have two golf courses in my district, but they are not open to the public, so they don't count. So I don't have a lot of parks in my district. My own neighborhood doesn't have a park. And 20 years ago I personally raised the money and I worked with Denver Public Schools to landscape a place or a school play field. And it was a big battle with DPS because they don't always play nice for that sort of thing. No offense happy, but you know what I'm talking about. And today it serves as our community park. And without that we no one had a ten or 15 or 20 minute walk to a park. I have another neighborhood that is under growing great, great density near the between the Yale and the Colorado light rail stations. Hundreds of new units are going in. And I've met when I first was elected, I met with Trust for Public Lands. We talked about it. They said absolutely there is a need. And since then we've had hundreds of new units built in that neighborhood. I've had happy hands out Scott Gilmore, the mayor. That neighborhood needs a park. And as far as the priorities of this council, at our retreat we had last winter, I suggested that all of the priorities for the city are all related to growth. And I very much supported that day that parks should be a priority. And I think Councilman Clark and I might have been the only ones who voted for it. Maybe Councilwoman Gilmore, too. It didn't make the cut, but. Green space is a huge need for a city that is getting more and more dense. And so I don't I don't think it's accurate to say it wasn't one of our priorities, but because it was for for some of us. I also have read the draft game plan, which has been alluded to a lot tonight, and it does indeed talk about a lot of these values that all the speakers are talking about and also more parks. I've met with people a number of times and I'm very familiar with all of their studies. And there they have a park score for the 100 largest cities in the United States. Councilman Clark referred to this earlier. Denver spot on that list has fallen to 26. Aurora, Colorado, is 20th. Of the top cities. They spend some of them more than twice as much per resident on their parks than we do in Denver, Colorado . And that's not a coincidence that they would be tough when we're spending half or less than half that their park score would be so much higher than ours. Most of them have a dedicated funding source, and almost all of them have a parks foundation, which is something I'm also working on. Hello, all of you right here, which serves a complementary purpose and is also recommended by game plan. So just want to say thank you for having the courage to do this when a lot of people told you not to. But I am happy to support it and I know that you will work hard to address some of the issues that people have right now.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 12: Thank you, President Clark. I have spent like Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: My almost entire adult life educating.
Speaker 12: Children and communities about nature and the environment.
Speaker 4: And I did that for almost 20 years.
Speaker 12: And I share with you.
Speaker 4: A short little story, because.
Speaker 12: We had a parcel of land in the Montebello community, which is in Councilman Herndon's.
Speaker 4: District. That was five and a half acres of land.
Speaker 12: It was zoned for up to an eight story high density apartment building. The catch.
Speaker 4: Was that it was directly across the street.
Speaker 12: From another very high density.
Speaker 4: Apartment building that had a very high crime rate and lots of different issues.
Speaker 12: And there was no money to buy this five and a half acres. So my small nonprofit started talking to Great Outdoors Colorado, The Trust for Public Lands, anybody and everybody that we could talk to. We started talking with them, but it was still.
Speaker 4: A very, very heavy.
Speaker 12: Lift for a small community based organization to try to cobble together $1.6 million to buy this five and a half acres of land. And the reason that we wanted to.
Speaker 4: Buy this five and a half acres of land.
Speaker 12: Was not to.
Speaker 4: Benefit the nonprofit.
Speaker 12: It was to benefit the youth and the families that we serve. Because every single time we would take a group of students.
Speaker 4: From Montebello.
Speaker 12: Commerce City or Aurora, we'd take them up to the mountains. We take them to some place to recreate. Every time that we were driving out of our own neighborhood, they were looking around saying, Why don't we.
Speaker 4: Have the beautiful parks, the beautiful trails? Why don't we have this in our neighborhood?
Speaker 12: Why do we have to get into 15 passenger vans and leave our home to go see nature and to see beauty and to reap the benefits of being outdoors? We shouldn't have to. And at the end of the day, nature doesn't discriminate. Nature doesn't discriminate. So if we don't invest in future generations, in our generation by buying parkland now, we're not going to have it and we're not going to get it back. And we can't have asphalt parking lots that we're trying to reclaim and create.
Speaker 4: Great wildlife habitat or parks.
Speaker 12: It just you're talking about exponential costs instead of doing this the right way first. And so with that short story, in my entire career as an outdoor educator before I was on city council, this is an investment in youth, families, seniors. It's an investment in our neighborhoods in having beautiful green spaces. It's an investment in health, our mental health, our physical health, our spirit, spiritual health and opportunity in our fast paced lives to disconnect and just be outdoors.
Speaker 4: And to recharge.
Speaker 12: It's an investment in communities of color. This is an investment in equity because we don't have certain amenities that other parts of the city have for a multitude of different reasons. And we could debate that for days on end why that has occurred. Or we can do something right now and refer this to the ballot for the voters to actually decide. This is an investment in the environment. We're going to have more trees for air quality. We're going to be able to mitigate the heat island effect. We're going to have better water quality. And we haven't even started talking about the community gathering spaces that our parks create. Talk about equity in communities of color. Community gathering spaces are basically nonexistent. Our parks become a great community gathering place with a beautiful shelter, with grills, to to have a cookout, to have a barbeque, culture, art , mobility, greenways, trails. And we have, you know, around food sustainability. I don't believe as a city, we have fully been able to explore.
Speaker 4: How parks could help.
Speaker 12: Us with food sustainability and access, because we don't have enough we don't want to take an entire beautiful field and try to grow food when kids are trying to play soccer. So the dueling needs are too much. But if we had.
Speaker 4: More resources to buy more.
Speaker 12: Parkland, we could maybe really think out of the box. And if there is affordable housing.
Speaker 4: Projects, how do we partner with those projects.
Speaker 12: And make sure that their green space is act is adequate, that there's trail connections so that folks that are living in a high density unit can actually get out of their unit safely and go walk or bike or ride and have a park very close to them. And so that's all of these reasons beyond, you know, wanting to have a little bit more say every year, each council office creates a VIP list. We utilize what lists we get from parks, but then we add to it. We constantly are adding to it because our constituents are sending us concerns, ideas that we add to that CIP list. And so I feel like there's plenty of different touch.
Speaker 4: Points for us to.
Speaker 12: Ensure that the voters will know that this money is used in a responsible way going forward. And so I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 4: For your tireless work and persistence.
Speaker 12: In making sure that this goes forward. But I feel comfortable.
Speaker 4: Making sure that the voters have a.
Speaker 12: Chance to really look at this and weigh in on it. Thank you, President Clark.
Speaker 8: And thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President, I. I've been waiting to see something like this happen. Especially with our parks. You know, a of all the uses and functions of local government and. This. Parks is essential. Parks is essential. We have to maintain it. And we can't rely on bake sales for the things that make us that make us healthy and that are important to us. That was the case with butter. Relentless. But it didn't come automatically. I don't want some I don't want folks in this chamber to think that in the narrative that is Quatro Windows. And how were you able to get through Windows Park? Was it some automatic or it was born out of a recession. And those of us that were around in these chambers during the recession know that there was not a dime to be spent anywhere. And when I went through the council process, there was a. When I said, look, we need to pave alleys and we need to take care of our parks and we need to maintain our infrastructure. So it was met with the reply that we don't have diamonds in our pockets. And my reply was, Well, what we're asking for is a little bit of fertilizer and some asphalt. We've had to struggle to get these parks. As a matter of fact, it wasn't park money that first paid in, fund it for the bill for quarter. We had those. It was a different administration. It was a process over three mayors. I don't know how many different councils or iterations of the council. And we had a because the oh eight bond is 0708 Bond was not kind of council district three or the West Side at all. We didn't have a representative sitting on council at the time, and I guess it was just easy to pull a fast one on us. And the West Side, we made it a point not. To take $400,000 that we moved from the bond. With another some other money from already. To make it happen with the trust of public land. We shouldn't have to rely on outside third parties to fund our public. Parks. We shouldn't have to rely on our fees. To pay for something that's absolutely should be free to anybody. To enjoy. We are still very lopsided in this city. Golf courses don't count as parkland. They don't. I'm sorry. I can't go throw the ball around. I get kicked out of a golf course. We've tried it once. You can. We have to be equitable around the city to do it. And the only, the beginning phases are to make sure that we have the resources to get it done. And it's also because we also have to make sure we have the landscape architects, I tell you. So many the part of the park acreage that we have in Council District three. So much of it can be redesigned and so much of it is on is in the queue years and years away from just getting designs done because we just don't have the the resources to actually fund the personnel to do it. Right. So if we are serious about our parks, we love quoting Robert Spear and and demonstrating how much we we we are in love with our park system and let's pay for it. Right. And so this is a good way to do it. However, we are now in a we are not in a post race conscious society. We are constantly trying to talk about equity in this city in every sense of the way, whether it be economically speaking, whether it be, you know, racially, whether it be gender. And we still have a lot of work to do. Right. And yes, these neighborhoods will change in the makeup of these neighborhoods, but they change in Denver. But at least the one constant thing is, are our public infrastructure that which we can do together, that we will not be able to do individually, and that is local government . And it is our duty to make sure that it's equitable. So. You know. Do I support this? Yes. Do I support it moving forward? Absolutely. Do I support extending it a week so we can have a process, so we can make sure that we're we're working all the things out of it to make sure there's an equitable component. If there is language that we can use that's nuanced language is a language that reflects modern day governance. Absolutely. But remember at the end of the day. I could I could say this. That this this and this Parks Administration were very good to the district, have been very responsive for the last, you know, five years, six years. I sense certain since we all had come into the mayorship, they listened to our district just tell us what to do. Right. So we have the gains that we've had in our parks. But at the end of the day, our policies should survive. Whatever administration, whatever employees are in the city is should they should live to make sure that there's equity. We may have equity now, but we may not have equity later. That's why the policy is important. That's why the discussion has to be much more than just something spiritual and in the chambers. So I definitely get it. So if there is a friendly moment in the coming weeks, I'm down for it. If there is a small delay, hopefully a short delay. And I say, Sure, sure, sure. But let's get this thing moving forward. All right, let's let's let's this one to our park system. The one thing I will say is. It survives every mayor and survives every council. It will survive. Every administration. But the one thing that is constant is good old fashioned organizing. And that's what we all go to. That's what we all Paco Sanchez to. That's what we owe the rec center to. It doesn't just happen because some council person or some, you know, somebody, it touched their heart in a decision making position. It happened because of good old fashioned organizing. So if you don't have parks in your district, organize that district. You will soon as those votes start, as soon as those voters start coming into these chambers, reminding you and your colleagues and the administration that they're serious with their votes. So thank you. I supported move forward. I'm supportive of of a whatever as long as it gets approved. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't mean to get into a race to the bottom of the misery index with Councilwoman Black, who always.
Speaker 11: Well.
Speaker 10: Who always talks about the closed Kmart in her district. And I always point out that at least I have a close target in my district. But with all due respect to the Trust for Public Lands, our own City Parks Department gave me the following figures. As far as in equity and Council, District two has six developed Park Acres per thousand. Council District three Councilman Lopez, District five develop Park Acres per thousand. Residents Council District four has nine developed Park Acres, not counting golf courses per district and only councilman news central Denver district has lower and that was four acres per thousand probably due to its density and smaller area as a result of the density. So there's definitely a need to look at our under partners and I don't mean to exclude the southeast Denver as well because I think the Trust for Public Land used a different yardstick, which was parks within a ten minute walk. And that's a different yardstick. And by that measure, I think South Southwest Denver's pretty, pretty much and equitably treated as well. I am I'm generally supportive of forwarding this to the voters because this is truly a municipal purpose. Councilman Lopez says providing for parks, among other things, is is one of the basic city municipal functions. And so this is well within the the realm and the ability of our voters to make the decision whether they want to tax themselves to do this. As Councilman Clark knows, however, I have had some some anxiety over the choice of the sales tax as the most regressive choice we can use. And yes, I know that in Denver, a lot of our sales tax has come from visitors and from people from outside the city, and not just from residents. But I do think about when I mentioned Brentwood, not have there's no park at all in Brentwood. And that's one of my more struggling working family areas that probably don't want to dig deeper in their pocket when they go to the store and buy school clothes for their kids and and pay a little bit more in taxes . I think the last time I actually looked at this, it's very outdated. Maybe 15 years ago when I was writing a story about a sales tax going on the ballot that the average household in Denver at that time spent about $36,000 in taxes, taxable retail transactions, if that's true and let me rounded up to 40,000 is probably in excess of that now. And I know a lot of our households don't even make that much in total, let alone spend that much on retail sales. But a household that spends $40,000 in in taxable retail sales under this measure would pay $100. We usually have when we have bond issues on the ballot, we're usually able to say with great specificity how much a mill levy increase would mean to the average house worth $300,000 or whatnot. So I just wanted to throw out there that that an average household that spends $40,000 in retail sales would spend would pay about $100 annually into this fund, not just for some perspective, I don't know how I feel about a one week delay, and I don't know if it's if it's needed. But there's one thing that we could do here on the floor right now as far as a very simple amendment that would help me get to a higher comfort level with the equity issue. And that would be if I could. Mr. President, just. I have a simpler one, actually. So we have we have competing friendly amendments. In on page five under I planning if what would really help me and I think maybe given some of the other remarks here tonight would really help me and maybe others feel that we could have more of a role in here would be if that paragraph included when the Parks and Rec Department does the five year plan, it doesn't just submit it to the Crabb and to the council, but it actually submits it for a required public hearing and adoption by the council as we do neighborhood plans . That would then mean that we don't just receive the plan in an email at some point say, Oh, thank you very much, and we read it, but it actually comes here for a public hearing and then we vote on it. And I could offer that very simply in a floor amendment, if that's acceptable to the other members and maybe subsequent members who speak might weigh in on that to let me know if there would be support for that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to say to for a start, just to everybody who's here, I appreciate you being here. I appreciate you staying for parking and going through security and sitting in these hard seats. Everyone that I see in these seats right now are some of our most staunch advocates in the city, either on both sides of this issue. And you guys are the reason we're going to be great as the city. So I appreciate you being here. Mr. President, I'll just say this to you that I love the story about and Councilwoman Gilmore saying the same thing. I love the story. Stories about what we used to do with what you guys used to do with young people. And I did the same thing, taking young people up in the mountains for ten years of my life and allowing them to enjoy, you know, the beauty and open space and get out of the hood of northeast Denver to enjoy that. And I think everything you said is spot on. You know, but that's not the issue before me tonight. All of those things are right, but that is not the issue. That doesn't help me to get to. Yes. Tonight, I think the Parks Department of my last seven years has improved over 95% of the parks in District nine , and it has transformed our district. And I want to thank you all for that. And I'm a big believer and advocate for parks. And, um, but as I, as I think about, you know, where we are as a city and as I think about as a, as a, as the President of city council now in this seat for as president for two years and now in this seat. I think about effectiveness. How can we be as effective as possible? And we're effective as possible by being strategic and making sure our priorities are in line. And we get our priorities in line through a really hard process of 13 really different individuals trying to come together and figure out what they're hearing from the community and when we can do the hard work of figuring that out. We are successful almost every time. Now there's always isolated situations where there's individuals from the community who say they want to push this forward, and that is what our democracy is all about, allowing those things to happen . I guess where I'm struggling here and you guys hurt me in the in the council meeting is I'm really struggling on how we're far behind in parks and we know that. But I'm really struggling by how far we behind. We are in mobility and housing and some of those other issues and how much people agree in the city of Denver. How much we keep hearing about it. And so I said I wanted to get some more data just for my district alone, because what no one is talking about is what happens when you have a great proposition on the ballot around parks and homeless mental health services, caring for Denver. And some would say in our day that the school ballot, the paying for the college ballot and what all these other things. So I said, let's just put them head to head in a district in District nine, very diverse District 17 neighborhoods. And this is what this is what happened. As I scroll. Get it up. So we had 265 people from 17 neighborhoods. 54%. And I ask those three questions. What would you support out of these three? 54% say caring for Denver. 31% said the Denver Public Parks Fund, which is before us today, and only 13% said the college affordability. The reality that is before us is that if we're not strategic as a city and as individuals, we will put competing issues on the ballot. And what I'm trying to it's not whether we like this or that, people do not judge like that. They are in silos. They're going to they're going to put things against each other. And my district just proved it. And so will that will this pass this council? Yeah, probably. It probably won't go on to the ballot whether we delay nor delay. But if this dies because of a lack of preparation, because we didn't have the hard conversations that everybody I'm just telling you as the president of council, I got the full language at the end of May. So how can I get my folks, all the people who are advocates on either side on board this and even understand where they are? I can't. So just because we didn't do that and it fails, then we're back here again. And so. I love parks and think we should fund them and think we can fund them. But we've got to have a much more inclusive process. And I know that's so frustrating for the prime members who talks about it every year. I know that's frustrating for you, but it's also frustrating for me as a president who as a former president, we have a president as a former president who wants and loves and think we should be doing more for parks. So we all find ourselves in a frustrating situation. So that's where I'm at tonight. I cannot support this even going to the voters. And the reason why I can't support this going to the voters. When we were in committee, I was going to support it, gone to the voters and let them make a decision. But now I have more evidence that shows me that we're just piling up on this ballot and there's a good chance that it might not succeed 50%, unless someone can give me some really good data of a head to head with the other issues on the ballot. So I will not be supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Councilman. Councilman, new.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for bringing this bill forward. I really appreciate it. And I know our citizens will appreciate it. And in my district, we serve a lot and we get a lot of comments and and favorable opinions about our parks. They love our parks. And and we're so glad that we just had a recent plan by the Greenway Foundation to help develop the Greenway Cherry Creek Greenway, which is a spectacular plan. And so but this plan is no different than a lot of our other capital improvement plans we have in the city. You know, we have a great plan, but we don't have a way to fund them. We have no money to implement. And that's the thing that I think so attractive about this bill here is finally a dedicated revenue stream for our parks. Here's some plans we could have for our parks, and we will know that we'll have some money to implement. I think that it'll be very appealing to our voters. I think the two and a half cents for $10 is not a lot to ask. I think that there will be seen as a good investment for one of our greatest assets in our city, our parks. So I think it'll have great appeal. Some of the process questions we were talking about tonight, I think we could probably work out whether you vote for this dinner tonight or nine, but I think there are important but I think it shouldn't delay this bill tonight. So I'll be supporting this bill. And then I just surely encourage all our residents to have that great opportunity to vote, to make their own decision and put it on that ballot in November and let them decide. They may have competing issues and maybe a problem, but the voters can decide. They're smart enough to figure this out. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I tend to be pretty practical about things like this, like this, and thinking through some of my colleagues comments, which I appreciate very much, and I've enjoyed listening to all the different points of view. I don't think a week is going to change much. It's not enough time. It's going to still come back next week. The busy lives, I just I just don't think that it makes sense just to give it one week. I, too, have had great pause on a bill that's going to require sales tax because of its aggressiveness. It it means that those of lesser income will pay a greater proportion of their income on the tax. But at the same time, I know, practically speaking, that getting a property tax is even is so unpopular and is, you know, rarely ever can happen, although we have very low property taxes. The argument that visitors will pay most of that. All right, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that the that the residents aren't going to pay more in taxes. It doesn't it doesn't reduce their tax obligation. It just adds to the pool of money, just, you know, practically speaking. So I think that and our big decision is here, are we going to refer this to the ballot? And so I think if you refer to the ballot, then the citizens can make up their own minds if they want to spend their money in this way, if this is something that is of value to them, that, yes, they are going to have a lot of things to choose among on the ballot. And many of them, not most of them that requires some funding, require it in a sales tax. I don't know if you add up, if they all passed, what the increase in our sales tax would be, but it'd probably be noticeable. But anyway, just allow the citizens to decide do they want to spend their sales tax money this way? I wish there were more details about the criteria. I know. We've had conversations about that and the expenditures and how that's going to expand. I, I think that is one of the the important things about this initiative that's lacking. But we had that dilemma with green roofs. It needed a lot more detail and we gathered quite a number of people from different points of view, certainly lots of different perspectives. And we hammered out a lot of details in about six months. So the concern that, well, we're going to get the money right away, we won't have a way to spend it. I think that many of these details can be worked out as we go along. And so I believe that is probably a good a good thing for us to put it on the ballot. I think parks do mean a lot to people. I trust the voter to understand what it means, and I trust the voter to know what the thing is they're going to be choosing between. And therefore, I'll probably I will be supporting this this evening.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn and Councilman Lopez. I'm going to go to Councilwoman Canete because, you know, in a way. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Okay. I don't know what your desire is here, but I would like to offer an amendment. I think we can get this voted on final and get it on the ballot tonight with a simple amendment that that for members to consider. I know some folks on this side of the dais already have indicated they would support it. Very simple amendment that adds city council adoption of the five year plan as one of those sort of safety vows in looking at how the money is spent. If I could offer that now or do you want to hear from.
Speaker 8: Let's let's get through everybody and then I'll come back to you. And can I get clarification from our attorney over there that this amendment, we could still be voting on this at final if an amendment was passed, as Councilman Flynn is proposing?
Speaker 10: It's within the title.
Speaker 14: Yes, that's right. It doesn't change the title or description.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much. All right. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make the point, I think, you know.
Speaker 12: Oh.
Speaker 13: You know, I just. I just wanted to make a point here. I mean, I think, you know, democracy is messy. Our ballot is going to be long anyway. You should see the ballots of other cities and how long they are. I think there's going to be an extraordinary amount of people who are going to be, you know, if the last three years that's two and seems like three years, at least at the last two years of really showed us anything and done anything is agitate people into action. And I think a lot of you can start seeing a lot of people really paying a little bit more attention. I hope I hope these to that ballot and Denver's changing in a way that I think a lot of folks are are showing not just appreciation for. For our public assets, but wanted to take it to another level. And I think this is just smart preparing that we have the finances and we have the mechanisms in place to do just that. Our city is growing. Our parks are going to be used and they're going to be activated. And I think this is a a way to finance them. I'm good to go tonight. Must be. But I'm very curious about this, the amendment, and I'm very curious about any other ideas moving forward. But I don't want to I don't want to belittle our voters. I don't want to belittle the ballot. I think folks are able to read through a ballot and do it in a way that that's intelligent and do it in the best interest of something other than themselves. I have a lot of faith in that. So thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman, can you.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President, for your forbearance earlier. And then I also want to thank the folks who came today. I was somewhat surprised. I think I've been out of town since last Wednesday, and the only folks I had heard from up until that point were parks advocates. And so I wasn't totally prepared for the number of concerns and questions and other things that emerged over the last week and caught up on those. And so I don't like to bring up new ideas on the floor. It's not ideal, but I, I benefit from hearing this public debate. Councilwoman specimens questions were the ones that prompted for me some of those lessons we learned from the housing fund that frankly, until we're having the debate, I didn't get to. And so that's the value of the public debate. And because it brings up creative thinking and it triggers things. And so, you know, I apologize to make to my colleague because when you you know, you ask your colleagues where they at and how they feel about things. And some of these questions I didn't have fully formulated until I was listening and engaging because it came up here at the end. So that said, I am supporting this measure tonight and I want to just describe the two things, because I really respect council president and Councilman Brooks. It's going to take a while to get the titles right. Councilman Brooks is weighing of several different priorities. And so for me, just to say how I went through them on the housing question, this would be a different discussion if we didn't have a path towards a $300 million housing investment. Is it is it enough? Is it everything we need? Perhaps not for sure or not, but we I knew that we were on a path to a proposal that I could probably live with if a few details are hammered out correctly before I learned about this proposal. So to me, it wasn't it wasn't that this leaped ahead of housing. Housing was on a path. You know, we have we have a significant portion and it's on a path to being doubled. And I knew that at the point at which this arose. So so it would be a different debate if we maybe did need to look at the sales tax for housing. And but we were on another path by the time I heard about this second on transportation. You know, we haven't talked too much about the fact that there is a state measure on the ballot. That measure passes. It's going to bring some share back revenue to Denver directly, as well as the potential to get some state funded transportation within our jurisdiction paid for again. Will it solve all of it? No. What if it doesn't pass? Well, if it doesn't pass, that same sales tax capacity exists for us to consider for local use. And we're no worse off than we would have been if the state measure passes. So that's one consideration just about the transportation piece and the sales tax. So I also continue to hear that the administration is working on a package of other funding ideas, and I haven't seen that. But, you know, I mean, perhaps there are more creative ideas coming, but I do think that those are the trifecta of growth. So when I hear from the community about needs, housing, transportation and parks and open space for the healthy, balanced community that we need, I am thinking about those other pieces. So for folks who care about those, I just want you to know that I did think about them and weigh them coming to my decision on supporting this . The other thing I'll just say on the personal side is that, you know, I have been working with the community in Globeville to create an open space for eight years, and in part it's taken time because it's a brownfield and newsflash. That's where parks are going to come from. They're going to come from places that are dirty or used for something else, and that's frankly, where they've come from. In the past, many of our parks were, you know, dumping areas or, you know, landfills. So it's not what's new is what's old is new again, which is that it is the land that is in rough shape. But the second reason was this community had to fundraise. So the nonprofits are out there using settlement dollars and grant dollars, and they've only been able to fundraise for one phase of a multi-phase project. So it's not going to get funded. Is internal sidewalks that would make it more accessible for the disabled. What's not going to get funded is, you know, the play area for children to have rocks to interact with. So it will be a very passive open space, which is an asset in this community, has fought for it, but those later phases are not yet funded. And so the very first community led, you know, has an at large person. I work on policy a lot, I don't work a lot in projects. But the very first and primary community led, place based project I worked on and I'm still working on is, is only, you know, a third or half funded and it's because there is not this capital. And then the other thing, you know, and thinking about, I, I do believe that we I believe that given a little more time, we might be able to find a few word changes that might give folks some more comfort that they had been a part of shaping this. I think there's value in people feeling like they shaped something, but I accept my colleagues feedback that they're not interested in that delay. And it's at least by my count. And so there's no need to force that I will. Just say, though, that in my mind the lack of the of the wording tweak doesn't relieve us of the responsibility. So when I judged a poster contest for all Latino and African-American youth that participated in this poster conference defining neighborhood to them, every single one of them put in a park or an open space. They didn't put houses. They didn't put schools. They they really when they they define neighborhood each of them. So. So I believe this is in the heart of the youth of color that I've worked with. And I think it's our challenge. And I frankly think, you know, as the sponsor, when if, you know, if we don't take the delay, then it's going to have to work three times harder to show folks how the the practice will come into this and how those voices will come in that haven't been at these parks tables and how we make proud of inclusive without changing the structure of it. And so we got some work to do. I. I. So, so the lack of the wording change doesn't relieve us the responsibility. I'm committed to trying to bring ideas to the table and how to do that. I've named some technical challenges I think we're going to get over. I think this would be better maybe if we had a plan for year one and two. But but I because I have lived the need in in in the very communities that folks are concerned about being underrepresented. And I've interacted with those communities. I believe that there is a need and that they will benefit from this. And so I will be supporting it without a delay, since I don't think that's the will. But I do appreciate that humility is one factor in leadership, but boldness is another. And I think that boldness doesn't always come with perfection, but hopefully it comes with growth. And, you know, maybe we wouldn't find ourselves here again, but that if we do get a lesson from the voters, we'll learn it the hard way. And if they grace us with their permission, then we will do the very best we can to make up for anything we lacked on this front end. So thank you, Mr. President. I will be happily supporting this tonight.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to offer this amendment and just explain what it does. A very simple amendment that will ensure that tonight isn't the last time that the city council has any more than just a glance at the way these funds would be spent going down the line. It would it would require that instead of just the five year plan being submitted to us that the Parks and Rec Department would work with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, as they always do in developing the plan, including a requirement for at least one public hearing and then submitting it to the Council for our adoption as we adopt neighborhood plans. So there's already there's already precedent for how we do these things. And it means that once this goes out the door tonight, we actually get to play a play another role in how the funds from the special revenue fund will be expended broadly, broadly, and we're not going to dictate projects or whatnot, but the way we adopt a neighborhood plan. So it might even be possible after we adopt this, Councilman Clark, that that the hillsides at Ruby Hill Park will finally get mowed. Right? Right. That's inside baseball. So. So I would like to offer the following motion. A following amendment. I move that council bill. What is this? 641 Council will 641 be amended in the following particulars? And I'm using the the version of the bill that is in our granicus system because the pagination is a little different on the print out on page five at line 34. After the word charter. Delete the words. Must submit a five year plan to the City Council and the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. And insert the following language. Shall work with the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to hold no less than one public hearing and submit a five year plan for the approval of the city council. That's the end. That's the end of the amendment.
Speaker 8: I just want to check with our council secretary. Is there anything else we need to do for Councilman Flynn to get that amendment on the floor?
Speaker 11: Second.
Speaker 5: I just wait when? Sorry. I get something.
Speaker 8: More than just saying. Well, technology catches up. Councilman Espinosa, are you in the queue to talk about the amendment?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 10: Could I because members don't have Mr. President, because members don't have the text in front of them. Can I read the paragraph as it is now so they understand the change?
Speaker 8: Yes, go ahead. Okay.
Speaker 10: The paragraph right now is paragraph II and a reads planning within one year of the adoption of this Article 12 and every five years thereafter. The manager of Parks and Rec actually says Park Manager Parks and Recreation as designated in accordance with section 2.2.4.2 of the charter, must submit a five year plan to the City Council and the Denver Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on the planned revenue uses in the parks trails. Open and open space fund. So what we're removing is the clause that just says they must submit the plan to us and we're substituting the language that says they shall work with the Parks and Rec Advisory Board to hold at least one public hearing and then submitted to the Council for our adoption. So that's the only change.
Speaker 8: And do you have any comments that you want to make about the amendment beyond reading it?
Speaker 10: Yes, Mr. President, just to reinforce that, what I've heard tonight from many of the members is that there's a need for it to. There's a need for someone to oversee and to have more voice in how these funds are spent. Having a public hearing in this room, having a public hearing at PARAB allows the public to have more input into how that spent. So we don't just send it out the door tonight and never see it again. And I think that would help to address some of the equity issues and help ensure that a public voice is put into this five year plan as it should as it's re adopted every five years. I don't see how any member of council. Could oppose giving ourselves more authority in this area. Thank you.
Speaker 11: They have to be.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Madam Secretary, so we do have the motion on the floor and it's seconded. Ah, well, good for me to move to questions. Yes. Okay. Questions on the amendment, Councilman Espinosa, or comments on the amendment. Sorry.
Speaker 7: So I want to redirect to our city attorney, uh, to our legislative council because. I heard two things there. One was actual language to write in approval, but then the intent was adoption. I don't know if there's a difference in it, but I'm worried that if we get to a point where we formally adopt a plan, does it now become binding in such a way if it's all articulating very specific projects and that we could only deviate if we amend that plan? Because it's not going to be recommendation. I mean, advisory in the normal sense, I don't think.
Speaker 4: So I guess.
Speaker 14: My perspective is, is a concern more about the charter and that it vests a great deal of discretion with the person recreation. And so I think the best possible way to achieve a council is doing is to achieve it through an amendment to the charter that would go into this bill. But, you know, doing it on the floor, I think, can be difficult because we haven't had an opportunity to go back and look at the language in the in the charter and make sure that we're not conflicting. You have two issues here. One is approval of a plan by council, but then also adding in a process that doesn't exist in the charter right now.
Speaker 8: And a quick clarification on that, because I was told because of TABOR, we cannot amend the charter in another way as part of this bill, because you had mentioned about putting it in the bill in a as a charter change, but that's not allowed per TABOR because then it's not single subject.
Speaker 14: I'm not sure where you got that information, but I, I think that this is the substance of what we're talking about tonight could be put in this bill and not run afoul of Tabor.
Speaker 8: All right, Councilman Espinosa, anything else.
Speaker 7: So I can get out? And the question to Councilman Flynn, so is your intent to really have that direct action over parks or would you really just rather have the formal public input? And could we just do it with a required public hearing and not an actual adoption?
Speaker 10: No, the the the motion and I'm not really keen on taking taking out the council vote on it, but for the I would keep in the approval of city council. I don't see why we would hold a public hearing and then not a vote.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: Okay, is this, like practical, this coming back to me? You know, we had the ballot issue on marijuana several times. We had the ballot issue on green roofs. And we did take time to look at it, to make a plan to execute the plan. And the council has the ability to change things six months after any ballot issue anyway. And I think that a lot of the processes that we established, both in marijuana and all the marijuana bills in the green roofs bills were probably even more detailed than your amendment has suggested about Council Council's ability to alter something. And I think our concerns about worrying about the criteria and how the money is going to spend, how are things that will be worked out afterwards. And I would not want to limit what I am hoping will be a representative committee from all sides looking at how to implement this in the best way to this kind, to just this way of encouraging or of allowing council to engage because council's going to be able to engage no matter what. And this amendment might create a process that a group that we got together to discuss wouldn't want. And so we don't need to make this happen now because we can make it happen later. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the major difference between this and those other. Processes that you spoke of, Councilwoman Sussman, is that currently the manager of Parks and Rec under our charter, has sole authority to make these decisions. And what we're talking about is giving council and the community a voice in that process for how we define those priorities with these new funds. And so I want to speak in support of the amendment that is basically asking for this body to approve the plan, and that we have the public hearing at Parab and the public hearing before city council that gives voice to the community who has not been privy to being involved in this process, in being able to weigh in on what those priorities should be, and looking at some of the criteria that should be in in that plan. And so I think it makes perfect sense. It's no different than when we adopted our housing fund and said we need a housing plan by which we will set priorities in terms of how those dollars are going to be spent. And this is this is very similar to that. So I think this makes perfect sense, and I think it gives even more confidence to the voters that we have a more clearly defined process that they get to have some input into.
Speaker 8: All right, Councilman. Mechanic.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to just speak to the amendment for a minute, and particularly the concern. Plans are not they are not binding in the sense that it is not a list of funded projects. And so to the extent that, as we've learned, you know, whether it's an area plan or whether it's the housing plan, they're aspirational. And so I can't imagine that there'd be a way to violate it because you have to report on it. You can, you know, in the annual reporting, but there's there's nothing binding in the plan, legally speaking. And so I think that it's a good way to counterbalance the lack of certainty upfront with a a aspirational approval process that says our aspirations are this much on purchasing land, this much on maintenance. And then, you know, if it turns out that there's an amazing parcel that manager maintains her charter authority, she will be required to report to us under this. And so you can say here's what didn't go the way you expected and here's why. And it just it just I think, to me, creates the kind of, you know, transparency this body often requests and in in because there is so much less detail in the process here. To me, it seems like the simplest fix that we can do on the floor to just create a little more certainty in the process. And for me, it was important in working with Councilman Flynn and on this language that it moves parab up in the current language, Crabb receives the plan. This says The department shall work with Parab to develop the plan. And so that's the other component that I think is is helpful in in making it more community co-lead and then council check in at the end. So I'll be supporting the amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it was my my concern was that Parks already sort of operates, I hope, with our aspirations in mind. And that's what game plan is. And so my my thought was this would be more granular, more use of funds sort of the as we knew things were coming in. That's why we we have a sort of dialog with people more about projects. But if it's not that, I certainly have no reservations about getting to an approval. But I do think that this is going to really sound distorted from my own sort of feeling, but it respects the charter. Maybe what we do is we sort of put ourselves in a planning board role in that. We just actually make a recommendation to the manager of parks with an approval, approval, a comment or deny based on what we get out of that public hearing, because it is the manager of parks purview. But that's just food for thought things. This is a charter.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman heard it.
Speaker 1: It was really I'm just I'm trying to understand. If it's because, as Councilwoman Kennedy talked about, it's not binding. So couldn't council just do this without even adding an amendment? Like if we are concerned about the direction that the funding will go to can't council in just some capacity issue a statement or something. That's what I'm I'm trying to understand the the purpose of the amendment and and help me out, Councilman Flynn, if I'm just if I'm just missing a key component because as because as I was, I was sitting here thinking, well, what happens if we disagree with the recommendations of the parks manager and councilwoman? Can you answer that question and said, well, it's non-binding. So adding this to the language, well, is there something that council can just do right now? And I think Councilwoman Sussman was kind of implying that and just just thinking out loud, you know, if you.
Speaker 9: Had response to that.
Speaker 10: Councilman Hurt and. Thank you. Excuse me. This process. This amendment, rather, is modeled after Councilwoman Kennedy. You and I were conferring here earlier. It's modeled after exactly how we do neighborhood plan approval for the housing plan, which came to us for approval. So it's exactly the same processes that if. If the manager. No, it's not binding. If we don't do this, then there is no mechanism for public input other than I imagine the manager would come up with a process under her rulemaking. I can't imagine that there would be no public process, but this kind of sets the framework in which that would occur properly under the charter, through the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, and then come to us in the way the housing plan came to us for our adoption or not. We don't change any of it. As Councilwoman Keech said, it's aspirational. It's not doesn't list projects. So we don't change any that our option is only to vote yay or nay on it. It ensures that there is an open and public input process into that plan. That's the purpose of it. And if we don't pass it, then if we don't, if we see something in the plan that's given to us, then our recourse is, you know, to shoot off an email to the manager and say, gee, we don't like that. And but it's not out in the public. I would rather have that occur in the public than not.
Speaker 9: I do think Councilwoman Sussman was I see her.
Speaker 1: Side, but I appreciate I appreciate you saying that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Councilman Herndon, seeing no other comments, I will just add that I think I think you and I think Councilman Flynn. Councilman, can you tell us or take I don't know who all came up with this down to the you have done a fantastic job. Hit the nail on the head just like game plan. And we have a game plan right now for a $78 million budget. We're going to add $45 million to have a plan specific to that, that goes through an established process that we have for plan adoption and allows everyone in this room to come back and to to come back to this microphone and say, are we on Mark? Are we not? Did we miss the equity piece? Did we do all of that, I think is really a fantastic compromise. I want to thank you for that and I will be happy to support it with that. Madam Secretary, can we do work on the amendment?
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. I heard in Cashman Can eat. Lopez I knew. Ortega I. Sussman No black eye. Brooks.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I am our secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: Sorry. One person is still missing.
Speaker 8: Somebody has been located, but.
Speaker 9: I.
Speaker 8: All right. Now, closed voting in those results, 11 to 11, nine two nays. The amendment passes. Councilman Herndon, can you please make a motion to pass this bill as amended?
Speaker 1: Name is president with the council bill 641 be placed upon file as amended. Be placed upon consideration and do.
Speaker 8: It has been moved and seconded. I think that we have had a lot of discussion for tonight. Is there anyone who just can't live without us going straight to a vote? Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 0: You know, it's not going to be 20 minutes like some of my friends, but I just I just wanted to explain to the voters or my constituents right now. I did vote for the amendment because I think, you know, it speaks to equity. Much more community input should this pass. But because of the process, I cannot support this. Thank you.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Madam Secretary, roll call. I'm sorry. Oh. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Names. President, I'm. I. I was. Everybody else spoke. And it's just. And I will. I'll be briefer than others. I appreciate the the sentiment. And I can tell you right now, I think about multiple neighborhoods in my district where we have concerns about funding for parks, and that is a reality. I wish this process was more thorough. No one discounts this for parks, but no one discounts the need for sidewalks. No one discounts the need for other ask. And I wish we would as a body have done that because I.
Speaker 9: Do look at council.
Speaker 1: And Brooks and says something's going to get dropped because of this ask. And my fear is that it's going to be something that we cannot we can we don't have another way to fund. Like we're funding parks right now. And is it enough? No, but we're funding parks right now. There's some other ask on the ballot that the only mechanism we will have to fund them is through going to the voters. And so something I fear that's crucial to the city's progress is going to be.
Speaker 9: It's going to be.
Speaker 1: Dropped. And so I wish we would have taken that into consideration before doing this. That being said. We're not approving it because if it was an improvement, I would be a no. Not to say that no one loves Parks more than I do with my think about taking my son to Parks frequently. But I just really hope that as voters, we take a hard look at this come November, because it is something that there there will be some. It will be an interesting time for the next few months. And so I, I, I struggled with this because I've heard both sides of a very, very thorough, thorough debate. But sending this to the voters for a question for them to decide in November, I think this is worthwhile. But recognize the repercussions of each vote you make because you will be making multiple votes come November. So I will be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: This is to pass as amended.
Speaker 8: Yes, that is the motion on the floor.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I feel more Herndon. I Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 5: We're missing one somebodies person.
Speaker 8: Push their button.
Speaker 5: 12 eyes, one name, 12 eyes.
Speaker 8: One day accountable. 641 has passed as amended on Monday.
Speaker 11: August 13th, 2018.
Speaker 8: Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 8.0617 Changing the zoning classification of 2500 East 44th Avenue 4348 Combined Street 4301 and 4349 Elizabeth Street in the Illyria Swansea never had any protest against Council Bill 80617 must be filed with the Council no later than Monday, August nine. So you no other business before this body? This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 3: The.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance increasing the sales and use tax by a rate of 0.25 percent and dedicating the revenue derived from the tax rate increase to fund Denver parks, trails, and open space, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state general election on November 6, 2018.
Refers a measure to the eligible voters in Denver to extend the sales and use tax to be used to fund Denver’s parks and open space. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-12-18. Amended 7-16-18 to specify that canals are included in the intended use of the special revenue monies funded by the additional sales and use taxes, and, to require that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to hold no less than one public hearing and submit a five-year plan for the approval by City Council.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0750
|
Speaker 0: Thanks, Brian. Appreciate it. All right. We are concluding with that portion of the presentation. We do have two communications from the Department of Finance. Madam Secretary, please read them.
Speaker 3: Dear Counsel. President, in keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver revised Mr. Code, the DRC, I'm hereby notifying you of the Department of Finance and Intent to enter into a certificates of participation lease purchase transaction, an apartment not to exceed 129 million, the proceeds of which will be used to fund the Colorado Convention Center Expansion Project. Under the financing structure, the city will enter into a lease purchase agreement with the leasing trust and lease into the Trust a portion of the Colorado Convention Center, which will lease back and continue to occupy without interruption. The trustee on behalf of the leasing trust will execute and deliver Series 28 certificates of participation in a par amount not to exceed 129 million. The requirement that the city pay the annual rental lease payments for the 2018 certificates does not constitute an obligation of the city for which it was levy, taxes or apply as general resources beyond the current fiscal year. The 2018 certificates do not constitute general obligation indebtedness of the city and are not multi-year financial obligations of the city. The requirement that the city make the lease payments constitutes a currently budgeted expenditure of the city, payable only if funds are appropriated by the city council each year. Company attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by section 2093 and B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendan J. Hanlon, Manager of Finance. Dear Council President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver Revised Mexico DRC, I'm hereby notifying you of the Department of Finances Intent to issue City and
|
Communication
|
A letter dated July 19, 2018, notifying of the Departments of Finance’s intent to enter into a certificates of participation lease purchase transaction in a par amount not to exceed $129,000,000, the proceeds of which will be used to fund the Colorado Convention Center Expansion Project.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0752
|
Speaker 3: Company attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by section 2093 and B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendan J. Hanlon, Manager of Finance. Dear Council President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 20, Dash 93 of the Denver Revised Mexico DRC, I'm hereby notifying you of the Department of Finances Intent to issue City and County of Denver Dedicated Tax Revenue Bond Series 2018 A through B in a paramount not to exceed $300 million for the purpose of funding costs related to the development of the National Western Center and to pay costs of issuance. The Series 2018 through B bonds will be issued as fixed rate obligations with final maturity not to exceed 30 years. The 2018 bonds will be special and limited obligations of the city, payable solely from and secured by a pledge of portions of the city's lenders. Tax prepared food and beverage tax and auto rental tax. The bonds are not general obligations of the city, nor are they payable in whole or in part from the proceeds of general property taxes. Nor is the full faith and credit of the city pledged to pay the bonds. The accompanying attachment each contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by section 20, dash 93 and B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendan J. Hanlon, manager of Finance.
|
Communication
|
A letter dated July 9, 2018, notifying of the Department of Finance’s intent to issue City and County of Denver Dedicated Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2018A-B in a par amount not to exceed $300,000,000 for the purpose of funding costs related to the development of the National Western Center and to pay costs of issuance.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0641
|
Speaker 2: . And limiting sugary, sugary drinks is an evidence based way to keep kids at a healthy weight and prevent obesity. We applaud Denver's commitment to creating healthy environments and making the healthy choice the easy choice. So unfortunately, several of the do you team were not able to make it tonight, but we do have representation from the Stapleton Foundation . Be well healthy initiative. And some of those youth would like to speak.
Speaker 0: Come on, let's give it up for a quick online.
Speaker 2: Hi. My name is and my girls and I am ten years old and I'm going to be presenting how sugary drinks and snacks are not healthy for kids. Hi. My name is Maya Grimes. I am ten years old and I'm going into the fifth grade at Bill Roberts. I would like to talk about why it's important to provide healthy food and drinks for youth. Why do you why does why do kids eat so much junk food and sugary beverages? They drink sugary beverages and eat junk food because they believe in way of what they believe in, what other people sell and say and they think it's okay. They don't realize that it has so much sugar in it and it's bad for your health and your heart. Eating too much sugar makes life harder because it makes you feel lazy and like you don't want to go anywhere and just stay and watch TV and watch TV at home.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance increasing the sales and use tax by a rate of 0.25 percent and dedicating the revenue derived from the tax rate increase to fund Denver parks, trails, and open space, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state general election on November 6, 2018.
Refers a measure to the eligible voters in Denver to extend the sales and use tax to be used to fund Denver’s parks and open space. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-12-18. Amended 7-16-18 to specify that canals are included in the intended use of the special revenue monies funded by the additional sales and use taxes, and, to require that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to hold no less than one public hearing and submit a five-year plan for the approval by City Council.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0625
|
Speaker 0: All right. And under pending, we have no items called out that I miss anything. Members of council. All right, Councilman. Madam Secretary, put the first item on our screen. Councilman Lopez, please. Council resolution 625 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that Council resolutions series of 2018 625 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it comes from the council. Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I will be abstaining from this vote due to my brother in law's construction business having an interest in the Great Hall Project ranked.
Speaker 0: Any other question? Speakers. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Gilmore abstain.
Speaker 3: Herndon.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Can eat right. Lopez High New Ortega High.
Speaker 2: Sussman Black.
Speaker 3: Clark Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I play I very nice results.
Speaker 3: 12 zero nays one abstention.
Speaker 0: Were missing one no are not is right on. Okay, Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Resolution five, 95, 99 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Nossaman LLP concerning special counsel services for implementation of the development agreement for the Great Hall project at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Nossaman LLP for $538,000 and through 06-30-22 to assist in the implementation of the development agreement for the Great Hall during the design and construction phase including providing legal analyses during implementation and to assist with the review and preparation of related correspondence and documents at Denver International Airport (2018-42194). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-23-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-20-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0598
|
Speaker 0: Were missing one no are not is right on. Okay, Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Resolution five, 95, 99 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: Sure. I move that council resolutions 598 from 99. Both series of 2018 be adopted in block.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Members County Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I call these out because I as in committee, I intend to vote no on them. I just wanted to make note that I believe that these proposed contracts actually are an improvement over what we entered into two years ago with the Social Impact Bond Program. But I also want to point out that these are not bonds in the first place. And in fact, this second round, this expansion doesn't even go through the exercise of of having an outside investors loan money that we then repay with with imputed theoretical savings in city in city spending. I think it is premature to go into an expansion of this of this housing first program when I don't believe we have adequately analyzed the social impacts that are occurring under the initial rollout, as I've explained in committee, and for the members who weren't there and for the audience, the project, the site based project that is in my district has has had a very harsh ripple effect in the community. And I don't believe that the theory of repaying the investors who loaned us the money for the wraparound services for the the chronic and high frequency. Not my term, but the term of the folks who proposed it. The worst of the worst. Homeless who get arrested the most. Who go to detox the most. Go to Denver General Emergency Room. Denver health. Excuse me. Emergency room the most. That we're not capturing all of the new costs because Denver police units from police district four are called to that building two, three, four times a day. And it's having significant impacts on the surrounding businesses. The very first week that tenants moved in, one of the very first tenants went up to the liquor store and committed a a theft. And the police received no cooperation from the operator of the facility. I do have to credit, though, mental health center of Denver, which operates the facility, because because of these problems, they have made the very adjustments that the community asks them to do and a good neighbor agreement, but which was not included. They are, in fact, restricting overnight visitors who have caused significant problems being led in the back door. They have, in fact, done evictions of folks, which is something the community wanted one of them to commit to in the first place, and they would not. So I do want to credit them for having the flexibility to adjust and to try to mitigate the the harmful I call them anti-social impacts that this program is having. So while I believe that this contract with Colorado Coalition for the Homeless is an improvement because it's not site based, it is more it's tenant based. So it's going to be scattered site the way it was explained to us in committee. I believe that's an improvement. I wish that had been the case up front. I think that we should not jump into this expansion until we fully understand the the how to mitigate some of the negative impacts that it does cause. So I wanted to vote no, and I don't I'm not calling on other members to vote no, but I believe that I have to do this because of what experience we've had in my district with it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Counsel.
Speaker 10: MCEACHIN Thank you, Mr. President. This is clearly a larger debate than we can have on the floor with regards this particular contract. But because I think I was somewhat unprepared for some of the concerns you shared in committee, I didn't want us to to close this discussion out without some some comment. And I think that Councilman Flynn has raised several different issues. One is the model of supportive housing, where individuals are living together with similar challenges. And I think that that is a model that I think we as a community, I'm realizing as we go through some discussions in the zoning task force that Councilwoman Ortega and I are on, I think we started with discussions about projects and locations and contracts, and we didn't really, as a community, pause and talk about that model. Overall, there is some value to having folks receiving services together. The idea of having a. Social worker travel from site to site has has some cost impacts to it. It has some impacts for isolation for the individual who's going through an experience and doesn't have a community of of similar folks. And so I don't think it's the case that we can just say, oh, well, it's you know, it doesn't work to have folks living together because there are some important efficiencies from the government funding side and there's some important community benefits for those who are living and going through the process together. And and so in spite of, you know, some of the questions that individuals may have about this supportive housing, I think we need to slow down and talk about this. And so one of the things I'm volunteering to do is doing some research into some community conversations that are added. Let's not talk about it at a site specific or a contract specific level. Let's talk about the model and help folks answer some of the questions that probably your residents went through in the process of a site discussion but didn't have the chance to engage with. And so so stay tuned for that. You know, the second aspect here is, is how how the this this housing approach can integrate with communities and have a good dialog and respond to questions that come up. You know, I think it's a good thing. One of the things we say to folks is it's important. You know, I did some follow up research to to ask about the police calls. Many of them are about folks harassing residents, not so much about residents. So those calls are not all calls against the residents. Many of them are calls by residents because they're at risk from someone from the outside. And so that's that's what we want folks to do. We want them to feel safe. And I think that the question about a call to police for prevention versus what we may have had when folks are unhoused, which is them being victimized and not being able to call the police because they had no phone or because they weren't able to get somewhere safe before they were, you know, victimized. So I think that there is still a comparative case we have to make about the fact that communities are impacted by people living on the streets. Certainly, you know, many of us get the calls about what's happening in alleys, what's happening in parks and what's happening in rivers. So so there is an impact when people are not housed that impacts community as well. And so I just think it's important to have that conversation. And then the last concern that Councilman Flynn has raised is, is how we're paying. And I think that what what I have seen in the data from the Urban Institute. So just to be clear, there is significant data. We have a year of data and an independent evaluator who has found that the majority of individuals have stayed house, have reduced their journeys, have reduced their hospital nights. And so a call to police is not the same cost, right? It calls the police because you're a victim of domestic violence is not the same cost as you being in a jail bed overnight. Right. So one is a protective preventative call, the other is a cost in the jail system. And so I believe the data is there that this is a cost benefit still to the city once you dig into the full cost of each of these these things that have been raised. And so I encourage folks to read the Urban Institute data, and I do think there is sufficient data for this expansion, although I acknowledge the fact that I think we need to have some more conversation about the model and help folks go through it more slowly so they can really ask questions. And in particular, our neighborhoods. I think they haven't been engaged as much in the conversation, perhaps, as we as policymakers. So so I will, you know, see how I can help with that. I'm sure others are interested as well. I'll include our departments, but but for tonight, I'm really pleased to be advancing this contract because I think it is the right direction. It's not an easy direction, but it is the right direction. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I have to agree it is the right direction, but I am still going to just chiming in to explain another decision to to not say no, but to abstain from this vote, primarily because I did say no to the original SB, you know, in part because I thought it was the $4 million that we were essentially gambling on this being successful could have and should have gone directly into the project, maybe could have addressed some of this, this stuff sort of more real time. And this this contract is better than that. What we had done previously in a number of ways, but it is still has some of the concerns that I that I had originally on the incentive side. And so so while it is a step in the right direction, it is not not the complete step that I would like to have it in order for me to fully support it. And so I will be abstaining because it is an improvement. But it is not it's it's not there yet.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. So, first of all, I appreciate Councilman Flynn pulling. He's too out. He and I were both really vocal about wanting to make sure that when this particular location was identified in his district, not this bill, but the site that he was referring to in southwest Denver, we advocated that the people who were homeless that live right next to the creek be allowed to be prioritized because the concern was if they didn't get a chance to be housed in this development, they potentially would be some of the people hanging out outside who some of the complaints are about, not just the some of the complaints about clients who live there, but some of the people that are still homeless that did not get to be prioritized. And I think that's a policy discussion that we need to have as well, because wherever we have these locations being selected, that that we don't get to weigh in on. It is important to look at what the communities are going to have to be dealing with. And in this case, Councilman Flynn and I were at a community event two weeks ago, and this was a huge topic of conversation. So we do have to have that conversation. Management of these facilities is absolutely key in addressing the issues that are brought to their attention and having the community committees. I don't remember what you referred to it as, but. It's it's important to have that ongoing dialog to be able to address the issues as they come up rather than waiting for them to fester and, you know, have more animosity within the community, between the community and the facilities. And I know District four does a really good job of working with the community. The manager, I understand, of Sanderson has has been very responsive in meeting with some of the adjacent businesses and the neighborhood group, and I think they're moving to be a better neighbor in the community. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, who this particular contract is with, has been the first organization in this city to do the Housing First model, and they've been doing it now for well over eight years and have done a really good job. They include the wraparound services on site and it it makes a difference for the individual because they're getting the services they need where they're at, rather than having to send them offsite to other places where it's sometimes a little more challenging. And so I think these two bills tonight should move forward. But I agree with Councilwoman Kimmich that we need to continue this conversation about some of the key policy issues that are being discussed. You know, we. Purchased a building in southwest Denver in Councilman Clark's district that for whatever reason, did not work out. We then looked at the site in Councilman Lopez's district, and it's my understanding that's on hold. I don't know if the city is still looking to go into that site, but. We know our neighborhoods, so we should be part of the discussions so that decisions aren't being made where we then turn around later and you know, we're trying to figure out are we going to sell this building, are we going to put something else in the building that we purchased in in Councilman Clark's district? Because it did not work out as the site for utilizing social impact bonds and placing some of the individuals who are chronically homeless in our city. It is important that we have these these services and resources available for folks in our community that are struggling to get on their own, on their feet, on their own. So I will be supporting these two bills tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, you back up.
Speaker 9: There just briefly, Mr. Perez. And I want to thank Councilwoman Kenny for her comments. And it reminded me that I need to point out that last year my office organized a new registered neighborhood organization to represent the Marly and Brentwood and Sharon Park neighborhoods. And they have been very, very active in adopting that good neighbor agreement. And they have had mental health center of Denver come in and give a presentation, the manager of the project, and there's some very good dialog going on. So since the Councilwoman mentioned engagement with the community, I wanted to mention the fact that Marley neighborhood now has a brand new and active neighborhood organization that is taking this by the horns and is getting very involved in it. And I think we'll address some of those issues that the councilwoman brought up.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You know, I think there's been a lot of conversation and I think it's been a good conversation. And I appreciate I appreciate it. You know, having the conversation around neighborhoods and count the councilwoman and each bringing up the national data, I think that's that's really important to know that Housing First is a is a best practice. I'm just going to give you some anecdotal data. Two of these sites are in my district. And I got to tell you that there one of the sites had opposition to it. And the other site, there is some neighborhood concern, but not opposition. And the two sites that I'm mentioning is 20, 20, 77, Broadway and 40th in Colorado. And in both cases I've received, this is outside. And then I'm gonna go inside from the neighborhoods. You know, the amazement at how this is actually cleaned up the blocks on those neighborhood, how the blocks are much more active, and they're not seeing the kind of issues that they did because of these developments. And then I met with a group of of color coalition folks who live in the St Francis that I said was, it's not Saint Francis across the street from the new development, but it's it is not a part of this package. And I got to tell you, it was the first time I had met with formerly homeless individuals who are now a part of the leadership of the building and to to hear the vision that they have for their neighborhood and to see what they're trying to implement on their block was one of the most inspiring, empowering things that I've ever seen. And so I am 100% behind this program. I think we need to expand this program because I do believe, number one, that wraparound services and I do believe especially making sure that we are making that connection with those individuals who are incarcerated and not and do not have a home and do not have those services to go in making sure we're making that connection. So I'm so supportive of this and I'll be supportive of it going forward. And I think it's important that as we're thinking about this citywide and going to different neighborhoods, that we live in it. We live in a city. This is not the suburbs. We live in a city of different perspectives, different cultures, different economic backgrounds. We can no longer fight these things. We have to figure out how to live in a neighborhood where we all come together and figure out how all folks can live. And so I'm telling my folks in District nine that this is no longer a conversation about a these folks can't live here. What I'm saying is we're going to find out how to live together and really think about how to create a truly inclusive neighborhood. All right. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman.
Speaker 2: Black I.
Speaker 4: Clark, I.
Speaker 7: Espinosa staying.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Placed those voting results.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to make sure everyone's in. Ten eyes, one knee, one abstention.
Speaker 0: All right, it passes out.
Speaker 3: We're missing somebody. Let's see.
Speaker 0: No, Sussman is not here.
Speaker 3: Right. That's good. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, that went on for a little bit. So let me see. We got 59, five, 98, five, 99. Okay, now we're on 694. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 694 on the floor?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless for funding of housing and services for 75 qualified participants.
Approves a $2,338,350 contract with The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless through 12-31-20 to expand the existing Social Impact Bond program by providing housing and supportive services to an additional 75 chronically homeless individuals who have been identified as high-cost users of government funded services (201738812). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-30-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0694
|
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, that went on for a little bit. So let me see. We got 59, five, 98, five, 99. Okay, now we're on 694. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 694 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council by 694 series of 2018 published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second it. Councilman, this is Councilman Flynn. Yes, yes. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Thing, Mr. President. The this is a bill to refer to the November ballot, a charter amendment regarding recruitment of police officers through lateral transfers from other departments. It's been proposed by the Civil Service Commission, but there have been a couple of errors in the drafting of it. And so we need to ask council to vote no on this and it will be redrafted and refiled next week. One of the errors is that the date of the election was incorrect and so we need to have that. And then there's a section that also needs to be revised and put into a new draft. So this will be refiled, I guess, next week. And so I ask for a no vote on this.
Speaker 0: All right. See no other comments, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 2: Roko Flynn.
Speaker 3: No Gilmore. No Herndon, no Cashman. No Kennedy. Lopez. No New Ortega. No Black. No Clark. No Espinosa.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Did you vote?
Speaker 0: This was voting in the results.
Speaker 3: Sorry again, if.
Speaker 0: We're missing one. Somebody's hanging fire. There we go. All right. 12. No, 66. 94 has been defeated. All right. Next item up is five men. Two. Councilman, will you please put 592 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the state general election of November 18, 2018, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver concerning the qualifications for lateral hires to the Denver Police Department.
Refers a proposed Charter amendment to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at the 11-6-18 election concerning the lateral hiring of police officers for the Denver Police Department. This bill must pass no later than August 27, 2018 to meet the deadlines for the November ballot. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0592
|
Speaker 0: We're missing one. Somebody's hanging fire. There we go. All right. 12. No, 66. 94 has been defeated. All right. Next item up is five men. Two. Councilman, will you please put 592 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Thank you. A move that counts a little 592 series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it. Um. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 9: Thank, Mr. President. I call this out again to vote no on this. I voted no on introduction last week or two weeks ago, I guess. And for the same objection, we have a lot of housing assistance programs and projects. This one is very similar to things we do in through other vehicles. But I believe this has a few aspects that go just a little too far and primarily that we are looking at filling some vacant units that are that have been built and have not been rendered by the landlords. We're going to fill them by subsidizing rents that, frankly, the market ought to be bringing down in the first place. And one of the aspects about this live Denver voucher program that I that I found particularly difficult is that we are going to not only use our own city funds, but we're going to accept contributions from some of the employers whose workforce whose employees are having difficulty finding housing. And it just I said, wait a minute, why don't they take that money instead of putting it into our housing subsidies and they take that money and pay their workers a living wage so that they can afford to rent a place on their own in the first place. So with those two issues in play, the fact that these corporations ought to be paying their workers enough to live near where they work, and that if we continue to subsidize rents that are above market, then they will never come down. I just can't vote to approve this. I wanted to call it out and vote no. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Again for that one person out there that was watching last week and now this week, the I just want to explain, they will be voting in favor of this as opposed to what I did last week. And that's primarily because of the mechanism like I was talking about then that is created that I think can be an avenue for a sort of income certification and other things going forward with other programs. So there are some some good with the bad and for that I'd rather have the good along with the bad. And so I'll be supportive of things.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman, I take it.
Speaker 6: This is. A program that I had some questions about as well. But the reality is that there are units all across the city. They're not all downtown high end, right. Brand new units. These are units that are available today that can put people who need housing into housing immediately, as opposed to waiting for projects that often take three and four, sometimes five rounds to go through. Colorado Housing Finance Authority to access their low income tax credits for their project. That helped write down the costs that make it affordable to be able to put low income people in those units. So I will be supporting this tonight because it does create the opportunity to address an immediate need. I think it's a program that we need to get periodic updates on so that we could look at what the impact that it's having on the individuals. I had shared the concern that if we were only looking at high end housing, that at the end of the two year period people wouldn't be able to afford to stay in those units. And so it was important to be addressing the need all across the city in finding affordable units that exist in neighborhoods all across the city, which this project does. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So in other comments from Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I heard in. Cashman All right. Can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Close voting and other results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes one day.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one nay motion passes. All right, this concludes. Items need to be caught out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the bloc. Votes and resolutions and bills on final consideration members. Remember, this is a consent vote, 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 Lopez, will you please put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration of passage on the floor? Excuse me. Sorry.
Speaker 4: I know what you're going to say.
Speaker 0: I was going to say happy birthday. I don't know. Okay.
Speaker 4: I remember that the resolutions and adopted I move that resolutions be adopted in bills and final consideration to be placed on final consideration and do pass in a.
Speaker 5: Block for the following items.
Speaker 0: Councilman. There's I don't know if you know, it's 2018 and there's a screen in front of you that you can.
Speaker 4: I'm old school here. So all series of 2018, six nine. Resolution 690. Resolution six 7681. 691 586. 667. Amazing.
Speaker 1: 683 642 six.
Speaker 4: 83 six 645 671.
Speaker 0: Correct. Madam Secretary, please.
Speaker 3: It's 643.
Speaker 1: That's right. Sick.
Speaker 4: So. 721 and bills for bills on final consideration. 651 614 623 649. All series of 2018 did.
Speaker 3: Did you say 671 also? Six. No, I think.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr..
Speaker 4: I was rudely interrupted. Yes. 671 for the record.
Speaker 3: And 645.
Speaker 4: 645 for the.
Speaker 0: Um. Did you get 649? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 3: Six. 49.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Secretary, do you concur that all of this is correct?
Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. Electricity goes out. It's. It's it's been moved and seconded.
Speaker 0: Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black eyed clerk. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman, I. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please go to the voting and thus results 12 vice. All right. Do we?
Speaker 3: I'll. I'll. I'll take, uh.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Sussman. Yeah. You know what? Take that down to 12th place because. SUSSMAN Thank you. Councilman Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. The resolutions have been adopted in the both have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, to launch the new Lower Income Voucher Equity (LIVE Denver) program.
Approves an $1,180,000 intergovernmental agreement with the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) through 12-31-23 to launch the Lower Income Voucher Equity (LIVE Denver) program to create immediate affordable housing options for employed workers by connecting vacant rental units with income-qualified Denver residents. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-23-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0424
|
Speaker 0: I propose bringing us the results. 13 Ice 13 Ice Council Bill. 570 passes. Congratulations. All right. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Councilor Bell for 24 on the floor?
Speaker 4: That's Mr. President of the Council for 24th series of 2018. Be placed upon final consideration and do best.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. It has been moved in, seconded the public hearing for council bill 424 is now open. We have the staff.
Speaker 2: You may as soon as I load my PowerPoint.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Which is Aunt Theresa Lucero lowering the PowerPoint.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 2: I apologize. I still have vacation brain. I should have loaded this during the break. My apologies. No problem. Here we go. So this is an official map amendment. It is.
Speaker 11: Well.
Speaker 2: There we go. Sorry. It is for approximately 9701 East 56th Avenue. The proposal is to rezone from master plan context, rowhouse, three story and OSB, which is private open space to master plan context residential mixed use five stories. This is in City Council District eight in the Stapleton neighborhood. It is about 331 acres. It is probably the last large piece of Stapleton that we will be rezoning. It is currently vacant and the proposal again to go from master planned row house three stories and private open space to master planned residential mixed use five stories. The purpose is to rezone the property so the existing zoning, as I said, master planned row house three and open space to the north and east is the Rocky Mountain arsenal in Adams County, and there is agricultural zoning there. To the south is an old Chapter 59 mixed commercial, mixed use with waivers and you are one and to the west OSB and master planned residential mixed use five and mixed use five residential master plan. So the property is currently vacant again to the north and east is the Rocky Mountain arsenal. To the south is industrial property to the west, underdevelopment and vacant property. So hopefully you're seeing the aerial of the property. And then the pictures of. The area, most of it vacant. As you can see there, the the high school athletic fields south of 56th, just west of the industrial land, uses that are south of 56 pictures of the Rocky Mountain arsenal and off to the west. You can start to see some of the infrastructure going in. So the master plan context was specifically written for our newly developing large areas like Lourey and Stapleton, and this is a mixed use stone district. So Urban House, Duplex, Garden, Court and Row House are the primary building forms allowed and it's intended to promote development of of these new neighborhoods in phases over time. So this application first informational notice went out in January of 2017. Then there was a revised application. So we sent out a few more notices of complete application. We scheduled planning board, but there were some other issues. Reasons we had to delay planning board. So Planning Board was held finally on in April of this year, and there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. And we were at Moody Committee on in May. And then, of course, here for this public hearing. There are several RINO's in the Stapleton neighborhood. We have no comment letters from an R.A. or a private party. So no comments on this one. And, you know, the criteria for a rezoning. So I'm not going to read them the plans that that are pertinent to this area. Our current plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Stapleton Development Plan Comp Plan 2000 speaks to environmental sustainability supporting mixed use development, supporting development that mirrors development in the course city and of course, developing housing wherever we have the opportunity to develop housing. So staff believes that this rezoning is consistent with current plan 2000 blueprint. Denver calls this an area of change and single family residential and park, which is sort of remarkably like what's being built there. Except the park is rearranged a bit. And this is the same zoning or same land use category that we've used throughout Stapleton. So staff believes that this proposal is consistent with this blueprint, the blueprint Denver concept land use. So street classifications 56th Avenue is the only street built, although on the East, Havana is built to a degree. Both are mixed use arterials. And then no other streets are constructed in the area yet. The Stapleton Development Plan from 1995 talked about this area as a predominance of residential uses with opportunities for corporate or institutional land uses . District Center in the Middle. Transportation Improvements on 56th Avenue. A significant restoration of the Sandhills. Character of the parks and open space. Special sites for institutional and corporate uses and joint planning with Commerce City and the National Wildlife Refuge. Staff believes that this is consistent with the Stapleton development plan, that by using one of our standard zoned districts, we are furthering the uniform application of the districts throughout the city by allowing redevelopment of our former airport. We are furthering the public health, safety and welfare and of course, changed conditions is the justifying circumstance. And staff believes this criteria is met by all the changes happening in Stapleton and that this is consistent with the zoned district, a context and purpose and intent of the district. And with that, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Teresa. We have five speakers for speakers this evening. I will call the first one. Bruce, Donna.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, members of council, good evening again. Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street in Denver. And I'm representing for a city Stapleton on this rezoning request. Thank you, Teresa, for an excellent job on what's probably the last big piece of Stapleton, just like Lowry the.
Speaker 1: Last two nights and eight of last.
Speaker 7: I guess. But we are here. The team and I are here to see. Do you have any questions? And we formally request that you vote to approve this rezoning request.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Forest Hancock.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Forest Hancock. I'm with four city Stapleton 7351 East 29th Avenue, Denver.
Speaker 5: I'm here to answer any questions that the council has it.
Speaker 0: Wow. What a name. All right, Tom Gleason.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Tom Gleason, also with four City 7351 East 29th Avenue. And again, we are available for questions. Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Gleason. Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 11: German so-called Russian action moving in self-defense. Representing poor, working poor. Senior citizens. And homeless for. Hmm. Absolutely not. No. No. No, no, no, no, no, no. Put in historical context. The neighborhood in the east side of Denver was called three phases when the gentrification hit. This was the strategy. You had the Near East, which was downtown all the way to. Probable bar. Then you have from Colorado Boulevard all the way to Quebec. That was called the Middle East. And then from Quebec on to Green Valley Ranch was called the Far East. And then here comes the developments of the move with you had Stapleton coming in with no housing and yet the existing stock of housing that was occupied by black people, 95% owned. Yeah. And then you had to flip on the real estate and everything went upside down. By design. That was not no accident. And then here we go. Look at the development. No laws, no development. Red District, Middle East.
Speaker 0: Business cycle, housing underground.
Speaker 11: Look, wait, just let's talk about this in the context. Don't interrupt. The reason. The reason. This is what we're talking about. I'm talking about people need to know what they're doing. So you need to know the historical context, what you uprating in so that you can make a decision. Not because of what they say or what to say or what's on a piece of paper. I'm doing what's like history. The history I lived. You weren't even here. You weren't even born. So you don't have a right to say nothing at this point. And it's very disrespectful. I'm going to continue.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if you don't talk about the reason, you will be cut off.
Speaker 11: So here comes homeboys. Ever take the record of development? The development inside of what they do. Black people are last in contract works. One, two, three ABC And then you had these black folks leaders who are being paid consultant to explain that to us so we can accept that. Yeah. Pictures on the wall everywhere. In this building. Coconspirator to this whole mess cost so many. Which is nothing but a tool for gentrification. And then we'll come tell you how to vote on it. So long I've been down here. 12 years. Unanimous. Here we go. Unanimous. I bet you that I put my last dime on it. Because I was looking at you doing the subcommittees when you're doing this. I know y'all in alignment with all of this. Tell me I'm not going to get a unanimous vote on this. Go ahead. Go ahead. I don't want people just looking. This thinks I'm some kind of procrastinator or some genius.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 11: The reason if you pay attention to the zoning process, it will let you know as you're looking at this on video, because you're not coming down here. You can't get here because it's rush hour traffic. 530 meetings. Yeah, real public meetings and then committee meetings. Or do an afternoon when everybody's at work. All outstanding. So we get to get to communicate with a machine. And then call your office and maybe get a loop. Maybe return a phone call. Maybe not. You guys are busy. Got a lot of work to do and a lot to do. Okay, so you. So are you close with this so you can get on with your process? Because I don't want you getting off to answer that. So, you know, 160 rule.
Speaker 0: Just just focus on the bills.
Speaker 11: Focus on the bill. Letting your feelings get made. You're a judge.
Speaker 0: You focus on the bill.
Speaker 11: Focus on 160. And stay off your phone. Focus on the bill. Yeah. No, the bill is. No, absolutely not. And if you vote for this, that's a bump of white supremacy. That's above gentrification. And you are above me. And this is the most profane body I've ever seen in my life. Without using profanity. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Profane. In the annals of history. Smelling like camel dung in the nose of God. Okay. So with that, I'm going to close with this statement. There was a commercial on television. It was about the rabbits and tricks. And this little rabbit was always trying to steal the tricks from the kids. And the kids finally smacked the rabbit. A rabbit. Silly rabbit tricks.
Speaker 0: Anyway. So that had nothing to do with the rezoning. We're open to questions by members of Council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So my first question is about the. Tom, would you mind coming up? So is this site covered within the IATO, as was the rest of Stapleton?
Speaker 1: Yes. And excuse me, that's the Stapleton affordable housing plan specifically.
Speaker 6: Okay. So do you do we know yet whether this is going to include for sale or rental or maybe a combination?
Speaker 1: We this parcel is part of section ten and we expect to have affordable rental and affordable foreseeable.
Speaker 6: Okay. And where are you guys at in terms of overall meeting the obligations under that housing plan for for Stapleton?
Speaker 1: We, as you know, we have two components. We have an affordable rental and affordable for sale. Currently, we have affordable rental at 543 affordable rental units that have been completed as part of our donated land program for making that possible. We've donated at the present time about 11 and a half acres. As you recall, the figure initially was eight acres. But the reality is, is that we have donated much more land than that because we've also donated needed land on the Affordable Ownership Program as well. Together, the affordable rental and affordable for sale that have been completed are under construction as 1008 to 84 homes. We have the affordable rental is running probably at a little over, probably over 20% at the present time on the Affordable for sale, which has been challenged. There's no question about that. We are running probably about 7%. Okay.
Speaker 6: Can you tell me if this is the site that had the application that was received by the Colorado Land Board for drilling that they later. That was withdrawn?
Speaker 1: No. It was part of.
Speaker 6: His North Norfolk.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was not on Stapleton and it was I think to the east of that, I think. But I'm not absolutely sure.
Speaker 6: Okay. I know they had gone on the Lowry. I mean, on the. The wildlife preserve with the arsenal.
Speaker 1: They are still here.
Speaker 6: But but I know there was one to sixth Avenue, so this this was not one of them. Okay. What what is the condition of the soils? Just looking at the map and the topography of it, it looks like there may have been some. I don't know some soil's issues with it. So what is the condition of that?
Speaker 1: In this particular area, there was some bedrock that was discovered. And so what we did is we worked with staff to make an adjustment so that the open space was configured to be over the bedrock because it prevented, obviously homes from having basements, etc.. So it's basically just an adjustment. Same amount of open space that was originally planned.
Speaker 6: Okay, let me just make sure I've asked all my questions. Okay. I'm good. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thanks so much, Mr. President. Hey, Tom, how are you? Just wanted to follow up on a couple of the questions that Councilwoman Ortega was asking. So it looks to me like we're looking at a slight increase in density here in theory. So from the RO home three to the Annex five. Do you have a sense of how many additional market rate units or, you know, overall units that you're you're going to be able to do compared to what you would have under the old zoning.
Speaker 11: Was to go with this or.
Speaker 10: Take a look at that.
Speaker 1: An increase in density. I'm not a councilwoman. I'm not really sure, to be honest with you. I'd have to check that out.
Speaker 10: All right. Yeah. And the reason I'm asking is, I think as we've talked over the years, when we increase the amount of market rate housing that you're doing, it then increases the percentage needed to be affordable. And so it moves the goalposts in some ways in terms of the goal, because we have a percentage goal here. And I guess to to follow up on that question that Councilwoman Ortega was asking, we we worked with EDI to do some analysis to say what are our hopes, what are the barriers, what are the challenges to getting to the goal by by build out? And I was just curious where that dialog is at. Are you still meeting regularly with the department? There were a few things they flagged that would need to happen for us to be on track because we do.
Speaker 1: We still continue to have meetings there. I think with the new housing officer, we have not yet met with that person, but the in particular the area where our transit oriented development is, we have already developed some affordable housing there, but we anticipate that there will be a more opportunities for higher density housing there and that will include additional affordable as well on ownership.
Speaker 10: Okay. So so no new announcements yet and how to make up the gap on the for sale side in term. I think their conclusion was that you would need to increase the pace of the affordable development. Right now it's kind of plodded along and it would need to increase considerably, which means using more developers at the same time. And then you would also need to to increase the density in a few of those places. So those were a couple of the recommendations. So are we in action mode on those or we're still figuring out?
Speaker 1: Well, and again, on the two pieces, first of all, on the affordable rental, that is something that requires in spite of the fact that we donate land and provide cash subsidies and requires traffic credits. And of course, that's a that's an issue to be dealt with there. On the affordable ownership, we have experienced a greater pace of the affordable ownership. We have two very good developers of affordable northeast Denver Housing Center is one and then Thrive is doing another one as well. So that piece has picked up and we think that going with those two developers makes a lot of sense at this point . Always in the back of our mind, we have talked about the possibility if it reaches a point that a another developer should be brought in. But we often make things more difficult for the two that are actually doing much better now. So our current plans are always just to stay with those two developers on the affordable ownership.
Speaker 10: Okay. It's my understanding that the EDI analysis is was that if you continue that there is no way to meet the goal because they have a capacity, they can only do so much at one time. And so it concerns me to hear that a decision has been made not to change strategy, because the conclusion was that that strategy would not get us to the goal. So I will check back and that that's concerning to hear that. Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Theresa.
Speaker 5: I'm going to reference three slides because they're trying to understand this completely. Yeah, I think I understand it, but I need to see it and hear it from you guys. Slides five and six. One is the existing context zoning. Right there. One more. Next one.
Speaker 2: This one?
Speaker 5: That one. So what I'm going to be referencing is the stuff that's being built out right now, which is currently our five on the west side of the open space. And then what is the proposed area which is which is currently RH three? One quick question actually, is the general building form? I mean, is the urban townhouse? Form part of. Did it address the master plan special context or not?
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, can you repeat your question?
Speaker 5: So currently the, the if we're talking about those two zone districts, the R five and the RH three. Mm. They both allow single family, they also duplex they bought. But then the RH meaning rs5 then skips over garden court and and row house and goes right to the general building for. The General Building Forum was one of the problems that we addressed with the slot Home Task Force. Does that apply to the match in this context? Yes. Okay. The. So now the next slide after this. If we're looking at those two areas, we see how the form the current rx5 has been developed. Right. You have a little bit of retail along 56 or Northfield Boulevard, and then the rest is all largely single family duplex and largely single family with some. Townhouses on the edge that thrive this building. Now, if we go to the way in in the back set of slides where we're looking at the GDP.
Speaker 2: Hmm. Oh. Yeah.
Speaker 5: What I want to know is, is if we're going to the zone district that allowed them to just plat and build tract after tract after tract of sort of single family housing. It does this GDP tell me that this will this will in fact have a different outcome or will have the same outcome.
Speaker 2: The GDP doesn't get specific about which land uses where. I mean, it sort of does with its the patterns it has. But in the language, it's hard to read. But it's it basically says it's the intent of the developer to develop a range of housing types and know it's hard to read, but.
Speaker 5: So what are we hearing from the owners representatives here? What? It sounds like you guys are are you sort of on the west side, even though it's the same zone district, you're sort of you're doing single family largely in this area is intended to be something else or is it going to be more of the same?
Speaker 2: Do you want to answer that or.
Speaker 5: Councilman. We're working with the.
Speaker 7: Same homebuilders, bringing in the same product that you see on the west side of Section ten now.
Speaker 1: Okay. So under Mark's five, we can build garden courts under the general form.
Speaker 7: In the west side, we actually have.
Speaker 5: Row homes completely lining the central median.
Speaker 1: On Beeler Bel-Air median right there.
Speaker 7: So it is a blend of single family duplex row homes. And I guess I'm drawing a blank on a third right there. But it is it is going to be I don't want to say replication.
Speaker 1: But same builders, same products with the exception of we've got one new builder, I.
Speaker 7: Think we're talking about bringing in there. But no, no changes to our our recipe from what we've been building in Stapleton.
Speaker 5: Okay. Because I appreciate that. It's not that I wasn't I was actually expecting nor do I know that any other sort of concept would would be successful. I will just admit that I was a bit I was a bit green to the master plan zone districts. I didn't actually understand the context until tonight. And I'm sitting here going, how to how is this our X5, the same animal that we're dealing with in other contexts? And it is. It is an. And and so I just needed that clarification. So I appreciate it.
Speaker 7: It's a good question. But no no changes on our business.
Speaker 1: Program there with the homebuilders we're working with now. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. This concludes the questions for members of council.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Can I just clarify the building forms? I pulled out my code.
Speaker 0: Would that be helpful?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 2: Four or five urban house duplex in general. That's it.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So we didn't create an urban townhouse. And so you could theoretically not that any of your builders do this, but you could build a slot home out there. So choose.
Speaker 1: Correct?
Speaker 2: If that's the builder they select.
Speaker 5: They're looking for new places. I could tell you that much.
Speaker 0: All right. This concludes the questions for members of council. This hearing for 24 is now closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. It is amazing to think in 2008, prior to be on town council, when I first my real estate agent brought me into Stapleton at the Timeless East Bridge. What has become of this community? There was no East Bridge Town Center. There was no connections through the war. There was nothing north of I-70. Blessed Lake was the actual park, not the new neighborhood. And what it has become ten years later is truly remarkable. I'm in support of this. I will say that affordability is a prime concern for anyone. I would encourage my colleagues, if you ever want to do a drive to with me, because I don't believe anyone on this day is has I'd be happy to drive through you and show the multiple sites. I do know Councilman Canete, who has been a champion for that, has done that with for city. I will also double check with Audi because I have been a part of those analysis when it has come to the affordability for city is doing a great job with the forint. There is a struggle with the first sale, but I've personally spoken with Jean Meyers of Thrive and Gate with Northeast Denver housing toward their products and toward their sites. And there's still the possibility coming at the TOD site. So I am confident that we are going to hit that. And you're already doing that above when it comes to the for rent cap housing is going again for traffic credits. Northeast Denver how they are doing their product off of Moline which take section eight vouchers I believe. And I mean, there's not another community in this city where I can say we have those transitioning, transitioning from homelessness, are living next to those and almost multimillion dollar houses. And so the success of Stapleton is truly remarkable. And I want to applaud all those who had the vision, community members, elected officials beforehand for what this community has become. And it's amazing that this is the last major piece north of 56. So can I want to congratulate you on that? And I would encourage my colleagues to support this so we continue to move forward this development. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Kelso, Indonesia.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I agree with my colleague's comments about, you know, the the the impressive quantity of housing and the the important developers who are doing it. They are doing a great job. And I have done, I think, two of the twice I've toured. And I think there was quite a bit of progress even in between those tours as well as being some of those groundbreaking. But one of the things I'm faced with today is a decision about whether or not the proposed zoning is in conformance with the plans. And one of the adopted plans for this site includes the fact that there are contractual obligations. And I think one of the things that I regret our predecessors didn't do is they didn't require that the proportionality of the housing occur along with the development. And so we're in this unfortunate position of back loading, particularly the for sale housing. And so I have to evaluate the zoning decision and whether it's going to impede our ability to conform with those contractual obligations. And every time we increase the number of housing units overall, we increase as a as I described in my question, the goalpost moves for the affordability. You cannot build a 100% affordable condo project at a Tier D. I hope that's really important for folks to understand that you can't get it financed. The FHA will not underwrite the loans for the individuals who live in those condos to be able to get there first time homeowners. So you can put some of the affordability in a in a single building attitude, but you can't probably exceed 50%, which means then you have every the rest of that is going to be market rate. So and 50% is high. There aren't very many condo projects that are that are at that rate of affordability, which means you're going to, again, be increasing the number of market rate units as well. So I have to be able to see a path to know that if we're going to increase the amount of market rate housing, that we have a specific time allocated plan for how we're going to do that. And that that's where, you know, we spend a considerable amount of time going over the math. There is enough land, I believe it's possible there probably is enough financing and and demand to make to make those projects financeable. In terms of the the loan market, how much will one lender give to one developer is a question, a concern. And this I worked with with both Gate and Jean. They're both really great developers. This isn't about them. This is about, though, the contractual obligation. And the contractual obligation then falls on us as a city to enforce. So if we end up at this finish line and we're not there, then the question about how we go about legally enforcing it becomes our responsibility and how I say to the constituents who continue to share their concerns not just about the pace of new housing, but our loss of housing as some of those units time out because they're getting to that 15 year, the 15 year. Covenant period is ending on some of them in very short order. So I just can't without more information to indicate to me how we are recalibrating to make sure that we don't just meet the existing goal, but now we meet an increased goal because the zoning increases the capacity. I can't support it today because of the conformance with the plan. It does meet the other criteria in terms of, you know, being the right mix for this location. But but but that legal agreement is is an important one that we're bound, I think, to enforce as a city. And it would be inappropriate for me to say, go ahead. And then at the back end say, oh, I got you because you didn't you didn't fulfill the agreement. I think we're your partner in this. I think it's up to the city to help to develop strong criteria and enter into those negotiations to make sure we are helping this community achieve this goal because we're not just achieving it. For the residents of Stapleton, where we you know, we're achieving it for the overall citizens of Denver who forwent significant resources through the tax increment financing in order to make it possible. So it really, you know, in my mind, this is a goal that belongs to the entire city as well as to the residents who believe in the vision of that diversity. And we owe it to both of them to to make sure that these earnings conform with the plans. And I just can't find that tonight. So I will have to vote. No, thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I am not intending to contradict what I but Councilwoman Kennedy just said. But I do see it slightly different in that the the the forms that the allowed forms in the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning based on if you're building essentially the same thing using the same product. I mean, developers, you, you, you basically can keep going. There's there's nothing in the current current use by right situation that couldn't allow you to develop most of what you're doing. So the carve out, I mean, the ability to go from the garden court in the row house to add the general, that actually gives you a lot more latitude to be able to develop these affordable units to do to do, to be more economical and efficient with your square footage and to deliver these units. And you know that I'm saying that from an informed place, having worked out there and done these very same things. That said, I remember having these conversations, which is, yeah, you guys weren't expecting when you started this project some however long ago was you had a wildly successful market and you weren't expecting a couple of years, couple of three years of recession. But you've had you were also weren't expecting this degree of prosperity. And so I do think that there is in your business model, there should be I don't get into your financials and whatnot, but there should be the capacity to push these and help these guys deliver these units at a faster clip on the affordable side. So and I do see the general building form as helping deliver on those those needs. So I will be supporting this zoning, but I'm going to put it on for city. I'm saying that if it doesn't get done, it's because for a city didn't bite the bullet and dig in and make this happen. Because I think that I. I believe you guys can. So let's close the gap. There's still some struggles in the business side of things. I get that on the on the commercial side of things, but there is no problem on the residential side of the proforma. And so please, we have a need. This is a great place for families and people to start and a long, a very long, prosperous life in Denver. And but if they don't have the opportunity, it can't happen that way. So please provide those opportunities. This zoning, this additional little carve out gives you that additional flexibility. Please use it to deliver on what is needed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Ortega, I'll be brief.
Speaker 6: And Stapleton has been very successful with the development, both with commercial as well as residential. I share the concern that we have not yet been able to get there on the for sale side. I know on the rental side we've done very, very well. And I would just ask that rather than wait till we get to the end, that we have, you know, periodic updates where you guys come in and tell us where where this is going bring you into our. Council committee to to do an update, maybe with our housing subcommittee to just monitor where that's at, because I think we all want to make sure that that that goal is met. And if we just wait till the end, then shame on all of us for not really tracking it in a way that could be a lot more intentional. So that would be my request to our current and incoming president. So I'll be voting for this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We have an incoming president. I'm just telling Councilwoman Quinn each year.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I did just want to add one more fact to the record, because I think I glossed over it in the mention of rental reminded me there are two components in the housing agreement that that was signed. One was an aspirational goal about the quantity of rental overall, and the second was the portion of that that would be affordable. Where Staples in is doing a great job is on the portion of the rental that is affordable. It's higher than the aspirational vision in the agreement, but the overall quantity of rental is far lower. And I have to put this on the record because I'll get an email from a cab member by the morning if I don't. But the cab will tell you that the overall there is much less rental in the entire project than was envisioned. And whether it's dedicated as affordable or whether it is simply just rental housing, which generally is more accessible for folks who may not be candidates for for for sale, that is an aspect to the mixed income vision that is is not quite where the community expected it to be, where the agreement estimated it to be. That is not a binding piece of the agreement. But I did just want folks to know that when you analyze those quarterly reports and time, you're great. I appreciate you sending them. You guys have been transparent and shared everything we've asked you to. But but you can you can track this, and you have to pay attention to the total number of rental units, not just the percentage, because the percentage is high, but the overall number is low. So I just because I glossed over that, I just wanted to make sure I clarified the record and and because I know the community will catch me if I if I didn't clarify that. Thanks.
Speaker 0: I sure will. Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each. And the only thing I have to add is a.
Speaker 1: Gentleman heard it. You know, I was just going to offer that they they do come. I think there's some generalizations that I, I wouldn't characterize as fair to the to the builder right now, but it's not the appropriate form to have this element on chambers. But as someone who has lived here and lived this for a long time, I have no doubt the developer's commitment to affordability. And there are some things that have changed when it comes to that number. As we have talked about with the cab, the fact that one neighborhood, Central Park West, is a huge residential neighborhood, the original intent that was supposed to be commercial, but there was no interest in commercial at that time. So being adaptable and being flexible for city with residential, what's the community embraced? And that did change the number overall and has an impact. So I just think there's some things that we're just not getting specific enough that I don't think is fair. So I would offer that this does come to committee of those councilmembers are interested or come to a cab meaning we talk about this regularly affordability. So I just wanted to just throw that out. There's, there's some numbers that we're not getting into now that I think we should before we make generalizations. But I, I would hope that the majority of this body would move to support and support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Any other comments? Going once i will say Councilman Herndon, another area where homeless housing is next to $1,000,000 homes is right here in your downtown. All right. I will be supporting this as well. Great debate, everyone. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Herndon. I Cashman. I can eat. Lopez All right. New Ortega. I. Sussman. I black. Clark All.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Flynn All.
Speaker 3: Right. Gilmore I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police. So the following US results of.
Speaker 3: 2012.
Speaker 0: As one nay 424 has passed. Congratulations. Monday, August six, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing of Council Bill 18 Dash 668 Changes on a classification of 2900 South University Boulevard in Wiltshire. You know about that? And it required a public hearing and council bill on Council Bill 18 Dash 699 changes on classification of 150 and
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for approximately 9701 East 56th Avenue in Stapleton.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at approximately 9701 East 56th Avenue from M-RH-3 and OS-B to M-RX-5 (master planned, row-home to master planned, residential mixed-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06252018_18-0695
|
Speaker 3: None, Mr. President, about communications. None, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. We do have two proclamations. Councilman Susman, will you please read Proclamation 695?
Speaker 6: Certainly, Mr. President. Thank you. This is a proclamation designating designating the week of June 25th through 29th as bike to work week, whereas the city and County of Denver partners with the Denver Regional Council of Governments, local bike organizations and bike enthusiasts each year to plan activities and events intended to promote awareness of the benefits of bicycling . And. Whereas, Bike to Work Day is an annual event designed to encourage people to ride their bicycles for transportation on a consistent basis to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and benefit public health. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works hosts the Civic Center Park Breakfast Station, where people on bikes can celebrate their commute to work with free snacks, raffle prizes, music and educational outreach offered by organizations in the region. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works celebrates continued progress building out its citywide bike network and ramping up efforts in the coming years to implement 25 miles of bikeways annually as recommended in Denver's Vision Zero Action Plan. And this year, installing a new grade separated cycle track on Brighton Boulevard in the River North District and adding new bike lanes on Ulster Street, Florida Avenue, 19th Avenue and 20th Avenue, and whose plans to install additional bike infrastructure and to upgrade existing bike infrastructure are contributing to Denver's designation as a top bicycling city. And. WHEREAS, The Department of Public Works continues to build out the city's bicycle network to provide people with convenient and connected access with the goal of ensuring every household is with a two minute bike ride or a one quarter of a mile of a comfortable and low stress facility to make bike riding an attractive way to get around for more commuters. And. Whereas, Denver will keep growing the city's bike network and we'll plan improvements this year for 50 miles of bikeways, which will be rolled out in the city over the next several years, thanks to our Denver voters who overwhelmingly approved the Denver 2017 Geo bond in November of last year. Oh. Whereas the bicycle and pedestrian safety continues to be a top priority for the Denver City Council of the City and County of Denver, which is supporting funding for additional and expedited multimodal improvements that will increase bicycling in our city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council, the city and County of Denver, Section one, that the council designates the week June 25th through June 29th, 2017, as Bike Week, and June 27th as Bike to Work Day and encourages citizens to stay safe this summer no matter what your mode of travel and Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest, and a the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy here of before awarded to the manager of public works.
Speaker 0: All right thank you that Sussman your motion to adopt I.
Speaker 6: I moved to adopt proclamation 18 dash 0695.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second and comments by members of council council on assessment.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. This is always a very big pleasure of mine to be able to make a proclamation like this. The city is investing in our bikeways, and we need to make even more investments that we are. We encourage this constantly, thanks to the good citizens who voted for the Go Bond will be adding many more, many more bike miles to the city. And if you are not a biker, just realize that if we build more bikes, somebody is going to use it. And that's going to be one less car on the road. So please, I ask my fellow council men and women to join me in proclaiming this week to be bike week.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Excellent. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very excited about this. I regularly ride my bike to work, but it's great to have a day to celebrate it. And I think, Councilwoman Sussman, for bringing it forward. Everybody on the city side who does stuff. But I really want to give a shout out to our Dr. COG partners who put a lot of time and effort and resources into really I think we have I think you might have spoken to up the size of the biggest bike to work days in the country and it's really exciting to see. And so hopefully lots of people will get out there, try a bike. It is so much better than being stuck in your car honking at people. You get the fresh air, you can bike on our awesome tree lined streets and enjoy it and then hopefully stick with it. If everybody just found one day of the week that they could get on a bike and get out of their car. We are 20% reduction in traffic and congestion on our roads. It would make your other four days in the car just as spectacular as your one day on your bike. So I hope everybody will participate and and see if they're able to make this a regular part of their commute. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: It is such an incredible stat that no one heard it, but nine out of ten people hate traffic, and I hope they understood what you just said. Okay, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I thought it was 11 out of ten people who hate traffic, it seems sometimes. Thank you to Councilman Clark for mentioning Dr. Craig and their leadership on this. But I also want to add to that our thanks to the employers and nonprofits and the other organizations that provide services along the way, refreshment bike corrals and other other services for the folks who are taking part in it and hope it gets bigger and better each year, not only for participants, but for those who who provide the sponsorships and the and the refreshments along the way. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flint. Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Clark. Thank you for inspiring people to ride their bikes. So in District four, I started a movement called No Drive Fridays. So beginning in February, I have ridden my bike to work every day and we have a social media campaign and every community meeting. We're getting people to ride their bikes on Friday because it is the number one complaint I think of people in Denver is the traffic. And the argument is, as Councilwoman Sussman says, if you're riding your bike, that's one less car on the road. So super excited about that. In the fall, we have all the elementary schools lined up to do a competition on Fridays to see how many people will not drive, have their parents drive them to school. I'm really excited about that. And as always, I will be biking to work on Wednesday. It's ten miles from my office. Councilman Clark told me, if you get sweaty, just start pedaling. But I told them. But then my bike stops and it's supposed to be 99 degrees that day. So if any of you have meetings with me, I will be sweaty. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that warning. Okay. Councilman Clark is a little unfair because he has an electric bike thing that. Pedals for him. So I love this proclamation. Thank you for bringing it forward, Councilwoman Sussman. It's a it's a real issue. You know, just this week, we kicked off because of an incredible community leadership and city leadership. Brand Boulevard, for the first time has sidewalks and bike lanes. And I think it's indicative that we're going in a new direction in the city of Denver that no neighborhood is is okay if it does not have sidewalks and bike lanes . And so we want to make an investment in the rest of the city. And I think it's critical that we move in this direction and hopefully. Councilman Clark, as we've been talking about, there would be some plans to get us moving much faster in that direction to get bike lanes and sidewalks all over this city. The last thing I'll say is there have been a lot of issues with cars and bikes and a lot of people being frustrated by folks who who are riding bikes and you honking at them actually happened to me with my three kids on Saturday, someone frustrated and honking at us and we were actually in the bike lane . I don't know what they're honking and I couldn't believe it. But for those of you who are honking in a vehicle, a £6,000 vehicle. To someone riding a bike. I think you need to put yourself in that person's shoes or bike and think about. There's not a connected for. There's not a lot of connected facilities throughout this city. It's really hard to bike through the city. You should be honking and saying, Hey, thank you because it's one less car in the street and you are. Decongest in our streets. And so I think we need to be very respectful of people walking. And I think we need to be very respectful of people biking in the streets. So with that. Thank you for bringing this for Dr. Sussman, Secretary Rocha Sussman.
Speaker 3: Hi, Black Clark. All right. This from Rosa Flynn. I feel more Herndon. I can eat. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Was wondering these results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Did somebody vote? No, we had a. Oh, okay. Absent, sir. Okay. Sorry, guys. Okay. 12 hours it passes. And now. Madam. I mean, Dr. Sussman, is there anybody wanted to bring up?
Speaker 6: Yes. Someone from public works can come up to the podium. Tell us all about it.
Speaker 11: Hey, good evening, everyone. My name is Dan Raine. I'm staff at Public Works and I work on the Bikeway program. I don't think I can match the great dialog y'all had here tonight about cycling, but the mission is is managing our public right away for people throughput. Whether you're walking, you're cycling, taking transit or driving a car. And we really have to focus on that with 40 plus people moving here day. We don't have the time and money to ruin Denver by widening our public right of ways and and taking away these local amenities. And look, this is that we really appreciate. So we are very focused on creating.
Speaker 10: Grid networks.
Speaker 11: To allow folks to be able to get around by bicycle even easier than they do now. Using our trail, great trail systems, a trunk line. The voters have spoken and we have a lot of work to do. Go ahead. Oh, well, and, you know, this week is really just about encouraging folks to to give it a try. My commute 17 miles. And so I take the train mostly every day, but I'll even ride in on my shopping for an electric bike. But I'm not there yet, but it'll take me a little longer. But if anyone wants to be at Civic Center Park in 5 a.m. as we start setting up, we're really grateful for the partnership of Dr. COG, but we're really especially thankful for sponsors like delectable egg kind bars and so many other folks. Denver Library. Safe Routes to School or Vision Zero program. And everyone pulling together and supporting sustainable transportation.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much. And thank you, Councilwoman Tester.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating the week of June 25 through June 29 as “Bike Week” and Wednesday, June 27, as “Bike to Work Day” in Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06252018_18-0592
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn again has called out for a comment council bill 660 and so has Councilwoman Black. Updating election procedures to include creating a fiscal impact estimates pro and con information for citizens on municipal initiatives. All right. Under pending, we have nothing called out. So let's put the first item up. Madam Secretary. Thank you. 592 and come. Yes. I'm sorry. Did you say something? Okay. Castle Martel, will you please put a 592 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I move that council vote 18 059 to be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Flynn, would you like to make a comment?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. And with all due respect to Laura and the folks in the housing office and to Ishmael Guerrero, who I just noted in announcements, is doing a great favor in my district. I wanted to call this out because as well, when we talked about the five year housing plan, I also brought this up. I believe that this program, well structured as it is, and I believe that it would work in what it is attempting to do is the wrong approach to trying to to attempt to address the affordability of rental housing in the city. The principle is that we have empty units at a higher rate, not luxury apartments necessarily, but apartments that are for rent at a rate that they're going vacant. And so what we are doing is we're raising money from the city and maybe from some corporate sponsors to subsidize those higher rents. It won't necessarily be the rent that the landlord has opposed to that right now. It's what they call a reasonable market rate rather than fair market rate. But the principle is that we are perpetuating the problem of high rents in this city when we help to subsidize the occupancy of vacant apartments. When the market principle would be that the landlord ought to lower the asking rent until it gets filled. And I don't believe we will ever. Have affordable rents in this city as long as we continue to fill vacant apartments with subsidies. The corporate sponsors, the corporate partners that are recruited through this program, I'm not going to name them. I know who some of them might be. Instead of contributing to this program. Why don't they pay their workers more? Why are they contributing to a fund where we're going to subsidize higher end apartments for these low paid workers when these companies should be paying their workers a living wage? That's the answer to affordability ultimately in this city is that people earn a living wage. And so I wanted to call it out to vote no. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilman Flynn raises some valid questions and concerns. We know it takes a long time to bring these units online. And having been on the board of a nonprofit housing development organization that has gone through the low income tax credit process, sometimes three and four and five times, to secure part of your financing to ensure that you have the affordability in your development. This program actually makes units available that makes them available to lower income people today because they're available today. I share the concern about some of those that are at the higher end. I do know that they have identified units across the city. They're not all downtown, brand new top high end market units there. They're across the city. And I think just given the time that it does take to bring these units online, it's important that we have as many options for people who are struggling to live in this city today as possible. And this is just one of many programs that Denver will have. And as you all know, we now have $30 million to work with to that date. Will will bond upfront and be able to ensure that we have the resources to to fast forward those projects that are in line to get their tax credit funding. And we know that it just takes a lot more subsidies for these developments to reach lower income populations. And this is one of those one of many options available to people in our community. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega Well said.
Speaker 11: Councilman Espinal Yeah, I just wanted to explain my vote as well. I think I'm going to be sort of abstaining because there are some there's some administrative aspects of this that that are worthwhile creating that will actually help us, at least me in my imaginations, about what we can do better. On the housing affordable housing front that's actually benefited by this, this, this effort and not unlike the 30th and Blake and none of this what I'm saying right now makes any sense other than maybe to a few that I've actually spoken to on sort of my big picture ideas on how we can sort of more robustly help address this effort. And I promise you, I will be coming forward with something much clearer on that. This program, the Live Denver program, this money on this effort is creating the structures that that I want to tap. And and so for that reason, I can get behind it. But to to to my colleague, Councilman Flynn's point, this is not a sustainable approach. It is nice because it sort of addresses an immediate need. But I have long sort of railed since the linkage fee that our multifamily apartment building businesses are existing in a sweet spot. They are not taxed as businesses on property tax. They pay a 7% tax, not a 29% commercial tax rate. And yet they are very much businesses at the scales that we're talking about in the sort of types of businesses where we're we're we're sustaining by maintaining high rents in the market, by subsidizing vacant units elsewhere. So this is not programmatically the right way to address affordable housing. And so but it is unfortunately the best we're being given at this point. But I am still committed to working with this administration, with others in this industry, within the apartment industry and the contracting industry and the development industry, to actually help us take a different and more Denver unique approach. And and again, more on that very soon. I'm working on a video to sort of try and explain my ideas in a nutshell, something that you can take with you and understand that there is a tool out here. We just haven't created it or used it yet. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. It's no secret that I had some real concerns about this program since it was announced in a very political and media oriented fashion without the input of the impacted residents, it was intended to help. And so. It's, you know, tempting to say I don't want to reward poor process and poor decision making with support at the end, because I think, honestly, it is it is one of the worst examples of how policy has come about in my time in terms of making promises without data, not having equitable access to the information for this council or for members of the community until most of the details were finalized. So that's it's it is hard, but I'm not in the business of, you know, trying to to judge retrospectively. I have to judge the price, the product, the final product that's in front of me. And this program is a risk. It is a risk that it will reward, you know, market behavior of high pricing. It also has the potential to capture some folks who aren't captured with our current voucher programs. And so I will say to Councilman Flynn's concern that we do have a longstanding practice in housing of providing scattered site housing and market rate housing that's vacant and in downturns. It does help to bolster, you know, a market that, you know, might have, you know, apartments might have gone under. They you know, Section eight vouchers are are sometimes an important part of a business model for apartments in hot markets. They start turning residents away. So we have a history of of using, you know, payments that follow an individual rather than a subsidy to a building. And one of the benefits of that type of an approach is that it does mix incomes. So there is a lot to weigh on both sides here. I think where I come down and it's a tough call is that they the staff that has has has shepherded this program over the last few months has been very serious about taking input. And so a number of changes were made to this program, both ensuring that it would serve a distribution of incomes, not just folks at the highest level, making sure that people would have to have the same income verification requirements that we have very low income people do in the Section eight program, which is you have to verify your income every year. If you get $100,000 job, your subsidy shouldn't stay the same. So all of those types of changes that were made and I outlined some of them in the committee meeting, I think demonstrate an attempt to really be responsive here at the end to making this a more moderated program that mitigates some of those risks and creates more equity between this program and other programs. I'm still concerned I did check the contract and it still just has a resident of the subsidized units as a participant. It doesn't have a representative of renters interests. And I will say that not every resident has the same policy ability. And I think it's important to have both voices. It's important to have someone who's receiving the subsidy and knows how the process works, who can speak from the lived experience. It is also important to have someone who on a daily basis has policy and analytical experience with policy outcomes. One of the things we were concerned about in committee with this program is that it did not have a clear set of guidelines on which it would be evaluated. So for example, what happened to the market rate pricing in the unit, in the buildings where these units are located that should be tracked? Don't just tell me what happened to the resident, but tell me what were happening to the rents in the remainder of that building. Did they go up? How did they change? How did that differ from the rent we were paying? Did they go down? I mean, there's a lot of speculation about what's going to happen to market rents. And so if we lock in a two year contract and we do end up in a downturn, I want to know if the rents around that unit are going down. So there's a lot more work that needs to be done. I this contract doesn't obligate this board to come back to this Council for approval in the future. It is kind of a we give the money over and then this advisory board operates through the contracts that are put in place. I would encourage you to seek input beyond the contract requirements. I would encourage you to come back and take input on how the programs should be evaluated, since that was not yet concluded. We need to get that on paper and you need to have all the criteria by which we will be looking at success. I am one more thing. Just that sets me at ease in this in this careful balance is that this is a one time infusion as far as we've been told at the Housing Advisory Committee, where I represent this council, there are no funds allocated in 2019 into this program until they have a chance in 2019 and 2020 to see the results. So I think that's an important way to manage the risk of the city and potentially unintended consequences. I frankly, I'm voting for it because I hope it succeeds and I hope that it doesn't have the unintended market impacts, but I hope that it will house families who would otherwise be struggling. And that is why I think it's worth taking some of these other risks, because the need is so great. So I appreciate all of the work over the last few months, especially to to get a public input process. Back on track. And I hope that that input process remains more transparent and more inclusive of the impacted communities then than we had in the first in the first chapter of this program's development. So with that, I will be supporting it tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to thank Councilwoman Coinage for staying on top of this and really advocating for it to make sure that it had a lot of improvement. So thank you for your vigilance. Excuse me. I will be supporting this because it's going to help 125 families who don't have a place to live. And helping 125 families get into an apartment as soon as possible is not going to change the market of the apartments in the Denver metro area. That is not a game changer. There are tens of thousands of apartments, so 125 of them. Getting some help is not going to change the market. I'm also pleased that many of the apartments that step forward are in my district and they are no in no way luxury apartments. And they're going into some nice mixed neighborhoods with some nice schools. And we have transit and grocery stores and parks, and it will be a nice place to live for a lot of people. And I have a lot of confidence in Denver housing authority managing this program. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. I'll just make a couple comments. Number one, I think, Councilwoman Ortega, you said something that's really important and a lot of folks don't know. From conception to completion of an affordable project years 2013, Walton took eight years to get done. That's far too long for a crisis. We need units now. We need them right away. And it's one of the things, one of the reasons I'm so supportive of this. I appreciate Councilman Flynn's concerns and hurt them in committee. But I am supportive of this because I think we can help people now. Thank you for saying 125. Councilwoman, can each thank you for your your vigilance in this. And I would just ask that the program maybe come back to our housing committee, you know, to to report back on how the program's going so that we can keep keep keep up with it. All right. So no other comments. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: Flynn Now, Gilmore, I Herndon. I can reach lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman by black clerk by Espinosa. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please. I was wondering about the results.
Speaker 3: I'm just making sure to tonight's one nay, one abstention tonight.
Speaker 0: One way, one abstention, five, 95, 92 has been ordered published. Okay. We now have 66. So can you bring that up and have comments by members, by council? Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Black.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, to launch the new Lower Income Voucher Equity (LIVE Denver) program.
Approves an $1,180,000 intergovernmental agreement with the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) through 12-31-23 to launch the Lower Income Voucher Equity (LIVE Denver) program to create immediate affordable housing options for employed workers by connecting vacant rental units with income-qualified Denver residents. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-23-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06252018_18-0660
|
Speaker 0: One way, one abstention, five, 95, 92 has been ordered published. Okay. We now have 66. So can you bring that up and have comments by members, by council? Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Is this for a vote?
Speaker 0: No, it's just comments. Councilman Flynn, go ahead.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I called this out just for a brief comment. I wanted to thank the Denver clerk and recorder for bringing this forward. This is long overdue, and I'm very happy that she has advanced this. What we will do is start producing a blue book. Folks are familiar with the blue book that comes from the state that informs voters on the pros and cons and the issues involved in all of the measures. Right now, under TABOR, we only issued we have only been issuing information on TABOR related questions on the ballot. And I remember folks looking through that publication and saying, well, where's the information on on the green roofs or on the social consumption? Where do I get the, you know, the the back and forth on that? And I wanted to thank clerk and recorder Deborah Johnson for this really simple and overdue idea, and I intend to fully support it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. On this election eve, this is a great time to have the vote on this. I would also like to thank our director of elections, Amber McReynolds, who worked with the clerk and recorder. And I have been talking to them about this for a very long time. So I'm really, really excited because an informed electorate is a very important electorate and we've had a lot of ballot measures both locally and statewide that have really had an impact, good and bad, in our city, in our state. And so information is powerful. So the fiscal impact of every ballot measure and as Councilman Flynn said, a blue book sort of showing the pros and cons of every issue. So thank you for working on that. The fiscal impact we talked about, committee talked about at committee. Councilwoman Kane each brought up the point that the fiscal impact will just be looking at the fiscal impact on the state, on the city and county of Denver, not on our overall economy. But today we had our green roof initiative and council meeting, and the city is going to have to hire seven full time people to manage the implementation of our Green Roof program. And so had we known that last year, that would have been the first part of the fiscal impact statement that would have been on the ballot, which would have provided more information to voters. So. Thank you very much, Amber McReynolds and Clerk Deborah Johnson. All right. And everybody, if you haven't, vote again, please vote tomorrow. It's lasting.
Speaker 0: Yes. Amen to that. Okay. Comes from Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Words were taken right out of my mouth on the congratulations. I wanted to make sure that our elections division and McDonald's have been recognized for their hard work. Yes. And informed the electorate is the an electorate that actually makes things happen in the city.
Speaker 1: Well, I just.
Speaker 4: Don't want to repeat anything else, but just great work. It's long overdue. Long overdue.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. It looks like that is. We don't have any pending. Okay, great. Let's see all other bills for today. This concludes the items need to be called out. All of the bills for introductions are published. We're now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills and final consideration, except for Council Bill 560 for the Cooperation Agreement, which is a companion bill along with Council Bill 563 approving one on one Broadway, the Urban Redevelopment Plan. After the public hearing this evening, Council Bill 563 will vote on this with the companion bill. All right, council members, remember, this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call in and offer a separate vote. Councilman Flynn. Will you please put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills for final consideration of final passage on the floor?
Speaker 9: Me?
Speaker 0: Councilman Ortega, I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: Okay? We look so much alike.
Speaker 5: I would be happy to allow him.
Speaker 0: His head was a friend of yours, so I saw him. Sorry.
Speaker 5: Okay. Here we go.
Speaker 0: I talked to her about start singing Ebony as president.
Speaker 5: I move that the following resolutions and bills on final consideration be moved forward. Council Bill 1865 zero. 1865 618 five 4518 546. 18 5:47 a.m. I doing this right? These are all the resolutions. 18 548. 18, 549. 18. 558. Five 5118. Five 5218. 616. 18. 627. 18. 647. 18. 655. 18 six 4818 six 5318 six, 54 and 18 657. Those are on to be ordered published and the bills on final. We'll get to those. Are. You see? Do we have 654 five suits? 64?
Speaker 3: No, no, no.
Speaker 5: Okay. 18 564. No, that is the one we have the public hearing. Yeah, we got. Okay. So 18 five, 83, 18, 60, 60. 18 589. All to be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. I mean, I'm secretary for the second work.
Speaker 3: All black. Clark Espinosa. Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Herndon. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I know this was a very intense results. 1212 hours resolution to have been adopted in the best place for finding consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be require a public hearing council of 63 approving one on one Broadway urban redevelopment plan.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Article 1 of Chapter 15 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to update municipal petition procedures, including the creation of a fiscal impact estimate and ballot information booklet for municipal citizen initiated and referred measures, providing more specific deadlines, conforming circulator requirements to recent court decisions, and lowering the age for an individual to circulate a petition.
Updates election procedures to include creating a fiscal impact estimate and pro and con information for citizens on municipal initiatives and referenda, modeled on the state “blue book”, to clarify deadlines, to make other changes in response to court decisions and to engage younger individuals in the petition process. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-12-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06252018_18-0563
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct your comments. Members of Council please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to Members of Council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Council woman are taken. Will you please put 563 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I move. Is that 563 okay, I move that council bill 563 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for 563 is open. May we have the staff report? Tracey, I can.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon, Mr. Good. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I am the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, who is here this evening requesting City Council approval of Council Bill 563 to approve the 1 to 1 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan establishing the 1 to 1 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area and the 1 to 1 Broadway sales and property tax increment areas. Here we go. The proposed 21 Broadway urban redevelopment area is comprised of three parcels separated by an alley of approximately 31,500 square feet and is situated at the northwest corner of First Avenue and Broadway in central Denver. The site includes the historic First Avenue Hotel, which is designated an historic landmark by the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission and is now eligible to be included on the National Register of Historic Places. The site is located in Council District seven. The First Avenue Hotel was designed by Charles Quayle and built by the Fleming brothers in 1906 as a 150 single room occupancy hotel. At the time, it was the largest building in the town of South Denver and the central hub for commerce on South Broadway. In 1909, the Fleming Brothers formed the Fleming Brothers Bank, whose headquarters were located at the First Avenue Hotel, along with the headquarters for their construction company. In 1978, the upper floors of the building were condemned for residential occupancy due to due to the lack of electricity and water connections. The ground floor of the building was restored in the 1980s and functioned in 2004. The building became vacant and fell into disrepair. The building was purchased in 2008 by a local restauranteur who opened a highly popular restaurant. You may remember this building as the former home of the El Diablo restaurant. The upper floors, however, remain vacant due to building safety issues. The city foreclosed on the building in 2013, and the owner filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The property was purchased by a new entity at an auction in December of 2015, and that entity plans on redeveloping the site. A fundamental consideration in approval of an urban redevelopment plan is the finding that the area is blighted as required by the urban Colorado Urban Renewal Law, to provide evidence supporting counsel's determination that the proposed urban redevelopment area is blighted due to commissioned matrix design group to conduct a condition study. That study, dated May 2018, will be filed with the count with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. In summary, the Blight study found the following five factors that constitute blighting conditions slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures unsanitary or unsafe conditions. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes. Buildings that are unsafe are unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction or faulty or inadequate facilities, and the existence of health, safety, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical, underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements. These blight factors, individually and collectively impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality and constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the area. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the 101 Broadway urban redevelopment area. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to eliminate blight, renew and improve the character of the area, encourage residential, retail and commercial development. Encourage and protect existing development more effectively. Use underutilized land. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome. Encourage participation of existing property owners in the redevelopment of their property. Encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate. Encourage the re-use of existing buildings, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Provide a diverse mix of dense housing options, and improve and provide employment centers near transit. In bringing this urban redevelopment plan forward, DURING has sought to align the goals and objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan with the existing city plans for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Baker Neighborhood Plan. In reviewing the Urban Redevelopment Plan, the Denver Planning Board found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to Plan 2000 and its approved supplements by furthering several citywide objectives, particularly those focused on historic preservation, adaptive reuse, quality infill development, and the provision of affordable housing. The one on one Broadway Urban Redevelopment Project includes the restoration of the four story historic landmark building. Combined with the construction of a new five story addition, together they will deliver approximately 106 affordable workforce housing units. The units will be studios and one bedrooms at a rent attainable for persons earning not more than 60% of the area median income. In addition to the housing units, the project will deliver approximately 10,000 square feet of ground floor, retail and restaurant space. The project will also include the construction of approximately 20 surface parking spaces. The Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizes TURA to finance projects within the urban redevelopment area by use of tax increment financing. The sales and property tax increment area will be coterminous with the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area. During staff has reviewed the development, budget and performance submitted by the developer and believes there is a financial gap of approximately two and a half million dollars. This financing gap will be addressed by reimbursing eligible costs through sales and property tax increment generated by the redevelopment of the area. Following redevelopment. The area is anticipated to generate approximately $25,000 per year in net property tax increment that would be generated only by the commercial portion of the property and approximately $290,000 per year in net sales tax increment. These incremental revenues will be used to reimburse the developer for eligible expenses over a period not to exceed 25 years. As property tax increment is being contemplated under the plan, state law requires the Urban Renewal Authority to negotiate agreements with the other taxing entities. Dora has negotiated these agreements with the other two property taxing entities. First is Denver Public Schools. During has presented the development plan to DPS in order for them to determine what, if any, impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. The analysis conducted by DPS concluded there would be no material impact and have agreed to allow all available property tax increment generated through the DPS mill levy to be retained by Doura for use in supporting the project. In addition, the other taxing entity is the urban drainage and Flood Control District and has also presented the development plan to urban drainage and flood control in order for them to determine what, if any, impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. Similar to Denver Public to the Denver Public Schools evaluation, urban drainage has concluded there would be no material impact and have agreed to allow all available property tax increment generated through the urban drainage and flood control district mill levy to be retained by Daera for use in supporting the project. In considering the approval of the 1 to 1 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan, City Council must make the following legislative findings, as required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. A that the urban redevelopment area described in the plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And the conditions of blight constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. This is a legislative finding by the City Council. Based upon the blight study and other evidence presented to City Council. That the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the act. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns in accordance with the Act. The project area contains no residents, therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. Additionally, due to the vacancy of the project site, no business concerns will be displaced by the project. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns within the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area. In the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the one and one Broadway urban redevelopment area on May 24th, 2018, at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. And tonight is the first public hearing before council on this urban redevelopment plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. This is the first consideration by City Council of an Urban Renewal or an urban redevelopment plan for this area. And as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On May 2nd, 2018, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and it's applicable supplements. A letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. The one on one Broadway urban redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The project area is owned by Digital Cowboy LLC, who intends to undertake the redevelopment project. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan and have negotiated agreements governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. The city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the 121 Broadway urban redevelopment area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the Urban Redevelopment Plan. In closing, Dura is very pleased to work with the city to bring forward this urban redevelopment plan for this important site. The one one Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Baker Neighborhood Plan, which specifically recommends the historic First Avenue Hotel as a building along the South Broadway corridor that should be preserved and reused. And tonight, we ask for your favorable consideration on the ordinance approving this urban redevelopment plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Excellent. As always, we have three speakers this evening David Zucker, Jesse Paris and Chairman Sekou to come to the front. Mr. Zucker, you're up first. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Mr. President, members of City Council. I'm the applicant, and I'm only here if there are questions that I may be able to answer.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right, just. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 8: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Perez.
Speaker 4: Somewhat black star action movement for Self Defense in Denver. Homeless Sellout. We are actually in favor of this. I just have a few questions. I want to know how many affordable units? What is the ammo percentage and how many people will be housed?
Speaker 10: And then just in case, where would where will the relocation be if there is displacement?
Speaker 4: And what is the timeline for this development? You.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Chairman Sekou, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 7: My name's Sherman, second lecturer, Action Movement for Self-defense, resident of the city of Denver for 67 years. One raised five points and we are honored to represent poor, working, poor senior citizens, youths and students. I'm neither for or against this thing, but have some questions about the historical context in which we're working on that has set this up as a historical designation. And what does that really represent in terms of history? One, the continuation of that history of 1901 to today. To see if there's been any fundamental changes in ideological and cold conducts of the character, of the people, of the resident, which are what this is all about. It's just like building we build new to. It was about the people who lived there. And who's going to enjoy the advantage of this as we go about reconstructing bustling city resources and giving developers pretty much free pass? Because it is obviously slanted for commercial development and benefit of developers and the rich. And the demographics of the demographics of the area has changed. Was not that exclusive of the neighborhood no more, you know, where it's not no longer a white only neighborhood which refused to allow black people to come into that hotel? I know that's a hidden thing nobody want to talk about. But then we look at the spirit of what has been happening. If the spirit has transformed the people and it's been an update because I refuse to support a white only white supremacy development. That's okay. But. Fitz. And I don't have a lot of facts. Present company included. Not included. But the history of this whole thing that. This represented here and given us the report. We know they have a history of lying and cannon and bullshit. We're not telling the truth. No.
Speaker 0: No, no, no cussing in the in the hearing.
Speaker 7: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got to stop from looking at the movie on my own. And they talk about Robert Redford. But anyway. Five 63.2 and excuse me for the interruption, but speaking truth to power in regards to semantics, that's what it is. So here we go. Question mark. Somebody could help him with this. Tell me, what is the median income of the area? How much money do people actually make? In order to afford this day and those that put it within the context of. Poor people. And do they fit into that? And as far as 60% of that, am I depending on how that is? Poor people can't get that kind of money. To be affordable in that. So now we've got class and interest needs to be considered because what are we really doing? Is this another scheme to build stuff to enhance middle class and upper middle class and forget the poor? And it is for the poor. How are they going to afford it? At 60%? Am I? I mean, talk to me, but perhaps someone could answer that question so I can lay that story to rest. So that it doesn't become. I unintended consequence because we refuse to look at it thoroughly. So let's see. I got 2 minutes. Oh, this is it. Here we go. Now, what's so important to this thing is how much money we're going to collect on this increment tax thing. We'll do it well. And basically, we're talking about $350,000 per year for 25 years. That's come to a total of approximately $7.8 million over 25 years. So you'd like more money in today's terms. But when we know the value of terms in the United States and the currency is continuing to fall, but now is worth a dollar , is worth $0.13 in real dollars was going to look at for five years. And what is that money going to do when we put a current value on the money that it ain't worth nothing? So then what? Do we do it now? So what we do with it now, we're going to get shown up cheaper dollars over a 25 year period. The dollar ain't never been worth a dollar in one sense. And now a form of dollars to $0.30 for real. Do you see what's happening here? So don't buy into the numbers. Look at the economic forecast and how that's working before you decide to sign off on this, because again, that becomes a question of being without being profane bull crap. How about that? So if we go. Left leg is in a lucky lapse of capitalist interests. Developers has to be checked, and the question becomes for poor people, when are you going to represent our interests primarily as opposed to class interests? And your voters. Who vote for you because you represent their class interests. And with no real clue. No class. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your time. All right. This this concludes our comments from the speakers, questions by members of council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. The first question for David Zucker, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. So can you clarify, is 106 the total number of units that are being constructed? That's two.
Speaker 11: Structures. That's correct.
Speaker 5: Okay. And so they will all be affordable. Yes. So by by receiving tax increment financing, do you also have to go through the chapel process to get low income tax credits?
Speaker 11: Well, the two aren't connected, but we are. So we've been awarded a an allocation of 4% credits in October.
Speaker 5: Okay. So you're doing studios in one bedrooms. What is the size of the one bedrooms?
Speaker 11: The one bedrooms are about 450 square feet. Okay.
Speaker 5: And will all of them have kitchens?
Speaker 11: Yes. Okay. Full kitchens.
Speaker 5: Okay. That's good to know. I have a question about the alley that runs between these two structures. Is that being vacated? No. So you're going to keep. That alley as an access to your parking.
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. So so you're doing this as two separate buildings. Will they be connected over the the alley?
Speaker 11: The two buildings are connected on the same property. So there is a parking parcel that that Tracy Huggins mentioned with 28 parking spaces on the east side of that, the original First Avenue Hotel that had 151 units. Those there was an adjacent, approximately 6000 square foot parcel on that parcel will be building additional units. So the two buildings, new and historic, will be touching.
Speaker 5: They will be touching. Will they be connected?
Speaker 11: They will be connected.
Speaker 5: They will be connected. They will be touching. But the alley won't be vacated so they'll they'll be touching over the alley.
Speaker 11: No, they're touching adjacent to each other and east of the alley. So if you can imagine a typical Denver city block, that's that's 125 feet deep. The existing building takes up, let's just say 62 and a half feet of that. That east west block leaving, allowing room for a new building to be adjacent and connected to the old building. All of which is to the east of the alley.
Speaker 5: Okay. So as I'm looking at the. I think it's the third. I'm looking at Slide 11. It shows the big red line that has the entire property. And so I'm I'm having a hard time envisioning how you do the two buildings and have them touch and not not impact the access.
Speaker 11: Councilman Ortega on the of the can't see the screen is it possible to switch back to the to the.
Speaker 0: Yes, she can. She can.
Speaker 11: I think an easy way to ask that question is what are you doing with the the other parcel that is in the boundary but across the alley. So the. So if. Thank you. In the in the picture behind me. Right.
Speaker 5: The I'm looking at.
Speaker 11: The four story building is the historic building. To the to the as you're looking at it to the left of that is a new five story building that will be constructed on the photograph above. You'll see that what it currently occupies, what will be the adjacent building, was a non contributing, non historic building of two stories. That building has been demolished, allowing for the the new construction building to be built to the left or to the west of the alley is the the parking where 28 spaces of of public parking will occur.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I want to ask a cool about parking, so thank you for clarifying that. So 20 spaces total. 120 units. 820.
Speaker 11: 106 units.
Speaker 5: 306 units. 20 parking spaces. So how do you. Number one, get the financing if they're not all parked. And how do you know that you're going to attract folks that don't need cars?
Speaker 11: Well, this is as one of the most transit rich locations really a first and Broadway. The belly button of of of Denver. So there is better than 15 minute headway time during rush hour as it's 5 minutes between both Broadway and Lincoln. There's great bike infrastructure already in place just to the south of this. There's dedicated bike lanes on on Broadway, on the east side, and then a a ten minute walk. And I've made the walk a bunch of times myself to get to the to the Alameda train station, a light rail station. So this this is a population where if they're making $35,000 or so, not having to own a car, it really is significant significant to their their ability to have discretionary income. So as we see it and we have we operate other properties in downtown, not none of them today is 100% affordable as this is. But we know that as the price declines, so as we get smaller, one bedrooms and studio units, the propensity to own a car is less and less.
Speaker 5: So I'm raising these questions because some of us had an opportunity when we went to Seattle with the Downtown Denver Partnership to tour some of the micro units there.
Speaker 11: I was with you.
Speaker 5: The difference was they didn't have kitchens. They all had a shared kitchen. But what we learned from talking to residents was many of them came with their calves and they were challenged to figure out where to park their cars. And and I know that it's a chicken and an egg situation about, you know, if we build them with less units, will they not come with cars? Do your lenders finance even though you know you can't park all your units? I mean, there are some of those challenges. And I know for example, in Council President Brooks's district where along the Brighton Boulevard corner where we've seen a lot of new development that has gone in there and it's close to a TOD Station. You see cars parked all up and down Arkin's court on both sides of the road. And when that road gets vacated, I don't know where those people are going to park their cars. So, you know, on one hand, we need to have enough parking spaces for people coming into these units because it exacerbates the parking challenges in the neighborhood and it contributes obviously to the congestion as as we keep building, you know, more and more dense projects in in the city. So my question was just about how how you. Secure the financing. Does that does the lender require you to park more.
Speaker 11: Of the unit? That was a well-crafted question and good background. Let me, if I may, just to give fullness to the answer. As you may have picked up in the Seattle examples, and I toured one of those two of those with you. Both of them were more than 50% master leased to Amazon employees. The Amazon employees earn, as I found out, about $125,000. Those are people that have cars. There's also an inverse relationship, obviously, between those and you probably know this between those of higher incomes and their propensity to use mass transportation. There's a direct relationship between those of lesser incomes and the propensity to use transportation. So we're correlated in the right way if we're going to have fewer parking spaces. And then there's simply the virtue. What virtue do we want and do we want the virtue of affordable housing? And I'll answer your question directly by just these rhetorical questions as well. So what's the greater virtue? Is the greater virtue being able to deliver these affordable units, or is it to deliver more parking? Building a structure would have been truly prohibitively expensive, with parking spaces costing perhaps 50 or $60,000. And we analyzed that at length. So to us, the virtue wasn't building 60 apartments and 60 parking spaces. It was to build more affordable units and fewer parking spaces. Answer your question directly. Typically with with a lender, as long as we are delivering at the zoning minimum and the zoning minimum because of the historic structure and call it being grandfathered in for the existing residential, the requirement was only 12 parking spaces, so were almost twice as much.
Speaker 5: Okay. And David, just one last question. Can you tell us what the price point of the with the anticipated price point would be for the studios and then for also the one bedroom.
Speaker 11: Studios will be in the range of $945 and a one bedroom will be about 1025. So eligible to those that are earning in the range of 35 to $42000 annually.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 11: And I apologize because you're going to repeat the answers, but they're just brief. What was the target? Amazon target am i is 60% below. So and what did you say was going to the future of that? The adjacent the parcels to the east of I mean, to the west of the the alley. Again, the parcel is parking surface parking, including the old Buffalo Wild Wings place. So again, the the, the house with the wraparound commercial space that the prior owner had demolished that. Okay. I didn't realize until that picture that it was one of those Franken house things. Is the project contingent on other subsidies in order to achieve this affordability? It is. The Office of Economic Development has been great to work with and is delivering a loan that's committed at this point of four two and a half million dollars. So the combination of the tiff and that loan is sufficient to hit this, achieve the support in addition to the 4% tax credit, the historic state, the historic federal tax credit, as well as a state historic tax credit. So this is I think that there as well as a an owner carryback note in the about amount of about four and a half million dollars. So it's this is a layered financing. Yeah. And I'm not the infill that you're proposing is sort of consistent with how our downtown used to be where it and it had a even when we even well when cars were around so I'm not terribly concerned about that scale and the influx of cars because you're right, it.
Speaker 0: Is an area that.
Speaker 11: Is eminently walkable, bikeable transit options in abundance here. And there's grocery there, drugstore, drugstore across the street. There's entertainment all over that place. There's groceries about five blocks to the south. You know, it is a, you know, qualify easily for your subsidies and it will serve the population that you're you're targeting. So, yeah, I just. Thanks for the answers, though. Sure. As a as if if I may. And give one piece of information which which Councilman Ortega and Councilman Espinosa is a manifestation of the amount of demand where we we calculated that south of Colfax, north of I-25. Four blocks on either side. We projected perhaps 5000 individuals that could income qualify that currently work but but commute into the community now. So in addition the manifestation of the demand is that after only two weeks of a banner on the side of the building, we have 51. 52 I won't say income qualified, but income tested qualified residents on a waitlist. So there's a lot of demand. And it's gratifying to know that despite the fact that we're more than a year away, that residents are there. Ready. Yeah, I appreciate that that that additional information because that is I appreciate that this somehow being your business model because and I appreciate Tracy going through this process because as you know, if you took down the land in 2013. Correct, 15, 2015, there is a mention in this about 2013, the the the property value. This would be eminently developable. Would it be. It would is it's my opinion that this would be is in is is correct. It would be eminently developable as a market rate project. Correct? Yeah. Thanks for asking. That I think was actually December of 2016, the Zocalo and fortunately the the the family trust that that's acquired this with us. We could have been under construction and leased a long time ago had we not chose to do and had this investor and partner not made the the decision to have greater community impact and first bank our lender as well. This is not an easy project for any of us that are that are involved in this. Had it been a market rate project, we would have been doing a lot better financially and probably would have been under well under construction at this point. So the Zocalo finds that these if we can have affordability and deliver affordability in in our projects in River North were well we're one of the first projects that we'll voluntarily submit to affordability to get a an increase of height and we hope and Solon Lake to do a project that's 50% affordable 50% market rate so as we can we we do and for this community impact for these buildings that will be in the community for 100 years, it is important for us to continue that spirit of community impact. So it's been boarded since 2013 and that's really too long for such a prime corner. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, I don't know if you heard about that increase of height over there, but. Okay, Councilman, new statement.
Speaker 8: I just want to thank you for your leadership and dedication in housing here in Denver, especially the affordable housing. You've been a real inspiration to all of us and a model for other developers for affordable housing. So I really appreciate and I know this project will be great.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 5: Councilman, taking one last very quick question, David. Will you be able to take Section eight for anybody that might have a portable voucher?
Speaker 11: We'll be talking to the Denver Housing Authority. So I don't we haven't had a specific discussion about it, but that discussion, I'm sure, will be had. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Great. Okay. This concludes our questions and closes the public hearing. Four 563 Now comments by members of Council Council President Pro Tem.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a beautiful historic structure, a landmark in the community that has sat empty and has been falling apart. And here we have an opportunity to save the structure, to house people when we have a crisis for housing and housed them where they work. We talked earlier today with the Bike to Work and Bike Week this week about ways that we can ease congestion. And there is no easier way to do that than to provide opportunities for people to live where they work, especially on a corridor like Broadway. That is a major corridor for people who do not live anywhere close to where they work. This site is by rail. It's on the highest level of service, bus service that Denver has. The other day, when I flew back from the airport late, late at night, the trains had stopped running when I got to Union Station. But the zero line on Broadway had not. And that was how I got home. So this is our highest level of service bus. There is going to there is a protected bike lane on part of that, but funded by the voters in the bond, that protected bike lane will be a critical part of our infrastructure connecting to the Cherry Creek superhighway. For bikes, it is right by a grocery store and right by every amenity that you could possibly want to live by. And we need places for all of the people who work on this corridor to live and for all the people living in downtown or working in downtown to live. And this is it, 106 units, 60% am I workforce housing? And, you know, I think one of the other things to point out about the cars is this is the the the example that we talk about when we talk about two possible strategies is you have all of the transportation networks there. You have a parking plan in place. There is not a pool part of what sinks some of these projects, what we're experiencing near something like the country club towers that are adding hundreds of new people and have tons of parking. Nobody's using it because there's a sea of free parking there. There isn't. Here we have a parking plan in place that is permitted or metered. And so there's a perfect. Perfect example of all of the things that we talk about coming all together. And on top of that, it's within walking distance of our rainbow crosswalk, one of the most inclusive community now in Denver with that on the street. So I'm very excited about this. I want to thank you, Tracy, for all the work putting this together, your very thorough presentation and going through why this clearly qualifies for the program . And David, for for you and all your work in putting something like this together here, I think is a perfect example. I wish we could do this 20 more times tonight. I'd sit here till 4:00 in the morning if we can do that. So I'm very excited about it. Thank you for all the work and everything that's taken to put a project like this together, all the different pieces to make it really work. I would encourage all my colleagues to please vote yes on this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. The other confluence and our city of transportation and the river is such a beautiful place. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: I just want to make a few brief comments. First, I want to thank Tracy and David for your efforts. We know that to do affordable housing, it takes multiple layers of financing. And thank you for walking through that with us so that we could understand the layers that this project entails. This is part of my old council district, District nine, in the Baker neighborhood, and I'm very familiar with the property. And yes, it has been a challenge property for a long time. And so I'm excited to see this particular use of it moving forward and it will absolutely meet a need in this city and for folks in the neighborhood, as you indicated. So I will be supporting this tonight and just thanks for your efforts. And I know you've done your homework with the Baker neighborhood as well, which is a very active community. So the fact that they're not here says a lot about the work you've done with them. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Hey, we're approving a tax increment area, and I think this needs to be said. States and cities are doing away with tax increment financing all over this country. And I think we're still using viable ways for social good and social impact to use TIFF. And I think that's incredibly important and so I'm really excited to see this come to fruition. I think the developer, Dave, would tell you without tax increment financing wouldn't have been possible. And so I'm glad we could use this tool effectively for our residents in the city of Denver. Seeing no other speakers. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. I black. Mr. President, I. Clark. Sorry. No, wait. Let me start with you.
Speaker 1: These guys go to prison.
Speaker 0: All right. There we go. We got 11. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes counts for five. Six three has passed council on Ortega. Will you please? Oh, I'm sorry. Congratulations. Councilman Ortega, will you please. But don't we have to do four, five, 64? Yes. Yeah. Will you please put.
Speaker 5: I thought we called it out.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area and the 101 Broadway Property Tax Increment Area and Sales Tax Increment Area.
Approves the 101 Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and tax increment areas to support the redevelopment of an underutilized and blighted site situated at the northwest corner of 1st Avenue and Broadway in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0626
|
Speaker 0: 626, 26, 26.
Speaker 6: This was when I moved that council resolution 18 Dash 626 be approved.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved on. On my. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And it's been moved in second it. All right. It is now on the floor. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, I sit on the board of a nonprofit housing development group that provides services to people with AIDS, and oftentimes they are a beneficiary of these resources. I don't know specifically where these dollars are going, but just in the event that any of them do end up with Del Monte, I just want to abstain from this vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. It's been moved the second time Secretary Raquel Ortega abstained.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Clark Espinosa I. Flynn I. Gilmore I. Herndon High Cashman. Can each i. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I political, of course, voting against results.
Speaker 2: I see what is missing in 1/2.
Speaker 0: Now, can you write.
Speaker 2: A Lebanese one abstention.
Speaker 0: A Lebanese one abstention, 66 has been adopted. All right. It looks like we have no other bills. Call it out. This concludes the items need to be. Call it out. All of the bills for introduction are published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions of bills for final consideration except for Council Bill 443, the Special Revenue Fund establishment, and for 46 the development agreement, which are the companion bills to council bill for 12 the rezoning of property for 005 North Fox Street. After a public hearing this evening, council will for 12 will vote on these two companion bills, as we have done in the past. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote. Otherwise this your last chance to call an item for approval. Councilman Flynn, will you please put it the resolutions for adoption of bills of final consideration on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass. And a block for the following items. All series of 2018 to 47. 423 six. 12 631 632. 633 622 624 637. 456. 457. 458. 459. Four 6461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 460 74684. 69 four. 7476. 541 542. 543. 544. 579. 625, 54 556 588 618 634 630 66084 8566 567 383, five, 28 and 531.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Tie Clark Espinosa High Flynn, I Gilmore, I Herndon, I Cashman Canet I Lopez. I knew Ortega. I miss President.
Speaker 0: I flew was voting in US results.
Speaker 2: 1212.
Speaker 0: Hours. Resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing and council vote. 365 Changes on classification of 3880 Holly Street and North Park Hill and require public hearing accountable for 12 changes on classification of 4400 North Foxx Street in Globeville and require a
|
Resolution
|
A resolution for approving and providing for the execution of a proposed amended grant agreement between the City and County of Denver and the United States of America concerning the "Ryan White Part A FY18" program and the funding therefor.
Accepts $4,043,051 in HIV Emergency Relief Project grant funds for a new total of $7,616,463 to support health care and support services to people living with HIV (ENVHL-201840349-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-9-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0365
|
Speaker 0: Now speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments the council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, would you please put. Thank you. Will you please put Council Bill 365 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18, dash 365 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: Well, okay. It has been moved and seconded probably here. Four, three, six, five is open. May we have the staff report? Scott runs.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 3880 Holly Street from I Annex three to I. A property is located in Council District eight in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood. It is at the southeast corner of 39th Avenue and Holly Street. The property is about two and a half acres, so there's a 40,000 square foot building used for marijuana cultivation and extraction. The request is to rezone from I am x three, which is industrial context to mixed use zoning with a three storey maximum height to I.A. , which is still industrial context in the area is the light industrial zoning. The request is to bring the existing uses into conformance. The existing marijuana cultivation use is considered plant husbandry, which is not allowed under the existing. I am extreme that that use is considered non-conforming and the proposed rezoning would bring that into conformance. The property is surrounded on three sides by the same ix3 zoning and to the north by the EIA. The requested zoning to the south across 38th Avenue is a mix of single unit and two unit residential zoning. You can see the surrounding uses mostly industrial in the area. Across Holly Street is the District two police station and then again, south of 38th is a mix of residential uses. You can see the subject property there in the center and then some of the surrounding buildings around it. This went to the planning board on April 4th, where planning board voted five three to recommend approval. There was no public comment at that meeting, went to the Liddy Committee on May 8th. I did notice in the packet you have a letter of support from the Northeast Parochial Coalition and letters of support from seven surrounding property owners . In order to approve a rezoning, council must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. First plan is comprehensive plan 2000. As described in the staff report, staff has found the proposed rezoning consistent with these three strategies from campaign 2000 relating to infill development and relating to economic activity in the northeast quadrant of the city. Maintaining and strengthening that as a business area, which the proposed rezoning would be consistent with. Movement. Denver is the second plan from 22. The concept land used for this property is industrial, which calls for light and heavy industrial and manufacturing consistent with the proposed zoning. It's also an area of stability which calls for maintaining the character. But rezonings may be appropriate to better match existing uses such as this proposal. Holly Street is an industrial collector and 39th Avenue is a non-designated local, both consistent with the proposed zoning. The third plan is the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan from 2000. The Park Sale Plan calls for keeping a separation between the industrial uses north of 38 and the residential uses south of it. But basically maintaining each of them where they are consistent with the proposed zoning clause for retaining existing businesses that do not propose a nuisance to the residential area and creating a buffer between the industrial area and the residential area. The proposed AIA Zone District is intended to act as a buffer. The definition of area says it is compatible with adjacent residential and this rezoning would not put a directly adjacent to residential. There would still be some Annex three between the residential south of 38th and this property. And it would help act as a a transition from the residential to the Annex three to eye to eye, be the heavy industrial further north north of the railroad tracks. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the adopted plans and the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the zoned district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the continued existence of a building or a business in an existing building. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is justified by change conditions. When this property was rezone to I Annex three in 2010 as part of the citywide rezoning and adoption of the new zoning code. Recreational marijuana was not allowed in the state. That was approved later. And as the city's regulatory regime for recreational and retail marijuana has evolved, it ended up this property being non-conforming. As the council amended the the municipal code to limit the number and location of places for marijuana cultivation. It has increased the demand for places like this that are approved and that has increased the need for the zoning in this location because this is an approved location that's likely to stay that way and the zoning is therefore appropriate and justified by the change conditions. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context. So in district purpose and intent, as I mentioned, the is intended to serve as a buffer, a transition from residential to higher intensity industrial uses, which this location would do and the proposed use would. The proposed zoning would allow uses in development consistent with the industrial context and the purpose of the intent of the design district. That staff finds all five criteria and recommends approval. I'll idea. Answering questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We have three speakers this evening who each have 6 minutes. Please come to the front as I call you up. Daniel Markovsky. There you go. Oh, yeah. Daniel. Kevin Daley and Chairman Sekou. Mr. Markovsky, you are first.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Daniel Markovsky. I am the attorney for the applicant. I have just a brief statement of the reason for this application and the outreach efforts. I'm joined here by the applicant's managing member, Kevin Daly, who's going to speak next. And Jeff White is seated over there, and Jennifer Kelly, the compliance officer and director of operations. And we are all available for any questions council members may have. So the reason we're here is that in January 2010, you have to get at least an empty warehouse. The property at the southeast corner of 39th and Holly across from Denver police district headquarters to the property was zoned zero and plant husbandry was a used by. Right. The applicant obtained a plant husbandry use permit in February of 2010. Then in June of 2010, with the citywide rezoning, the property's zoning was changed to IMX three, which doesn't allow plant husbandry. The use continued as legal non-conforming and the non-conforming status has been maintained with great expense and effort. The non-conforming status creates an increased administrative burden on the applicant and on the city. The non-conforming status gets flagged every time the applicant goes to the city for any sort of interaction, whether it's building permits, inspections or licensing. In March 2016, the Doug Moreland Family Group purchased the property and requested that the applicant pursue this rezoning. So the goal of this reason is to remove administrative burdens and create certainty. We've conducted a substantial amount of outreach in the summer of 2017. The applicant commenced informal outreach to eight neighbors and six registered neighborhood organizations. I made a formal presentation to the Northeast Park Health Coalition and their letter of support. A letter of support is in the staff report. We attended a Greater Park Hill community meeting. They requested that we post a notice to their official Facebook page, which we did. The post received two likes and no other comments. We reached out to I.N.S., the Opportunity Corridor Coalition of United Residents and the Denver Arts and Culture Initiative. And we did not get a response to emails and voicemails that we sent. The final R.A. is the Denver Neighborhood Association, and that one is no longer active. So we also researched the nine neighbors within 200 feet, one of them being Denver Police District two. We contacted the other eight by phone, email and even walk up visit. We've received five letters of support, two letters of no opposition, and one of the neighbors never responded. And those letters are in the application packet. In support we have Marshall Rodino, Associated Metro Taxi, Denver Rescue, Mission Live, Green, Cannabis and PECO Images not opposed as a company called Architectural Doors and Solsbury Hill Land Company. And we'd never heard back from the Church of Pentecost Denver District. So we respectfully request the Denver City Council approve this application. And I will be available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Kevin Taylor.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Kevin Daley. I live here in Denver at 2414 Glenarm place. I am the founder and one of the managing partners of Mindful here in Denver. When we went before the Board of Adjustment, one of the board members asked a question to the city which said it all to me. He asked, Were these guys done correctly when we rezoning them in 2010? And the person from the zoning department answered Yes. The goal of this rezoning is to remove administrative burdens and create certainty. The operations at the property are going to continue unchanged. We have invested approximately $8 million into this facility thus far. We were in front of the Board of Adjustment because the building department thought our use permit would only let us use a small part of the space. We have a 43,000 square foot building, though that variance was granted. Going to the Board of Adjustment is a great burden on our ability to do business, attract investment and make long term plans. Nonconforming use is a great burden on us. Through careful compliance efforts, hard work by our architect, engineers, lawyers and compliance staff, we manage our nonconforming status. It is always an issue. It was an issue when Doug Moreland purchased the property and we had to agree to apply for rezoning. We respectfully request that the Denver City Council approve this application. I am happy to answer any questions anyone may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mr. Daly. German psycho.
Speaker 10: My name is Chairman Sekou Blackstock. Movement for self-defense. Defending the human rights of poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens and youth. We stand opposed. To this ordinance change. And. Yes. All of the. Things that are listed that makes it qualify for it. Is there, except for one thing. You're in the black community. 3530 Holly Street is where I grew up, went to Smith High School. You're talking about a residential area that stops at 38th Avenue. 40,000 square foot facility to grow, manufacture and market marijuana. Are you kidding me? And these are the same folks in the industry who sit by silently and have our sons and daughters locked up in jail without any moral authority to even speak upon it. As they gather up millions and millions of dollars of the blood, sweat and tears of our people. And then you have the audacity to come up in here. And then prior to this, we just give away proclamations about the suffering of humanity. And yet nothing is said about what's happening right here in the city county of Denver, where they're proposing to do this to get rich on the misery of our people. If Candy sounds violently in this room, you pass this. Did everybody need to go through? And stop standing up for that flag because you disrespect the integrity of why it was written. But we're talking about justice for all. And you're talking about justice for the few and the rich for real. And now you have a monopoly cartel where it takes millions of dollars just to get in the game. One of those unintended consequences. Huh? Yeah. So are we going to take a serious for real? How are we going to trust you for real? Tomorrow is the neighborhood day. We're talking about making it funky for real. And the smell of marijuana in those schools in that area. Why do we have to live under that? Why don't you take it to Cherry Creek? Funk up your neighborhood. Have massive traffic jams. And then sit here and smirk as if it means nothing. Nothing. Well, the real test this evening. Because the world is looking just like you're looking at Texas. Let's see what Colorado does and Colorado for its residents. And if you can't do it here at home, how are you going to do it somewhere else with any integrity? Are you serious? So. What are we doing? What we do it this to make the balance of justice. To make those who have privileged opportunity to make millions and million dollars of the suffering of those. Who are in jail now still. Four years. Since 2014. No voice, no reason to look the other way, because the real truth is this industry is putting money in your pockets to finance your reelection. Now tell me a lie. Tell me I'm lying. Jolene taking no money from the marijuana industry to get reelected. And then you vote for this speaks of corruption. So I'll close with this king. One, said the. Truth. Like a mighty river. Will sleep all and justice into the dustbin of history. And those who are in it for the rug gets caught up. In the movement of the river, but there is no return of your humanity. If you vote for the inhumanity and the exploitation of the people that you represent. That's all I got.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Mr. Robinson, can you come up here just for a second? Let me. Do we get a letter of support from the Northeast Park Hill Coalition? I believe you said that.
Speaker 7: Yes, it should be in the packet here. Let me see if I can. I ended. Yeah. Here it is, dated March 5th, 2018.
Speaker 0: And who signed that?
Speaker 7: Michelle Wheeler, President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, if you could stay there for a second, can you tell us what the height difference is for the I.A. zoning? So for the i3, it's obviously three stories. Is there a limit in the idea?
Speaker 7: There is not. The air is governed by a floor area ratio instead of a height.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I want to ask the representative, maybe, Mr. Daly, if you can come forward. So there's an operating business in the facility. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Since 2010.
Speaker 5: Okay. And. The nonconforming use is something that. Requires an annual application for their permit or. Help me understand why that's been an issue.
Speaker 4: Sure. So any time we go to change anything, for example, adding a new grow room or using our trim area differently, whatever under the normal permitting that we're going for, we'd be permitted.
Speaker 5: To do the same footprint of the existing building. That is.
Speaker 4: Great, because you just.
Speaker 5: Can't expand beyond the building.
Speaker 0: It's yes.
Speaker 5: It's not.
Speaker 4: It's not even just that as we can't change and maneuver within the existing building that we have.
Speaker 5: Are. Does the company have plans to expand the building?
Speaker 4: We do not.
Speaker 5: Okay. So it's really just to not have to go through that brain damage each time you want to do something.
Speaker 4: Right. It's it's extremely costly and time consuming.
Speaker 5: Okay. I think that's the only other question I have. This is very helpful.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Castro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. From CPD, that five three planning board vote. What was that about? Yes. Yes. Three of the from what they said at the meeting, three of the planning board members had concerns that the request did not meet the fifth criterion consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. They felt that the. The buffer or the transition between the residential south of 38th and the industrial area was better served by the larger I am x3. That was more appropriate for that context and and the district purpose and intent. If we were to vote no on this, the operation wouldn't cease. It would just continue to be hampered.
Speaker 6: A bit by regulation.
Speaker 7: Is that correct? Yes. They can continue indefinitely as a non-conforming use with the restrictions and burdens that have already been mentioned, but they would not have to leave or close the business. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman are currently.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Just heard. I'm sorry. I forgot your name. You said that the facility opened in 2010. Yes, sir. And there was nothing. Are you the owner of the building?
Speaker 4: We are not. Mr. Moreland. Douglas. Okay.
Speaker 6: You're the owner of the business. That is correct. I am. The business opened in 2010. That is correct. And do you represent Mr. Moreland?
Speaker 11: We're here with authority from the Moreland family.
Speaker 6: When when did when did Mr. Moreland buy the property?
Speaker 11: In March of 2016.
Speaker 6: Or just recently. Okay.
Speaker 10: Okay. So you saw the business opened under the prior owner.
Speaker 6: Okay. Now, in 2010 is when the zoning code was changed, so this immediately became a non-conforming use. Scott, could you explain the timing?
Speaker 7: Yes. So this mindset is the business went in in early 2010. Okay, the new zoning code was adopted summer of 2010. So it was June, a matter of months after months opened and when the zoning changed.
Speaker 6: Okay. So it became non-conforming almost immediately after it opened. Do you know and I don't blame you if you don't stop it. Do you know how many nonconforming uses exist right now in the city?
Speaker 7: I do not.
Speaker 10: Who would it be?
Speaker 6: Like dozens. Or could it be hundreds? Marijuana specific? No. All non-conforming users.
Speaker 0: Hundreds?
Speaker 7: Yes, hundreds.
Speaker 6: So would the fact that a nonconforming would we consider it as a justifying circumstance in all cases of any non-conforming use to change that to a zoned district that would permit. That non-performing used to be an allowable use? Or do you see circumstances where that would not be the case?
Speaker 7: Yes, I could imagine circumstances where that would not be the case. If it's a sane industrial use embedded in a residential area, right, there would be a non-conforming use.
Speaker 10: You wouldn't want to resort to an industrial.
Speaker 7: The changes in the area would notate against zoning to industrial.
Speaker 6: If the cultivation facility were to. Well, let me let me back up. The extraction the right to do extraction there was obtained subsequent to the 2010 zoning code. When did that.
Speaker 7: Occur? 2014, I believe.
Speaker 6: Okay. And what kind of process that required a zip c?
Speaker 7: Yes. A special zoning permit with special exception review. Right.
Speaker 6: Okay. If that facility were to close with this new zoning, aia in right in the middle of an image three zone. What types of uses would be permitted there that might not be permitted otherwise under its current zone?
Speaker 7: I don't have the full list of uses. If you have a couple examples, I would help you out. Yeah. Besides the obvious plant husbandry. I believe it allows more manufacturing uses than the iron actually does. It does not allow the residential that the Annex three does. So, yeah, there's a difference in.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 4: Immediately across 39th.
Speaker 10: Avenue to the north.
Speaker 6: Is the idea.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 6: If this building were magically overnight.
Speaker 10: To move a block.
Speaker 6: North, this wouldn't even be an issue. Correct. Okay. That's that's all the questions. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. That's a question for the business operator. And I was really going to comment on it. But since you're here, I might as well ask one of the one of the.
Speaker 4: Opponents.
Speaker 0: That spoke spoke about sort of the you know, I don't expect you to solve all the problems of of us as a society. But there is a we do know demographically there is a bigger big difference between ownership of these businesses versus the population in general and the lack of minority representation in these things. You are now obligated to produce a community engagement plan. Do you do you think that there is at least some some daylight or opportunity there in a future community engagement program to maybe make some inroads to sort of that might help introduce or create opportunity for local residents.
Speaker 4: To work in the facility? Or are you talking about sort of just in work or train or education.
Speaker 0: Or leadership or there could be so many different things very open.
Speaker 4: But. So our company has about 20% of our roughly hundred employees are minority at the moment. And several years ago we had engaged in the community by growing organic vegetables and giving them away at the community center just down the road on Holley Street. And that was very successful and a lot of gratitude from the people there. The media ultimately disallowed us from growing organic vegetables in our backyard.
Speaker 0: So that's that was all I was going to do is in my comment, sort of expressed my my, my desire that you you always maintain that that level of creativity and openness and see what you can do to sort of address just sort of historic inequities that persist in the neighborhood that surrounds you.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I think, you know, collectively, our organization, one of the reasons we undertook this business was because of the inequity in in terms of the drug war and how many particular people of color have been locked up. I think that's one of the things we're trying to change through this business. And we've been very active. My partner and I were just in Washington last week for three days meeting with several justices on that very matter.
Speaker 0: That's that's a great response. And that is one that was one aspect to this. But one part of that problem was the lack of opportunity. And so absolutely, let's hopefully you can help complete that cycle and reverse that trend. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. This question is for Scott. So looking at the PowerPoint presentation, it shows that this site is pretty much surrounded by IMX zoning. And typically the planning department does not like having zoning. That is not consistent. So were there other considerations besides the EIS zoning that could have been? Used as opposed to AA.
Speaker 7: Well, first the idea was the zone district requested by the applicant. And so we process the application that they submit. But as far as what would work, there is probably the best zoned district that would work for their needs. Plant husbandry would also be allowed in the EIB, I believe, but that's the heavier industrial, so that would be less appropriate and then it would be allowed in some of the open space zoning, which obviously would not be appropriate in an industrial area.
Speaker 5: Okay. So it really was. Kind of by default that I really kind of made the most sense.
Speaker 7: Yes. Yeah. For what their needs were. I think the idea was the most logical choice.
Speaker 5: So even though you all typically don't like changing zoning, that's not contiguous to one another. Mm.
Speaker 7: Well it is contiguous with the air to the north across 39th Avenue. But yeah. Ah.
Speaker 5: This map isn't showing that.
Speaker 7: Sorry. Yeah, the the line is 39th Avenue between the three. So yeah, it is contiguous with the air to the north. It would be contiguous with the air to the north if approved. And yeah, we don't have any longer, we don't have minimum area requirements or these contiguity requirements. So we evaluate the request against the five criteria. And as I said, we found all five criteria have been met. So we recommend approval.
Speaker 5: So under the IEEE zoning, if they want to expand, they would have the ability to do that. They just have to go through the process with exercise and license to be able to expand their building beyond the current footprint.
Speaker 7: Correct. I haven't looked at. You know, all the the regulations, the setbacks and my coverage and all of the things in the air. But yet, presumably, they would be allowed to expand the building under the ACA if they got approval from exercise in license. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. All right. That concludes our questions for members of council. And the public hearing is now closed. Comments by members of Council.
Speaker 4: Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I've been in this building. I've toured it. I'm very familiar with this because as it was mentioned, it's right across the street from Police District two or Northeast Park. You'll have their community meetings. And so this is something that I am supportive of. We have an owner who wishes to do the right thing by put himself in conformity. It will not be an impact to the community if this council would ever want to have a conversation about marijuana and its impact on communities of color. I've been speaking about that since we legalized it. So anyone want to join me in that conversation? Let's have it. But for this sake, we're having a conversation about changing the zoning, and I believe this is something we should support. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to thank Mr. Markovsky and the rest of the ownership team for hearing my concerns and the things that I expressed at LUDI and doing additional or seemingly doing additional outreach and coming together with a complete for me, a truly complete application. And with that, I will be supporting this rezoning. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't believe that I can support it. I find that it does not meet some of the criteria despite the recommendation of planning. I agree with some of the planning board comments that were related to us. In fact, I don't I believe the current zoning actually conforms to the neighborhood plans better, particularly where it calls for a buffer area between the industrial and residential uses in the neighborhood. Here, we're moving an industrial zone closer to the neighborhood. The other three citations from the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan all are met by the current operation and it's with its current non-conforming zoning. The 2010 zoning overhaul actually violated blueprint Denver's area of stability an area of stability criterion where.
Speaker 10: Let.
Speaker 6: Me let you get back to it. Where said that it may be appropriate to change the zoning to better match existing uses. In 2002 and then in.
Speaker 10: 2010 we changed the zoning to make it non-conforming. So we.
Speaker 6: Actually the 2010 rezoning didn't meet the criteria, but there obviously had to have been a purpose to it or.
Speaker 10: We wouldn't have put the.
Speaker 6: The IMAX three in that location. We wanted to have that buffer with the neighborhood. So I agree with the dissenting votes on the planning board, and I vote no on this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other comments. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel Herndon, I. Cashman.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew. Ortega Black. Clark, I. Espinosa Flynn now. Gilmore, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I was voting. And as a result.
Speaker 2: Some people haven't entered this our screen.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary is. It's flipping out a little bit.
Speaker 2: The Council. So I'm just making sure. Okay. Ten eyes, two knees.
Speaker 0: All right. Ten eyes, two nays. Counsel Bill 365 has been approved for translations. All right. We are moving on to our second public hearing for this evening. Councilman Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 412 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3880 Holly Street in Northeast Park Hill.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3880 Holly Street from I-MX-3 to I-A (industrial, mixed-use to industrial, light-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-8-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0412
|
Speaker 0: All right. Ten eyes, two nays. Counsel Bill 365 has been approved for translations. All right. We are moving on to our second public hearing for this evening. Councilman Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 412 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that council bill 18, dash 412 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for council bill 412 is open. We have the staff report. Kyle Dotson, welcome. Thank you, Mr. President, and good evening, members of council. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development here with this rezoning staff report. So Kat, in Council District nine, in the Globeville statistical neighborhood and it's a site of just over 30 acres, the request is from the property owners, Cendant Capital Partners, who are here tonight, as well as their representatives. It's currently zoned Iby you two, which is a general industrial district with the Billboard Use Overlay. They're proposing a number of different zone districts I'll go through in a minute. That's the site of the former Denver Post printing plant and surrounding lands around the former plant. And the property owners are requesting the rezoning in order to allow redevelopment of the site. Together with this rezoning application, the applicants also filed an application to repeal the 2570 General Development Plan. That application has been heard by the Denver Planning Board and has been approved by the Development Review Committee. The GDP is proposed to be replaced with an infrastructure master plan which will be implemented through a development agreement if approved by council following this rezoning bill. That's the next bill that you postponed to address topics that relate to transportation, open space, housing, and phasing in the number of staff from the departments involved in that. Here tonight, if you have questions about the development agreement or the third bill that accepts some money from the applicant to fund studies of transportation improvements in the area that are also a product of that development agreement. Okay. So regarding the actual the what I'm here for tonight, the rezoning bill, the applicant requested a series of three districts. The first is the CMCs 12 Zone District on the west and east sides of the property that stands for the Urban Center Neighborhood Context. That allows a wide variety of mix of uses up to 12 storeys in height in the north. Central part of the property is the S.R. 12 Zone District. Again, the urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use because it allows primarily only residential and lodging above the ground floor, although a variety of mixed uses on the ground floor. Again, up to 12 stories in height. And then in the southern central part of the property is the urban center, residential mixed use district, up to eight stories in height across all of the site. The applicant proposes to retain their current use overlay to which allows billboards subject to a number of different limitations and standards in the code. So here's a map of where those zone districts are located. Again, the C-Max 12 on the West, in the East, S.R. 12 in the North Central, and S.R. eight to the south. It's surrounded mostly by general industrial zoning, except for the portion to the south that the council rezone three years ago to CMCs 12, when this applicant brought that application for the land to the south. In terms of the current land use to set the stage for what's currently happening on the property. The assessor's office has a classified as commercial, of course. We know it's vacant, formerly industrial. It's surrounded mostly by industrial properties, other vacant land and right of way. Here's some pictures to illustrate the building form the scale of the site and the areas around it. So you see the this is the top photo is looking to the south towards downtown of the printing plant in the foreground and the vacant land around it . You see most of the areas around it are are currently older, industrial, one story or two story buildings with some new development that's occurred in the station area. And to the bottom right there, you see a photo of the pedestrian bridge and multi-modal bridge that was constructed over the railroad tracks in anticipation of the opening of the 41st and Fox Station, a couple a few blocks to the south of the site. Terms of the public process that leads us to tonight. The applicants first submitted this rezoning application in March of last year in 2017. At our recommendation, they voluntarily hosted a public meeting about both of this rezoning and the GDP repeal in the neighborhood and then revised their rezoning application in October last year. Planning Board held a public hearing on the application in November of last year, which they recommended approval of the application. This went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and all of the legal requirements for all the procedural requirements in the zoning code for a rezoning have been followed in terms of the posted notices and written notices of tonight's public hearing. That includes notice to the nine registered neighborhood organizations that are illustrated on the slide. One of them has submitted a letter of support from the President of the United Community Action Network, Inc., and Staff has received no other public comments on the rezoning application . There are five review criteria for a rezoning. A walk through our analysis of each of them. Briefly, there's further detail in your staff report. The first is the application must be consistent with adopted plans. The first, the citywide comprehensive plan 2000. Again, there's more detail in the staff report. We pulled out a few of the key strategies that we found that the application addresses and is consistent with including promoting infill development in Denver at sites where infrastructure and services are in place, where you can create mixed use communities near transit, and where we can encourage mixed use transit oriented development that makes best use of that transportation infrastructure. The second plan we analyzed as Blueprint Denver, which was adopted in 2000 to the citywide land use and transportation plan. The Blueprint Denver was amended and updated by the subsequent smaller plans I'll talk about in a minute. So it's essentially the same as the Globeville plan that was adopted a few years ago recommends the land use concept of urban residential, which calls for higher density, primarily residential, but with a mix of some complementary commercial uses high quality pedestrian scale facades and other pedestrian active elements of the building form. And we found that the proposed zoned districts do provide a range of housing options and commercial uses and implement the built form plan direction. So we found it consistent with those recommendations from Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver also designates the entire site as an area of change. These are areas in the city where the city wants to challenge or challenge channel growth and development opportunities. The plan calls for infill redevelopment of vacant underused properties in such a way that it remains compatible with new and existing development, takes advantage of transit service and addresses a number of different issues. We found that again, that this rezoning was consistent with encouraging growth in an area of change and is consistent with this element of blueprint. Denver Terms of street classifications. Blueprint Number did not identify most of the streets through this area because the streets have not been built and would be built as part of redevelopment to the South Fox Street as a mixed use collector. Mixed use streets are designated for areas that have anticipate a wide variety of high intensity, mixed use, commercial retail, residential uses along them. Other streets in the area are designated locals. Again, there aren't streets within the site designated in the plan, so we found it consistent with Blueprint Denver The third adopted plan here is the 41st and Fox station area plan. The general thrust of that plan is to develop the station area into an urban center through transitioning those industrial lands to a variety of light, industrial, commercial, residential or mixed uses with a variety of goals in the plan. The land use recommendations of this plan contemplated an unbuilt street network that included urban residential generally to the north and to the west of up to 12 stories a mix of open space in parks and plazas in the area, and urban residential 2 to 8 stories to the south. Now, the proposed rezoning does align with these in terms of allowing a mix of uses, including residential of up to 12 stories to the west, north and east, up to eight stories in the south. The open space parks and Plaza will be created through that development agreement, an infrastructure master plan that requires a portion of the site to be developed as open space or parks. So we found it consistent with the stationery plan. And then lastly is the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which, as I mentioned, updated blueprint Denver it so it aligns with what I walked through earlier in terms of blueprint Denver's land use recommendations calls for a land use mix of an urban residential mix of up to 12 storeys for most of the site portion to the south of for up to eight stories where the applicant has proposed the crux eight zone district of up to eight stories. So looking at the application against that adopted plan, we found it consistent as well. So we found it consistent with the adopted plans. The zone districts as applied would be uniform in their application within the zone districts where they're mapped. So it's consistent with the second criterion. The third is that it further the public health, safety and general welfare, which we found the application would comply with, and furthering the consistency with adopted plans, enabling mixed use in a transit oriented area, and ensuring that the built form is better for pedestrians and more reflective of the vision for the area. The fourth review criterion is that there be justifying circumstances. In this case, there has been change or change conditions since the time of the adoption of this zoning that justify the rezoning. They include the introduction, the construction of the rail line and the soon introduction of service on that rail line, which have there has been service on the line, but service to the station expected later this year when RTD opens the D line. The multi-use path and pedestrian bridge have been built, which improve the multimodal connections to the site to the area. A number of rezonings have happened in the surrounding properties, a few of which have developed all pointing to changes in the area that serve to to justify the rezoning and consistent consistent with the adopted plans in the area . Finally, we evaluated it with consistency, with the neighborhood context description and the zone district purpose and intent statements as further detailed in your staff report I mentioned earlier. The plans call for this to be an urban center, and they've selected urban center neighborhood zone districts that the neighborhood, the zoned districts also enable a variety of mixed uses , residential uses that the zone districts call for. And in terms of their height allowances, they allow up to eight and 12 stories consistent with where the plans tell us that those heights are desired. So we found it consistent with the intent statements of the zone districts as well. And so having reviewed it against all five criteria, we we recommend approval of the rezoning application. All right. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. Okay. We have let's see here. We have five speakers. Is that right, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. I'm going to call you guys up to the front. Zachary Kessler, Kathleen Folger, Graham Bennis, Chairman Sekou, and Elizabeth Zachary Kessler, your first. You all can come to the front here, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Can I have a seat right there?
Speaker 4: I'm just here to answer questions on behalf of the applicant.
Speaker 0: All right, great. Thank you, Mr. Kessler. Kathleen Fogler.
Speaker 3: Yes. I'm here on behalf of the applicant to answer questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Ms.. Fogler Grant. Beneath.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Is Graham Dennis with the Center Capital Partners and I reside in the city of Denver. It's been ten years that we've run this property and been in front of you several times and met with you several times. And my wife prefers this as our third child. And throughout that time we've been working with the city and staff and you all in the community trying to find the right vision for this property. There was a, you know, as Councilman Flynn, well, where's that Denver Post printing facility? And it's almost become a historic use. But, you know, we always had a vision for for something much grander than heavy industrial, which it's currently zoned. We you know, we we've had some our ups and downs with the economic cycles and as well as, you know, coming under the auspices of RTD and eminent domain and, you know , ending up giving up four acres of land so that the vast tracts property tax project could go on through our through our project. And about three years ago, the city council voted to support a rezoning of our southernmost ten acres, as well as approving through a planning board, approved the general development plan for the site. Subject to that time and based on feedback we received at that meeting from council and staff, we agreed that more visioning was needed for this site in order to create the right outcome for the city and the neighborhood. Especially the current zoning on the 31 acres does not allow for, you know, full implementation of the station area plan and specifically does not allow for the density that that plan contemplates. It's also the current GDP also does not allow for the the retained edge of the at the current site the existing building past two weeks has two years, I should say. We've we've been having weekly work sessions with the city and it's gone to a a weekly meeting for the past 18 months. And we appreciate the city staff for taking that time to meet with us, to work with to work towards a increased density and to maximize the public improvements at the site . The development agreement specifically provides a path to making this project more accessible, and the details, the transportation network and build out will be identified. A next step study that will be funding 50% of. We feel that accessibility lays the groundwork for implementing the City Station Area Plan, and the vision for the site is a mix of office and residential served by transit, with an emphasis on limiting single occupancy vehicles and includes a required transportation management plan for the site. We want this place to be a true neighborhood with lower land prices. Community services can afford to locate here daycare, fresh food and grocery store restaurants. Yes.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: We are available for questions.
Speaker 0: Also great terms. They call. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 10: Terms they could bless no action movement for self-defense. Long term resident sitting count in Denver is five points to Parkview. Sitting here thinking. I. Had a thought. And. Cancer folks who have understand the history here. You know, I was one. If I want to. Davis was in this body right now and sitting in that chair. Which way you think he'd go with this? And this was his district knowing that it's massively being gentrified, knowing that there is little or no participation of black workers on any of these sites, whether it's on the east side or the West Side or the North Side or the south side. And then, as he would sit wondering how he could form allies among this Mississippi cycle.
Speaker 0: Please talk about the bill for 12.
Speaker 10: If you give me an opportunity, I will do that and you constantly interrupt me. I wish you wouldn't do that as you allow other people to do that. I guess on film is being reviewed, so don't do that. I got to keep it focused. Good taking up my time and don't do that. Kind of keep focus. Don't do it. Kind of keep yourself disrespected. And I'm asking for additional time because you continue to do that. I want additional 2 minutes to finish my comments. I ask for a suspension of the rules so the Council can do some justice here with your own representative who's misrepresenting the pluses to supposed to happen. This is public hearing for the public. Your job is to listen, not interrupt a conversation. So as I will continue. What do we do now? What we do now. We continue on the same old same. Mention the names of predecessors that we have no courage to do the work that they did and occupy these chairs. I work with Hiawatha Davis. He's the godfather of my daughter. And I'm telling you right now, he's rolling over in his grave. Yeah. Because the terms have been flipped instead of enhancement. This whole mess has turned into an ethnic cleansing of the people he represented.
Speaker 0: Can you talk about the bill for 12?
Speaker 10: So when we get to this bill. Which is no more than the continuation of the ethnic cleansing of our neighborhood. And talking about creating residential housing for whom at what cost and under what percentage of a man who is this poor and who needs it the most? The middle class or the poor? And as we combat poverty, we need ownership of our property, not result. And so we stay poor systematically because of the rules and regulations that people enhance in here. And then you walk through here with your heads up with any kind of integrity, taking the money from developer to run to real , like to continue to do this. Ah. You know what to do. Know what to do and you do it anyway. So what are we supposed to do? Why do we even come? What? What's the purpose say? What's the purpose? And that's the way most revolutions develop, because the people in power don't listen to the oppressed. And then when the whole situation blows up, all of a sudden we get some attention. Yeah. So what we got to do? We got to blow up. We got to do. We got to tear down. We got to burn it down. Cause we got nowhere to go. So why should you have anywhere to go? Oh, like we suffer. Washington's with us. Just we're equal in this for 12. So when we talk about 412, let's talk about 1812 and the Revolutionary War that happened when the British was overthrown and they threw the tea off the boat. Because of this exact same thing. No response to the taxpayers. Taxation without representation and no hope in the process. And then everything is supposed to be okay because we're going to only get this thing done in one unit at a time. So we'll get 20 poor people in. But it's 20,000 outside. And consider that progress for real. That's the best you can do. But real. Truth and justice requires more and more success. Because I'm exasperated, too. But after 12 years of coming down here with the same message. I do. You all get paid. I get my attendance records better. Something I didn't take coming down. Not even having enough to do a. For real. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Such mediocre efforts deserved. Absolutely no God, no respect. And I close with this. It's time to get it all ready for the revolution.
Speaker 0: All right. And Elizabeth, last speaker.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Council President Brooks.
Speaker 10: And the city council for having this public hearing. I mean, Elizabeth, I have a studio at 888 East 50th Avenue in the Global Riverfront Art Center. And I've been in Globeville.
Speaker 8: For approximately ten.
Speaker 10: Years. I had the opportunity to city to participate in some of the first conversations regarding this project when the some of the folks connected to it were invited into the homes of some folks that have lived in Globeville for a couple of generations. There are very serious concerns about being vigilant on a project of this scope, nature, and that changes the landscape of that particular area, specifically through the height increases. I know of one couple in Elyria that owns a business about two blocks away, and it's definitely going to help them thrive. I'd like to really ask the City Council to recognize this project in the context, in the context of all the urgent needs and attentions that still need to materialize in the global learning Swansea area. Regarding somehow working a synergistic prosperity with the existing businesses that are family owned, that aren't getting the attention to possibly prosper, with mechanisms that are typically more available to the more experienced and fluid and flexible and larger developers. I hope that this the design considerations that some of which look really exciting in terms of keeping it as an urban friendly neighborhood asset can be can be spotlighted more and brought forward. I think there's a lot of conversations that I think would be great to have continuing with the developer. There are there's terminology being used behind the scenes, sort of as the subconscious of the of the city. That concerns me when I hear officials using terms like there's we're working on this island development in Fox Point or Fox Street. These are our neighbors. These are Globeville neighbors. These are folks that we within the neighborhood that are involved in in the conversations for us all feel like we're in it together. We want to have that cultural, personal, economic relationship. If we're going to put height up, it needs to be attractive. This conversations about who can afford to live there is critical. It's also the case that we need to really strengthen the first and last mile access to folks within the neighborhoods, being able to access the full advantages of the economic opportunities for work around the cities . How do we do this seamlessly? How do we recognize that this is an asset? How do we make this an asset both esthetically, economically and culturally for the historic statistic? To Statistical Globeville neighborhood. I want to end this by saying the historic statistical Globeville neighborhood. I wish that the Planning Department would always add historic and not just statistical. There are 78 statistical neighborhoods in Denver and many more historical neighborhoods, and I hope this project will help reflect that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. And Elizabeth. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of Council Councilwoman Kenney.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I think my first question is probably for someone from the ascendant team. I wanted to ask about the total acreage of the your proposed development, broader than just this stationary plan and the total potential number of units. There's a couple of references to the potential in the developer agreement, but if one of you could just summarize that for me, please. Acreage and total potential number of residential units that are being discussed. There's a reference in a document. If someone wants to just read it, that's okay to.
Speaker 2: Hi. So the total property is 41.5.
Speaker 3: Acres and.
Speaker 8: The.
Speaker 2: Current developed developable acreage totals about.
Speaker 3: 30 acres.
Speaker 2: We're looking per the IAP at.
Speaker 8: 2800 residential units in.
Speaker 3: Total for the site. Great. And can you just. Do you know what percentage of the total area is represented in this rezoning? We've re zoned several other portions. So I just wanted to have you what is it, about 50% initial rezoning.
Speaker 2: There's 12 acres of the 41 that have been resound. So I think we're.
Speaker 3: 30% as kind of represented. That's a rough estimate here on the on the stand by, about 30%, 30% has been risen. 60% were were asking for a rezoning. And can you clarify, this is the last rezoning for this this proposed area. Yes, for this for this full 41 A.C.P.O. And then if someone from the city staff could answer the next questions, please. There is a pending bill footing the bill for 43. I believe it is the developer agreement. And I wanted to ask about the legal relationship between this zoning and the pending bill. Where is staff? Sorry.
Speaker 8: Hello, Councilman. Jill Jennings goal at Community Planning and Development. I just want to make sure I understood the question. Are you asking about the legal sort of tie between the rezoning and the development agreement? Yes. So I have Brad back with me. The city attorney's office who may be better able to answer.
Speaker 6: I'm Brad, back with the city attorney's office. And I'm I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
Speaker 3: So if this rezoning is approved, is it contingent in any way, shape or form on the developer agreement that is pending and not before us tonight?
Speaker 6: I think we're presenting all of these at the same time for that particular reason.
Speaker 3: Number 443 is not. We don't have a pair.
Speaker 0: So. So the order in which. No, no, no. So the question is, is if 422 fails, is it contingent on the others for 43 in the other things that are in a block here, are they are.
Speaker 3: Could could this developer redevelop this if this zoning is approved? Could they redevelop under this zoning even if they had developer agreement fails?
Speaker 10: No. I think if the if the.
Speaker 6: If the rezoning is not approved, we would withdraw opposite question.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I'll start over. Yeah. If anyone else wants to jump in. So this zoning, let's imagine it's approved tonight. Okay. And let's imagine that the developer agreement is not approved. Can they build? It's my understanding, as it was presented to me, that there are certain land use rights in the developer agreement that are not unlocked. And so those those other terms are met. So what I want to understand is what is the relationship between the two, between the zoning and the developer agreement? We have a presentation that focused on just one thing, but there is a much bigger package that we're in. And so you're going to find, I think, in the question, answer that to the extent that we have shared this with the world as to linked pieces of legislation, we need to talk about them as two linked pieces of legislation. So I'm looking for someone who can help describe that, particularly for our community. I, I feel like I understand it, but I want to make sure that I'm hearing and you guys are putting it in your words, how the two the two pieces relate to each other.
Speaker 10: The approval of the second.
Speaker 6: Rezoning is a condition precedent to sentence obligation under the development agreement.
Speaker 10: So if you don't if you don't approve it, then the development agreement doesn't spring. But.
Speaker 8: Sorry. This is Jill again. But I do believe if you were to approve the rezoning and not approve the development agreement, yes. That you would have changed their zoning and they would not be bound to the terms under the development agreement. There would still be an infrastructure master plan in place for the property guiding the overall infrastructure and guiding that element of the property.
Speaker 3: Okay. I think that gets to the answer. Thank you very much. Can you please can someone please describe to me what the terms of the development agreement state with regard to affordable housing?
Speaker 4: Mr. President, Councilwoman Connie Chung, Doug Salbi, housing manager with the Office of Economic Development. The development agreement currently extracts from the developer in any affordable housing build as chosen as a build alternative plan in alignment with the ordinance on the linkage fee that 25% more of the units will be extracted on any vertical development for units on the site. If there is a choice of paying the linkage fee instead, then 25% more of the linkage fee will be paid.
Speaker 3: And does anything in the agreement require the building of a single unit of affordable housing? Or could they fulfill the agreement solely by paying money?
Speaker 4: They could. To answer your first question, there is no requirement to actually build affordable housing or build any type of hotels or any of the commercial developments that may be proposed on the site. And there is there is the choice that they could pay the fee.
Speaker 3: And then in history. Can you recall, have there been other large redevelopment agreements where the department has negotiated agreements that required the building of affordable housing as part of those developments? Such an agreement is is legally possible, is the question I'm asking.
Speaker 4: Under the previous ordinance, which called for units under the IATO ordinance, there were the allowance of affordable housing plans for large scale developments as part of that ordinance, in which case there was specific affordable housing requirements put in. Currently, we operate under the linkage fee ordinance, which calls to be paid by the developer, or they can choose a build alternative plan for whatever build is going on industrial, commercial or residential. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 3: Well, it does, but I don't think it's complete. The linkage fee ordinance also includes an option for otherwise negotiated plans. Correct? Correct. If you are exempt from the ordinance, if you are under an otherwise negotiated, affordable housing plan. Yes.
Speaker 4: If you're under an otherwise negotiated affordable housing plan, you are exempt from the linkage fee.
Speaker 3: So I just want to close the loop. It would have been legally possible to require the construction of affordable housing on this site as a term of an agreement. If there was a negotiated agreement where both parties signed it, that that would have satisfied they could have legally satisfied the ordinance. I just want to clarify.
Speaker 4: It could in past plans that has been negotiated with a subsidy of funding from the OED.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My last question is for the planning department. You've mentioned several adopted plans, the Globeville plan. In the 41st and Fox plan, there's approximately 13 mentions of affordable housing in the first, 41st and FOX Plan. There's also a number of them in the Globeville plan. In your analysis of the conformance of this zoning with adopted plans, did the Planning Department specifically analyze the language in these plans related to affordable housing as it relates to the development agreement that was negotiated? So was the analyst. Did you all do a point by point analysis of the language in the plan and the development agreement that was negotiated with regard to affordable housing?
Speaker 8: Jill Jennings. Gorelick We acknowledge that the plan discussed the importance of affordable housing and felt that that was an incredibly important need, which is why we had the developer engage with the Office of Economic Development to have conversations around affordable housing for this site.
Speaker 3: Is it your recollection, I guess, that any of those plan references related the payment of fees? Did you guys is that your recollection?
Speaker 8: I don't believe that was the case because both of the plans were adopted prior to the change in practice related to the linkage fee.
Speaker 3: So what would you describe the gist of the language plan about the importance of affordable housing? What were what was the plan talking about when it when it brought up affordable housing? What what did it value? And what was it pointing to?
Speaker 8: So generally speaking, obviously, this is next to a transit corridor and we want to ensure that there is a mix of housing for different incomes and different populations at our transit stations.
Speaker 3: And did you do any analysis about how the payment of fees that would not result in units might impact that that goal language terms of conformance with the plan.
Speaker 8: I believe that already looked a bit at some of the fee numbers on their site and what that might generate. So I might.
Speaker 3: Turn it over. But the plan doesn't relate to money. The plan relates to right there.
Speaker 8: The plan talks generally about the provision for affordable housing, but does not put a requirement for a certain number of units.
Speaker 3: I just want to clarify that the plan we agree at least that the plan does not talk about funding. It talks about mixed income housing. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is for Graham. Then if you can come to the microphone. So my my first question is about. Whether you're looking at master planning the site or are you looking to develop any of the actual structures yourself, or are you just looking at building the infrastructure that then attracts other developers to come to the site to build on it?
Speaker 7: Yes, Councilman Ortega, this is what really is the next step that really lays out the infrastructure for this site, the roads it has streets section. So it's much more detailed than what we had gone through before with the GDP. This ownership groups desire is not is not going to be to develop vertically. So this group is mainly laying the foundation for others to come and either master plan the site in terms of going vertical, the plans that we have in place pretty much lay the foundation so they there's not too much they can bury in terms of street grids. So that is the plan is to have somebody come in and do the master development and vertical development.
Speaker 5: And in doing so, then you would sell the land to those developers that would build on.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 5: And are you looking for one master builder or are you looking at multiple selling off multiple sites?
Speaker 7: One one developer, one purchase here would obviously be the the most, most the best path forward versus multiple developers.
Speaker 5: Okay. Let me see if we have another question for you. Yes. One of my questions about the the acreage, let me go to Chris Nevitt. Chris, if you can come forward, I want to ask some questions about the infrastructure master plan, which I'm not clear. Is that the same as the next step study or are those completely different?
Speaker 4: Hi. Chris Nevitt, the city's top manager. Councilwoman, I'm not the expert in the infrastructure masterplan. I may call on my colleagues from CPD on that, but then the next step study is focused on figuring out how we can get to a more precise configuration of the particularly the transportation infrastructure that's necessary to serve the area, get to some concept level pricing, and also figure out a plan of finance so that we can actually construct all those components. So the infrastructure master plan lays out a lot of stuff with respect to the street grid inside the area, particularly with respect to the the parks in the area. There's a big contribution to regional parks.
Speaker 5: It's specific to the site that we're rezoning tonight.
Speaker 4: The infrastructure master plan.
Speaker 5: And does that include the other 12 acres? Yes. Okay. So the next step study is outside the boundaries. So let me ask a couple questions about that. You keep talking about transportation, although we know there is a serious drainage problem in this area. So number one is this within the Utah Junction Outfall area?
Speaker 4: Boy, you are stumping me if you're asking me for the name of it. But there is a a a drainage master planning process that is focusing on all of the basins that drain into the Platte River there, and particularly go through Globeville. Because as you know better than anybody, there are serious flooding and inundation issues in the Globeville area. And so this master planning study, the the drainage study for Globeville is focusing on all the sources of water that that that converge there.
Speaker 5: Okay. So we know that there is one road into the site, which is Foch Street.
Speaker 4: Oh, that's not true. There's two roads from downtown.
Speaker 5: We're not counting that. We do not want to see traffic go through Globeville to get to this site. That community is going to be inundated with traffic for the next five years, dealing with the construction of I-70 and National, Western and Washington Street and a ton of other private development. So to say that we're going to put traffic on 45th Avenue and put that traffic through, we're trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood right now because right now trucks are routing through that street.
Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am. Let me answer when we correct. Yeah, let's get to it.
Speaker 0: Let's get to the question because we've got a long list behind.
Speaker 5: So. So. Is there expectation that Fox Street becomes a four lane roadway?
Speaker 4: No, ma'am.
Speaker 5: Because it's a white street. But it's it's one street into this site that 2800 units is a part of many other developments that have already been approved by this council. Two, to funnel into this what you refer to as Fox Island because of the limited access to this area. And so how do we expect to move traffic in there? And until we fix the first mile, last mile that and Elizabeth talked about, people are still going to drive their cars in this city. And we know there's a RTD corridor there. But so you're saying. The plan talks about or the rezoning talks about addressing the bike and pedestrian connections. But we're going to bring all that traffic in on two lanes, one in and one out to the site unless we see the next step. Study out a new road. Right. Which has been talked about. So can you just speak to that?
Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am. So just to go backwards for a moment, with respect to the 45th Avenue connection, we've made it very clear all the way along that we have no anticipation of 45th Avenue and the connection through the main street of Globeville being any different. Well, better, nicer than it is today, but not carrying more traffic. We're not going to reconstruct that road to carry more traffic. That road will be reconstructed to be a nicer roadway for that community. With respect to Foch Street, the anticipation is not that Foch Street will become, you know, a four lane superhighway, as it was.
Speaker 5: Through the major collector. That's why I'm asking the question.
Speaker 4: Correct. But but that's not our anticipation reconstructing. And these are all subjects that the next step study will address, reconstructing the very suboptimal interchange of Park Avenue, 38th Avenue, Foch Street, and the on and off ramps for I-25. That's a key important move. And another key important move that the next step study will address, as you pointed out, is creating a third connection to the area on the northwest, and that is memorialized in the infrastructure master plan currently and will be explored in more detail in the next step study. But I think I just want to add a gloss. If we do everything business as usual in this area, we will not be able to accommodate the traffic that might ordinarily be associated with this kind of development.
Speaker 5: It's a mess.
Speaker 4: Today. We will not.
Speaker 5: Daily basis.
Speaker 4: Do business as usual. Yeah. Understood.
Speaker 5: Okay. I have one more question. And this is I'm not sure who can probably someone from the planning department. Kyle, do you know if there are any court setbacks that address shading because 12 storeys is going to be allowed on the north end and you've got I-70. So if we have 12 story buildings, you're going to have a lot of shading. And so when it snows, you're going to have more ice on the highway. So can you just address that issue?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't believe there are serious setbacks for buildings.
Speaker 5: Okay. And do we have setbacks at all from the edges, from our 12 story buildings?
Speaker 0: Just nonexistent. I'll let him answer.
Speaker 4: Jeff Brazel With any plan in development, the ANP envisions a road that parallels the interstate. Okay, so the road is, I believe, is about 65 to 67 feet of total right away. And then there's a buffer on top of that. Right up against the right up against the seatbelt right away. So while the underlying zoning would allow zero LA line development, there's an actual wide roadway right there.
Speaker 5: So that would address that concern for. Okay. Just one last one. And this is for. I'm sorry. I thought I had. This is for Mr. Dennis. Do you have any intention of requesting tax increment financing for the site?
Speaker 7: At this time, we do not have any plans to request tax increment financing for this.
Speaker 5: But it's not totally.
Speaker 7: No, I mean it just yeah. That's that's that's a next step that, you know, a developer could could definitely take that path.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman.
Speaker 10: Mr. Venizelos.
Speaker 6: Come back.
Speaker 5: You might not stay in that for a while.
Speaker 7: I just want to follow up on him.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Cain answers questions about the development agreement. Does the development agreement require you to build affordable housing? I want to just clarify that in my own mind.
Speaker 7: It does not require us to build affordable housing on the site.
Speaker 6: You plan on building affordable housing in this project?
Speaker 7: We're not the vertical developer. But what we've said all along is we are very committed to seeing that affordable housing comes to the site. When we when we undertook our last rezoning, you know, we were under the dijo. And since that time, you all passed linkage fees. So we want to go above and beyond linkage fees. We went to OSD and said, we see we don't want to be an unaffordable city. That's bad for business. So we went to OPD and said, we want to do more. They said, Well, you can pay more in. Money's great. So we've agreed to pay more. And the bigger picture is economics. We've talked to every single affordable housing developer in town and. We have such a better opportunity to have affordable housing at our site in this neighborhood than any other place in the city. So we're not looking to cap it by saying we're going to build 80 units of affordable housing. We look at this as this is the the basement. And we have. Unlimited opportunity for workforce housing at this site based upon the economics of our land value, nobody else in the city is going to have the land value that we have had the opportunity to create as much affordable, attainable, diverse housing businesses, fresh food markets, businesses, so other neighborhoods don't have that opportunity.
Speaker 0: Well.
Speaker 6: It sounds like it'd be easy to commit to affordable housing.
Speaker 4: With that kind of description.
Speaker 6: You're easily I don't know, one of the developer agreement didn't address this.
Speaker 4: And why? Why there's.
Speaker 6: Not a commitment more of a commitment to affordable.
Speaker 7: Housing. We don't want to tie up the future developers. We're not the experts on vertical affordable housing. So we didn't want to restrict another developer coming in and said they're going to do X times more than what's required.
Speaker 0: Well, okay.
Speaker 6: Okay. Doug, what about you? I mean, as Doug said, always. Thank you. Doug, what about any requirement at all for affordable housing about this project other than buying out of it?
Speaker 4: What's the question? I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Is there going to be any requirement for affordable housing to be built with this project? Or is it just going to be a fee, additional fee that's going.
Speaker 4: To be bought out for the development agreement? There can be the additional fee paid in the linkage fee that goes directly to support affordable housing, you know, through our investments. Or if there is a build alternative plan chosen, then there will be 25% more units extracted from the actual build alternative that's proposed. And this does not preclude any future investment. If only affordable housing development is proposed on the site. The OED would be looking at that as we do our projects to invest in those directly and extract the units directly, contractually.
Speaker 6: Maybe outside of this project. But. Right. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 0: You know. You know, let me just follow up just because you've mentioned percentages. What is the actual payout? So don't mention and don't mention a percentage. Tell me, what per square foot will they be paying out? So it's very clear.
Speaker 4: To the public. It depends on what's built on the site in. Okay.
Speaker 0: So there's 2800 units can be realized here. What if there's just.
Speaker 4: 13 to 1500 to 20, 300? I would say if it was a full build out under the.
Speaker 0: Let's go with the 1500 number. What per square foot are we looking at?
Speaker 4: Probably about under that. Maybe I was looking at the numbers more in the improved mobility plan of an.
Speaker 0: Adventure for folks who are listening, folks who are even here in. If they were doing it under the affordable housing link it free plan would be a buck 50 a foot. So what would they be paying for? Regular residential?
Speaker 4: Well for the improved mobility plan. Should those go through, it would be $6.9 million. Okay. Of the total development of the site was projected.
Speaker 0: Okay. 6.9 million for transportation and then for affordable.
Speaker 8: So the linkage fee today, the fee does go up. It's adjusted annually starting July one. But currently, any multifamily residential development that's built under the international building code pays a dollar 60 per square foot. Okay, so we're paying 25% more. They would be paying $2 per square foot.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's what that's what I wanted to say. So everybody gets that. So two bucks a square foot for residential. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, could you tell us what was the reason for the single dissenting vote at the planning board? It's not meant. It's mentioned in the staff report, but not the reason.
Speaker 0: Sure. Thanks, Councilman. So there was one dissenting vote and it was the same vote that dissented on the the rezoning three years ago on the southern part of the site. That person, that planning board member disagreed with the retention of the you oh two billboard use overlay and thought there wasn't a justifying circumstance to retain the allowance for future billboards.
Speaker 6: That was it. Okay, that's not at all what I expected, but thank you, Graham. Can I ask you a question I think I've asked you before. You're probably wishing that RTD had bought you out by this point, right? You wouldn't. You wouldn't do that. Right. And I think I brought this up before with your team. This was part of this site. The northern part of the site was part of the Argo smelter site. And I'm just wondering if there has been any analysis of the soil. The heart of the Argo smelter is right where I-70 goes through. But there were buildings on the Denver Post site and there are buildings north of I-70 that were part of the smelter operation. I'm just wondering if there's been any analysis of what might have been left behind.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we've done extensive analysis because you accounted for the brought this up since we bought the site. You know, we're fortunately not affected by the Argo smelter. Our biggest environmental issues were from the railroad track that used to run through the southern part of the site for the old Denver brick and pipe. Right. You know, arsenic containing railroad ties. So all those areas we've you know, we've come across through the various construction of fast tracks. We've come across, you know, unmarked underground storage tanks that we've remediated. So we have a little bit of everything on site, but nothing that requires stopping. I mean, clean up. Yep. So it's all fine for residential. And but we have had an extensive study, as you know, based upon your comments and and others.
Speaker 6: I'm glad I could cost you the money. Did the Denver Post leave anything dirty behind?
Speaker 7: Never mind. You know, as you know, ink is water soluble, so there is nothing dirty.
Speaker 6: There you go. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. I've always said this to everybody. Don't entertain them. He'll keep going. Councilman Espinosa. Kyle got a question for you. And it might be like Councilman Flynn was a little bit surprised. We have three recent plans, all within the last six years that say urban, residential, urban, residential, urban residential, nearly 100%. The only exception being open space. So help me out again with that, the sort of introduction of commercial and why that is consistent with adopted plans and why we haven't considered an OSA or SB sort of zoning in in is part of this entire package because to my counsel, my colleague, Councilwoman CNOOC's point is once this is free zone, they have entitlement. And and so we will have gone against not just the urban residential components of these plans, but also the open space component of these plans. Sure. So let me take this one at a time. So first, regarding the urban residents of land use designation, we took a close look at the language of the plans as well as the language in the neighborhood or in sorry, in the zone district intent statements for the various districts that the applicant applied for. And in each of them, it indicated to us that while residential was the primary character of the area, they all called for as well some complimentary serving commercial uses that would serve those future residences and act as a transition between an entirely commercial or industrial area and an entirely residential area. And so what when we took a look at those plans and the language behind what urban residential means, we found that those land uses and the mix of uses and the building forms that would be allowed in the districts that are proposed by the applicant, we found that it could be found consistent with those plan recommendations. So that's where we were. And Planning Board concurred with that analysis. Regarding the open space zoning, when you take those one at a time. So first with the OSA zoning that can only be applied to lands owned or operated by Denver Park. So in the future, as this area develops and if parts of the park go to Denver parks, I think you will maybe see Denver Parks bring you an OSA application or something like that. But this is a private owned, so OSA isn't even an option for them. You have a fair point, though, about what? About open space? Generally, what we find is that applicants who are at this stage of development don't zone to open space because they're, you know, still to the boundaries of what ultimately become the parcel lines will change a little bit over time as phases develop. This is a large site will develop in phases. And so what we find is that typically folks are going to ask for zone districts that allow open space but don't only allow open space so that that open space can be provided for, but with the flexibility over time for the definition of those boundaries. So in order to compel the open space you've heard about the infrastructure master plan and the development agreement will ensure that we get the open space that is new, that is will be enabled through the zoning in the rezoning bill. Yeah. I'm going to have to follow up with you to sort of better understand how we sort of articulate zone lots and things like that because they seem very specific in the developer agreement down to the hundreds of Yeah. Down to the hundredths of a of an acre on what, how much open space will be provided. So it seems like they have a pretty developed idea about where that is and what that is that I almost wish we were capturing it, you know, other than through a private party agreement. That is not part of this council's consideration, although it sort of weirdly is. But yeah, sure.
Speaker 8: I do want to just note the development agreement to Kyle's point about OCA that it can't be applied until it's actually sitting on land. The development agreement does call for the largest parcel to be called right now anyway, Fox Park of 2.52 acres that once it's developed and through the warranty period and then transfer to the city , we would designated as OSA at that point.
Speaker 4: But again that's. Through private.
Speaker 0: Party action. The. How big is this going to come? More questions. Yes, for more. These are all quick. How many square feet is the printing facility? The Denver Post. And since we're.
Speaker 2: I think the existing funding facility is about.
Speaker 3: 227,000 square feet.
Speaker 0: Okay. The linkage fee is 25% more. The examples are residential. But I think Doug alluded to this. If if if it's commercially developed square footage, it will be subject to the commercial linkage fee. Is that correct? Okay. But it has to be new construction. So the 227,000 square feet of the printing facility would not be eligible for a linkage fee. Is that correct? It doesn't have to be new construction.
Speaker 8: So per Jill Jennings calling again, per the linkage fee ordinance, it does not apply to existing buildings.
Speaker 0: So I'm asking that because because Doug made it sound well. In his response. Does that mean that that that sort of square footage and the potential for that to be the commercial.
Speaker 4: Property.
Speaker 0: Which would be subject to the highest linkage fee sort of. You could surround that by urban residential and be consistent with the plans and really not get a 20 net 25% linkage fee for the totality of the site because that's a huge amount of money that is wrapped up in the considerable footage that would not be eligible . And so I just one is, you know, without knowing what the total development potential is.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, yes, that's true. But it applies citywide today.
Speaker 0: Right. Okay. And then Chris Nevitt. Where is the next step? Studies. Can you give me an update on that?
Speaker 4: Sure. The next step study. The scope was approved after going through the mill with various agencies. It's now on the street and so we expect to get proposals from consultant teams in a couple of weeks and then we'll be assessing who has the best proposal and moving forward.
Speaker 0: And what is council's involvement going to be with that.
Speaker 4: Will be letting the contract.
Speaker 0: Just the contract. But when they go out and start doing public outreach, are we having a dedicated.
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah. Well, we'll be consulting with you guys with respect to all of the the public communication and participation from the community. But the the the contract, actually, it's a pretty small contract. It's $380,000, I think. So it may not come here, but. If you make us, we will.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah, that's why I just wrote down. Asked for a briefing. Okay. Then the last question is. Yeah. You know, this is. This is a heavy lift for council, but it's an easy lift for a member of the administration. In your past life, you were a very strong labor advocate. One thing that I was always looking for is, you know, could we introduce project labor agreements? Did that ever? You know, when you're negotiating all these sorts of things in terms about about affordable housing, about transit. Did you were you able to have that conversation about the delivery of these construction projects? Because that, too, is one way we could address affordability.
Speaker 4: Wow. You put me on the spot there, councilman. I'm that's that's not really in my current job description, so I haven't beaten that drum very hard. But I will say that constructing things is a job creator. And the I-70 project, the National Western Project, these are all projects that have a big apprenticeship and training component to them . And my hope would be that that would bleed over into other big construction projects in this area as well. It's all part of the same neighborhood. Understand that we're not at a construction project yet. We have to do the next step study to figure out what we're going to build. And then we have to figure out how to raise the money to pay for it. And then we're going to get to construction. But I think there's plenty of room for conversations between now and then.
Speaker 0: Don't stick your neck out too far. But but you're on that side. We're on this side. You still have advocates and support on this side of this. Yes. So by all means, feel free to approach that. Thanks. Okay, Councilman, I take you back up.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Do you want Councilman Cashman to go first?
Speaker 10: He said he was right.
Speaker 0: His question is answered. Okay.
Speaker 5: We talked to two quick questions. The first is. And I'm looking at you, Mr. Harrigan. If. Tax increment finance is requested. Typically, that gives us a second bite at the apple, if you will, to look at extracting more affordability in the housing. Can you speak to whether or not the housing plan set some guidance for because those get negotiated by Durham, not necessarily by OSD, unless they check in and weigh in with you on that, which I'm not sure what that practice is. But did the housing plan set some guidelines for Durham on how that gets done so that we have a floor to work from, if you will?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's a very good question. So we do engage with Dora, with Tracey Huggins and have regular meetings.
Speaker 0: If there is tax increment, finance.
Speaker 4: And public dollars are being utilized. It is.
Speaker 7: A.
Speaker 0: Different discussion.
Speaker 4: It's individually negotiated and we are going through that right now. And some discussions in this case as we had discussed this potentially being tiff and then not being TIFF and had other discussions. As I understand, we have an opportunity to reopen discussions and address this topic again. And it's a really good question because as we evaluated this and there's a lot of discussion over one times the linkage fee, which are developments and the city is required to pay versus 1.25 you have here today. And then as we look at the 30th and Blake overlay district and the four times fee, we see that as having public subsidy in the form of that density bonus.
Speaker 0: So you have different.
Speaker 4: Different types of negotiating depending on the circumstance in the case so that the tax increment finance, should it be one times linkage, three or four times the linkage fee? I think that's a negotiation and discussion in this case with the Metro District being on the table here and not taking city taxpayer dollars. You know, I think this is a very fair deal to get 25% above and beyond. We really, as Department Office of Economic Development, we really want to provide a sense of market stability. And right now, there is not a policy to say for metro districts it should be 2x3x4x. And I think that's something our department needs to really look into going forward, especially as we reopen or reassess the linkage fee next year.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'll save the other part for my comments. But my next question. Did Chris know through your. Chris, I just wanted to to sort of push a little further on the next step study because I keep hearing that it's focus is on transportation. And I want to know how drainage plays into the next step study because we know that the the global storm drainage study is underway. How much does that shape what falls into the next step study in addressing both drainage? Because if we only address transportation and we don't do anything with drainage and we have flooding, 38th Avenue is going to create further gridlock at that intersection of 38th box I-25. And. What's the other one?
Speaker 4: Park.
Speaker 5: Park Avenue. Park Avenue. So we won't be doing any justice to the collective work we're trying to do if we don't truly address that intersection problem and the drainage there. So just help me understand, is it just transportation or is it transportation? And drainage is part of what that next step study is addressing. And then the next piece of that is how do we anticipate that all of the property owners in this area, not just this particular site, because we've got a number of that have been rezone, but they haven't built yet and we've got some high densities that have been approved in this area. So how will they all then contribute towards addressing the infrastructure challenges that we have in this area?
Speaker 4: Got it. Yeah, that's a great question. So the next step study is primarily focused on transportation, but I think this is a good example of all the pieces and parts in the city working closely together and working in harmony. So the Globeville stormwater study that's been sort of up and moving forward for about a year, and the group that's working on the next step study for this project met with the project manager and principals in that project and tried to figure out exactly because we didn't want to waste money by doing redundant work. I agree with that. We wanted our work to be complementary and so we've worked very closely with them. What's the work that they're doing? How can the their drainage work inform the transportation infrastructure that we will be focusing on? And also, how will the transportation infrastructure that we're working on inform their drainage work? And I'll give you in fact, the 38th Avenue Canal is a great example. If one of the big moves is the reconstruction of that 38th Park Fox 25 interchange and how it interacts with the 38th Avenue underpass. If the drainage study is talking about moving or building new drainage infrastructure there, the transportation project would be the perfect opportunity to execute on that. So that's how we're going to be working closely together so that they they complement each other. Your question about the funding is, is right on the money, if you'll excuse the pun, and we don't have the answer to that yet. And this next step study is going to be very different than a next step study, the next step studies that we've done in the past in that it will focus explicitly. One of the scope elements is to focus explicitly on all the different ways in which money can be raised to meet the the the need that's identified in the study. Usually the study identifies the projects and comes up with a concept price and then kind of leaves it at that. This study will also begin to answer the question How can that be paid for? Who pays and how much?
Speaker 5: So in that, is there an expectation that the developers in this area will contribute towards that so that it's not expected that we just build it to max capacity? Yes, ma'am. And the taxpayers end up dealing with trying to solve the problem.
Speaker 4: Yes, indeed. So in the development agreement, that is the companion to this rezoning and that also gives legal teeth to the infrastructure master plan in the development agreement is a limited to a couple of things. There's a limit to the amount of development that this project that these developers or the vertical developers that that that follow. There's a limit to the amount that they can develop based on the capacity for traffic in the neighborhood. So they cannot you know, you refer to while there's this entitlement and they could build to their full entitlement and that's going to blow up the infrastructure. We won't let that happen. They can't build beyond that capacity, number one. And number two. The development agreement actually anticipates it. We don't have the answer yet, so we couldn't really memorialize it. But the development agreement anticipates a more comprehensive mobility solution to which this property owner and other property owners in the neighborhood will contribute.
Speaker 5: So that just raises one quick question for the city attorney, and I just want to make sure that by. Approving the rezone with the density allowable on the site, that we're not putting the city in a situation where we're going to be in a legal entanglement because there's a perception that they could build to the approved height limits, but yet we're putting this cap on.
Speaker 4: I get the question you're asking. And Brad Beck's coming up here. You're asking if we say here's your entitlement and then they try to execute on that and we say, no, no, wait a minute, how do we deal with that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I understand you've put some language in in the agreement, but there's some.
Speaker 6: Brad Becker, the city attorney's office. There's a chip count mechanism built into the development agreement so that we can meter that out. And the city always has its health and safety hammer if it needed to if it needed to exercise it.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Who counts on us. When I was you, you became a city attorney. Needs to stick around. I just wanted to know what established the capacity of the neighborhood. That's. That's a new one. You know, I get why you're saying that. But what sort of documented or scientific evidence do we have that there is a capacity to a neighborhood.
Speaker 6: From an infrastructure.
Speaker 7: Infrastructure perspective.
Speaker 0: However, your.
Speaker 6: Staff might have to. It's probably a better answer by. Chris, now that or perhaps.
Speaker 0: Because we're talking.
Speaker 10: The traffic studies that have been.
Speaker 0: Because we're talking trip count. Are you just talking peak hour because you've got a 24 seven day and you're essentially saying that only transit would only occur? Or are you saying that that this new capacity of a neighborhood is an F intersection on both routes? 24 seven. You know, what is this?
Speaker 8: So we worked Jill Jennings school like we worked very closely with our friends in public works and unfortunately Eric Osmonds and couldn't join us tonight. And looking at traffic studies done in this area, traffic studies prepared by the developer in this case, we were able and recent traffic counts to come up with a number related to how many trips are already out in this area. And then based on current roadway and intersection design today, how many trips that can handle before essentially there is failure and no one can move safely through the intersection. So that's how we came up with the.
Speaker 0: Number at peak hour or how many hours during actually actually, don't worry about it. If you could just get me that and have a look. I want to have a better understanding because there are other neighborhoods that basically feel like they're at capacity and we can't get that sort of scrutiny. And what we've learned is that the threshold for pain is very, very high. And in part of me thinks that if we develop this, if we plan this area and developed it in a way that was more holistic, where the services and everything were there, you could actually reduce trip counts and and and actually hitting capacity might actually spur that sort of growth within the boundaries rather than encouraging migration out.
Speaker 8: So, so there are a couple of things with this development in particular as the development agreement requires that with a site development plan, they submit a transportation demand management plan to look at sort of how are they dealing with trips and reducing trips overall? Because we know that is an issue here. That is something I think we're starting to have conversations about citywide. I think we've done it and a couple other developments through development agreement in the past. And then to just add on to what Chris was talking about, the framework in this development agreement, we are working and have already started drafting rules and regulations that would apply to this entire area, 184 acres, if memory serves, to set this trip capacity in place for all development coming forward. So we are going to be piggybacking on the parking maximum conversation that we have started with in community planning and development for this area. Again, aimed at how do we reduce trips and ensure that there is enough capacity for existing and new redevelopment.
Speaker 0: Have you considered to to my colleague's question related to that about this developer versus prior rezonings that we've already approved, have you considered that the potential for the TDM component in some of these transit components being an overlay so that it's not just applicable to this and everybody going forward, but that we could sort of retroactively apply it.
Speaker 8: So the rules and regulations will require any time someone within this development comes in with a site development plan, they would have to provide a transportation demand management plan, assuming the rules are adopted. But that's what we are diligently working to do. So whether it's been zoned or not.
Speaker 0: Oh, great. Thank you. All right. That closes the you make sure questions and also the people here before 12 are going into comments by members of council. Representing this district. I'll I'll go first. Couple of things that I'll start off with, number one. I think every rezoning in this area for the last. Three years. There's been one to maybe three people talking about a mobility and transportation plan for the zone. And this is the first rezoning where there's a plan and there's actually a dollar amount that is committed to it. So I just want to say, you know, we've been talking about this for a long time. You know, those of us who know this area, I just walked this area on Friday. I don't I don't think people understand the existing condition of this area. And if you haven't been there, you need to go. And so I appreciate the investment now that we've tied a dollar amount. And I appreciate my former colleague from president of City Council, Chris Nevitt, working so hard on this along with all the CPD and all the folks. So thank you for that. Speaking to the existing condition, we talk a lot about, you know, do it, do it yourself. Artists, nonprofits. Do you know where those people exist right now? They exist in this area, and not a lot of people know that. And so I want to thank you all from a for for helping folks at Taco Fest. There's going to be thousands of people there this weekend and there are a lot of artists I went and visited last week. And I know a lot of people think this area is going to get developed very quickly and it's going to be a while. And I hope that we don't displace those folks who are currently in all of these buildings that are in there. So so that as far as the zoning goes, I mean, as I look at their criteria, as I look at the consistency with the adopted plans that just got approved in 2014, uniform uniformity with district regulations will hold on. Number three to further the public health and safety and welfare, justifying circumstances, consistency with neighborhood context that the rezoning actually applies. And the public health and safety to me goes directly with the community benefit agreements. I should say the development agreement agreements that benefit the community and you know, totally on board what's going on with the transportation mobility plan. Loved the maximums parking maximums when you be doing that all over the city, especially near transit. You know, I feel like on the, you know, councilwoman and each and I have talked about this a lot and I feel like her questions were right on point at the beginning of this. And we've kind of debated this issue. I know. Which what didn't get shared during the comment the question period. I know that the developer came with a plot of land to dedicate as affordable housing. That plot of land was on the north. West, northeast side of the property. That particular location to OED and others didn't feel like that was the best location. And so they negotiated a one point, whatever you guys call it. We'll just say two bucks a square foot, 11.2 times the linkage fee. Now, the question here is, should OED have negotiated a better deal for the land? Because I agree with councilman Councilwoman Kenney. We do need to get land. But when? How long are we willing to wait to that land gets developed for affordable housing? Or do we take the cash and begin immediately to put it into a fund and begin getting getting affordable units now? So that is kind of the consideration around the affordable housing that I have been wrestling. Two things. One, if we could if we have the authority to negotiate, we probably would have pushed a development to see if we could get more of that Southern property, knowing that we would get that development much faster, knowing that you could get utilities there much faster. I feel like that northern property you will not get utilities to and you will not see those unit realized as fast as you as we could see them to. If we do get the cash, can OED direct those dollars to the first developer who steps there and buy down affordable units, much like we've done on Welton? And so those are some considerations that we need to begin to look at. I am, you know, mostly appreciative of the efforts going on. I feel like we could have done a little bit harder job on the development agreement regarding affordable housing. I'm going to support this. I'm going to be watching this. I'm going to be working with with Eric Harada and working with OED to make sure that those dollars get invested right back into the site. I do agree with my council members that in the plan, all it talked about was affordable housing around this station, and we have to make sure that we build those units. But the negotiation wasn't as easy, I think, as sometimes we talk about. Right. There's a lot of there is a lot of difficulty in this. And so this is part of the tough constraints of being the council, the legislative body, trying to step into the executive body that makes the agreements. And so I'm going to support this, and I'm excited to hear what my colleagues have to say. Councilman Espinosa. So this one, this one's frustrating for me. You know, traditionally, I you know, I spoke out on a few of these exile in Arizona, and they spoke out about the need for infrastructure and some of the things we were overlooking. And and then at some point, I just was like, well, I guess we'll will meet this problem when it finally manifests itself and and continued to support subsequent rezonings without speaking up. And then this comes through and it's like, oh, we expect this developer to sort of now start to finally address all of the concerns that some of us have been articulating from day one on Fox Island. And I get frustrated by this because to me this is not enough density. And I've said that privately and now I'm saying it publicly because the developer has made that move and made that proposal to retain the Denver Post building on an area that was mapped 12 storey. It's a huge cut in the amount of developable development potential there. And rather than sort of squeeze it back onto the available development footprint to increase density and help support this station area, we just said, nope, you're capped for some arbitrary thing that we're creating when all of those plans were developed around those existing roadways with a planned connection to alleviate this concern. And so rather than do all the infrastructure things that we need to do, which I've been articulating since day one on this council and asked for for funding in the Geo Bond to ask, we have said no, we're going to depress the scale here. Which when we do that, we depress the potential to do land value capture and work with developers to deliver affordable housing. And instead we're paying for it.
Speaker 4: But at.
Speaker 0: A. Trickle of the of the need and. And so. I continue to watch this area. Flounder through some sort of vision without a real vision. It will be successful eventually, but I wish next steps had occurred when I got elected. When this council was articulating this concern and that we had land value capture in a meaningful way. You know, and what I mean by meaningful way is the thing that I have been throwing down constantly for about two months now. And I want you to hear this, Erica Raga, because you're the one person that I need to talk to that I haven't walked through this area with this proposal. But I think there is a way to do revenue neutral development to the city and largely to the developer and deliver units with each project that gets constructed. Through this land value captured and incent this so that we're not just because we are not going to subsidize our way out of this problem, we have to construct. And provide I mean, have these housing units available. And I know it can be successful in a mixed income environment and it will be healthy to develop around our transit stations. And so if we thought about this and we did this, and I would I will sit down with you and other developers in this room. Tim Santos, you're a very savvy, housing savvy individual as well. Let's talk about this plan. So the question of where. I mean, will there be housing and where will affordable housing be in projects? Will should never come up anymore. We know in our Todd areas we will get them as a product, a byproduct of any development. And the only reason you wouldn't get it is because nobody's building. But as soon as somebody is building residential, there's going to be an affordable component. And yeah, we can't mandate it, but we can incentivize and we can do it in a way that is far more productive than anything we have approached thus far, because a four exit at 38th and Blake is really a2x, it's just doubling the linkage fee when you do all the math and massing of those projects. And here. 1.25. It's just it's a drop. It's a it's the word pathetic is going to come out of my mouth. And the response from a developer when they say we want to do more is should never be. You can pay more. Money is great because I say homes are better. I've already said it. We will not subsidize our way out of this. We must build inclusively and we can do it so that it is revenue neutral for the city. And will benefit the developer at the same time. So regardless, I will follow the the this is not the reason I have laid out a much bigger problem. It is not the function of this particular reasoning to capture and resolve these issues. These are city issues. These are matters for council and the administration to do a better job in addressing. And I'm just saying that what this is does not do a better job at addressing, but it is consistent and better than anything we have put forward on Fox Island to date. So with that, I will continue to to support these rezonings. But I ask, there are still tons of opportunity. I mentioned this last week on the Evans rezoning and another Todd area where we have massive industrial land and we have several others like that that are opportunities waiting to happen. But we have to lay down new provisions, new regulations to address these concerns in real time things. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for those remarks. I agree with him and I adopt them. And I'm going to support this rezoning because I believe it meets all of the criterion criteria that are required. And not only that, I think that this is a project that that is necessary up there. That's why we're building transit. I think we dodged a big bullet, Grandma, when RTD wanted to build a commuter rail maintenance facility there. Imagine if a massive part of this station area had been taken up with a rail yard and a maintenance facility that RTD ended up building on the north side of the highway instead. In fact, I remember Carl Marcello, the late Carl Marcella, when he told us that Mayor Hickenlooper called him into the office. Graham I don't know if you were there, but Mike Shanahan was in the room and Mayor Hickenlooper said that Carl Marcello, who was the head of RTD, you will not build your maintenance facility on this on this property. And I think that's a very fortunate thing that happened, because this is exactly where we want to build. We want to build this diversity of housing, this density of housing with its access to the regional rail network. And so I'm very happy to support and I think it's a legacy of Denver's old industrial areas, we reasoned, one last week as well. And we keep taking areas that used to be rail yard. We're talking about now the old rice yards last week where we where we approved the new downtown area plan amendment that will possibly convert that area into an urban neighborhood. And now we're looking again at the old Argo smelter and even the one we just approved earlier over in Park Hill and Harley Street is right next to the site of the original Lowry Field. And it just shows how the city continues to evolve and it continues to change. And these are necessary changes to accommodate a growing population with a diversity of housing options. So I'm very happy to support this, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. For almost 15 years now, I have been engaged in most of the conversations around big redevelopments in this city and have studied closely the ones that preceded my time. And I have been a defender of area planning, even though it takes an enormous amount of community resources and times. And Elizabeth knows this. It's a lot of meetings, it's a lot of input. And residents are always skeptical and they say, can we trust what you put in this plan? Can we believe you when you say the things in this plan? And I have defended the value of those plans because I have believed they set a guideline that I believe in most cases we strive to achieve. But today I can't say that that's true. So I have two things that we need to lay out for the record here. The one is, does the zoning conform to the plans of the city? The language of those plans. And then the second question, because I think it's important. Would it have been possible would it have been fair to have this project conform to those plans? I think you've got to answer both those questions. So let me just lay down some record. Transit oriented development strategic plan of 2014 include a range of housing types and affordability, with mixed use development at or near stations. Housing an inclusive Denver Action Plan. Prioritize the building of creative creation of affordable housing in vulnerable areas, including areas vulnerable to displacement and neighborhoods that have strong amenities such as transit. OED housing investment priorities already prioritizes development of affordable housing that includes services or is located near fixed rail transit and high frequency bus lines. Globeville neighborhood plan. It means having access to a vibrant system, including quality jobs, affordable and diverse housing options. Global development plan also states, and it specifically calls out that this site should be considered for use for a community land trust because there is a risk that the recommended development intensity creates exceeding existing conditions on the ground that could result in displacement. 41st and Fox Plan. I mentioned already 12 or 13 mentions, including a requirement to develop an affordable housing strategy from CPD and OED. Working together for this station area, including mixed income housing, requires this area to follow the recommendations in the TOD plan. So just for the lawyers in the room, the tiered strategic plan is probably not an adopted plan except the 41st and FOX Plan is adopted and it says that we are going to follow the recommendations of the two D strategic plan. It mentioned specifically on page 36. And I just want to read this because this is what we're talking about. While the home prices remain affordable to existing residents, the presence of the station may increase property values and overall desirability of the area. This will create a new develop. This will require a new need for new development to provide housing types for diverse income levels. We got it right as a city in these plans, we said we know that there's going to be an impact. We know we need to have a plan for it. And we need to build diverse, mixed income housing on this site. Not a single mention of paying for it to build somewhere else. So we clearly do not have a zoning paired with this agreement that conform to the language of our adopted plans. So the question is, could we have done it? Could we have come up with the zoning and or associated agreements that conformed? Well, first of all, I just want to be really clear. My exchange was with the Office of Economic Development. I helped write the bill for the linkage fee with my colleague in the administration. We clearly left a path for affordable housing negotiated plans in the ordinance. Why did we do that? The linkage fee was never designed to be an affordable housing planning tool. I agree with one of the speakers tonight. It was a floor where there's nothing else. This applies. Linkage fees are designed for buildings. There's nothing in that ordinance that states that it's intended to be a planning tool or that it's intended to determine what neighborhoods need for housing. That's just not what it was designed for. And we made sure there was a path so that where we had large, important redevelopments, we could continue to to make sure we had all the robust planning processes necessary. So has anyone else done it before? Has anyone else? In a big, complicated, multi-phased area committed to building affordable housing on site? Well, they have. And they haven't just done it in tive projects. The Central Valley did not get to if it was a metropolitan district and they committed to on site housing. And guess what? They had environmental contamination. They had railroads to deal with. They had many barriers, lack of infrastructure. They had no street grid. Now, they may not have been quite as isolated, but I don't think anyone can say that it was not a tough site and they committed ahead of time. As master developers to pass on the obligation to their verticals. And they figured it out. And by the way, we did not subsidize it. They built it without subsidy. So I want that record to be clear. Others have done it and they've done it in many different ways, which is important when we think about the question came up. Well, there's no policy. Well, there's no policy in part because every site's different. And I think that that has worked, right. So at ninth in Colorado, they built slightly off site one just on the other side of the street because it worked. And they actually built it early. They built it before the rest of the housing St Anthony's. They dedicated some land to DHS. They built some mixed use on site. Gates, had a totally different approach where they're going to sprinkle the units throughout every one of these projects got the benefit of thinking creatively and solving for housing. They committed ahead of time in some cases without knowing where it would go, in other cases, dedicating it. So the absence of a policy created a lot of flexibility for developers, and it created a lot of flexibility for the city to be creative. Sometimes we bring additional subsidies, sometimes we don't. But make no mistake, large, complicated redevelopment sites can absolutely commit to affordable housing and they can deliver it, and they have done it in the city's history. So should it be done? I think that answer I mean, we don't even need to debate that. We have a dire need and land is very scarce and it's needed. And this neighborhood at every turn has said to us, Where are you on preventing displacement? And we talked about this last time. Displacement isn't just when you're removing the houses on your site, it's the ripple effects that are going to happen from property values and change outside your site. So even though not a single housing unit is going to be lost on this site, it's going to have the potential to displace and our plans recognize that. So we have a situation where it was hard. The first land offered wasn't the right land. And I respect the decision that that wasn't the right approach. But we had every plan obligation to stay at the table, to figure it out, to be more creative and use the institutional history of this city. There are really well-intentioned folks here, but we don't have affordable housing planning as a as a as a as a job description. And we didn't use, I don't think, any of the history of these plans and the institute. We have newer staff, maybe some folks weren't around when we did Central Park Valley, I'm not sure, but we missed the opportunity. And so because it was in the plans and because it was possible and it is not in this final thing, this does not meet the criteria for any of adopted plans. So the question I just want to close with is what do we do from here? Right. I can't vote for this. I won't vote for this because of of it failing to meet these legal requirements and failing to meet my moral requirements for meeting all of these things that we've helped to create, all these expectations we've created for our community. So what do we do going forward? Well, one, we need to break down the silos. We can't have one department doing big planning and visioning and then do it without. And community dialog. I didn't even quote all the places where the community meetings from Globeville residents. I got a call today from a global resident asking about this. So so we can't have one department that's not at the public meetings negotiating the affordable housing plan separate from the department that wrote the plans. That can't happen.
Speaker 0: Anymore.
Speaker 3: We need to give the department the staff capacity and expertize. You need. Administering an ordinance and approving a funding agreement for affordable housing is very different than planning a 50 acre site. It's a different skill set. We need to give you the talent and the capacity you need to do that. And frankly, we as a council need to have a conversation now about policy, because I've had a lot of trust for a lot of years that these things would get figured out, that people would come check back with us as council. We had a conversation about this. I pulled the record as early as 2016 about this site. I think my first meeting with the developer was in Philly. So every piece of indication was there and all the systems failed. So it's time. Let's talk about policy. Let's talk about written policy. So we I going to bring this to the housing and homelessness workgroup. And, you know, maybe it's time to end the flexibility. It's time to say, here's what happens when you want a big catalytic site with a lot of these considerations. Let's create rules and there's no more no more negotiating. Or let's put the council as the approving party of affordable housing approaches so that there's no more disconnect where no one comes and talks to us about what's being negotiated until they have a signed agreement. Right. So there's a lot of paths. Let's do some research. Let's see how other cities are doing this. But the trust the trust method, it didn't it failed us. And 2800 housing units might be built without any affordability. 2800. I can't live with that. And if that's a risk of ever happening again, we need a new approach. So I'd love to hear council feedback after this meeting about whether you're interested in that conversation, the Housing and Homelessness Workgroup. And I thank you for your time today.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Cannick Cashman.
Speaker 7: Well, we should be close to each other. I can understand the confusion. I'm tempted to say what she said.
Speaker 10: We can we can assume.
Speaker 7: Based on intent and promises. I don't know how long Mr. Bennis is going to be.
Speaker 4: Involved with that property.
Speaker 7: It reminds me of when I first heard about rezoning for liquor licenses that you need to be careful when you create a new license for this great guy who stands before you. Because the next guy, unless he's an out and out felon.
Speaker 10: May not have the same intent for your community.
Speaker 7: I agree with the councilwoman. I interpret the are plans to give emphasis to the creation of affordable housing, but for me even more strongly is the third criteria that talks about concern excuse me, concern for the public health and welfare, my office and hears on a daily basis. The two greatest concerns in the city are about traffic and about affordable housing. Now, I do believe we may be on an infrastructure path with this parcel that that takes a serious look at how to control trips. But for affordable housing, it's just another.
Speaker 4: Buyout.
Speaker 7: Opportunity. I mean, we zoned. I was the lone.
Speaker 10: No vote.
Speaker 7: On zoning, I believe 100 acres of Arapahoe Square because there was no affordable.
Speaker 4: Housing component. And here again.
Speaker 7: We're looking at something that approaches half of that size and again, with tremendous connectivity to to rail and mass transit options and again.
Speaker 10: With no.
Speaker 7: Affordable housing component and are. It is my personal belief that our linkage fee anyway is embarrassingly low. But there's only so much you can do with cash when we keep.
Speaker 4: Giving our land away.
Speaker 7: You know, we we are.
Speaker 4: Landlocked.
Speaker 7: And the number of units that we need to create, we can't keep giving these large parcels away. Again, based on intent and promises, it needs to be. It just needs to be a deeper part of our ethos. I mean, we spent so long.
Speaker 10: On.
Speaker 7: Our recent housing plan that talks over and over about the crisis we're in and the import of of of affordable housing. So. Yeah. I'm, um. I think we've got a great developer, but I'm going to have to vote against this plan tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. So let me first start by saying I live in this area. I drive this route routinely and the infrastructure is not sufficient even for today's traffic, with all the new development that has already occurred in Sunnyside, in Highlands. You know, you've got a tremendous amount of traffic that comes off of Park Avenue trying to get into North Denver. And then, you know, as you add the development to this area. We're going to be challenged on how to get people in and out. And yes, some will take the train, but a lot of people will still drive their cars because not everybody is going straight downtown. Our train system doesn't get everybody where you're trying to go and our bus connections don't link to our train to get everybody to that first and last mile. So addressing the infrastructure issues, both transportation and drainage in this area are critical to anything that's going to happen there, because if we don't do that, guess what? We're already gridlocked at that intersection. So we have to address that. Now, is affordable housing important? Absolutely. I've been a huge advocate of affordable housing. Been on the board of a nonprofit housing group for over 30 years. It's a priority for us to address in this city. But. I just have to go back to the work we did on our housing plan. We gave up our inclusionary housing ordinance. If these guys proposed to build any for sale housing, they would have to include 10% of their units. But we gave that up. I argued we shouldn't do that because that was one more tool in our toolbox that gave us at least something to have our housing developers contribute towards our affordability of housing. Yeah, it's up for sale, but and we think we've overcome that with the changes that we brought forward a couple of years ago to address the construction defect issue. So we're starting to see, you know, some developers build for sale housing in the city, but we gave that up. I don't think we should have. Does that mean we shouldn't be seeing affordability on the rental side here? No, that's not what I'm saying. I mean, we'd love to see that. But I think, you know, a couple of things here. As we continue to rezone large parcels. When it comes time to try to get affordability on there, the the person rezoning it can now sell it for higher and better use. So that challenges us being able to get affordability in those developments. And I get, you know, trying to masterplan the site and address the infrastructure needs for the site. But we need to change our policy so that we as much as we have the legal authority and we were able to do this with construction defects, even though we were told the state legislature has control. We adopted our own legislation here on how to do that. So we should be able to figure out how we do that on the affordability side for rental and for sale housing in this city. And I'm committed to working with the housing group Housing and Homeless Group to figure out what are the policy changes that we need to make so that we have the tool, we have the hook to include affordability in all of our development. We should not be letting people buy out where we want to see units constructed. We keep letting that happen. And guess what? We're not getting the units. We're getting the money. And then we're saying, Oh, you can go build over there or you can go build over there. But in the areas where we want to see a mix of income levels, guess what? It's not happening. We need to figure out how to make that happen. But we got to do that with our policy changes because to say, you know, you followed the rules, but we want you to do this, it's not fair. We need to change the policy that gives us the right to extract what we need and want to see happen. In all the developments in this city and especially the large developments where we're seeing, boom, massive development coming in to our city and what does that do? It's going to have that continued push out effect to the adjacent neighborhoods because people like coming into the area because there's just fun stuff to do in these areas. But guess what? Now they're going to look at Globeville. They're going to look at houses in in the adjacent neighborhoods that haven't already been turned over. And we have tried to look at including density at our TOD sites where that's where we want that. That's where we want the height. We want all of that at. Todd. And not have that then, you know, take over our adjacent residential neighborhoods. You know, Jefferson Park is an example where boom, nothing, nothing even looks the same in that neighborhood. It's been completely redeveloped for the most part. So, you know, I. I appreciate the work that the city has done and that this developer has done in addressing the infrastructure issues, which, again, to see anything new and different happen in this area which has already been designated as a TOD area. The neighborhood wants to see the development there and not in the neighborhood. So I'm inclined to support this tonight, even though it doesn't have the strong commitment to affordable housing. And my hope is that this applicant sees and hears this message loud and clear and figures out a way to ensure that affordability is front and center in everything that is done helps. Ensure that those units are on the site and not just contribute the funding to it and see those units go elsewhere, because I think that's a critical part. I don't believe we're going to see 2800 units built on the site as long as the commitment is to keep that building on the site , which I think is an incredible building. And we've talked about, you know, a potential use for that site that I think would make that whole location even far more attractive than what you guys are looking at or thinking about at this point in time. But. I just think that. The fact that we have the development agreement that links back to the project and ensures that we're also looking at the trip count. And you know, that is also a cap, if you will, on the site. So it ensures that we do this next step, study and address all of that upfront as part of of all of this. Otherwise, then not just this developer, but the others who will then come in through their development agreements will be required to, you know, to try to ensure that they're there addressing that cap as well. So I think those safeguards are in place. I'm anxious to see the outcome of the next step study and would just respectfully ask that that be brought to the appropriate committee so that we can be updated on where that's at in the process. You know, once the contractor selected and they move through the process to at least give us an update of where that's moving. The last thing I'll say, and this is too, a comment made by SACU, is that. This whole process changed when the 2010 zoning was adopted. City Council used to see a lot more detail in terms of number of units, number of parking spaces, traffic studies. You know, it's a whole different way that this body looks at the applications from the body that I served with. And so, again, if we want to see some changes, we need to look at the policy changes that we have to make. And we are the legislative branch that can do that so that we address those upfront and be able to look at the things that we want to see happen. And obviously, we don't do that in a vacuum, just like when we created the original IATO. It was done in collaboration with the development partners in this city. So with that, I will be supporting this tonight and am committed to working with Councilwoman Kim Inches Committee to change our policy so that we have a way to ensure that with these large developments, we're getting affordability in these projects. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. This concludes the comment portion of city council. It's been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye Clark by Espinosa Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon High Fashion. No carnage. Lopez No new, huh? Ortega Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please. I think we're missing somebody. Okay. Yeah. Explosive ordinance results.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes, three nays.
Speaker 0: 93 nays for 12 passes. Onto the third public hearing for tonight. Councilman Flynn, will you please put counsel before.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4400 North Fox Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4400 North Fox Street from I-B, UO-2 (industrial) to C-MX-12, UO-2, C-RX-12, UO-2, C-RX-8, UO-2 (urban center, residential mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-1-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0443
|
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Sorry. You know what? Yes. I do want to put those on. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Sure. Would you please put 443 and 446? Yes.
Speaker 6: I move the council bills. 18 dash four, four, three and four, four, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in. Seconded. Councilwoman Kenny said. You want to try to?
Speaker 3: I'm about to vote against this agreement to for the same reasons as I cited in the last public hearing. But I have to note for the record just how very hard everybody worked on the transit demand management pieces of it and how strongly I support that piece of it. It's clear it's going to pass. I want it to succeed. And so I just wanted the record to be clear that I am fully supportive of the the transportation and mobility pieces. I do appreciate the developer coming forward and making the commitment on helping to kick start that study. And so I will be voting against it exclusively because of the shortcomings and the affordable housing piece.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. And this is something that we have been talking about on council for a long time to transport transportation demand management citywide. Councilman Clark, this is something that we agreed to. There's a $250,000 contribution by the developer to kick this off in this area, something that's badly needed. Again, please go in. Walk this area, walk it. You will see it is in bad shape. So I'll be supporting this. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. Clare Espinosa. Stephen Flynn.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I heard in.
Speaker 4: High.
Speaker 2: Fashion. How can each. Lopez. No new Ortega.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, i.
Speaker 0: Police closed voting as a result.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes, three nays, one abstention.
Speaker 0: 83 nays, one abstention. For 43 years. Pass. All right, so we put both I'm sorry, 443 and 446 on at the same. I do need to do it separately.
Speaker 2: There is no need to do it separately. It was done in the black.
Speaker 0: Got it. Okay. Councilman Flint, will you please put council for 22 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a new fund in the Grant and Other Money Projects Fund.
Establishes the Fox North special revenue fund to accept the developer’s $250,000 contribution to support the Next Step Study associated with a contract agreement with Ascendant Capital Partners DNA, LLC, West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1, and West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 2 obligating the developer and their assigns to certain requirements for development of approximately 41 acres located between I-70, I-25, the UP & BNSF rail lines and 38th Avenue, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-1-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0422
|
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council.
Speaker 0: Bill.
Speaker 6: 18, dash 420 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 422 is open. Scott Robertson, please, may we have a staff report?
Speaker 1: One, two, three.
Speaker 0: Scott Robinson. Maybe. I'm just joking. Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Sorry about that. Yes. Scott Robinson with community planning and development. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. This is a request to rezone for 21 West Fourth Avenue from you RH 2.5 to you. Annex two property is located in Council District seven in the Baker neighborhood is at the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and a lot of street properties 15,625 square feet. It used to be a fortune cookie factory. The building is now vacant. Request is to rezone from you are h 2.5 which is urban neighborhood context row house to zoning with a two and a half storey maximum height to you annex two still urban neighborhood context mixed use zoning with a two storey maximum height. The request is to allow for an art gallery and artist studios and some residential uses on the property and add a second street addition. The property is surrounded by the you are h 2.5 zoning. But as you can see in the map, there are some you annex to properties scattered throughout the Baker neighborhood. You can see a couple on the map, but it's a pattern found throughout Baker that there are these small commercial corners with the you annexed to zoning. You can see in Baker there's a wide mix of housing types with single unit two unit and multi unit, as well as commercial and mixed use properties scattered throughout and some specific uses as well. You can see the subject property in the top left photo there and then some of the surrounding properties in the other photos. This went to the planning board on April 18th, received a unanimous recommendation of approval and there was no public comment. Went to the committee on May 8th and in your packet you have a letter of support from the bigger Historic Neighborhood Association. For her to approve a rezoning, the council must find that these five criteria have been met. First criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. First is comprehensive plan 2000. As described in the staff report, staff has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these five strategies from campaign 2000 relating to infill development, mixed use development, providing services and neighborhoods, and being consistent with the the character of existing neighborhoods of which the proposed use next to would do. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the concept plan used for this property is single family duplex, which calls for primarily residential but with complementary small scale commercial uses, such as those that would be allowed under the proposed U. And Next two zoning. There is also an area of stability which calls for maintaining the character of an area while accommodating some new development. As I mentioned, Baker has this pattern of small commercial buildings on corners, and this property is a nonresidential property already. So this would be maintaining the existing character of the area. Both a lot of Street and Fourth Avenue are designated locals consistent with the proposed you elected to zoning. The third plan is the Baker Neighborhood Plan from 23. In general, the Baker plan calls for providing a mixture of uses and providing services for the residents in the area. This property is in the single family and row house sub area, which calls for re-using vacant or underutilized commercial buildings which the proposed rezoning would allow and for removing non-conforming industrial uses. As I mentioned, this used to be a fortune cookie factory and industrial use. The rezoning to use mix two would remove the possibility of that going back as an industrial use and instead allow compatible commercial and residential development. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans and first criterion that the second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the mixed two zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the re-use of an existing building in a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed conditions, and there's been additional development and redevelopment in the Becker neighborhood. The population has increased. The demand for these kind of neighborhood services has increased. And so it's appropriate to rezone to allow for neighborhood serving commercial uses and residential on the property. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. As mentioned, the existing context is urban neighborhood. The proposed context is also urban neighborhood. This is a good example of an urban neighborhood context in daycare. So it's consistent with that. And the Annex two would allow development consistent with the purpose of the intent of that zone district so that staff finds all five criteria and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. We have two speakers this evening. Bruce O'Donnell, you have 3 minutes. And Chairman Sekou, you have six.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mr. President, members of council, I am Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street, Denver. I'm the owner's representative for this rezoning application, and we're in complete agreement with the staff report. I'm here to formally ask your approval and I'm available. Answer any questions you do have any. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Chairman Seiko.
Speaker 10: Chairman Sekou Coup Star Movement of self-defense. Hmm. We? Want to say. We appreciate the work that. City planning and. Folks do as they go about putting this kind of stuff together. Because you go to certain rules, regulations to do this. And this clearly comes in line with all that. Like all the others before us. And the truth is at this point as we speak. From the public's point of view. It becomes one of those. What I was going. Because you're ain't going to. Nothing. And we ain't gonna get nothing out of this. Nothing. We're not going to get the housing needs that we need, that we can afford, that you consider affordable. Thanks. I have. It's going to be passed on and looked over. And we have other conversations and you know, y'all gonna put stuff in the board and you're gonna give them stuff to work with and then, hey. Nothing's going to happen. So if I can just stop posturing. We can start coming up with hope plans. And then we can start voting for things that you morally don't agree with. Just let it roll through. Just let it roll. Because when it's all said and done at the end of the day. Very few really. One solution for all this for you. And that's revolution. That's it. And it just came down to that because we run into a wall and we keep getting different variations of themes in this saying stuff. But when it comes to actually having the people that are committed to make it happen and give up the vote and take a risk to where they're going to be reelected, did not and somebody is going to like them were not intended to do. And the mayor and the king look. How much longer do you think we going to put up with this? And why should we even put up with it?
Speaker 0: Chairman Sekou for 22.
Speaker 10: So you know what? Just so you can go home and rest, so you can silence the voice of the public. We're going to say, hey, we're going to go along with this. We're not going to postpone. I mean, everybody can go home quicker. And good luck, whatever you do, because we're going to do what we're going to do. That's it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Questions by members of council. Scott, let me ask you a quick question. This looks like a downed Sony.
Speaker 7: In terms of height. Yes, it goes from two and a half storeys to two. In terms of allowed uses, it increases the allowed use as the you are h 2.5 is strictly residential. This allows both residential and commercial.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Is this is this supported by other neighborhood groups?
Speaker 7: Yes. There's a lot of support from the big historic neighborhood association. There are only two are nos in the area of Baker. And I can.
Speaker 0: See this and I didn't hear you on the planning board.
Speaker 7: A passive unanimous support from. Correct?
Speaker 0: All right. All right. Any other questions by members of council? All right. This concludes Constable for 22 comments by members of Council.
Speaker 6: Jasmine Clarke Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to Scott and staff for putting together that report. I think it's been clearly demonstrated that this meets the five legal criteria for rezoning and I will be supporting it. I also just wanted to give a shout out to Bruce and the team for working so closely with this. Within the the baker has talked neighborhood association are no boundaries and that's always sensitive is one of Denver's biggest historic neighborhoods and I appreciate all the time and effort working with their zoning committee, working with their board to make sure that this was also a good fit for the neighborhood. And so I want to say thank you for that. And I will be supporting tonight. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Seeing all the comments. I'm Secretary Raquel.
Speaker 2: Clark. All right, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I Herndon. Cashman can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. Black guy. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I was voting as a result.
Speaker 2: To advise.
Speaker 0: 12 up. Yes, 12 eyes for 22 passes translations. Ladies and gentlemen, we are on to the last council bill of the night. This is number four. Councilman Flynn, would you please put 474 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 421 W. 4th Avenue in Baker.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 421 W. 4th Avenue from U-RH-2.5 to U-MX-2 (urban, row-house to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-8-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06182018_18-0474
|
Speaker 0: 12 up. Yes, 12 eyes for 22 passes translations. Ladies and gentlemen, we are on to the last council bill of the night. This is number four. Councilman Flynn, would you please put 474 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I move that council bill 18, dash 474 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and second public hearing for 474 is now open. We have a staff report.
Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. President Council Members. Jason Morrison, Community Planning and Development. So I'm here this evening to present the proposed MELD Rezoning Text Amendment number one. And before I get started, I do want to acknowledge Councilman Rafael Espinosa, who is a sponsor of this particular text amendment. So this text amendment adds a requirement for mailed notice to property owners within a 200 foot radius of a property to be re zoned. The goal here is to improve notification for neighbors during the rezoning process. And this text amendment is specific to the rezoning process only and implements changes at both the application intake as well as the planning board public notification. As outlined in the Denver zoning code. There are two types of public notice. There's informational notice, which provides the public with notice of CPD receipt of an application for review and available avenues to give feedback. And the second type of public notice is notice a public hearing which provides public with advance notice of a required hearing in which a review or decision making body will take action on an application under the Denver Zoning Code. So now let's look at how this text amendment modifies this process. So currently for informational notice, within ten days of a determination of a complete application, the city notifies the following parties the city council members in whose district the subject property is located, the At-Large City Council members and R.A., whose boundaries encompass are located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. So this particular text amendment, all current notification, remains the same. And what changes now is that real property owners whose property is located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning, including those properties to be re zoned, are notified upon receipt of complete application. So similarly, during the notice for public hearing, those that are notice are the City Council members in her district. The subject properties located the At-Large City Council members and the RINO's, whose boundaries encompass or located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. And that happens 15 days before a planning board hearing. So this particular text amendment, all current notification remains the same. And now all real property owners whose property is located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning, including those properties to be reasoned, are notified in advance of the public hearing. So here's a snapshot of our public outreach efforts. And I don't necessarily need to read everything here as I know that it's in front of you and within your packets. But I do want to highlight our attendance back in February at the monthly ANC Zoning and Planning Committee. And I'd also like to note the planning board public hearing, where Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval to Denver City Council. And finally, our attendance at Lou Reed last month, where the committee recommended well, excuse me to where the committee recommended that the bill move forward for your review this evening. So as of today, I've received five letters of support for this particular text amendment. One was from the full delegation of the ANC members. One was from the Overland Park R.A.. One is from the Capital Hill, United Neighborhoods. R.A. One is from the Highland United Neighbors. R.A. And one was also from a private property owner in Denver who owns multiple properties within different neighborhoods. And I'd like to publicly thank everyone for their feedback. CPD finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with many of the goals, strategies and policies found in Denver's Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and Blueprint. Denver. The text amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As Wolves proposed, language enhances communication between the city and those partners at parties potentially affected by this type of zoning procedure. Perhaps more importantly, this text amendment establishes those lines of communication early on in the process, therefore, reinforcing transparency and improving outreach to address concerns and feedback in an open, thoughtful and fair manner. So switching gears to Blueprint Denver, the plan stresses the importance of integrating a thoughtful public involvement strategy into the planning process. And it also highlights that in order for a public involvement strategy to be successful, it must include a wide range of mechanisms for people to share their ideas , questions and concerns. As proposed, the text amendment will improve citizen engagement in an efficient, effective and timely manner. Looking to the second review criteria, CPD finds that the proposed text amendment furthers the public health, safety and welfare of Denver residents, landowners and businesses by both reinforcing transparency and encouraging active citizen participation in the rezoning process. Finally, CPD finds that the proposed text amendment meets the third review criteria as the proposed language is uniform within each particular zone district. Moreover, the proposed text amendment is an improvement to encourage citizen involvement during the early stages of the rezoning process, regardless of which zone district your property is located. So CPD has analyzed the proposed text before for compliance with the review criteria of just outline, and you find that it satisfies the three review criteria. And we would like to recommend that the SEC submitted for approval. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay. We have one speaker this evening. Chairman Seiko, 6 minutes.
Speaker 10: Germans take a Black Star action. Okay. Okay. If I go home, I'm down for this. Good night.
Speaker 0: All right. That concludes our speaker this evening. Questions by members of council.
Speaker 7: Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I have a quick clarifying question. In the in the in the presentation, you mentioned support letter from the Overland Park R.A.. I don't see that in the staff report. I did get an email from the neighbors of Overland North, which is a separate R.A. Did both of the Overland R.A. offer a letter, or was it just noon and not open?
Speaker 7: Uh, let me double check here. So the letter that I received was from the Overland Park Neighborhood Association.
Speaker 6: Okay. Then I just wanted to add to the record that I also got, you know, an email. I think all of us did at about 415 from support from the neighbors of Overland North, which is a separate auno. Okay. Just want to add that.
Speaker 7: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: We will add that into the record. Thank you, President Pro Tem. Any other questions? All right. This concludes Council Bill 474 comments by members of Council. Kelvin Espinosa, would you like to speak on your own? But just I'll be brief. I just want to thank Jason and Kyle. I get you know, they gave me props, but actually it was their work and heavy lifting to sort of get this language right and in a way that was readily digestible by CPD. And so I want to thank you two specifically for the work that you guys did for the shepherding that you've done with community, the responsiveness that you've had with any inquiries and just general overall professionalism and how well it went at planning board. So it's really impressive. I mean, it's fun to see you guys work. And then the other comment I'll add is, you know, with with the sort of esoteric text amendment like this, you really find out who's paying attention the channel channel late in the planning board because we've gotten a lot of I've gotten a lot of personal support from everybody, just about everybody's district. And it's it's it's it's fun to see things. My district's not suffering. I'm just joking. This is a great this is a great bill. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Mr. President. I want to echo that remark. I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for bringing this forward. And I hope that I speak for every other person up here on the dais here. This is a very necessary change, because so many of our RINO's, many of our rhinos, are not as active as others.
Speaker 10: And this will really.
Speaker 6: Get the word out to the people most impacted by by rezonings. So thank you to Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think I think it's I think it's accurate to say that our our notes don't represent every parcel in the city. And so every rezoning, I feel like there's one or two folks who feel like say that they didn't know about this and so who live right next to the rezoning. So I think this is a great bill and I'll be supporting it as well. See no other comments, Secretary Rocha. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I black eye. Clarke. I miss. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please. Closed. Hold on. Okay. There it is.
Speaker 2: There's 12.
Speaker 0: All right. Police force voting. As a result, 12 eyes for 74 has passed. Congratulations. On Monday, June 25th, Council will hold a required public hearing for council vote 563 approving the.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, by adding a requirement for mailed notice to be delivered to property owners within a 200-foot radius of a proposed official map amendment (rezoning).
Amends the Denver Zoning Code by adding a requirement for mailed notice to be delivered to property owners within a 200-foot radius of a property to be rezoned at the time the application is received and at least 15 days before the Planning Board public hearing on the rezoning. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-8-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0610
|
Speaker 0: I will do a quick recap under resolutions. Councilman Flynn, looks like you have called out Resolutions six, ten and 11 for questions and comments. All right. Okay. Under bills for introduction, no item has been caught out under bills for final consideration. No items have been caught out and under pending. Nothing's been caught out. Madam Secretary, would you please put six? Ten. Go ahead, Councilman. Ask your question.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Angela, are you going to. Angela, Kasey is from the airport, is going to address this. We had some email exchanges last night over this, and I did get most of my answers, but I wanted to do this briefly in public so that folks could understand Norwegian Air is conducting this Denver to Paris service , and they just started about a month or so ago. So I came in April, in April, and we have an agreement with them. This is the agreement we have with them, the incentive for having initiated that service. And one thing I want to make get clear is am I correct in when airlines begin a service to a new market that is not currently served, typically the airport will engage in an incentive program to to seed that service. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's it.
Speaker 9: So this is not an unusual thing. What's unusual about this situation, though, is that after they started service, they have they announced yet that they're reducing service?
Speaker 4: I believe so.
Speaker 9: They have it now. Okay. Norwegian is not going to conduct year round service now. They've decided to do only seven months of the year. My question last night and what I want to get on the floor here is that this agreement is reduces the total number of payments geared to the amount of service. So by eliminating five months of the year and that's I think from late October through early March when they will not fly, when they found little less demand for travel between directly between Denver and Paris, there is no reimbursement. So the $4 million that is complicate comp company contemplated so I generated myself is won't be paid if they only conduct seven months of service.
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 9: And in fact, it's about $30 per employment.
Speaker 4: Rate per person rate.
Speaker 9: Per person on the plane. Okay. And then the companion resolution 611 is a marketing agreement. And that is also a standard action that the airport takes for any airline to conduct, say, service to a new market. And that is a straight reimbursement over their promotional materials.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA concerning an operational air service development incentive at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA for an operational air service development incentive in the amount of $4 million and through 4-8-20 for its air service to Paris, France from Denver International Airport (201738751). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-25-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-30-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0611
|
Speaker 9: Per person on the plane. Okay. And then the companion resolution 611 is a marketing agreement. And that is also a standard action that the airport takes for any airline to conduct, say, service to a new market. And that is a straight reimbursement over their promotional materials.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. And the only thing the only other question I had, Mr. President, is they're conducting this service with the Boeing. 787, the Dreamliner.
Speaker 4: Race.
Speaker 9: Great. And okay. Because the $4 million seemed a little high based on the capacity for two flights a week over two years. But it works out to about 320 passengers per flight. Right. Okay. And that's 787. Does that? Yes. Great. All right. Thank you, Mr. Brett. That's the only questions I had.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And thank you, Angela. Looks like this concludes. Unless you want to say yes, to say, okay, this concludes all of our.
Speaker 7: I have a summons up and I'm up.
Speaker 10: Oh, and you missed me, too. Did we miss you? Disappeared.
Speaker 0: Okay, Angela will do. Dr. Sussman, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I also thank you for bringing this up. Councilman Flynn, I also wanted to clarify, because I received an email about this of a concern of spending taxpayer dollars on these kind of incentives. But I want to make it very clear that these are not taxpayer funds paying into the incentive fund or the reimbursement for marketing, which I could be correct. Yes. These are Denver airport funds that are not tax supported. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Angela, I was just wondering, is this with every new nonstop or some or how is this applying?
Speaker 4: The these are for new airlines, new international service and new domestic service.
Speaker 7: Okay. Do you know the last time we used this, by any chance?
Speaker 4: We have used this for the Lufthansa to Munich. We've also used it for Air Canada to Montreal. We have some new ones coming online. We have Edelweiss to Zurich. And so this is.
Speaker 8: A common.
Speaker 4: Practice, not only with Denver International Airport, with most.
Speaker 10: Airports.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr..
Speaker 0: Prime. Councilman Andre, I missed you earlier because you plugged in. Do you want to go in?
Speaker 10: It's on a different bill, so I can wait.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. I just would like to request, if possible, that the airport provide sort of offline, sort of accounting for the last five years for this type of incentive. Because to to my colleague's point, this is airport money. But there are other things, other issues that are labor related and stuff like that, where we're also talking about simply airport money and yet we don't have money for those things, but we do have money for incentives like this. So I'd like to really understand the sort of magnitude of what we've been giving to the airlines.
Speaker 4: I mean, I just want to make note that this is this particular flight is something that we've been working on for the last decade. And these are really.
Speaker 8: Economic.
Speaker 4: Generators for not only for our city, but for Paris. And so they generate hundreds of millions of dollars of tourist income and that sort of thing. So it's we definitely get a return on investment on these.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And so when we have, if we ever have that important that, that, that, that employment argument, I would fully expect the, the airport to be to be able to articulate why it's more important to have airlines than than than than, you know, increased compensation for people that work for those airlines.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thanks. All right. I think we're done here. Councilwoman Ortega, did you have another?
Speaker 10: But I just wanted to make a comment on Council Bill 587 on page eight.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA concerning a marketing air service development incentive at Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA for a marketing Air Service Development Incentive in the amount of $570,000 and through 4-8-20 for its air service to Paris, France from Denver International Airport (201738752). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-25-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-30-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0587
|
Speaker 10: But I just wanted to make a comment on Council Bill 587 on page eight.
Speaker 11: Can you pull that up.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary? Five what?
Speaker 10: 587.
Speaker 0: 587. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 10: Thank you. This is the horizontal contract for National Western Center. And I just wanted to state that. There have been several of us on the States who have been working on ensuring that we have a targeted hire program that will put people to work who live along the corridor, but also try to get them connected to apprenticeship opportunities. These are livable wage jobs that have a career path. Many people in this neighborhood, in this area of town are being displaced as a result of a lot of construction activity. And for those who can take advantage of higher paying jobs, can have the choice to stay in their neighborhood as opposed to being displaced. So I just want to say thanks to the national western team and folks in the mayor's office for ensuring that we have a solid commitment to a local targeted hire program. Not only on National Wester, but we will see the same thing on our bond projects and hopefully eventually on the build out of the gates at the airport, in the build out that will be seeing at the Great Hall. So I think it's it's critically important. The other piece of this is they have committed to a community benefit agreement as part of the National Western Project with the adjacent neighborhoods there. I'm serving on a committee that's working on the 1909 building, which is the oldest building on the site. Folks from the neighborhood are very engaged in that process. They have a consultant that has talked about a public market. And one of the most critical pieces of that is they've got to be they have to have that community not only involvement, but play a role in many of the businesses and whatnot that make public markets successful around the country. When you supplant them with private sector businesses and you have, you know, your chains and chain businesses and whatnot, they are not as successful. And any of you who traveled around the world and around this country know that the public markets that are successful, like Pike's Market and Faneuil Hall in Boston, are what they are because of that community role. So I just want to say to all the folks who have been working on this that this is an important element of the work that's moving forward with National Western. As they begin to start the construction will see the site prep happening. But as we start seeing buildings come out of the ground, these pieces become really important for the folks in the adjacent neighborhoods. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. And thank you for talking about that. And, Councilman, commit yourself. You guys all have been working hard on that. And I want to thank the National Western team for putting that together. We feel like this is going to have an impact for the next decade to 20 years of folks in our neighborhoods. And so thank you all so much for your hard work. Okay. I think this concludes. Am I missing anything? Going once. Going twice on the dais. All right. Great. This concludes all the other items that need to be called out. All of the bills for introduction and order publish. We are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills. On final consideration, council members. Remember, this is your last. Remember, this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote. Otherwise it's your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman, can we please put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills for final consideration from final passage on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the final following bills and be placed on final passage and the resolutions be adopted. 18 All series of 2018 7282 539 five 4581 606 ten 611 527 534 538 559 five 6569 607 525 526 536 537 587 590 7603606609 352 523 524 529 five 3532 533. 535 565 568578 584. 580 5601602. 442 428. 471. Four. 85. 427. And that's the last one.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, I think we just missed one. Is that correct? Just the 42?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. You just said 82. That's okay. Just for the record, for 82. But we are ready. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Can each I. Lopez. New Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I fully support voting in as results.
Speaker 2: Actually. 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: Yes, 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted as bills have in place upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There'll be a required public hearing of Council Bill 366 changes on the classification for 2065 South Cherokee Street in Oberlin and require a public hearing for council before 2021. Change zoning classification of properties bounded at 38th Street, Walnut, 40th Avenue and Union Pacific RTD right away in Elyria. Swansea. A one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 561. Amend the Downtown Area Plan by establishing updated plan policies for the Central Platte Valley Area District.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. for Horizontal Integrated Construction Services.
Approves a contract with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. for $275 million and for five years for project management and construction of the National Western Center Campus horizontal portfolio including preconstruction services, site management services, installation of temporary and permanent underground utilities, site excavation and backfill, permanent roads and sidewalk construction, bridge construction, and other infrastructure work at multiple work locations at the National Western Center campus in Council District 9 (201841662). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-25-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-22-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0366
|
Speaker 0: The Council members please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can each we please put Council Bill 366 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 0366 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second it. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 336 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President and council.
Speaker 4: I'm Liz Weigel.
Speaker 8: With Community Planning and Development.
Speaker 4: The map amendment before you today is for a 2065 South Cherokee Street.
Speaker 8: It's located in Council District seven in the Overland neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And the request is to go from IAU oh two, which is an industrial district to Sierra eight, which is a residential mixed use district. It's located just north of Evans Avenue on Cherokee Street.
Speaker 8: And it's approximately 31,000 square feet.
Speaker 4: It's occupied currently by two industrial buildings, but is vacant, and the rezoning would allow redevelopment with a mix of residential.
Speaker 1: And commercial uses.
Speaker 8: Again, the request is for six eight, which is.
Speaker 4: In the urban center neighborhood context. It's a residential mixed use district that allows us to eat stories. This district allows a mix of uses on the ground floor, but the upper stories are reserved for residential and lodging. The existing zoning is I.A., which is a light industrial district. It also has the YOU oh two overlay, which is for billboard uses. There are no billboards currently on the site. It's generally surrounded by a year or two. There is also some residential zoning to the east and south and commercial zoning and mixed use zoning on Broadway.
Speaker 8: And near the Evans station. Here is land use map.
Speaker 4: As I mentioned, the subject property is currently vacant. There industrial office and parking uses surrounding it and a brewery just across the street. And there are mix of residential uses again in following the zoning districts to the east and south in commercial uses along Broadway. These images show the site and the uses around it. Generally low scale industrial.
Speaker 8: Buildings and open parking areas. There is a view playing the Washington Park Mountain View playing in the area.
Speaker 4: Though the height that would be allowed here is above 110 feet. That is allowed by the eight story district. The the rezoning went to planning board in April, where they voted unanimously to recommend approval. And we also have a letter of support from the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, which is included in the application. There are five review criteria that the zoning code puts forward. The first is consistent consistency with adopted plans. There are five adopted plans.
Speaker 8: In this area.
Speaker 4: And I'll go through those. The first is comp plan 2000, and there's a number of strategies that this would be consistent with. Most of these recommend infill and mixed use development. Excuse me. Secondly, we have Blueprint Denver and the.
Speaker 8: Land use concept here is transit oriented development, which recommends a balance.
Speaker 4: Of mix of uses and basically mid to high density.
Speaker 8: Development close to transit, which.
Speaker 4: We have the seven station here. It's also in an area of change which is recommended for it for places that we should direct growth. Blueprint. Denver includes street classifications cherokees and designated local and even station is a mixed use arterial.
Speaker 8: And an enhanced transit.
Speaker 1: Corridor.
Speaker 4: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Blueprint Denver recommendations. We also have three neighborhood plans. The first is from 1993, which is the Overland Neighborhood Plan. It recommends that commercial industrial businesses see more investment. This area was still at the time identified as an industrial area. It also recommends supporting light, rail and neighborhood access to it. The Shattuck District plan was from 2003. It has a vision for a mix of housing, employment and services and also recommends putting these older commercial industrial parcels into more productive uses, which would be consistent with what this district would allow.
Speaker 8: The Evans stationary plan is our most.
Speaker 4: Recent plan, and that's from 2009. It has a vision for transit oriented development around light rail. It really recommends thank you. Transformation of this area from industrial and commercial to more of a mixed use community with active and pedestrian oriented uses. It specifically calls out this area as mixed use residential for the primary uses intended to be residential and office and retail it would be allowed. So consistent with what that CRT district would allow. You have a primary residential use with mixed use as allowed on the ground floor. It recommends a mix of housing types and a more active ground floor in urban form. Seven Stationary plan also recommends heights, and this area is recommended for a height of eight stories, and it's specifically calls out that the area is adjacent to the rail tracks would be more appropriate for taller buildings. And this is consistent with what is proposed with the Sierra X8 district. So the CPD does fine with the adopted plans. The rezoning is consistent with all five of those. Further, the the district would result in uniformity of district regulations and would further public health, safety and welfare by adopting or by implementing our adopted plans. The application identifies and staff agrees with that. There are several change or changing conditions in the area. This includes new residential units and some commercial revitalization that both demonstrate the emerging mixed use character that was envisioned in the neighborhood plans. Further, we find that the rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context and the mixed use, the residential mixed use zone district intent. So with that, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all the review criteria have been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Liz. Excellent presentation. We have four speakers this evening and I'm going to ask I know we have staff on this first row here. I'm going to ask you all to. Find another seat, please. Did I do that politely? Okay. All right. In four speakers. Come on up. Steve KURTZ, Bob Breck, Jesse Paris and chairman say coup. Mr. KURTZ, you are first with 3 minutes.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Council members, thank you for hearing us tonight. My name is Steve KURTZ and with LCP Development and I'm here with an associate Bill Breck, and we'd like to answer any questions you guys may have later on.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. Bob. Eric.
Speaker 9: My name's is Brick. I'm here.
Speaker 7: With Steve. I'm available to answer any questions you guys have.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 13: Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm with Black Star Examiner for self-defense in Denver Homicide Law. I have two questions about this development. How many of these units are actually going to be affordable? Between zero and 30% am I? And this was planned out 15 years ago. So this seems like another gentrification move by way of city council and the business planners. So I just need clarification of how many of these units for this development are going to be affordable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Paris. Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 9: Yes, my name. My name is Chairman Sekou National Action Movement, founder, organizer representing poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and youth of the city. We enthusiastically support this. Ordinance change. For our folks that we represent. It is our hope as these projects go forward that we're included in the construction and also in terms of sub contractors being able to come up in this and partner with major corporate merger contracts and also jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. We need jobs. Now the city is doing great in its unemployment rate, so it seems. But in the black community, we have chronic unemployment up to 60% for the last 15 years. Folks have looked the other way. And if that was applied to the white community, it would be a crisis. But yet things go unsaid and undone down here. And we get lip service about change that never happens. Because I know as well as everybody else knows, this is a very slow, grinding process over a long period of time, especially when folks don't want to do it in the first place. So I'm counting on General Patton here. For the clerk to marshal us in and make this a project that the city and all the communities can take pride in. And I know that, Councilman. New has been a champion in advancing the cause of minority black subcontractors and women and brown people. So in closing. It takes teamwork to make this dream work. And without your. We don't stand a chance in this thing. Because you are the ones we're counting on to carry our interests forward. So thank you very much for your time and. Good luck.
Speaker 0: All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask the applicant, when you came to the city, if you were asked a question about the proximity to rail, was that a question on the application form you were asked to fill out? And have you had any conversations about the the close proximity to rail and whether or not you're expected to do anything to address buffering or whatever? I see there is a site to the West and I'm not sure, you know, if you own that or if somebody else is proposing to develop on that site at some point in time in the future. So can you just speak a little bit to that?
Speaker 7: Sure. Councilman Ortega We have considered that from a marketability standpoint of the site, there is a building planned. Not at the moment, but the site to the west of us will have an eventual structure on it, probably about the same size. We also have some experience in Inglewood developing along the tracks in Inglewood, where we have actually employed acquisitions or sound consultants to look at the noise that's generated from the rail and Santa Fe Drive in that area too tends to be a little bit more constant than rail is through that analysis. We've designed or specified windows that have a higher STC rating or a sound transmission resistance. So at this point in time, going through the specifications of the project, we're looking at alternatives and window manufacturers to address that issue for the residents who live in the building.
Speaker 10: Okay. So when you came to the city, did they talk to you at all about just mitigating that if there were to be an incident on the rail lines that carries cargo? And as you know, there's a lot of petroleum products that travels on that corridor. Very much the same as some of our other corridors in the city. Right. This is something the city is starting to address. And I'm just trying to find out if they've had conversations with you. You know.
Speaker 7: We did not. Okay.
Speaker 5: Specifically to that.
Speaker 10: All right. And it may be that the site to the west is far enough that you don't need to do it with this property. But if you're looking to build on that site to the west, they may ask you to address it. Okay. When you get ready to do something with that site.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okey doke. Thank you. Thanks.
Speaker 10: I think that addresses my questions. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Oh, Councilman, you.
Speaker 7: Ought to thank Mr.. Oh, ask the.
Speaker 0: Question. Applicant. Yeah. What do you guys want to.
Speaker 7: Just wanted to give you an opportunity to tell Mr. Parrish his question about the affordability of the project. Could you talk a little bit about how that's going to be raised? Absolutely.
Speaker 9: So we do not have any units that are. Income restricted so that there won't be any units available in.
Speaker 7: The 0 to 30% army range. As far as affordability.
Speaker 9: Goes and what we're doing to address some of those concerns is we are certainly participating in the affordable housing linkage.
Speaker 5: Fee. This project's a little bit.
Speaker 9: Over 100,000 square feet.
Speaker 7: The fee is a dollar 50 per square foot, so it's $150,000 will be paid to the city into that fund. And we're proud to participate in that. Other affordability actions that.
Speaker 9: We're taking, as we've designed a number of units in this building to be small.
Speaker 7: Studios. So we have units ranging from about 437 square feet to 570 square feet that comprise nearly 50% of the entire project. And we're doing that with the goal in mind to be able to allow residents to achieve a more affordable gross price point.
Speaker 13: And still have their own apartment and a well, amenities.
Speaker 7: Building close to transit, etc.. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Counselor Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Mr. President. Let me also ask, was there a study done of the soil conditions there because there was a tin manufacturing facility. Is this site suitable for residential development? Have you been able to certify that?
Speaker 7: Yes. As you're familiar, the Shattuck project was just to the north. A lot of uranium byproducts on it. We've done quite an extensive study on the site from an from a commercial and residential suitability standpoint. And miraculously, it is very clean. Actually, it surprised all of us when we went through the study. I can drill into the detail for you, but there was a little bit of chromium on the site which exceeded a residential level. But none of the site right now is going to be below grade and all of the residences are going to be three stories above grade. So there's very a lot of isolation between the soil. We're not going to excavate a lot of the soil, and.
Speaker 0: It's.
Speaker 7: Clean by all standards for residential commercial development.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Beau I sort of want to follow up on councilman news question mostly because this is an area that is sort of outside the urban core a little bit and may or may not have the demand I mean, the demand for rental rates that some other areas of town and maybe I don't know, I'm starting to ascertain that because of where it's at. Do you have a sense about what that 437 square foot unit would go for right now?
Speaker 5: We believe.
Speaker 7: You know, we can rent that 437 square foot unit for around 1300 dollars a month.
Speaker 9: We built some similar units in a project.
Speaker 7: Up at 35th and Larimer, and those units were.
Speaker 9: Actually as small as 335 square feet. They were our most affordable units in the project we were leasing in 2016. We started leasing those at $1,050 per month, and they were the first.
Speaker 7: Units.
Speaker 9: To lease.
Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate the candor in that response, because that's that's not a number that's easily swallowed by a lot of people here in the city that are looking for affordable housing. But I think it does speak to the level of the problem that we've been consistently trying to face. And that's not that's not on you. That's on our success as a city. So thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. Public hearings now closed. Comments by members of council council president pro tem Jillian Clark, please.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think thank you to staff for laying out how this meets the criteria. I think it does meet it and I will be supporting it. I think, you know, this part of town is facing, as all of Denver is, but this is a part of town that is near and dear to me, is facing intense development pressure that is leading to a lot of things happening right in our neighborhoods, whether they're historically designated or they feel historic and they're not designated. A lot of angst, a lot of things going on. And this is one of those areas where the community has really come around a vision and a plan for where we can fit more housing and we can fit the demand of the 10,000 new people who are coming to Denver every year. And yet it has taken a little while for it to take off. But when you look at the big picture here, this is right next to what was the most polluted piece of land in all of Denver. And because the community worked really hard to get that cleaned up, now we have soil that is clean enough to build residential, not just on on your property that was next door to it, but on the actual Shattuck site that those are coming out of the ground and leasing right now. And now looking at not only housing, but the density of housing, you are one block to the light rail station and you don't have to cross EVANS You walk underneath it and you'll be one and a half blocks from the Jewel Bridge that voters approved for funding for in the bond that will then connect to the entire South Platte River Trail system, to the Ruby Hill Pavilion and Ampitheater and Ruby Hill, our third largest regional park. This is an area that can really accommodate more people, and I think it's exciting to finally start to see some of those pieces come together. I also really want to thank the applicants for working very closely with the neighborhood. I know that there were multiple parcels around here and on this block where different things were were contemplated. And at one point there was a proposal to go higher than what we had an adopted plan for. And while our overall plan hearkens back to 1993, which begs the question of is anything in there still relevant for today ? And we have across the street, across Broadway and Platte Park, no adopted neighborhood plan. We do have a stationary plan that is relatively recent that the community did work very hard on. And and so to have someone go to the community and be open to listening to that versus the other proposal that wasn't you guys came forward that that was kind of pushing that I also appreciate because again there is an opportunity for density here that the neighborhood is very supportive of, that the community is supportive of putting it here. That really is could not be better situated for a place to live. And so working with the community to make sure that that still fits within what they want and staying true to, you know, one of our criteria here, which is being directly in line, I mean, it is it's not every day that we get a rezoning where it specifically has a map that not only calls out the kind of zone districts that should be here, but the exact it doesn't even give a range. It doesn't say this should be between five and 12. It says eight stories right there. And so to come forward with an application that's in line with that not only means that it meets the legal criteria, but I also appreciate the effort to work with the community and to help deliver on the vision that the community has come up with at exactly what they were asking for. So I will be supporting this tonight, and I hope that my colleagues will as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Council president, pro tem. All right. See, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just I don't think I brought it up on this particular rezoning in Ludie, but I do want to say, I think I brought it up here and I do want to say it again that the entitlement to go from industrial a to. Our X8 is a considerable amount of an entitlement that is granted for the fee that we charge, which is very minimal, $1,000 per acre or roughly there. There's some calculation based on square footage plus whatever you pay your architects and and zoning consultants to go through this process, which is not very much in the grand scheme of things. And so to get that entitlement, additional entitlement is a very, very low bar or cost. The good news here is that hopefully it's it's the person that speculated on the land some four years ago that will develop it and that value that is now going to be if this gets through, that value doesn't get siphoned out of the site and actually gets put into a project. But this is. This is this is the ongoing frustration that I have had since I've been on council, particularly for my 41st and Fox area. 41st anchor is my side, the sunny side side in an area that I represent which is massively gentrified and and what with this level of investment that we have made at these tods that is your public dollars. And Councilman Clark just explained how much more public dollars are going into bond projects surrounding this parcel. Your dollars, this is a considerable amount of public investment that will benefit the owners of these properties. And what I have been trying to articulate from day one is that we need better tools, better steaks and better carrots to get to address the affordable housing concern, which is now a legitimate concern for an area that was also like a lot of northwest Denver, very affordable for a long period of time. It now seems seems very clear at more than $3 a square foot for rental. It is not as attainable as it once was. And so I have spent two years trying to articulate a different way to address gentrification that would be pro-development, pro-development, and allow greater flexibility by the developer on a way to accommodate that plan is in the hands of Brad Buchanan as of a month ago. And I want everyone to know that that it is getting pushback because it is different. It is getting pushback because it is not the way we have done things historically. But I can tell you that I've spoken to developers and I'm going to reach out to you regardless of whether how this vote goes. Not for you to voluntarily take this on, but to vet this idea to see if there is, in fact, a way that developers could reasonably accommodate some of the help, address the concerns in a way that is more significant than a buck 50, a square foot. That's no laughing matter. That's $150,000 out of your pocket that you would not have had to spend two years ago. I get that. But that is not going to address our problem. And so where we have done great infrastructure investment in public infrastructure, I think we have the ability to look at this delta between what is it zoned for now? What is it planned for in the future? And how do we use that ability, that delta, that that capacity that we're planning for and building for to to drive more inclusive development because market rate. Is what the market is. You know, it will build the sort of neighborhood that it can support now. And if it declines, it will be that sort of neighborhood in the decline. And so how do we actually build more healthy, vigorous communities that are placemaking? Use this investment to to do that and to spur sort of a better sort of mixed economy that is healthier that you see in in the healthiest parts of our of our city. So that said, that is I want to be articulating that here because this is the exact sort of rezoning and scenario where this sort of idea makes the most sense is not apply to this rezoning. These are tools do not exist, so we can't ask. But I do want you to know that we should be and could be working on those things as a city. And we are not. And so with that, I will still I respect that the criteria has been met and it is as we face it today, I just wish we had better tools to address definite concerns in this city. Thanks. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Councilman Clarke Tatum is president. I just want to you know, Councilman Espinosa brings up some really great points. I've I've had the opportunity to see some of these ideas in his office. I think they're really exciting. But I want to, you know, bring it back to again, not lose in that because that was kind of taking it to a macro level. But lose again, the micro in this where this community put forth this vision and not that we can't do other things there, but this is not displacing current homes. This is an industrial building that's currently vacant that will create more housing, which we desperately need at all income levels. But it also, again, this is a community that rallied around a piece of property that the company left and would have been completely unusable forever. And they rallied to work to clean this up with a vision that someday it would be clean enough and vibrant enough and have finally a public investment in things like rail and these bridges when it had been overlooked for so long that it could be a walkable community. And now you're going to have an eight story residential building across the street from Declaracion Brewing, one of the coolest places to hang outside on a patio and have a beer and eat, you know, something from a food truck. And that seemed impossible to the residents of Overland who have been involved with that neighborhood association for years and years. And so this will we continue to evolve what we need to do from a macro citywide and have more tools. This today does represent the fulfillment of the biggest. Best seemed impossible dreams that this community had 20, 25 years ago. And I just don't want to lose track of that, because as we as we go to these big picture things of what's happening right here. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah. All right. We got some more folks in the queue. Ortega and Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I can remember when we started development in the Central Platte Valley. The city built parks and opened the access to the floor of the valley by taking down our viaducts and putting in new roads. And we had this same conversation back then, and we created an ordinance that gave us the opportunity to ensure that we were getting affordable housing and developments across the city that became our inclusionary housing ordinance. We started by just doing them as one offs because we had developers doing the same thing, looking at industrial land and working to increase the density and the investment the city made was to attract part of that development because we wanted to expand downtown. Fast forward to today. We did not anticipate that we would be seeing the rapid investment in this city and the rapid gentrification that's occurring as well, which, you know, has resulted in many people not being able to afford to live in the city, both as homeowners and renters. And we have to be very intentional, and we have to look at the tools that we need to bring forward. We are the legislative branch, and we can do this. We know that Telluride exists, but at the same time, we know there are some things that we can do. And I think this involves having a serious conversation with our development partners in this city to look at how do we make that happen so that we, in fact, are a city that everybody can afford to enjoy and live in when we have service workers in this city who have to move as far away as Henderson because they can't find a place not only in Denver, but in some of our neighboring counties that have also become very expensive. Then we have to look seriously at how do we make this happen so that we are, in fact, a city for everyone. And so I would just commit to work with whoever is interested in helping us be part of the solution in a way that allows us to look at what those right tools are, that ensures that we do have that affordability and that we don't have service workers who at some point will choose to work closer to where they live. And then we're going to be struggling with how we keep doors open of some of the the businesses that rely on service workers from our hotels to our restaurants. We already know our restaurants can't get enough workers. Right. And I'm really concerned that as soon as Gaylord opens and we get ready to open the Great Hall at DIA, whether we can find those service workers to work at in the Great Hall. So these things are real and it impacts everybody. And so I just think it's an important conversation where we all need to roll up our sleeves and figure out what those right tools are that allow this to be a serious conversation that truly makes us a city for everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate the dialog here. I think, you know, a lot of this just, you know. We can't vote in on a rezoning with a lot of the land based on a lot of these issues. Legally, we have to really look at it just as a zone district. We get that. There are criteria that we have to follow and there are criteria that, you know, ensure the due process of the applicants and the public and the hearing. That doesn't mean that. Folks cannot go above and beyond. Just because that's the bar, it doesn't have to be so low. In Denver. It is cliche. For us now certain to say we have an affordable housing crisis. We have a lot of crisis in the crisis is our everyday working people and especially people of color, can no longer live in the city where they were born and raised. And that is a crisis. And Denver, is it? There's development. Yes, development will happen. A development cannot happen irresponsibly. And I think, you know, as as we consider all of these on this this particular area and I think we've we've really looked at. Opportunities to really create smart urban centers and neighborhoods and really think of connectivity. You know, the neighborhood in which Councilman Clark speaks of is a neighborhood we'd all like to think our neighborhood would have access to. But it is only we can only go so far on council. The charter allows us only to go so far. And so that's why I'm asking the applicants and the public to make sure. You don't operate just when you hear the conversation in the dialog in this in these chambers and that they're not empty words. Now, we do have a crisis and it involves all of us, right? It's easy to say that no single drop believes it's to blame for the flood. But we can really, really, truly make something happen together if we have commitments. And that's what we're asking. I think that's what's coming out of these chambers is we're asking for commitments, even though it's not legally, we can't do a vote based off of it. These are just the issues that are at the mine and it really helps. To hear that on the front end and that kind of commitment. It eases the worries of the public and the council. I look forward to seeing something happen here that is that embodies that responsibility and development. Right. That that social aspect of it, that commitment to it. So with that, I know we have something else in the queue that is on the agenda, but uh, to, I just, I just, I just wanted to be able to say that, Mr. President, I think that's, that's, you know, it is a commitment that we all want to hear. Right. We look forward to seeing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Okay. See no other comments. This has been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Clarke Espinoza. Flynn Gilmore Cashman.
Speaker 4: I can eat.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega like Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I PCOS voting announce the results.
Speaker 2: Two are missing.
Speaker 0: You know, we have people hanging fire. See one more. There we go.
Speaker 2: Again. 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, 366 as past. Congratulations. All right, Councilwoman, can you put 421 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 to 0 4 to 1, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2065 South Cherokee Street in Overland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2065 South Cherokee Street in Overland from I-A UO-2 (industrial) to C-RX-8 (urban center, residential mixed-use) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-24-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0561
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. 421 passes. Thanks for your hard work on this. Now we got it. Got to. Right. Okay. For the last bill of the night. 561 Councilman, can you please put it on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 20561 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it hasn't. The one hour courtesy public hearing for council Bill 561 is open. May we have the staff report live? Thank you.
Speaker 4: Hello. Good evening. Members of City Council and Louisianians from Community Planning and Development. And I'm joined here today with my colleagues a barge, Sarah Course, Ellis TV and Steve Nally. We are here to present to you the downtown area plan amendment. This amendment is to the 27 downtown area plan, which covered the area outlined in Dash Purple. However, the 2000 area plan provided limited guidance for future development of Central Valley Area District, which is the area highlighted in yellow and is bounded by Area Parkway, Speer Boulevard and Interstate 25. There are also two additional small area plants that encompass portions of this plant area. Those are their area west stationary plant of 29 and the Jefferson Park neighborhood plant of 2005. The Downtown Area Plan Amendment will supersede these plans for the coverage of Central Valley Area District. Only the dominant existing uses within the plan area are the Pepsi Center, which is separate from village gardens by the consolidated main line and the light rail. There we have the two light rail stations and also along Water Street there's a downtown aquarium, the children's museum. And throughout this plant area there are a few commercial buildings, two residential buildings, and of course, the South Park River, shown in blue, an adjoining park shown in green. This plan area contains over 60 acres of surface parking. And on a more satirical note, in 2017, Denman won a national award for the worst coverage of surface parking, which of course, is not an award we care to receive as a city and to provide. To prove this point, the Street Blog USA use an aerial of this portion of the city. And this is an aerial of 1933 for the plant area. And you can see a multitude of train tracks here. You're shown here. You can see the the roundhouse railways roundhouse here. And what's probably the most interesting is that along Seventh Street, which is right here, what you see is a span, a bridge that span across the Hudson River and the train tracks connecting Water Street to Colfax. And so within this plan area, we've had an extensive 12 month planning process which included seven steering committee meetings, three public meetings, one public design charrette and two online surveys. In addition to, we've held multiple meetings with neighboring R.A. plan area residents, various boards of the downtown Denver partnership with the Area Campus Higher Educational Board and with the Urban Land Institute, just to name a few. We've also had numerous, numerous publications in our community planning a development newsletter and multitude of social media blasts, including Instagram, Twitter and Next Door. Throughout our public outreach, people told us that the assets of this plan area were the South River light rail stations and being part of the downtown. The public was, however, concerned that about this area's lack of connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, creating an opportunity for a great downtown neighborhood with an efficient and well-connected multimodal network was identified as one of the top priorities, and due to its industrial past, environmental contamination was identified as a threat to future development. And though the public saw this area as an opportunity for development of a great downtown neighborhood, they were also concerned that the future development may not realize to areas full potential. With each public outreach. There were a few common themes that came up time and time again. People told us that what they want to see are active streets with lots of retail activity, that is, cafes and retail spillover, as well as active public spaces and interactive features. And what we heard from the public was not only to activate the streets with ground floor activity, but also the riverfront. People want to see restaurants with outdoor seating along the river, as well as pedestrian plazas and promenades. And when we asked what would attract families to live downtown, we were told that access to affordable housing and access to daycare and elderly childhood education and two grocery stores were highly important regarding what new development should embody throughout this plan area. The main common themes were well connected pedestrian promenades and distinctive and iconic design and architecture. So these common themes and all other public feedback were then categorized into the five vision elements which were established in the 2007 Downtown Area Area Plan. Those vision elements concentrate on creating a prosperous, walkable, diverse, distinctive and green downtown Denver. The original focus topics under each vision element remain standing and appropriate to this plan area, and those are highlighted are in gray. But in addition to those, we've included new topics that are specifically applicable to this plan area which are shown here in bold. My colleagues, Ellen Sara, will dove into the vision elements in more detail as they go through the vision elements. They will be showing a series of mapping diagrams. And these programs show one potential scenario of how to implement the recommendations within this plan. They're intended to be illustrative, as many of them would require additional detail, study and master planning. I'm Alice, Stevie, and I'm going to talk about the first two vision elements. So the prosperous vision element is about increasing access to opportunity and a great quality of life in a neighborhood adjacent to the downtown core. So the main recommendation here is for mixed use development. So this provides a variety of everyday needs all in one area. So the red color on the map here is the downtown land use, which is mixed use. So the plan recommends a variety of uses that create an active neighborhood with active uses focused along the river and along particular streets, which we're calling active corridors. And those are shown in yellow hashing. So the amendment also promotes access to economic opportunity by creating an environment that encourages a range of businesses to flourish. So the walkable vision element is about creating a robust transportation network that prioritizes walking, bicycling and transit and is connected to the surrounding neighborhoods. To do that. It recommends extending the existing street grid from the surrounding neighborhoods. Then it recommends filling in those connections to create an intimate, walkable street grid. So the plan also recommends providing new connections to and within the plan area, including, you can see a new North-South connection here across the consolidated main line, the river and I-25, and then an east west connection over the river and I-25. So this diagram, as Lily mentioned, is an illustration of intent of a 20 plus year vision rather than a specific master plan. But one thing that I want to point out on here. So the Pepsi Center is likely to remain at this location. However, if it does ever relocate at some point in the future, this diagram indicates that the small block size that the amendment recommends should extend through the existing footprint. So some of the key streets and connections in this 20 year vision already exist, but they need to be updated to reflect the desired character and function of streets in the plan. So these include I won't go through all of them, but improvements to the 22/23 Avenue. So from conversations with the community, the amendment prioritizes improving this bridge over age 25, particularly for bikes and pedestrians. And that's shown in letter and on letter A here. It also recommends similar improvements to Water Street. Shown letter B and then it talks about a lot of general improvements to the streets themselves as well as the crossings of spirit in an area. So the vision for the amendment is to have a comprehensive pedestrian network with comfortable and convenient sidewalks and crossings on all streets. On top of that, there would also be enhanced facilities with additional right of way that's dedicated to things like pedestrian wayfinding, safety and esthetics. And these would be along key routes that we're calling priority pedestrian connections. So you can see there's a North-South connection here, and then two East-West connections, one on either side of the consolidated main line. Similarly, the plan recommends a company recommends comprehensive bicycle facilities throughout the plan area that are safe and comfortable for riders of all ages and abilities. And finally, transportation demand management or TDM. So TDM is a suite of strategies that aim to reduce automobile trips by incentivizing people to use other modes of transportation. Implementation of an extensive and effective TDM strategy is going to be a critical element of the success of the plan area. There will need to be a whole suite of TDM strategies. But I want to mention two key ones here today. So the first is removing minimum parking requirements and replacing them with parking maximums. And the second is providing excellent transit. So that means in this case, increasing transit service to and through the plan area. And it also means creating mobility hubs, which is a type of transit oriented development around existing light rail stations. So as these two examples illustrate, TDM includes a very broad range of strategies and they and they will have equally broad implementation approaches. For example, something like parking maximums will be implemented through zoning, while excellent transit will involve RTD, public works and the private sector. So part of implementing TDM will be figuring out how and where those efforts are coordinated. So that wraps up walkable and I'm going to pass it off to Sara to talk about diverse.
Speaker 11: Hello. I'm Sarah, of course. And I'll walk through the next three vision elements. So the next one is a diversity vision element, and it has the goal of creating affordable, equitable and diverse communities. This vision element has recommendations for providing affordable and market rate housing. Throughout the planning process, we heard it should be a priority to provide affordable housing and especially within the plan area. To achieve this, the plan goes above and beyond current affordable housing policies by recommending strategies that include allocating affordable housing within the plan area and encouraging the duration of affordable housing to go beyond the current time frame typically required. We also heard from the community that equitable locations of affordable housing should be encouraged to achieve this. The plan recommends dispersing affordable units so they are appropriately located throughout the plan area and to especially avoid any concentrations along the consolidated mainline or the Cmll or I-25. In addition to this, there was an expressed need to provide a variety of housing types to accommodate different household types. The plan recommends that future development should accommodate different household types by providing a variety of unit types and sizes. Lastly, the diversity of Vision Element recommends providing services, facilities and amenities to support families, seniors or those with disabilities. The next vision element is a distinctive city. The distinctive city vision element has a goal of creating distinctive places with unique characteristics and qualities that can be expressed through the built environment. Throughout the planning process, we heard it was important for future development to include a variety of building types and sizes, including higher intensity development, while also creating a comfortable public realm. To accomplish this, the plan provides recommendations for a variety of building intensities, which could be a combination of different building heights, mappings and forms to achieve a comfortable and human scale environment. To achieve this variety, the plan recommends new or updated zoning standards. For example, a new zone district could be created to implement the plan specific recommendations and to achieve the desired building intensity. The plan also gives direction for appropriate locations of higher or lower building intensities. The highest building intensity is more appropriate, closer to the consolidated mainline and near the two light rail stations. And the lowest intensity of buildings is recommended in areas that are adjacent to or near the South Platte River and existing buildings, especially those buildings along Aurora Parkway and Water Street. The plan encourages a variety of building intensities and densities, and in return for higher density, the plan recommends community benefits to be negotiated. The distinctive city vision element also provides recommendations for high quality design and through adopting design standards and guidelines. A well-designed urban environment is desired in this plan area, and design standards and guidelines will help achieve this. Some of the strategies that are encouraged in the plan include promoting a pedestrian oriented street frontage, promoting distinctive and human scale building design, minimizing visual impacts associated with vehicles, and creating streetscape landscape and public space standards that contribute to the character of the public realm. Lastly, the distinctive city vision element recommends future development to foster a relationship with the Southport River and to respect the riverfront. The Green City vision element has the goal of utilizing the plan areas, undeveloped space and mile of riverfront for the opportunity to create a precedent setting public space network. The plan recommends creating new parks and public spaces, enhancing existing parks, and ensuring those spaces can accommodate a variety of activities and programs year round. The existing plan area currently lacks vegetation outside of the river's open space, so the plan recommends creating a green public realm through enhanced tree canopy coverage and landscaping. Throughout the planning process, we heard it was important to provide and promote a variety of public spaces. To accomplish this, the plan recommends a combination of active and passive public spaces to be located throughout the plan area and especially along the riverfront. The plan also has a variety of recommendations for protecting the river as a natural resource, addressing stormwater and implementing green infrastructure. Lastly, the Green City Vision element provides recommendations for resilient infrastructure and environmental conditions. The plan recommends efficiently using resources, reducing waste, using resilient materials, and to build development with an enduring life cycle. Also, given the industrial past of the plant area, there are recommendations for the mitigation of contaminated soil, addressing noise and air pollution associated with the consolidated mainline or I-25, and strategies for best practices for mixed use development along the freight rail.
Speaker 4: All right. Just a few more slides. The amendment ends with the Moving Forward section, which lists the plans priorities that can be achieved through regulatory strategies, public infrastructure strategies and or partnership strategies. Lastly, within the moving forward section, the plan addresses community benefit priorities and these concentrate on environmental remediation of contaminated land and rivers. Inclusion of affordable housing throughout the plan area. Improvement to existing mobility and connectivity networks while providing new connections across the plan area. As well as improvements to existing public parks and trails while providing new parks and public spaces. Community benefits. Benefits also include activation of retail corridors and nodes and creating an equitable community that supports a variety of households. The Community Benefits Section is an important tool that will be used by the city in order to move in order to inform new zoning and or development agreements. We have three criteria for adoption of plants. The first is a plant consistency. As noted in your staff reports, the downtown area plant amendment is aligned with Denver Comprehensive Plan and with Blueprint Denver. The second criteria is that the plant is developed through an inclusive public process, which I address earlier in this presentation and which was covered in more detail in your staff report. And last and third criteria is the plant has developed a long term view and this plan intends to guide the development of this plant area for the next 20 years. We recognize that the implementation of this plan may take shape over many years and in multiple phases. And finally, we believe that the plan meets all three criteria and we recommend the plan for adoption. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. This is a one hour public hearing, but we we only have six speakers. And I'm going to call them up to the front here and say COO, Jesse Paris, Devin Buckles, Peter Loewy, Tammi Dore and Reese Duggins. I called six of you. All of you can come up if you want to turn and say who? Your first 3 minutes.
Speaker 9: Sure. Mosaku Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor homeless people, senior citizens and youth. Pray for me. Okay. And I'm a work with. This. Has a stamp on it. That says White only. Rich. Only poor. Not welcome. That thing is happening down by one of the largest educational institutions in the city, a rarity. Nobody sought to enroll any of the student government in their understanding of what is going on or their opinion. So when you tell me, you talk to people. What people? The people that are in the pictures on that screen.
Speaker 13: Look sick of all.
Speaker 0: What are people sick of? No, no, no. Who are you? Talk. Don't do. Don't do it. I'm doing it. This is the council. You address us. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Addressing the Cats read Nick Plan. That's all it is. And you've got the head of the red necks here tonight, Denver Partnership. When you ask how many black businesses are downtown now? How many? When you ask how many black contractors participated in building downtown, how many angles take too long to get the mathematics and hold them accountable to bringing you the stats so you know what you're voting for in terms of the plan. Because if you cosign on this, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, you showed me any man or woman that has nothing they're willing to fight for. They're not fit to live. It's on the statue, 1957 out of City Park. And you're real good at quoting Dr. King, but doing nothing when it comes to being king, because you are a servant of the king. His name is Michael Hancock. Your man. Now, are you going to stand here and let him run this city and then make you surrogates to it? Are you going to stand up as the people's representative and fight for the right thing to do? If you approve this, then you have gotten in bed with the bed books. And if you get bit for real in 2019, it's your fault. Don't let them get away with this. Send a message to the mayor and send a message. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beaucoup. Comes to Jesse.
Speaker 0: Jesse. Pierce, you're up.
Speaker 13: Jesse Paris Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud. Again. This is just blatant, just non concert and considerate. Just no thinking on any of you guys. This part. This is straight up gentrification, communist side, ethnic cleansing. For the record. Oh, where are you? Campus used to be housing. Before it was a campus for collegiate. That was tore down and built into what is now the Aurora campus. So on the same around the same area. Now, you guys are planning on building more luxury housing that nobody can afford or very few people can afford. And you actually think this is a logical thing? There's no people of color here. There's no black people. There's no Hispanic people. No, no, none of those people are in the pictures. So if you are really trying to build inclusive housing and inclusive community and inclusive neighborhood and all this other jogging, I'll keep going around, at least get the pictures right. And then you have. The head of the downtown Denver Partnership behind us. The same people are behind enforcing the urban camp. A ban and passing in the first place. Yeah, this is nuts. Nothing about this that's inclusive. This is straight up saying white only. This is straight. They stay.
Speaker 5: Focused.
Speaker 13: They focus on the deal. Not you stay focused. Presidents stay focused. Stay is stay focused. You had a sold out and that you are in bed with these business developers. So are you city planners?
Speaker 0: Are you done? Are you going to be you're going to be focusing?
Speaker 13: Before I was really interrupted. This is blatant gentrification in 2019. We need a change. Seriously, we need to change. Everybody listening. We need a change. Current City Council is currently in bed with the business developers and the city planners and they have no quarrels or conscious about it. They're being bought and paid for. I say enough is enough of this and be ready for us in 2019. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Devin Buckles.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Devin Buckles with the Greenway Foundation. Our executive director, Jeff Shoemaker, was planning to be here this evening, but he needed to attend a memorial service for a dear family member. So I'm here instead to share our message. Members of Denver City Council almost 150 years ago, settlers who were becoming permanent residents of then Denver City and the area felt that the adjacent waterways were of such importance to their lives and their future that the corps grid for the streets was platted to align with the waterways. Just over 50 years ago, these previously vital urban waterways had been abused and forgotten to where they were as polluted as the South Platte and Cherry Creek were, to the point where they were lethal to consume and dangerous to touch. There were no parks, trails, fish or trees, but there were 12 land landfill dumpsites along their banks, as well as the remnants of a coal tar processing plant located within the very site before you here today, the ghost of which, as we all know, recently raised its head at the very birthplace of our city. Today, over $500 million of environmental, recreational, flood control and water quality improvements. Excuse me.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. Can you guys have a conversation outside? Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Have been invested into the South Platte River watershed, allowing it to once again be known as our community's greatest natural resource. As a result of this investment, within a half a mile on either side of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek and Denver. Property values within these boundaries are 40% higher than the property values outside the boundaries. This is just one indicator that investing in our waterways produces a significant return on investment for our entire city and its residents. This generational plan before you clearly speaks to these environmental and economic realities and has one common denominator a confirmation that we all love our river, our communities desire to maximize its engagement with our river has never been greater. I applaud the countless hours invested in the creation of this plan by all involved city staff, direct stakeholders, Neighborhood Act advocates, everyone. I applaud the plan's vision to connect downtown to the river and vice versa in new and innovative means. I applaud the plan's vision to pave the way for dramatic and much needed additional improvements to the South Platte flood plain protection measures, additional habitat enhancement and recreational opportunities. And finally, I applaud the new and bold and previously under realized vision for this mile plus of prime riverfront property that will further increase the opportunity for our river to once again be the best place to live and work and play in Denver. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this evening and thank each of you for your service on City Council. The service may be under-recognized, but it is not underappreciated by the Greenway Foundation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Peter Lowy.
Speaker 5: Got to go. Peter Louis 215 Kearny Street. I put against on the card. But I want to be clear, I'm against. I have a lot of problems with the process and not with the product that's listed. Yes, absolutely. Those parking lots need to be redeveloped. I, however, don't have faith in the city and county of Denver of doing it in a way that would be as I think we don't have the tools to do it. And as a council, Lopez said earlier, this would be completely irresponsible. So. There. I read the entirety of the 96 page PDF. It's pretty interestingly written. There's a text part and there's a technical part, and the technical part is really well done. That was clearly done by CPD. And then there's the text part that was clearly done by the Downtown Denver Partnership, and it's really weird.
Speaker 9: It throws around a lot of buzzwords.
Speaker 5: It is in many times it contradicts what the technical part is saying. It's it's it's clearly written by two people who are going for two different things. Which and and this brings me to kind of the most important part. You open up the PDF page one. It says Downtown Denver Area Amendment. Prepared by the city of Denver community planning and development. And in the.
Speaker 6: Lower right hand corner, it says, in association with the Downtown Denver Partnership, which is a lobbying.
Speaker 5: Organization, I don't think it's just or equitable or something that an important city in the world or a city that wants to be important in the world does to have their largest lobby write the plan with them and then put and if you read the entirety of the report, there is something in the emphasize talks about implementation that says that this may require public private partnerships. So we have a plan in front of us that says that was written by a group whose partners you will invariably hire in order to do it. That's weird. I have no problem with that. I mean, I've worked in in.
Speaker 9: A number of of.
Speaker 5: Countries that we tend to call.
Speaker 0: Very, very corrupt.
Speaker 5: And this is probably the legal barrier of it. But I don't think that's the way that we're going to develop the Denver that we need. There was a couple of interesting points in the staff report that I hadn't seen. How would you get someone to move to downtown? They listed. Well, it needs to be affordable. You need to have child care groceries. However, in GDP's report on who actually lives in the current downtown, it is primarily white, it is primarily wealthy and is primarily single or childless. And so you have okay, we're going to turn this into downtown and then we're going to get all of the people already living don't to move there, which is, again, not the kind of people who came to the meetings. It's not the kind of people, look, we need these amenities and you're not going to get the kind of development that we need with a plan like this. Yes, absolutely. By all means, redevelop eventually. But you have to address structural inequalities in the city first. Then I'm okay with.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Tammy Dorr.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the City Council. My name is Tammy Dore and I serve as CEO of the Downtown Denver Partnership and the Office of Partnership. I'm here to express support for the proposed Downtown Area Plan Amendment. We have worked closely with the city on this planning process since 2017. I served as co-chair of the steering committee process when the partnership worked in 2007 with the city and over 3000 individuals to create the 2000 720 year plan. The future of this area was unclear. There was no impetus for development and no clear direction on what was possible. The development of our city, the advancement and growth of our population has allowed for opportunities here, and it served as a catalyst for a development plan. This amendment is timely and it directly complements the previously approved 2007 plan. I'd like to highlight and commend a few key plan component components. Lily already discussed the outreach process, which included the area, campus, neighborhoods, a wide array of stakeholders from every sector. Suffice to say, it was quite extensive and more detail is available on that. If you would like that from Lilly, I'm confident connectivity. This is a centrally located area, yet it lacks good connections to surrounding areas, in large part due to the South Platte River, I-25 and major thoroughfares, Spire Boulevard and the Aurora Parkway. The plan emphasizes the importance of enhanced connections for all modes of transportation, including emphasis on bike linkage as a key to success for the next 20 years. Density. Denver's rapid growth in the past decade has put development pressure on neighborhoods across the city. This amendment recommends significant dust density with a variety of building uses, types and heights to accommodate the growth. This is a growth in a smart and attractive way with two light rail stops in this area. It represents a smart growth site. Parks and Open Spaces. The amendment recognizes the importance of open space, particularly along the South Platte River, preserving and improving linear open space along the river. Enhancing current open space and adding new space enhances the overall network. Now, most importantly, I want to talk about housing. This plan emphasizes the importance of affordable and accessible housing in a high density area. Plan recommends going above and beyond the current city regulations. It proposes affordable and accessible units be spread out in different buildings and mixed with housing options. Varied housing options. The density proposed allows for greater housing opportunities for the city to address it again in a smart growth way. We ask for support and adoption of this plan by city council this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We stuck it.
Speaker 9: Good evening. Reese Dugan, president and CEO of Invesco Properties. We are an owner and managing member of Ilitch Gardens, which is in the plan area, and I just wanted to commend staff. I won't take a lot of your time. I want to commend staff for the hard work that we all did together for, I think about six months on this plan and not only staff, but our neighbors. I'm always amazed by the energy that neighbors and RINO's have in these processes, and it was six months of hard sledding for sure. So thank you all for that. Contrary to what some other speakers have mentioned tonight, I think those who do read the plan will see truly there is something in this plan for everyone. I live about a quarter of a mile from the site. So as a neighbor who lives close to this site, I'm excited for what this plan holds. I think it speaks to affordability. It speaks to diversity. It speaks to opening up the river. It speaks to Densify and Denver in a new way that I think we need to do if we're going to accommodate the future growth of this city. So with that, I'm going to wrap it up and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. This concludes our speakers questions. By members of Council Councilman, new mayor Tammy Ho.
Speaker 5: Question Tammy. Tammy, right next door.
Speaker 7: First, I just want to say I want to thank you for your leadership, for the downtown development. It wouldn't be half what it is today without you being there and the leadership you've given with all the people who represent the Downtown Denver Partnership. You've done a wonderful job, and I want you to know that we think you so highly of what you've been doing.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 7: Question on connectivity has been a big issue and and I see this as a natural expansion of downtown is really exciting. And we've talked about connectivity across some of the your areas. But I think one of the areas we've talked about in the past is is Spire Boulevard. And could you talk a little bit more about what I know we got a light rail going across it, but but with all of the residential growth near use gardens and what's going to happen there, how do we promote safe pedestrian traffic across Speer? Was that discussed as part of your group?
Speaker 4: This was discussed as part of the plan, and I might defer to Lily for that, for a technical answer. But what I would say is that we did discuss it in depth. In particular, I want to commend the plan in terms of how it actually talks about in more detail the descriptions of the street grid and how the streets will flow. It really helps paint a really strong picture of how you cross beer, what that feels like and looks like. But just as importantly, once you get across those thoroughfares, how it actually ties together because those connections can be smooth. But if as soon as you get to the other side, it it breaks up in terms of accessibility and intuitiveness. It's not going to be effective. Okay. There is a slide on that, I believe so.
Speaker 7: It will be safe. Improvements will be made.
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. I just think that that the visual is really helpful. There's a there's an image that I think will very directly answer your question. Thank you. So do that. Just to be very specific, B-6 C does talk about the updates to the existing facilities that will need to happen so that the roads that already are there meet the character and function. So we call out Speer as basically to to have Speer function as a multimodal, a comfortable street for all users. There would need to be changes both along the street itself in terms of like wider sidewalks, sidewalks and addressing the feeling of walking right next to that kind of vehicle traffic. And we'd also need to the plan also calls out very particular attention to the crossings themselves. It needs to be there needs to be good, protected, safe ways that are convenient to cross, or we find people crossing against the lights or mid-block, which are both really dangerous situations for for everybody. So so the plan talks generally about how how streets should look and feel and intersections should look and feel. And that does apply to the streets that are within or adjacent to the planned area that already exist and end with many things. This will require further study to get into this very specific engineering drawing level type detail.
Speaker 7: That sounds very sorry. Mr.. Mr.. BLAIR Sure. What about the connectivity? We've heard a lot about the development of the commercial area near the Bal High Stadium and what's going to happen over there. Is this going to be a connectivity to what we're talking about, the downtown area plan expansion? I mean, it's not part of the expansion, but it seemed like a natural flow of of activity there.
Speaker 4: Yeah. But what we're proposing is, is basically a connected street grid throughout. So it will be connected to, you know, throughout the plan area. But then obviously Mile High Stadium is just outside of it. So one of the recommendations that we make to existing infrastructure is that Walnut Street connection that that is pretty, pretty tough to walk along from.
Speaker 2: The the light.
Speaker 4: Rail station to the stadium. And actually Public Works is already working on a project to do some short term improvements to make that better as soon as possible.
Speaker 7: My last question is on, Mr. President, the the timeline and the cost of such a development like this. Has there been discussion about that or is that discussion to come or.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think that's a do you want to answer that? Yeah. The. Do you want to answer that question? The timeline about the development when this can happen.
Speaker 9: Good question. I wish I knew the answer to that. Really? I think a 20 year horizon is probably accurate. On the glitches site, we've committed to keep the park there for the foreseeable future. I think we are contemplating a phased development of villages that makes better use of the surface parking lots in the short term. And then I think probably 20 years to get this project to completion.
Speaker 7: The reason why I got you last night is I think when the last time we talked, you said you really were committed for workforce housing in an affordable way. So I just wanted to make sure that I wanted to emphasize that. And that was what you're thinking about?
Speaker 9: Yeah, we're excited about it. As we all know, there is no silver bullet to solve the affordability crisis that's going on not only in Denver, but in every major city in America and North America. We think we've got some good ideas that we can bring forward and discuss with you, though.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. President, for your participation on the group, too.
Speaker 5: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Cashman, you're up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Reese. If you don't mind, I'm following along with Councilman. Whose last question? I almost had a bit of a stroke in our our last hearing. I know the people who are involved in the whole Shattuck rehabilitation, and I don't think their dreams or the dreams of the neighborhood plan in 1993 were 350 square feet for 1300 bucks. So. The one slide that showed that 62% of the people and not only were interested in affordable housing, but were interested in child care and early childhood education, tells me that they're thinking about something other than 350 square feet. So if you can go as far as you're able to in your concepts right now, talk a little bit more about affordability and median income levels and just. As best you can do in 2018.
Speaker 9: Yeah. I mean, I don't want to hijack the area plan amendment discussion and focus on our plan, but I can tell you that I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what we bring forward. I hope you will be. I think we will go well above and beyond what's been done in the city previously. Unit mix is important. I can talk for hours about this, but I'll try to be really succinct I think. I grew up in Vancouver and I watched Vancouver grow up as a city and it wasn't a really successful city until it accommodated a large cross-section of the population. My canary in the coal mine story that I use is when I would wake up in downtown Vancouver and you'd see young families pushing a stroller down the street, and obviously they're not going to live in 300 square feet or 350 square feet. So I think we need to be inclusive, not only income wise, but demographically as well. And in addition to affordable housing, I think we need to focus on how do we really create complete communities. And I think the area planning, aside from affordability focus is a lot on this and what kind of amenities do we need to bring to downtown? So we're not building a downtown Denver for just millennials, but we're building it for a much broader cross-section. So I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 7: It's getting closer. Yeah, it's 20 year build out and. We need three bedrooms and four bedrooms. You know, as long as we keep building to a limited demographic, as you're saying, then we get what we build for. And while I understand that there's a market for that limited demographic, apparently, because I don't think people would be building for what's not there. We also need to build to attract other elements of the housing market. And I believe what you're saying to me and this council may have an.
Speaker 6: Opportunity.
Speaker 7: To address specific zoning on these parcels, may be future councils. As far as the timeline you're talking about. But I really hope to see a truly diverse downtown with army levels all over the map.
Speaker 9: So thank you for that hope. You're welcome. I will confess, I'm not an expert in affordable housing and becoming one. But more importantly, I'm surrounding myself with good people, including Denver Housing Authority, who will hopefully partner with us and bring forward a good proposal that we can all support.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Councilman Catron, Councilor Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Lily maybe or whoever can answer this. There are a number of historic structures along Old wasI Street, which is now a very a parkway, some of them built in the late 1890 through the early teens. What does the plan have to say about the fate or the status of those?
Speaker 4: I'm just going to switch to this to the slide here. And we, particularly through our meetings with the very residents who are also here today, addressed that by really speaking to lower intensity and potentially the the plan recommends having a height limit in that area, while it doesn't speak to height limit throughout anywhere else in the plan area. So this particular area here and then this this corner water street that that is next to Jefferson Park, we do talk about sort of limiting height and and developing new buildings that respect the existing context.
Speaker 9: Doesn't anticipate preservation or adaptive reuse or anything of that nature of those some of those buildings.
Speaker 4: The particularly along area, I think most of those buildings are already already.
Speaker 9: Functional scattered ownership, too. I don't I don't believe they're owned by.
Speaker 4: I mean, what we could tell is that they're in good standing as it is. They've been restored and they're being occupied and used. So there wasn't any language about additional preservation.
Speaker 9: Okay. There were two blocks that I saw in the presentation that were sort of they had a green asterisk on them because they were going to be a proposed park are open space. What's the total acreage and what is that acreage compared with the anticipated number of residents? Future reserves, I think the standard is ten acres per is a ten acres of open space per thousand residents is what we strive for.
Speaker 4: I don't know if I can answer to you in terms of specific numbers. We did not get to the detail of calculating that specifically, but there are sort of this is a large block here that is specified as potentially an area for for a park, a park that opens up to the river. Right.
Speaker 9: And there's one on the south side of the.
Speaker 4: Right in addition, somewhere along that area. And then we have sort of a green corridor that would connect those two parks together.
Speaker 9: Okay. And that that quarter crosses state, it would allow people to cross the sea at the consolidated main line, correct?
Speaker 4: That's right. And I just want to turn to my colleague, Sarah, to see if she. Yeah, there she is.
Speaker 9: Okay. Do we know the acreage of those two parcels?
Speaker 11: So we don't have a necessary acreage? We do have suggested park types within it. And we also suggest to follow the kind of guidance with the outdoor downtown plan. And some of the guidance is a requirement of a walking distance to certain sizes and types of parks, which is what we also recommend. And that will also be studied with kind of future development and the amount of people. We do have a recommendation in the plan that talks about that as far as how many people and park space per that. But there is no specified very specific acreage at all. But there's a lot of recommended recommendations about how we want to have parks throughout the whole area, a variety of parks and kind of what's going on within them.
Speaker 9: So there could be there could be more open space than is shown on those assets.
Speaker 11: Yes, I would say this diagram just has sort of two larger asterisks to show the largest designated parks. But there will be, I will say, many more other spaces, either designated parks or privately owned open space.
Speaker 9: Okay. Because we do fall short of that standard in a lot of parts of the city. Here's an opportunity to get it correct. And also, I was very intrigued by that 1933 aerial photo because of the the the comments during public hearing by some of the speakers about displacement and gentrification. But this has always been railyard and industrial property has never been where the images and Pepsi Center did not displace any residential. They replaced the the Chicago the Colorado and Southern or the rice yards rather. And all the railyards that were in there, correct? Yes. Okay. And I hate to bring up elegies again, but it's it's the source of source of summer employment and seasonal employment for so many young people in the city. So I am concerned and I've had some constituents contact me about what is the long term plan for Ilitch is. And I don't know if you can. With what degree of specificity you can talk about that. But I know that people look forward to how many kids have worked there over the years. Yeah, like I've said repeatedly, we're committed to keeping it there for the foreseeable future and I think our phased plan can accomplish that and make better use of our surface parking lots. I can tell you that my partner is quite as am I quite committed to looking at a relocation plan when the time comes to move it. The relocation plan to Northwest to where? To get a site. You can't say city and county of Denver or center central city or or the hinterlands. Yeah. The fact is. An amusement park by today's standards requires about 125 acres of land. We sit on about 62 today. And so it's tricky to get an urban amusement park. And there's a reason why there's not very many of them in the world. So you're saying we're unique? I'm saying that finding a great site within metro Denver will be challenging, but we're committed to looking at it for sure. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, with those leading questions. Okay. And I just want to remind our council members, you know, let's stick to the question. You'll have plenty of time and comments as well. Uh, Councilwoman Ortega, Europe.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I have several questions, so I'm going to first start with the railroad issue. So when we started the conversations on the Central Valley, everybody assumes the railroad, the central mainline was going to be moved and the railroads were not part of our conversation at that time. And we later found out that they didn't want to move. So we had to revise the plan to ensure that the central main line stayed. And so I want to know what kind of railroad involvement was part of this plan. And, you know, we've had many conversations with the folks that live in East West Partners Development in the Central Valley. And these residents are very concerned, excuse me about the volume of petroleum products that travel through this city, not to mention other types of hazardous materials that not only travel through the center of our center of our city, but oftentimes are staged right downtown, right next to the most populated area in the entire state. And I want to know what kinds of conversations were had about the compatibility and and what kind of buffering are we talking about that ensures the protection of the masses of people that are going to be attracted to this area . So can someone help me understand how that was addressed as part of the planning?
Speaker 0: Really, I think, you know.
Speaker 4: Um, as far as we know, the seamless here is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But throughout this plan we acknowledge the presence of Consolidated Mainline as well as light rail. We address it in walkable as a physical barrier and that needs to be to bridge to portions of this plan area one through an old mode connection along Seventh Street, and then with two additional connections for pedestrians and bicycles. We also address email in the drivers housing focus topic, where we have recommendations to avoid concentration of affordable units along C.M. and Interstate 25, Interstate 25 and under environmental conditions focus topic through recommendations that speak to implementing best practices that address downtown skill development along freight rail. This amendment leverages on the 2016 Mayor's Railroad Safety Working Group report and further recommends reduction of train speed throughout the downtown context restricting parking of hazardous, toxic or flammable goods throughout the downtown context. And one of the common reasons we did our research for freight accidents, we found, was due to lack of maintenance to freight rail lines. And so we also have recommendations that encourage more frequent checks of rail lines within the downtown context.
Speaker 10: Given the fact that we are considered what is known in the Railroad World Railroad World as a two tier of high urban traffic area, the the speeds are already reduced through the city. So, you know, I think that's that's the good news for Denver. Right. You know, they can't travel through here at high speeds where that would cause an incident. But the fact that, you know, they come through here and it makes us vulnerable as a city, especially given the high volume of of people that are concentrated in our downtown. So I just wanted to know how that was addressed and specifically to the the interface or or what may be seen as the incompatibility, right of, you know, the rail lines with high density housing that would be concentrated next to the the rail lines. That's one of the things I, I heard said pretty loud and clear is the the density would be more concentrated, closer to the rail. And as you go through the process with our planning department, the kind of buffering will will absolutely be part of how we address this. Let me move on to my next issue. One of my colleagues talked about open space. Can you tell me if any of the land along the river is considered as part of that open space? Or is are we talking about new land that does not include the river?
Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm going to defer to my colleague Sara to speak to that.
Speaker 11: So the plan definitely addresses current parks along the river. There's a few parks that are already there, including open space. And so there are recommendations to look at maybe possibly improving current parks. In addition to that, providing new parks and public space throughout the entire plan area. There was quite an expression to kind of enhance the riverfront as well and possibly improve trails and open space along the river. And so there's a lot of different recommendations that sort of speak to that. I guess does that answer the question?
Speaker 10: So I think it's important to include that interface with the river because it's a really critically important asset. But I want to make sure that we are including more park land in this area. I mean, the Central Valley had three new parks because, you know, this North Denver was park deficient. Those parks were actually built to serve part of North Denver, but they also happened to be serving the Central Valley as well. And so to do this area and not have any definitive amount of acreage that's being added as new park land is concerning to me that that we have no no details of how much more new park, land or open space we get in this new development. I think we're talking about 70 acres, is that correct?
Speaker 7: 66 years.
Speaker 0: But can can I just. Yeah, I want to just set the tone here a little bit because we're getting down into details. And this is this is the plan. This is the plan vision. This is the 30,000 foot. And so we're not going to have those kind of details at this level, particularly because we're not just talking about one property. You're talking about an area plan. And so I just want to encourage that.
Speaker 10: It I got it. It's part of the deficiency in the redo of how City Council sees the detail that we used to see. Having been here before, when we did the Central Valley Plan, we had a whole lot more details that were approved by City Council. So I get your point. So let me let me move on to flooding. Okay. So in your environmental issues, it's very clear in one of the picture shows the area within this this property that is being flooded. So how will that be addressed? Are we looking at bringing a bunch of a bunch of soil in and building up the site? Help me understand how that would be addressed. And I don't know if you want to speak to that very quickly.
Speaker 11: And then I'll let some my other colleagues speak to it as well. So one thing that I didn't mention earlier that I just want to mention as well is that this diagram is showing an enhanced river, enhanced green zone along the river. And we heard very strongly that people really want to see new parks in public space along the river. And that's why we also show a green asterisks adjacent to the.
Speaker 10: Riverfront, now adding to and green space.
Speaker 11: So we would hope to add parks and public space to the river. In addition to that, some of the recommendations that go along with this enhanced Green Zone goal. They speak about how to address flooding adjacent to the river and sort of how are we going to use sort of Brazilian green infrastructure systems maybe adjacent to the river? How are we going to look at adaptable spaces that can adapt to kind of a moving waterway? And in addition to that, we have some other recommendations across the plan area that we're trying to look at how to mitigate and accommodate flooding within development and within the plan area and how to filter and drain water before it gets to the river and before it gets to a pipe. Also led one of my other colleagues speak to that if they want.
Speaker 10: And let me just as you're coming up, who's ever going to address that? I just want to make sure that it it addresses it for the site without pushing the problem further down to areas that are already in a flood zone or are already experiencing flooding, like the Globeville neighborhood, for example.
Speaker 4: I'm going to add one. Just before Restocks we we worked closely with some of our other city colleagues who can speak to the specifics of that much more. This is obviously a very complicated problem. So what the plan talks about is what it needs to accomplish. And it's exactly that it needs to address the flooding both both in terms of the development adjacent to the river. And there's some in river improvements that can happen. So so our plan talks about kind of what how that needs to end up looking. But if race is thought a lot more about he's the one, he's going to be one of the people having to solve that problem. So he could speak more to the specifics.
Speaker 10: I'm an optimist.
Speaker 9: I'm looking forward to bringing a rezoning before you all, because as we're starting to flesh out, there's a lot of issues. Hopefully we can do that soon while it's fresh in all of your minds. We have been working closely with urban drainage and the city and county. As some of you may be aware, there's a long term regional plan for this reach of the river to solve the floodplain problem. And we've taken that on as part of our challenge to expedite that and implement that regional solution that hopefully solves the floodplain problem, not only for this site but for a number of others. Reaching all the way I think we're looking at the rich area is roughly from Speer upstream to about eight through 11th Avenue. So a pretty significant regional improvement project.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. I have two more. Do you want me to continue or do you want to put me at the end? Yeah.
Speaker 0: You know what? Let's let's jump on to the others and then we'll come back. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Some of my questions may be hard to understand where I'm going because I'm not trying not to do my comments first. So but please be patient with me. I think it's overall, there's some really good language in the plan, but I have a couple questions and there's a couple of places where I think it falls short. So I want to start by asking about the the process that you see going forward. So I'm in particular reading the section and implementation and I guess I'm concerned. I see partnership priorities for Housing Listing. Economic Development. Office of Economic Development. I see the community benefits, including a bunch of city departments. And so I guess my first question is just process wise, how many meetings did you say where the idea of diversity, affordable housing inclusion came up like, you know. A few most dozens.
Speaker 4: How do I say most meetings?
Speaker 8: Okay. So we'll talk in dozens of meetings.
Speaker 4: I mean, I can pull up the slide that.
Speaker 8: We use rough. I'm just trying to get it.
Speaker 4: We had three public meetings. I would say at each one of those public meetings, there were questions about you know, there were comments about that.
Speaker 8: And then there were some of these surveys and things. That's right. And so how many of those meetings was the Office of Economic Development present and participating in the conversation?
Speaker 4: Um. They were not present at the public meetings, but we did have workshops with them, multiple workshops with them, multiple meetings internally with them.
Speaker 8: But were they ever in communication with the community that was raising these concerns, as far as you know?
Speaker 4: No. And I would say. Probably the mature note I'm truly thinking about a majority of the concerns and providing affordability push came from the steering committee.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there were some steering committee. Does the steering committee include city agencies or does it include community folks?
Speaker 4: It does, but this did not include anyone from OED.
Speaker 8: But it did include community people, but it did not include OED. That's right. Okay. So you can imagine where my comments are going to head. I see no mention of the community in either of the implementation sections about the affordable housing or about the community benefits. Nor do I see any mention of city council. So I guess I want to understand how it is that you feel or and this is a planning question in part because, you know, again in my comments, I'm going to get to the trust gap between what's in this plan and then what gets negotiated by city agencies. Because we have another project coming forward in a week or two that has shown us how big the gap can be between the plan and what city agencies negotiate when they're alone with developers and they don't have the council and they don't have the community. So I want to have a sense of why those parties weren't mentioned in the implementation section about who's going to be working on the detail build out of this.
Speaker 4: Sure. Yes.
Speaker 7: A barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. Thanks for the question, Councilwoman. There may be a little bit of an oversight in the language about who should be involved in the moving forward, because I would definitely understand your point. You do, because this is just setting the high level policy. We don't know exactly how this happens yet. We just have the priorities in place. But looking forward, we can start to see some paths forward. The plan talks about new or updated zoning that would apply, and it does even talk about potential incentive systems like we saw at 30th and Blake. And one of the things that we're looking at is a fairly set method for translating the the high intensity of development that's going to happen here into community benefits, like leveraging the increased land values. And that may mean that what we're negotiating with the community and with city departments involved are set formulas for the requirements that will apply to all of the development in the area moving forward. So that's a more transparent upfront negotiation before the developments are formally proposed. They're set requirements that they'd have to meet, if that makes sense.
Speaker 8: Okay. I think on that, I want to ask you about the you started to talk about the idea of regulatory approaches, and I definitely saw what I called nods to the 38th and Blake inclusionary, you know on site performance right higher performance on site but at pretty high aims. It's pretty much a workforce tool. The plan makes one mention of low income, but low income at the levels of like 30% of area median income is often not provided through that traditional route. It can be sometimes, but it's not as often we we more often are thinking about other types. It's typically, for example, financed in a building that leverages other resources, maybe not spread across. And so I guess I wanted to just clarify, when you say the word low income, what is your definition in this plan of low income?
Speaker 5: Thank you. Yeah, the plan does not.
Speaker 7: Specifically define it in several places. It says low to moderate income or low income and workforce. The but it also really talks about a variety of housing for a variety of people and requirements for that. And so one of the criticisms of the 30th and Blake strategy is that the housing that's required is affordable at 80% or below AMI because that's been the approach in the city wide linkage fee for building housing instead of paying the fee. I think we have direction here to look at something more nuanced with the affordability levels at which housing is provided or if, you know, in some cases, as you as you likely know, it may not make sense for housing to be provided by the developers at very low AMI, but could make sense for them to pay for the housing strategies to be accomplished through some other mechanism.
Speaker 8: Right. Or to provide land. So I guess where I want to go, I want to respect the idea. This is a vision plan, but I also want to make sure that there are no gotchas hidden in here where people are going to say to me that things are foreclosed. And so, for example, when you use this regulatory approach that works well for a linkage fee on site performance, a density bonus is designed for buildings. It's really not a substitute for an area plan for housing. And I think one of the problems we're having in the city is somewhere along the line, folks thought that a fee for a building was somehow a substitute for doing planning. So I want to just clarify, it talks about dispersal. Do you believe that anything in this plan forecloses the creation of a dedicated, affordable housing building for rental, for example, for 30% or 50%, since that would be one building. It may there may be for sale, affordable somewhere else. There may be workforce rental somewhere else. But I just want to clarify, when you see this word in here and I can give you a page number if it's important, but it talks about not dispersed that the housing has to be dispersed. Do you see anything foreclosing the creation of an affordable building in one place in this plan?
Speaker 7: I would I would say no, as long as it was clear that that was not going to meet the entire requirement for a variety of housing throughout the area.
Speaker 8: Got it. That's encouraging. Then the second question is, you know, there's this mention of regulatory approaches, which, again, I think work well for buildings may not work as so. Is there anything in your mind that forecloses the dedication of land, for example, for affordable housing, which wouldn't be something that could be accomplished necessarily. It might it might satisfy a linkage fee, affordable housing plan. We particularly put an affordable housing plan option in the linkage fee. But I just want to clarify that we weren't we are not relying only on density bonuses, that there could be other strategies that that are used to achieve the affordable housing.
Speaker 7: The plan doesn't foreclose other strategies. As we get into implementation, there'll be a lot of things to balance the the predictability of the formulas versus what you could get through more negotiated solutions. That might include a whole range of options, like setting aside land or doing really comprehensive planning for a large development like the one that Mr. Duncan anticipates.
Speaker 8: Okay. So we could have an affordable housing plan for this site. That is not. And I just want I want to know which doors are open, which are closed. I'm skeptical about a formula necessarily achieving the variety of aims and the variety of goals this plan sets out. So could this plan be achieved with an affordable housing plan that is negotiated and may include a variety of these things that don't all fit a regulatory zoning code ordinance?
Speaker 7: That door is not closed.
Speaker 8: Okay, that's really helpful. Thanks for allowing me to be so detailed. Just two more questions then. This one's a little different. It might be more for you, Reece, but on housing types, you guys have a lot of very broad language in here about variety of units and things like that. But I think and I know I was quoted in the media about this, so you may have read it, but there is a lot more to, I think, making housing attractive to families than the number of bedrooms. And I've continually tried to point folks to this idea that, you know, when you have five and seven year olds , you can't send them to the river by themselves and you can't cook dinner with them at the park. So, you know, the idea of internal courtyards in areas that create safe, enclosed play. Are you looking at anything that's beyond just telling me you're going to do bedrooms but really creating spaces that are designed around families? And then I have one more question about public input. So. Just signaling to the president so he doesn't steal may make.
Speaker 9: Sure that there is. Yes, you may have heard my response to Councilman Cashman about. I'm a believer in God. Constructing a complete community. And that's. That's what I meant to speak to. And I used my canary in the coal mine test. Right. The for me, the the test of a healthy city is when you wake up and you see families pushing strollers in your downtown core, I think that means we're healthy as a city. And what does that mean? Everyone in this moment in time wants to talk about affordable housing. I mean, that's all anyone wants to talk about, it seems. I like to broaden the discussion more about that. And I think the plan speaks to this as well, is, like you say, it's not only three bedrooms, but it's a daycare to send your kids to . It's a school to send your kids to so you don't have to move out to the suburbs. It's a library. It's a recreation center. And I think what's really fortunate about a lot of the land covered by the plan is that it's under large ownership parcels, which is really, really unique. And I think I anticipate we're going to have more of a discussion around this at the time of rezoning, but it creates the ability to deliver a lot of the elements in the plan a lot more easily than if the ownership was fractured. And so that's what excites me. And I look forward to having those discussions because I do truly believe you just can't put people in bedrooms and expect to call it a family neighborhood.
Speaker 8: So you may want to take this last question to then. So in terms of you've heard my questions about getting beyond just apartments to including voices and you know, other speakers and folks have mentioned the question of racial inclusiveness, which I think is, you know, not one that's easily designed in a physical realm exercise. And I guess one of the questions I have is what is the ongoing way that you as a developer are going to be engaging community and knowing that the nearby neighborhoods don't include necessarily the racial diversity that you want this site to, to reflect how you are going to seek out those perspectives. Because our traditional planning process is, you know, you have a committee that you kind of report to and and it includes representatives of all the nearby neighborhoods. But if you do that, you might be missing the voices that, you know, many of us are concerned about, feeling included. And so I'm just curious if you have given some thought to how you're going to do that inclusive planning and sound boarding as you move forward outside the rubric of the planning department running things.
Speaker 9: Yeah. For those of you who know me, you know, I'm pretty accessible. My cell phone's always on. It's kind of a 24 seven job. And so I talk to an awful lot of people and constituents in that role. I think I'm open to ideas on that for sure. I think, you know, we're we're bringing Michael Wolff to a portion of the site. Some of you may be aware of that, which is an exciting and a very exciting artists group. I think they have a really good model. They came in to our site, which they're use as a use by. Right. And they said, that's great, we don't need to consult, but we're going to go out wide into the artists community, into the neighborhood communities and really seek that input. And I think that's a really good model. But like I said, I don't have the all the names and addresses and the answers, so I'd be open to that discussion.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Kathryn Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Some of my questions have been asked by Councilman Ortega and Councilwoman Kenney specifically in regards to affordability and and racial diversity. I do want to bring something I think is the city. So those from simply from CPD. On that very note, I want to continue that note. By inclusivity and making sure. And here's some ideas. Looking at the steering committee district three borders the area. Right. Moran. I'm looking at that map.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Was there a reason why we were invited to this. Steering committee table? I mean, we were visited. We, you know, I think with the reset, Reese and his team came to visit and meet with me and took a lot of our input. And they met with Sun Valley. They got into LaMonica Park. The city is the driver here. This is a city plan. This is a CPD document. I'm looking at the steering committee and the folks involved. Two things pop out to me, and one is that Council District three was left out. We had brought this to the attention of the CPD before. And the only thing that neighborhoods to the just in the spirit of achieving this diversity and making this whole neighborhood. The neighborhoods southwest to the site. Are very diverse immigrants, refugees, Mexican-Americans. And when I look at the steering committee. Espinosa. You're the only guy that represents. Those communities. There's a huge population. So I wonder why we I mean, if if that ever got pinged on on on by the city. I know that the team had reached out to me, but I was surprised that the city hasn't had saw that or. Figure that out. You have three council people there and.
Speaker 4: I am not sure if I am qualified to speak to why District three wasn't included in the Steering Committee. But through our first and second public outreach, we realized that through sort of our CPD newsletters and our social media blast, we were not getting La Alma and Lincoln Park community at the public meetings. So we've reached out to them and we met with them separately.
Speaker 5: All Sun Valley as well too.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I think that is a little bit of one of my concern is I just want to know if there was is it. Is it a is it a 200 foot radius thing? Or what was the factor that that made that I.
Speaker 4: I don't know if I could speak to that because I was not involved in that process.
Speaker 5: Okay. And I know you're the messenger, but I think maybe I just addressed this to the administration in in making sure I want to know from from the executive level why that's the case. We had issues with notification before from the office, from the executive office in terms of, you know, things happening right in our own backyard . Right. And when I think of downtown and I know this is forgive me for not making this form of a question, but. I guess I guess it is a question, right? We only live about 6 minutes from downtown. Why are we not considered downtown? Anybody who visits Denver. And goes to the West Side. They think we live in downtown by any other city's measure. We live in downtown. But Denver's measure there's a line. So I want I so I want later on. Yeah. Just moments right now. Councilman.
Speaker 0: You know, this is this is this is the district I represent. And I think I was involved in conversations. And I think that's a that's an oversight. And I think moving forward, there's going to be a, you know, going to talk about this in my comments. You know, the devil is about to be in the details in this rezoning, and we want you to be at the table. So I think that's a I think that's a oversight. And we want to make make sure it's clear going forward.
Speaker 5: I appreciate that, Mr. President. Look, I just wanted to bring that attention. Sure. I may be term limited. I may not be at that table, but I may not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 0: We I can I can guarantee you this, Councilman Lopez, that this is happening in the next six months. So you'll be here, okay? Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Just put a tiny bit of fear into me hearing that we're we're six months away from a rezoning, and I know nothing about it but conversation for a reason. That's, you know, that's that. That'll be part of my comments. I did want to but along those same lines to councilman news question about the Station Stadium Plan Committee, I can tell you that there's a public meeting that's going to be happening coming up very soon. I have pointed this out. There has been day one was a lot of talk about connection to these to Sun Valley, to Sloan's Lake and to this area. And yet it has gotten very narrow. And we're not actually talking about those connections. We're really focused on those two blocks that they really want to develop. And I have made I'm supposed to be a champion and like be a cheerleader for that effort. But I do have serious concerns about the the lack of connectivity, especially when Wolf was just mentioned. That's the that's the link to that other state when I want to get to those questions. So this is really a question for the city attorney sort of addressing my colleague, Councilwoman CNOOC's comments that we could have prescriptive language. Um, my understanding is we can write prescriptive language into our plans and that would then in fact be legally binding. And that's been upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. If we wanted to have some language that we shall establish regular, regular reviewed set of requirements for vertical development developments regarding affordable housing or, you know, minimums or something like that, we could have very prescriptive language, and that would in fact be legally binding. Is that true? Sorry I did this to broadwell once too. Good evening. Members of Council Navy Sir Sir Anthony Jasmine Espinosa. Typically plans are just that. We don't write prescriptive language into our plans. We save that for our regulations and our Denver zoning code. Yeah, and I recognize that. But this goes back to my history with Devin Buckles when she was a member of CPD. We had prescriptive language in plans and that became when a developer wanted to do something that deviated from those plans that were supported by community. That became the issue. And we then got involved in very, very aspirational and recommendations that don't have any sort of level of specificity to avoid that. But yet, when we have conversations with community, it's always very clear that this is what they want. But we never write plans to that effect. But if I hear council saying that we heard this, I mean, if I hear a plan committee say we heard this and I hear council saying we want to address this, we could actually just say, look, take it back to your committee. The idea that we want to be more prescriptive in this element and it's something that we could write. Correct. So to your point, I think Councilman Brooks or President Brooks addressed this earlier when when he mentioned that this is sort of a 30,000 foot view, and then what will likely come is a text amendment to the zoning code. And I think that's where council has the ability to put some teeth to this plan. But then that gets back to my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega's comments, which is who's involved? Right. The process is different now. So we're having this 30,000 foot view and discussion where if she doesn't articulate it now, the people that are actually writing these play, these these zoning might not know that that's even sitting in the in the members on council's mind if that conversation is happening only by an applicant and CPD staff members of the executive and maybe Councilman Brooks. President Brooks. You know, this is a conversation where I felt welcome at this conversation. I can speak to the fact that the diversity conversation came up early and not by me, but by other members of that task force. And in in in. So if there is a desire to to somehow capture affordability, capture some sort of regulatory conditions, that that might involve sort of more pocket parks and open space or some sort of diversity. It's inherent in the development language. How would we know that until it comes forward as a as text amendment or map amendment? Text amendments are purely legislative and they're not applicant driven. And so again, I would just reiterate that that's council's opportunity to give this plan some teeth. Okay. So that to me, colleagues, that is the sort of wide open thing that when a tax amendment comes forward, if you want to see change to it, please use that opportunity to start negotiating and asking for change. Because what comes forward and has by the time it gets to us, which has already been through public process and planning board. We still have the capacity to instigate change. The problem is, is by then it has gotten through our whole gantlet of support and to sort of say that, oh well what you guys all agreed to needs needs some sort of core level adjustment. I think we need to be. So I just, you know, I'm getting into comments now and you can save that for that. I just wanted to see if you have any more questions because I got Ortega. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm going to continue from where I left off. I appreciate the questions that were raised by my colleagues about the affordable housing piece. The most critical part of this is we need different price points of housing that will serve varying income levels of people in our city. If we want to have the diverse city that we have historically enjoyed, much of which we're losing these days. I also appreciate the ethnic diversity being raised as one of the questions. I think having the socioeconomic diversity in our city is what has made us a great city. It's what makes any city a great city and ensures that you have people that can work at different income levels and do that kind of stuff. I want to ask about the point that was raised by Peter Lowy about the contradiction of sections in the plan and how we expect to address that moving forward. And I think part of that gets addressed with who sits at the table that shapes the details moving forward. So I don't know who wants to speak to me.
Speaker 0: I don't know if you want to.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'll stick to diverse diversity as well. Well, we have a whole, whole vision element that dedicated to diversity. It's also addressed in a variety of forms and recommendations throughout almost all vision elements, in diverse vision, in we speak to affordable housing that would attract variety of income levels, that it also provides a variety of family sizes from single person to multi-generational family living. There are also recommendations to provide affordable childcare, community gathering spaces and the units, and that these units are closely located to transit fresh food parks and schools. We also address diversity through amenities and design elements that are cater to seniors and people with disability, such as incorporating universal design throughout and providing health care facilities and proper and prosperous vision element. We address diversity through downtown mixed use that provides complimentary uses to support downtown living, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, playgrounds, and other civic and community uses such as libraries, schools, community recreational centers. The plan also speaks to creating tools to attract a wide variety of employment opportunities and requiring the development of new, multifunctional public spaces are accessible to all and walkable. We address diversity through well connected and integrated public transit system and small walkable blocks and through tedium, by providing discounted or free eco passes and employees to employees and to low income residents. And in green, we address diversity by providing a variety of open spaces environments from natural habitat to playgrounds to areas that provide outdoor work or workout equipment to all. So I think we we do touch upon sort of creating that economic equity and socially social economic inclusivity. In regards to Peter's comment. I will say that while Downtown Partnership has been on the steering committee, that this plan is solely written by community planning and development. So I'm not exactly sure what the where those differences lie. The recommendations at the end of the plan that speak to a variety of different ways to achieve plan recommendations which include private partnership, public partnerships. This is a very common way to develop cities. Very often there's funds used from the city to help realize projects, but also sort of incentive tools created to create that TPP, whether and you know, I can name cities in like New York and Portland, for example, with their dedication of parks. So they work with developers to build the parks and allocate their own properties to parks. And that's the kind of pep kind of strategies that we we speak to in this plan.
Speaker 10: Okay. Well, it's not unusual for us to have adopted plans that have conflicting sections. The Garden Court is a great example of that, where we had to come back and. Make some major changes to that. So so have you all looked at and identified where we do have conflicting sections in that that we can then address moving forward in the details that will come later.
Speaker 4: I. I do not know what those conflicting sections may be.
Speaker 10: Okay, Peter, maybe you can highlight those and we can share those. Not not right at this moment. But last question is about looking at the cumulative effect of. The redevelopment of village's 60 plus acres. Sun Valley. How many acres do we have in Sun Valley? And then now we're talking about the Broncos. All of this in the same geographical area. We know that we've got traffic congestion everywhere in our city today. And, you know, the hope is that people will live close to where, you know, transportation is and they won't need a car. But until we have our first mile, last mile figured out in this city, everybody's going to use their damn car. And they do. And so what is being done to look at the long term viability of our city so that we're not just looking at jamming everything wherever we can build, just for the sake of of seeing more people come to our city? Can you help me? Understand whether or not the cumulative effect of these three major developments was looked at as part of this, or is that being done right now collectively? And who's part of that? Who's part of that process?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I would my initial response would be that's the sort of conversation that we're having with public works and sort of orchestrating, coordinating that those plans do come together and they're not piecemeal. Especially in such a close proximity.
Speaker 10: And that can't just be happening within the city. It has to include community.
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 10: Because the cumulative effect is what creates problems. I mean, we started this with the 38th and Fox area where we keep getting reason applications brought to us. Nobody was talking about the infrastructure impact that was was going to happen. And once, you know, staff sat down and started looking at how much density we were improving, approving through this body, they realized, gee, we only got one road into this site. How are we going to handle even more applications coming forward? So a couple bills that were on tonight's agenda, you know, ensure that the developers are contributing towards how we address that infrastructure. So we have to look at the big picture and not just be looking at these projects piecemeal. So I want to make sure we're we're having that.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman, I wanted to I think she had an answer there.
Speaker 4: So I wanted to I just I want to say, in addition to specifically to this plan area, the you know, there would be what's what's great about Ilitch is is that it's consolidated ownership. And when that comes through the sort of for rezoning, we will have IP, which is the infrastructure master plan, looking at that and getting into more details, understanding mobility, you know, doing more detailed mobility studies which are beyond the scope and capacity of this plan.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 10: Okay. That concludes my questions. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for answering my question.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And that concludes the core question portion of of of this 561 is not closed comments by members of council. So I'll start this being a part of the district that I represent, you know? I think it's really important that the public hear this, that a plan is aspirational. A plan is aspirational. It is. It captures the vision of where we want to go in the future and. You know this plan right here. I'm talking to constituents all the time. And this is the thing that they're going to tell you that's most important. First of all, nine out of ten will tell you they only feel within their they only feel that they're in a huge city when they're in their car and they're stuck in traffic. Mobility is a huge concern. Nine and ten to tell you, number one, we have a housing crisis. An issue in our city is is getting less diverse every day. And three is sustainability. We are really concerned about sustainability within the city and county of Denver. Aspirationally this plan. Encapsulates all those things. It talks about inclusivity. It talks about. I mean, you know, Joel Clarke would say this is the most impressive part of the South Platte River. It talks about revitalizing that piece. It talks about open space. It talks about all that traffic that everybody's talking about. Now you have a part of the city that is connected to a multimodal network, and it talks about increasing that. It talks about parking maximums. It talks about a team plan. Joe and Clark. Councilman, president pro tem. We've been talking about a team plan for ever. We now have one so people don't have to be overreliant on their cars. So from an aspirational perspective, this gets at everything. And by the way, it include it, although we didn't have Councilman Lopez and some folks from his neighborhood, which was an oversight. And we'll make sure going forward that we do that. We did have District one and as you know, District one has not, you know, been run roughshod by developers. They're going to fight right tooth and nail. We had Jefferson Park folks in my committee sit in there and tell you, I don't like this, I like this, I don't like that, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that conflict because it helped us put a plan together that was inclusive. And and Councilman Espinosa was at most and all, if not all of the meetings. Oh, sorry. And pushed pretty hard. And I think aspirationally he is not to put words in the mouth supportive of this plan. And so I think aspirationally we're in a good place. It's not over, folks. We get another and I'm sure folks who are going forward for the rezoning are not going to like this. But we another bite at the apple several actually. And it's called the rezoning. And it's going to be a long process where we we all get to be a part of it. Now, I'm a tell you right now, because I've been a part of texts and zoning amendments don't come at the 12th hour, 11th hour and say , I didn't feel like I was a part of this because now I'm taking notes. All of the folks who said that they want to be a part of the details of what this looks like, you're going to get a note, you're going to get you're going to call, you're going to get you're going to get invited to the table. I think one of the things I learned on this, you know, this was moving right at the gentrification conversation we were having in the district. And I would go to a meeting and say, if you care about this gentrification, displacement, what our city looks like, you better be at a planning meeting. And we have to do a much better job getting the word out. But we as a community also have to do a much better job of seeking out that information as well. And so, you know, I think, you know, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete said some things. I think what I would throw out to the to the community and CPD and other folks is, you know, if we really want this to be a community this diverse, there are a lot of groups, a lot of African-American, Latino, professional groups that need to be a part of this and that we need to start reaching out to. And so I put that on my plate. I put that on CPD's plate, and we all should put that on our plates moving forward. I will say, number one, that moving forward and not, you know, obviously can't get in the details because we don't know. But this will be one of the most impressive, sustainable green areas in the city. One, two. This will be one of the most impressive multi-modal developments that we have in the area. And three, this will have one of the highest, in my opinion, and I will push for this requirements of affordable housing that we have at any large development in the city. And so we've got to work at that. I don't know what that looks like. You know, we'll be working all together as a city. But I think all of those questions that councilwoman can each about the the specificity of what's not included, what is included, I think are great questions. And I think this is open. I think this is open and we're really going to have the opportunity. I'm really excited that you mentioned that DOJ will be at the table and they are at the table. And so they are a great partner of the city and they can do a lot of great in the city. So I'm supportive of this by the requirements we are used to judge to pass a plan. I think it just meets all the requirements and I'm excited for the next step. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. To build off your remarks, I think that this plan has a lot of really good and bright aspirations. So I. Kudos to the steering committee. Kudos to you, Councilman, who I know was behind some of those important aspirations and pushing them forward. So I think that there is no question about that. This is a really great plan in all of the areas that it covers. I think the reason, the dialog it started even before your plan this evening, it started with the earlier rezonings. But I think that the city and I, you know, I don't know who I mean, what I mean the city. But I think sometimes there's a notion that displacement is about where the development lands. And if the development lands someplace without housing, then it's not a displacement question because there's no housing there and you're not displacing anyone . And I think what you're hearing tonight is that we can't be thinking about displacement as just where development lands. We have to think about every ripple that circles out from that development, and we have to think about its long term intergenerational impacts on the city. And so that requires thinking and planning and aspirations that are as big, as bold as all of those ripples. And not just on the site. And I hear a team tonight that's embracing, I think, that level of thinking, and I think that's a breakthrough. And again, you know, we have some projects coming forward on a similar timeline that missed the boat completely. And that's where the concern comes in in terms of where we go from here. So one of the things I want to point out is that I think one way to think about the ripples and I noticed it again tonight when we talk about conformance with plans and I know you're talking about legal conformance, I haven't yet heard a CPD presentation mention the affordable housing plan or the Todd plan. So we work hard sometimes running around trying to get language into plans because we want them all to point to each other. So the Todd plan says put affordable housing activities. The housing plan says put affordable activity. So we have all these plans. And I think that we are still. Thinking a little bit too much about the bubble where it's dropping and we're forgetting about these other really important plans that that point is in the right direction. So again, though, you got there in this plan, and I think that that's a testament right to the process, but not necessarily something we're doing consistently. So then what happens after the plan is adopted? And I think that I'm concerned about the silo that I've discovered. You know, so we heard it tonight, and I think our Office of Economic Development, this is not about them failing as individuals. But if somehow our view is we have a long conversation not just about the development, but about all these ripples, and then we're going to punt the implementation of the housing piece to a department that wasn't there, hasn't been engaged, hasn't been in my office or probably other offices asking what do you council members think is important about how we do housing here? This is a department that's set up to implement an ordinance. It's a it's a transactional thing. Did you meet the linkage fee? Did you not? We haven't set that department up to do catalytic visioning of how you integrate housing into big areas. We haven't we haven't set them up to do that. And so, therefore, they're struggling to do that and some other projects. And so they can't the staff and the team and the expectations we've built for that department right now, they haven't been in your conversation. So they're not the right party alone for sure, but maybe at all to be leading then the implementation conversation, because they missed all of the conversation, both about the development and about the ripples. And so I hear you that, you know, you did some internal meetings with them. But what I've seen is just that is not a substitute for being engaged with us as council members or being engaged with the community. So that bridge. But we need to blow up those silos and we need to build that bridge to make sure that as we go forward, we aren't thinking about this transaction. And that's where I get nervous about the formulas. So let me give you an example. I can think of at least three types of policies or approaches to housing that have nothing to do with unit formulas. So, for example, questions about disabled access, right, is about unit design that doesn't show up in a formula. Questions about we have a desire to maybe experiment a little bit with resident preferences, where we maybe draw some circles on a map and we try to include residents who are at risk of displacement into some of the new units we're building. Wouldn't that be an amazing place to pilot that policy? That's not going to show up in a formula. So we have to really get out of the idea of administering the linkage fee as the basis for how we think about this development. And then I just want to thank you for your openness and your humility in saying, hey, I'd love to take some input on how to do this next piece because I think we want to do it maybe differently. You had a really powerful steering committee that got these amazing aspirations. So then how do you get the next group of people for implementation? And so I would like to suggest that we think about like even a focus group approach, and I want to give one example. So I judged an art contest with mostly Latino students who are asked to talk about their neighborhoods. And I was shocked how every group there were for art pieces. Every group had create an art piece where the central feature of their neighborhood was open space and green space. I expected it to be about buildings and I expected it to be about, you know, streets and places. They hung out. It was these youths cared a lot about nature. And so I would be curious what a group of Latino youth has to say about river access. Right. And just let's not think about just professional organizations, but let's think about different user groups. You talked a lot about retail and the idea of active streets. And I don't want to speak for my constituents of color, but when I hear them talk about their experiences and where they feel welcome and where they don't, a lot of it has to do with how does the security interact? Does the security tend to over target and ask questions in a racial profiling way? Do the retail establishments right? We've obviously all seen the Starbucks example. So wouldn't it be amazing, if you like, for example, as a requirement to do retail in this site, had every retailer think about racial inclusiveness so that the table with the black customer doesn't get served last. I don't you know, I would just love for you to ask questions outside the design box to two communities that have sometimes felt excluded from our public spaces and ask them why. And I think you're going to find it's not about this sidewalk. It's sometimes about the ways people interact and all that. So and I again, I don't know, but I think these are the kinds of questions I love you to ask. And I think it sounds to me like you're open to that. And so I'm excited to support this plan. I'm excited to to see you struggle with these aspirations, ask some different players about them. And and I will call and answer the call when it comes, if there's ways that you want to, you know, put me to work and pieces of this, I'd be happy to help think about the affordable housing piece. But I think it's got to be more than you and. It's got to be more than you. And ID. If those are the only players in the room, I will consider this a failure. And then the last thing I will just say is I respect that the plans at a high level. To me, the word Low-Income means including 30% of a mind blow. And I would consider this plan to be a failure if it did not include that level of housing in addition to the workforce and maybe even for sale . So with that, congratulations on the hard work and I will be supporting it tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. So my first note on here and it's underlying scary. I say that because, you know, sometimes, you know, in certain circles, I'm sort of the boogeyman for developers. And and I think when I walk into a room like this, that's probably the perception that some have. And most who know me now know that I'm anything but I'm challenging. But I'm I'm I'm pushing in a direction I think we all want to go, just maybe pushing a little harder. And in dealing with we're in a room full of people talking about your property and I'm pushing the way I push also. I mean, consistently just saw receptiveness and an openness to, you know, the ideas that were being expressed and letting those things play themselves out. And that's consistent with those those meetings and private meetings that that. So I just appreciate having you know, when you have. Three stake, three property holders. You know, you have this such an opportunity to have such an open minded, you know, representative on the ownership side to allow that sort of conversation to naturally flow. I think that's what you have in all of the sort of good aspirational aspects of this plan. So kudos that have been given to everybody. Staff your leadership. You know, it was a good it was a very good process. And, you know, we tried to be as inclusive as possible, maybe not in the task force. Maybe I'll admit that was pretty select group of individuals, but it was a very diverse scope of backgrounds and perspectives and and and and a lot of ideas got conveyed. And then even after all that public outreach that was by by design, you went the extra mile to go in and hear those concerns by very, very particular constituencies with very, very specific asks and and accommodated appropriately when, when, when it fit with the conversations that we had already had as a group and at least explained to them where there was synergy and where where there was conflict. And so it was a great process. And I was never really successful in scaring Uris, but I might now because we just got back from L.A. and one thing we learned there is they're planning to put me in their rezoning process is at least four years long. So, you know, we've got some time and and I got to have. Dinner with the incoming planning director for city of Santa monica, who's been an architect practicing for a long time and dealing with those delays and now is going to be leading those delays. So the there is a displacement thing going on here, too. My colleague Kevin Flynn's thing. Glitches has been a north Denver institution since its creation and so yeah it moved from one part of district one into this part of District one and if it ever goes away, I'm all for and I seen say Mountain View and Lakeside and moving it there. There's 120 acres there that we could do and throwing it out there anyway. The reason why we even sort of entertain this idea and the question to the city attorney was I have no I'd no problem being bold. And so if there were a statement by council that it wanted to be part of this, bring it forward, you know, and, and, and, and don't be afraid or shy away from that. I will be supporting this as it is. I do think it's a very good 30, 30,000 elevation plan is better than than most, in my opinion, because it gets to sort of a different way of sort of steering our zone, potentially steering the zoning for a rezoning process that might capture the lessons learned over the hundred. And what is it, 130 year history of the city and county of Denver. And so. So the one thing is, is that the diversity conversation came up tonight. We talked about it a lot and it did come up early. And the one thing that I've sort of. Figure it out. I mean, my own personal observation in 20 some odd years of architecture and whatnot is that is that there is no black place and there is no brown place and there is no white place in a good city building. You go to Atlanta, it's a very different population demographic than than Denver. But the places are still places you go. And that's true for probably Vancouver. And it's a completely different demographic than here. And so building quality places. Ah, four people are welcoming of everybody. And so the language we have on diversity about making things accessible. Are about as far as we can go. Structurally, then we have to design those places to be accommodating and welcoming for everybody. If we if people of color don't see an amenity filled place as a place for them. That speaks to some other sort of structural failure that we've had as a city, because that's not the design of this of this whole plan. This is not to basically say we are catering to one particular demographic. These are public. You know, this is this is private development around a whole network of public right of way and public amenities. And and they're not codified in to a particular user. You know, I mean, for different particular I mean, a particular ethnicity of user. And that's just that's just a fact. And this is going to sound super naive. But I've been Latino my entire life. I've lived in sort of varying degrees of sort of low, low income to very well-to-do and. And yeah, I eat certain foods that other households don't. I listen to certain music growing up that other households didn't do that. And and then I went to school and I had a very, very limited exposure to certain ethnic groups, almost no Asians. Very, very limited black people in my in my growing up, you know, I grew up in southwest Wyoming. It's tough there. And so. But when I. My last job before entering here, I worked for five years for a predominantly African-American run business and in a black community doing projects time and time again for black households. And that failed. We all live the same way. We're all Americans and we all desire open space, public space, a place to play, a place to breathe, the place to, a place to earn a living and a place to buy our to buy the food, to feed our family. And so none of what's in those stores. Is dictated by the building. None of those what's in those stores is dictated by the street or by the park. And so none of what's in this plan will dictate who lives there. It is about doing a better Denver, learning from what we've done in the past and recreating the successes that we've torn out. And rebuilding those and building on what we do know and putting in infrastructure for today. And that if it's done right, will welcome anybody and everybody. Civic Center Park serves all populations of the city, and it doesn't change every time it does. So we just had the Puerto Rican Festival, right? I mean, they didn't say, well, Sydneysider doesn't welcome us because it's Greek architecture. You know, and so I'm doing my thing. But it's just that this is a good plan. It gets to those sort of granular things on a very high level. I told you I was going to say I was concerned about the zoning. I think that that's where the nuts and bolts. Yes. Our code, based on our form based zoning, could capture all these ideals and then would we start being in our head when we found its limitations on things that we're trying to do that are outside the box? But it also could capture none of these ideals. And so I want to see a codified language that does a better job respecting the innovation, the variation and the granularity of of community building that is that is inherent in our conversations. And is that the core of what is being proposed here? Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Council President. I am. All right. I absolutely appreciate the work that's been done, especially the outreach. You know, I've. I maintain that. I think it's. More than just notable, more than just a kicker or just a complaint. What it is, it is telling the steering committee. Steers the plan from the get go. And if it's if we can't. I'm going to support this plan because I do believe it is aspirational. There is a vision here. We should not be parking lots for most of the year. Especially when we are growing in population and we need the density of the units, the affordability to go along with it. 80% is not the benchmark. It's not a watermark. It is 60% and it is two and three bedroom units. It is a real city, is full of real people. Right. And I'm interested in being part of a city and building part of a city. That achieves that. Right. I wanted to start out and this is. You know, when I sat here, I just couldn't help but think of the. And I'm a native. I grew up here my whole life. Yes. I've been Mexican my whole life. I'm just kidding. That's just a dig on my thing. Go with it. You know, there's a lot of things about Denver that are just that are absolutely unique. That are our spirit and our soul. You think of Mile High Stadium, you think of Larimer Square. You think of Federal Boulevard? You think of our parks. And you think of villages and as the city changes and as you know we. Build out certain parts of the city as things I couldn't imagine, which is moving from the north side down into the Central Valley. But they did. And I just keep thinking in this whole conversation of the Ferris wheel. 125 year old part. And there's one saying on that Ferris wheel that you're all going to have to tangle their. And that saying is to not see glitches is to not see Denver. There is a history. Inscribed on a lot of these places. And they're not it's not simply just the Ferris wheel. It's it's an identity. And Denver has a unique identity, just like all the cities that we all tend to visit and inspire and take great ideas from. I. I'm itching to hear what other people say of our city when they explore our cities. There are new ideas that we take from here and they're the best we can get. The great ideas. I think there are a lot of great ideas up north, but there's a lot of progressive policy up north as well too. There's a conditions for those things to thrive and exist. I know cities. I. Be a lot happier in my city if. In our city. If I knew that every one of those cranes in the air included affordable housing at a rate that is justified. But it doesn't. And we cannot say and we shouldn't say that we haven't been through this before. And that we don't know what to expect and that this is new. We've been working on the Cherry Creek Plan since I've been in office. We've been working on downtown area plans and we've watched downtown grow. You've watched the Platte River Valley grow. We've seen Union Station develop. At a rate that I've never seen any area develop before. We've fought to get community benefits and Union Station. There were standards that I believe were still a little low. But we've been through this before. We know what to expect. And so I you know, in this plan, although it is aspirational. There is a difference in terms of neighborhood plans and how quickly they get implemented. We've had neighborhood plans in my neck of the woods that had existed and that were formed in the seventies, calling for certain conditions that still have not been implemented. Whereas other plans that I was on this dais watching Ford. And making decisions on have been implemented very quickly. It just depends on the political will. So as we move forward, I want to make sure that we are. Our truthful with ourselves. And are transparent with the public. I think eulogies is a very important not just a symbol, but it is true. It's in an era where it's becoming very unaffordable to live in Denver. It's also becoming even more and more unaffordable for kids to be able or young people and families to be able to enjoy as well, too, without paying an arm and a leg. Safe place for folks to be. I saw a committee meeting. I sat in a committee meeting. This council where majority of these kids only live a block from the villages, are picked up on curfew tickets more than any other side of the city. This is one of those areas where you want to make sure your kid is safe. Jobs are important, too. We are displacing jobs. And we have to with this plan, we have to be able to figure out. A place for those jobs. We got to figure out how to replace those. I think when it comes to. Connectivity. I think this this has done a great job when it comes to using the river as its front door. It does a great job. And a compliment accomplishes a lot of great planning, a lot of great ideas. I can't wait to see implemented. However. When it comes to affordability, we have to be experts. This issue cannot move on, for there is no piece of land that we can touch without a plan with one of our plans that did not speak to affordability. That has to happen, not with just developers. We can't just say all the developers of this developer didn't do that. That's leadership from the city that needs to take place. And we should expect the city to set that standard. And not eggshell into it, but to be bold, to set that standard. To commit to it. This is this community planning and development, the mayor's office administration. We have to set the table. We have to create the rules of engagement so that folks understand. What they are and what we can do and what's expected when that's unclear. And this plan will be unclear. We have to commit to that. That direction is. Is absolutely key. So with that, I mean, I said this before and I you know, I'll say it again. You know, I, I am going to support this. I wish I was a little bit more excited. But I am putting my faith in folks who I know had visited me and told me that they're committed to it. And I have and I'm having faith that I'm going to make the right decisions. And I will say this one more time. I, I may be term limited in my, you know, in representing my district. But I'm not going to go anywhere for the foreseeable future. And neither are the folks who live in my district. Just like eulogies. Hopefully. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. So, yes, we know this is the downtown area plan amendment. But we also know it's the Ilitch site and it shapes the change for the future. And so it's why I think you're hearing so many of us being not just vocal, but passionate about the things we care about and how we see our city changing and where we see that we keep missing the mark on some of these things. And yes, it does start with us having the right policies in place that sets clear direction for everybody and is the same level playing field for everybody. I have a long history with this area of town going back to 1979 when I started working for the councilman of this district, when we started making changes to the Central Valley. And then I later replaced that councilman and represented that area for 16 years and saw major changes. I served on the committee, along with Councilwoman Reynolds, that brought the Pepsi Center to the site, you know, address some of the floodplain issues. And, you know, so change is inevitable. We all know that. And lots of changes are happening in this city pretty rapidly today and affecting a lot of different people. But I believe that we need to keep the density downtown. It's also where we need to have diversity. But if we can keep the density downtown, hopefully that means that we don't have density overtaking our neighborhoods because we have neighborhoods around this city screaming and hollering that we're we're taking over their neighborhoods. Jefferson Park almost is it? There's very little left in Jefferson Park of what used to be in that neighborhood. Because it's pretty much been redeveloped. So. You will hear this very loud and clear in this next election cycle where neighborhoods are fighting to protect their residential communities. So we think this density does belong downtown. I'm anxious to see the infrastructure masterplan. I'm also anxious to see the details that would be in open space. I want to I want to see how much acreage we're talking about and that it's it's not just slivers added to the park, to the river, but that we have open space built in to accommodate the masses of people that will be in this area. I want to see the affordable housing plan in the commitment and that we have different price points that can be served. And I don't just want to see that here. I want to see it at Sun Valley. I want to see it when we start looking at the plans for building out the Burnham yards, which is another 77 acres not far from here in all of these large sites where we're going, where we have this opportunity to bring more density downtown and to keep it away from single family would have been traditional single family residential neighborhoods. Reese I'm also happy to offer my assistance at whatever touchpoint you think. You know, my input would be helpful in ensuring that diversity is part of the conversation or that the connectivity to addressing the first mile, last mile connections. Because if we're going to say, you know what, you don't have to build as many parking spaces in your development. But we see what's happening in the Reno area where they're they're close to a Todd. Right. But they're getting to reduce the number of parking spaces. But you see every little sliver of land that saturated with cars because we haven't figured out a first mile, last mile connection in this city to all of these real stops so we can get people around this city where they need to go and not have to be in a car. So we need. We need to keep working collectively in in how we address that. We have no jurisdiction over the railroads. And so addressing the. The safety of the people that we're going to bring down to this area, knowing full well. Unless and until. The central main line is relocated to the far north end of of Colorado, as some people are trying. And that's a that's a long haul that may or may not ever happen. These products are going to travel through the center of our city. And, you know, we've had some influence in trying to keep them from staging in the center of our city. But they will continue to travel through. And so. Ensuring that we address the safety is a critical piece of the big picture of everything we do, not just here but anywhere along our rail corridors. And it's why when we have developments that are next to rail, I will always make sure we're asking that question and bringing that to the attention of our developers so that we're not just having people build and leave folks stuck there, and then they're long gone. And then if we have a catastrophic incident, we're all stuck, the city stuck figuring out how how did we do this? Why did we not address this? We have to be proactive in looking at how we address this issue on the front end. I think there are some good elements that are part of this plan and I will be supporting it tonight as well. But I look forward to seeing more of the details and in whatever way I can be helpful, I'm offering my assistance as well. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, it's so interesting to hear the. The comments of my fellow council people. I think it shows how much downtown Denver means to all of us that folks want to talk about the history of their lives and and how it is intertwined with downtown and, you know, how long it has been. And I think that we put lots of hopes and dreams into that area. Tammy Dorr likes to call it the living room of the city or the living room of the home. And to me, that downtown area is the heart. It's a home. You know, it's just everybody feels so strongly about it. And I want to give great thanks and praise to the citizens who spent so much time working on this project. What a big job. And you produced a plan that. Has something for everybody. I mean, it has some mixed use housing. It has affordable housing, it has diversified, it has mobility, it has, you know, open space. It's like let's let's hope for everything in the world. And and I think we all place a lot of hope and dreams in it. But, you know, this the downtown isn't going to solve all of our social ills, for Pete's sake. This is just one area. And I think you heard a lot tonight, which was sounded to me a lot like a cup half empty when I see it as a cup half full. What you have done. It's so much easier to edit something than to compose it. And so as people were saying, well, it's not perfect. It could have done this. It could have done that. I just want to thank you for all that you have done. And please know that it's the the half empty feelings people have is because they are much they love downtown and how much they care about it and hope that it could be just absolutely perfect as it as it being as it matures and becomes reality. But thank you very much for having included so much stuff in here and for all the work that you did about. What goes into the heart of our home. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 11: Thank you, President Brooks. I would like to definitely thank everybody for their work on this plan and. You know, sharing the vision of what the South Platte River can be, the amenities and really building a brand new community and really in looking through the document diverse was used a lot and I think diversity is very, very important . But I would also like when you go a little bit deeper to explore inclusivity. It's one thing to have a diverse community, but really having something that's inclusive is people take ownership of it. And it's not that they're moving in to be part of this community. But when my colleague, Councilwoman Sussman, was talking about. The the histories and the memories that elegies evokes for families and my 13 year old daughter. I mean, she would know specific places and elegies that are meaningful to her. And so I just asked that as you kind of delve a little bit deeper, deeper. And I love the part about the community gathering spaces because that's something that we hear time and time again in the Montebello and Green Valley Ranch community is we have lost those community gathering places and how important historically but going into the future, those community gathering places are and I would encourage you to look at how through those spaces you can ensure that people see their culture, that they hear their music, that they have access to their food, and that they can really see the history of the area and how they fit into the past, present and future of the city. Because if you're able to do that, you really will have an inclusive community that you've built, that people take ownership and they put down roots. And as you also get deeper, I would ask that you look at not only access to affordable housing from the for rent side, but home ownership. Because when I again listen to folks throughout the city, people of color do not always have the in-roads and the access to building wealth. And when you think about it, home ownership is that pathway to wealth. And so where you could look at out of the box ideas talking with the community, but really how you can encourage people to not only rent in the area but really be a home owner and truly, truly put down. Roots is so important. The other pieces are access to education. I think you've got the community gathering spaces, but access to financial literacy and financial empowerment. So if you have historically always rented, your family has always rented, you've lived paycheck to paycheck, you're maybe not equipped or even know the questions to ask about, well, how do you create your budget? How do you save up to buying a home? What if there is an emergency? Things that a lot of times people take for granted. If you haven't been given that opportunity or those tools, it's and this is coming directly I'm sharing with you what I'm hearing from my community as well is the access to financial literacy and empowerment. But beyond that, how does real estate work? Financial planning, estate planning, trust planning, all of those tools that go towards making families more stable. And the last part is access to workforce opportunities. So in these community gathering spaces, are there going to be, you know, entrepreneurial incubators kind of like the commons on campus? Are there going to be access to training programs? So we're making sure that we're not only getting people into this area and maybe looking at buying their first property, but then how are they going to grow their skills and maybe open a business or become part of this great new, vibrant neighborhood and really have that truly inclusive fill? And so, again, congratulations. I think it's going to be amazing and stellar, and I look forward to working along with you on this path and journey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to thank the team for all the hard work. Lots of meetings, lots of time invested in this. And so thank you to everyone from the public to the city staff who put into this. It is very clear from the end products that a lot went into it and a lot of really awesome hard work. You know, one of the things that's great about this process is that this plan goes through a body of people, a group of people. And I know at 930 at night sitting in those particular chairs, you're not probably fully appreciating, you know, that it goes through a body and like this. But what's great is that everybody up here comes at this and picks it different corners and looks for different things and pulls out different things. And I'm sure that, you know, if you're a regular on Channel eight on this season of Denver City Council, you can almost predict who's going to pick which corners. But it's great because then we have all of these perspectives picking and appreciating and looking for things. So I don't think it will come as any surprise that I'm thrilled that there's a tourism plan in here. Although I have a dream that someday we will have plans that don't need to have tedium in them because we will have a citywide team plan that we've been pushing for since we were, you know, talking small lots and budget. So. I love that it's in here. I hope that we can get to a point where that's citywide. And then here's the real shocker. I'm thrilled to see the park and the river plan. And I mean, this is a site that is right next door to the birthplace of Denver at the confluence of the Cherry Creek and the south. What it is I've said this to a million people before. This is Denver's riverfront. This is the best piece of riverfront real estate in the city. This is our chance of having a real defining riverfront of really finally making that transition from having fully turned our back on our birthplace. And the reason that the streets in downtown Denver don't run north, south and east, west and really embracing that, that opportunity is here. And don't get me wrong, I adore you, which is I still for me, it's still the new elegies, because as a kid, my elegies was the old elegies. But now I'm taking my kids in our tradition to ride the train down. And I think, you know, I won't reiterate what everyone said about the importance of that place or finding a new space for that place. But really, when you look at it, elegies is is the exact example of turning your back through a use on the river because that entire stretch, it's it's a chain link fence between you and the river on the best piece of riverfront real estate. And so I get so excited about the aspirational parts of this plan. And I love how Councilwoman Kennedy talked about when you're building spaces for families, it's not just about bedrooms. It is about that green space. And all of the people up here have talked about the connection to parks and green space and that really creating any livable community. You can't be done without that creation of space. And where else in our city can you not just create green space, but you can have a river that is is is living in vibrant in so many ways that flows right through it. And really, you know, this plan, the aspiration is to not make that turn our back on it, but to make it the front door to this community and the front yard for this household that we're building. So I think that this is just a plan. And so I will say I'm excited about the aspiration, but we it will be a tragedy if we don't achieve that on so many fronts that everyone's brought up. But but right now focused on if we don't achieve that full embrace of the river and the full potential of what this riverfront can be, then we will have failed. And so I encourage everyone in the room and everyone in this process to go from 30,000 feet down to, you know, taking off your shoes and getting your toes in a river that is that is swimmable and that is fishable. And where kids can go down who live right there and turn over a rock and catch a crowd, I'd like the thousands of kids I've taken on field trips down to the river who are shocked and surprised to find that nature lives right there, underneath, underneath the rock. So thank you for all of your work, and I look forward to the reality that comes from this plan. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Sussman was was was right on the money, partly in saying that that it's easier to edit than to compose. Unfortunately, in a case where something is really badly written, it's easier to start from scratch rather than try to twist it into something good. Now, the good news, I don't think this is badly written. I think it's really well-written in a whole lot of ways. Mr. Dugan, you're not the only person involved with ownership of this parcel, but you're the one in front of us. So I'll speak to you. You have a great opportunity here and you have a profound responsibility as well. The the element of the plan that concerns me. One of it is I don't know how long you're going to be around. None of us do. And I believe in what you said. I think you get it. The idea of affordability, inclusiveness, I truly do. But like I say, you're just a person and the plan is important. And as with so many of our plans, I just don't think it says loudly enough that we need family housing, that that right now, our city in so many ways has been building a city for a limited population. So I would love if this plan were more aggressive in speaking to that, but. It is, you know, our housing plan that talks about housing and inclusive. Denver. I wanted to say something about crisis because I truly believe it is. It is at that point. But this is a I'm not going to use the word, but it is a plan that speaks of hope and direction. And so I will be supportive of that of that plan. Like I say, I just hope, sir, that you live a long and healthy life. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Here. Here. To risk his life. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I just want to thank each and every one of you all for for paying for parking, for coming through security and sitting in really hard seats for a long time and listening to folks. You guys care a lot about this city and you cared a lot about putting this together. So thank you. Hats off to all of you who are here and all of you watching at home. This concludes our comments. It's been moved. And second, about Secretary Raquel.
Speaker 9: Clark I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Flynn, I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 2: Catherine Can I. Lopez All right. New Ortega assessment.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 1: Please.
Speaker 0: Oliver. Okay, we're back on there. Okay. Please tell us the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. 561 is passed. Congratulations. All right. One last pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 19, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing council bill for 24 teams on classification of problem approximately 90 701 East 56th Avenue unstable to any protests against Council Bill 424 must be filed with the Council offices no later than Monday, July
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending the Downtown Area Plan by establishing updated plan policies for the Central Platte Valley - Auraria District.
Amends the Downtown Area Plan by adding recommendations for day-to-day decision making related to land use, intensity of development, mobility and connectivity, community benefits, sustainability, public investment, private development and partnerships for the Central Platte Valley - Auraria District. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0421
|
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 to 0 4 to 1, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 0: A little slow here on the uptake. It has been moved and seconded the public hearing for council. Fortunately, one is open when we have the staff report. Andrew Webb.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, members of the Council, thank you. I'm Andrew Webb from Community Planning and Development here with a short presentation on this request for an error correction to a recent MAP amendment. This request is in Council District nine. It's in the coal neighborhood. This is the map from Rezoning Proposal 2017 0122, which was adopted on February 12th as Ordinance 2018 0015. This was the the base district rezoning for the 38th and Blake project. So it established the incentive overlay and the River North design overlay and it also updated some of the base zone districts so that they would work correctly as intended with the overlay after that. And I want to highlight here that that's shown in red here on this map. Is the is the subject property for this request. Right after the adoption of the of that ordinance, it was discovered that an incorrect notation on a legal description exhibit that went with that request had caused for one chunk about 8% of the total base district rezoning to be given the the wrong the wrong base zone district. So it's a zone district not intended. This proposal would rezone approximately 13 acres right there at essentially at kind of Blake and 38th from C annex eight that's urban center mixed use eight storey with the you oh two billboard overlay and then the incentive overlay and the design overlay would rezone this to IMX eight that is industrial mixed use with an eight storey base height and the and the same overlays would be applied. This request would essentially correct an error that was made and the process. This request was referred directly to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It was approved as part of the consent agenda on May 1st. This is the process allowed for in the zoning code for errors that on the zone map that occur as a result of a of a rezoning 21 day posted notification was provided at the site. We also reached out to all RINO's associated with the area and we also reached out to property owners and have not received any public comments on this proposed rezoning in terms of review criteria. The original staff report to request a 2017 EIS 00122 is was included with your staff report and consistency with the review review criteria can be presumed by the Council's findings in the original rezoning case from February. So with that, CPD recommends approval of this correction ordinance based on a finding that all conditions have been met.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right. We have two speakers this evening. Turman Sekou, you're up first. 3 minutes.
Speaker 9: Okay. Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action Movement for self-defense. The issue with correcting this error. Is that it doesn't even begin to address. What is really taking place. It's more of a dot and cross in the two. And so you can't argue with. What is taking place here. Can't do it. And as Paul said. This thing that we got going on now is complex. Yes, very simple. And reminds me of a grandfather analogy that he gave me called The Breakfast of Champions Nest Egg in Eggs. And then that process of building that breakfast plate, the chicken made a contribution by putting the egg on the plate. And the cow had to die and put his ass on the plate in order for us to have an excellent value meal deal so that we would be fulfilled. So the question becomes, is city council chickens or are they cows? Are you going to put your ass on the plate for what you believe in, or are you going to be a chicken and go for the ultimate thing? Can we all get sick? Sekou. So in the process, don't interrupt me because I understand what you're getting ready to say.
Speaker 0: No, actually, I can't interrupt you. Don't. Don't cuss in here. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: That wasn't the cuss word. Yeah, it was. Which one was it? What I say. Or to my bad. Okay. So I thought it was in the Bible. You could use it. So here we go. What are we going to be about? Councilman Ortega has already made it clear we've been struggling with this state for a long time. But now we got some new fresh blood in now. And we've got other folks out now because this is it for them. This is it. So what's coming? What's really come? More of the same old, same old. Or something fundamentally different that will restore the faith in this body by the people. If we allow this process to continue and keep playing semantical legislative language games, we are guilty of the betrayal of the masses of the people who deserve a better way of life. And it's our job to eliminate that suffering and make it possible. So this city is for all of us, especially for the ones who've been born and raised here, who are systematically being excluded. There is no excuse to continue this process at all other than you are in bed. With the developers. And that you have agreed to a standard.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Jessie Pearce, the struggle of liberation.
Speaker 0: Jessie Pearce, you're up next. Thank you.
Speaker 13: But Jesse Paris. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense in Denver homicide law. Because what has already been stated. We have a crisis. Denver, not so much an affordability crisis.
Speaker 0: Can you can you stay focused on this book right in front of you?
Speaker 13: That's that's the focus of this. Housing, this building code. My whole thing is if you're going to change the building code. Once again, how many of these units are going to be affordable or anywhere even close to affordable? Because affordable doesn't even seem to be in the language of these business developers. So this 1300 dollars for a 450 square foot apartment seem reasonable to you? Honestly, who can afford that? Think about that and then think about the rapid gentrification that is going on in all areas of the city. Now, somebody really needs to take a stand on this. So like cycles already stated are just going to keep allowing this to keep continuing to happen and happen continuously. So we have to keep coming to these meetings and keep asking the same questions. Where is the housing? Where is the affordability? You want to change these building codes, then make these neighborhoods where people that have been in these neighborhoods can afford to live in the neighborhoods instead of having to be pushed out, having to live in a whole different other city, different county, because they can't even afford to live in the neighborhoods that they work in. It's ridiculous. This this building code change is so they can put in a 16 storey building. Again, how many of the units in a 16 story building are going to be affordable? That is my question to the city council. Can I please get a straight answer from somebody? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa Yeah, I was looking at it and it was confused because the incentive overlay would apply to either zone district. So I'm assuming it has to do with the existing use.
Speaker 7: That is correct. So the the C-Max and the IMX districts were were proposed in this area based on current adopted plan policy for future land uses in these locations and also existing uses. And there were considerable existing industrial uses happening in these this 13 acre area.
Speaker 0: And that explains it. Thank you. Thanks. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Can you tell me how we found out that this was an error?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So we worked our our department worked with our survey team on putting together the exhibits for this rezoning. And as you may recall, they were pretty extensive, many pages long. And after the adoption, our staff was going through and making sure that they were applying the correct zone districts to all of the affected properties and noticed that. And you'll see it in the in included with the staff report there's actually a copy of the of the exhibit that has the error. And it's it's one letter essentially in a sentence that that essentially resulted in that chunk of properties being given the wrong base zone district.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Council President. I don't know if you're going to speak to what the overlay did, but I thought that might be important too.
Speaker 0: Yeah, actually, I don't know if you want to.
Speaker 7: Sure. Yeah. I'm glad you asked about that. Councilwoman Ortega, the overlays actually address seek to address affordability by establishing base heights and then allowing additional height above that base height in return for some community benefits, one of which is increased number of affordable housing units included with the development. Great.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right, see in no other questions before this body. Go to comments by members of council. I'll start since this is the project that never gets completed and I'm just talking we we've been working on this for a long time and you guys have been doing an incredible job. And this is, you know, folks didn't know that we actually do have incentive incentives for affordable housing in our zoning code. But this is the first to actually, you know, increase that incentive. And so there was a question as a 16 storey building, how many affordable housing units will be in there with no money from the city ? There's actually a 16 story building being built now, and it's going to be between 27 and 35 units. And so really excited about that. Without this incentive, that building would have no affordable units would be all market rate. So I'm excited about this and excited to see if it's, you know, in the future how impactful it is, but also that we have great staff to to catch mistakes. And so I'm glad you guys were able to catch this. Councilman Espinosa, I'm trying to understand that. So we're they're building a building with 27 to 35 units with no subsidy. Yeah. Which project is that? It's the Mcwhinney project. Okay. Yeah, I have an address because I was going to give you a straight answer and say no, because it's always going to be cheaper to buy out to get eight stories. But maybe I stand corrected. I will research the Mcwhinney project and confirm that it in fact does not have any subsidy going into it whatsoever. The because those public dollars are your dollars, whether they're coming from through your income tax and back through HUD or through. Now the new property tax that we charge all Denver residents or through, you know, indirect routes as well. So my I just wanted to comment because I'm a little bit torn here. I did not vote in support. I voted in support of the 38th and Blake incentive overlay. But I did not support in in favor of the rezoning, the massive rezoning, because I thought it once again raised it squandered an opportunity for that to to truly value capture that difference between the industrial land uses and this now 16 storey capacity. This is different because this is. This is an error. It probably should it never should have been CMCs because it's industrial use on this. So I am torn because I would not have supported. But we don't have the option to go back to its original zoning. We're only optioning between a correct zoning for the uses or CMCs. So if you see me vote in support, it's because I'm correcting the error, not because I still think that was a good idea. Thanks. Yeah. And Councilman Espinosa, just want to make this clear, because I think in our public hearing, when we had this on February 12th, it was unclear. You can't really buy out of residential. Some of the buyout functions are in the commercial aspects. And so we're excited about this project to be right across the street from the the rail station and should be coming soon. So. It's been moved to the Second Amendment. Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Espinoza, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore I can connect. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I flew scores voting in US results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. 421 passes. Thanks for your hard work on this. Now we got it. Got to. Right. Okay. For the last bill of the night. 561 Councilman, can you please put it on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for multiple properties generally bounded by 38th Street, Walnut Street, 40th Ave. and the Union Pacific/RTD right-of-way in Elyria Swansea.
Corrects the zoning classification for multiple properties described in Ordinance No. 20180015, Series of 2018, located near the 38th and Blake RTD Station in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 5-1-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05212018_18-0594
|
Speaker 1: Area. So tourism is a really important part of our economy and also a lot of fun for everybody as well. So thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. All right, we have. Now Proclamation 594. Councilman Lopez, will you please read it.
Speaker 5: About Councilman Cashman instead?
Speaker 0: Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Councilman Cashman. Yes, please. Rita, we had a little typo there. Sorry about that.
Speaker 5: You know, £1 is as good as another. Yes. This is proclamation number 18 0594, declaring June 1st as National Gun Violence Awareness Day and June is Gun Violence Awareness Month, whereas every day 96 Americans are killed by gun violence. And on average, there are approximately 13,000 gun homicides every year. And. Whereas, Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with guns than people in other developed countries. And. WHEREAS, in Colorado, 78% of firearm deaths are suicides. Nearly half of all suicide deaths in Colorado involve the use of a firearm, which is the most common method of suicide death in the state. And. Whereas, in 2016, in Colorado, 781 persons died from gun violence, with suicides claiming 605 lives and homicide another 176, with the majority of those dying from gun violence being less than 35 years of age. And. Whereas, in 2016, in Denver, 96 persons died from gun violence with suicides claiming 47 lives and homicide another 49. And. Whereas, the Denver metropolitan area has suffered the devastating impacts of mass shootings at Columbine High School in 1999 and the Aurora Movie Theater in 2012. And Denver has had Colorado's highest gun death totals with more than 800 residents killed by guns in the 12 years between those two horrific events. And. WHEREAS, research indicates there have been more lives lost from gunfire in America than in all the wars in which U.S. troops have been engaged since our nation's founding. Whereas protecting safety in the communities they serve is a city council's highest responsibility. And. Whereas, in January 2013, Hadiya Pendleton, the teacher who marched in President Obama's second inaugural parade and was tragically shot and killed just weeks later should be now celebrating her 21st birthday. And. Whereas, to help honor Hadiya and the 96 Americans whose lives are cut short and the countless survivors who are injured by shootings every day, a national coalition of organizations designated the first Friday in June as the fourth National Gun Violence Awareness Day. And. WHEREAS, the idea was inspired by a group of ideas friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange, choosing this color because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters when out in the woods. And. Whereas, anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on the first Friday in June every year to help raise awareness about gun violence. And. Whereas, by wearing orange on June 1st, 2018, Americans will raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of violence victims and survivors. And. Whereas, we renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledged to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our children safe. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver declares the first Friday of each year, this year, June 1st, 2018, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day, and the entire month of June to be National Gun Violence Awareness Month and encourages all citizens to support their local communities. Efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and value human lives. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and it be transmitted to Josie Brady, Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: I move that proclamation 18 dash 0594 to be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Your comments. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to start by thanking those in the audience and those at home that are working against extremely daunting odds every day to reduce gun violence in our community. I also want to thank our Office of Special Events, who to honor your work, will be lighting the city and county building in Orange . The first week in June. But here we are again. We mourn the students and teachers murdered just the other day by a deranged gunman at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas. Jared Black 17. Shana Fisher 16. Christian Riley Garcia 15. Aaron Kyle McCloud 15. Glenda End Perkins Substitute Teacher. Angelique Ramirez 15. Sabeco Sheikh 17. Chris Stone, 17. Cynthia Tisdale. Teacher. Kimberly Vaughn. Student Age not reported. Since this Gun Violence Awareness Month proclamation was read last year, communities across the land have mourned dozens lost in school shootings, as well as the tens of thousands of men, women and children lost in random homicides and suicides. From sea to not so shining sea. CNN lists the following school shootings thus far in 2018. Most won't ring a bell because they don't rise to the level of carnage that we saw in Parkland, Florida, or Santa Fe, Texas. May 11th, Palmdale, California A 14 year old boy went to Highland High and began shooting a semiautomatic rifle. A 15 year old boy was struck in the shoulder. April 20th, Ocala, Florida a 17 year old student at Forest High School, was shot in the ankle shortly before students were to walk out as part of the national protest against gun violence. April 12th, Raytown, Missouri A man was shot in the stomach at the parking lot of Raytown South Middle School during a track meet. April 9th, Gloversville, New York A student shot another student with a B.B. gun in Gloversville Middle School, March 20th. Lexington Park, Maryland. An armed student shot two others at Great Mills High School. The shooter was killed. One of the students, 16 year old Jaylen Willey, was taken off life support two days later, March 13th. Seaside, California A teacher accidentally discharged a gun during a public safety class at Seaside High School, injuring a student. March eight, Mobile, Alabama. One person was hospital hospitalized after a shooting at an apartment building on the campus of the University of South Alabama March 7th. Birmingham, Alabama. One student was killed and another critically wounded after an accidental shooting at Huffman High School March seven. Jackson, Mississippi A student was shot inside a dormitory at Jackson State University, and it goes on March 2nd in Mount Pleasant, Michigan, February 27, Norfolk, Virginia, February 27. It had been a mississippi February 24th, Savannah, Georgia, and of course, February 14th in Parkland, Florida. 17 unsuspecting students and adults were lost. February nine in Nashville, February 15. Oxon Hill, Maryland. February one in Los Angeles. January 31st in Philadelphia. January 23rd in Benton, Kentucky. January 22nd in Italy, Texas. In January 20th, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. That's this year. We here in Denver rightfully continue to mourn the horrific losses at Columbine and at the Aurora theater shooting and how fortunate we might think that we are that these most recent student shootings didn't happen to us. But can we be sure that we were actually spared? Our mayor, Michael Hancock, was born in Fort Hood, Texas. Governor John Hickenlooper came from Narberth, Pennsylvania. Robin Wittgenstein, head of Denver Health, grew up on the East Coast. Dr. Rebecca Chopp, chancellor of the University of Denver, came from rural Kansas. Those of you in the audience, please, and my colleagues on the dais. If you'll raise your hand. If you were not born in Denver. So lest you be comforted that these recent shootings haven't torn our community apart, realize that just might be an illusion. It might have been our future governor that died in Texas the other day. Or our mayor. Or Council president. Or a future scientist poised to finally find a cure for some hideous childhood illness at the Colorado Children's Hospital, or a mold shattering police chief or educator. Or maybe just the kid who grew up to be your next door neighbor or your best friend. I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for picking up the gantlet laid down at one of our public comment sessions and putting through a bill that outlawed bump stocks and reduced our allowable size for high capacity magazines. But there is so much more that must be done. We watch with interest to see how the courts will assess Boulder's recent efforts to eliminate assault weapons in their community. But at the same time, we're very aware that the scourge of gun violence goes far deeper than guns alone. We must finally make a sea change commitment to mental health care. We must address the widening income gap and the attendant frustration and hopelessness that shows a few having so much and so many having so little. Our children are becoming more and more frightened with every passing week, less and less sure that they are safe in their schools. I met last week with DPS security chief Mike Eaton to get an idea about what our public school district is doing to protect our kids. He spoke at great length about what the district is doing as far as infrastructure and process and systems and partnership with the Denver Police Department to change the paradigm. But security can only do so much to control the deranged. Again, we must do a better job of healing the sick, repairing the damage. Much of what this council might want to do is preempted by state law. As I've said before, we can't even create a database of gun owners. It's against the law. I am prepared to join with my colleagues Mayor Hancock, Governor Hickenlooper and our state legislators to again change that paradigm so that we might create a new Denver, a new Colorado, where kids get an full night of peaceful rest knowing that the worst that might happen to them the next day at school is a pop quiz that they weren't expecting. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Wow. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: I first want to thank Councilman Cashman for bringing this forward and for that very thorough overview of what has become too much of a norm in this country. We cannot accept this being the norm. We have to stand up and keep guns out of the hands of our children and out of the hands of criminals. This is just. We should not have to be doing this kind of proclamation. It's time across this country that we all stand up and make our voices heard loud and clear on behalf of our children, on behalf of our communities, that this is not acceptable. Not long ago, one of my granddaughters was at school and they they had to shelter in place because there was somebody in the neighborhood not far from here, very close to downtown. Their school is very close to downtown where, you know, this person had a gun. And so they wanted to make sure all the students were safe. Kids should. Feel comfortable and they should be safe going to school, going to the movies, going to any public place where they don't have to fear for their lives. Because we have too many guns on the streets in this country. Councilman Cashman, thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, for not only bringing this forward, but the comments you just made tonight. You can probably hear my voice. How moved I am by what you shared. But this is in context with the conversation I had on on on Friday. Anyway, the the Second Amendment starts with four words a well-regulated militia regulated being the third word in the Second Amendment. And if you have a well-regulated militia, we don't what we'd have is not a well-regulated militia. When you have this many members of that that militia. The people using that part of the the. Of this provision going off and killing people indiscriminately. You have a problem in your. Militia. And so that's where the well-regulated part needs to come in to effect and. What's interesting is then the next line. I mean, the next part of that first sentence is being necessary to the security of a free, strict, free state. If you have to have checkpoints at churches and schools in the recommendations, a single entry into that location, that's not a free state. That is that is everything that we fought multiple wars against. So there is just a very, very serious disconnect. By logging on to the right, the right of people to bear, keep and bear arms. If you're not doing the first two things, having a well-regulated militia and in maintaining a free state, the security of a free state , that those guns are not performing the function that they are, that that thinking is passé. It is old. And I am glad that on Friday I got two to it to be part of a panel held by Skinner students Lillie, Rachel and Ada led. It led a panel, a very, very capable panel where we learned about what this city in the state is doing. And so the good news is, is that we're making progress on focusing on well-being. I think if we. There's a lot that's wrong in America that we can fix. And there's examples in our own past. There's examples worldwide on how we can do a better America and be a more perfect union. And so we're moving towards that. If we can work on the well-being of the individual, cover their health, cover their education, make sure that they have all the things that they need so that they're not reaching that point. It probably won't matter how many guns you have. But the good news is, is that generation, those middle schoolers, the ones right before them, the Parkland High School students, they're getting it. They're understanding that there's a very big disconnect between a very, very, very vocal and well-funded minority in this country glomming behind a the fourth phrase in the Second Amendment and skipping over the other two crucial portions. And they're going to be the change agents. And so the combination. Let's work on the well-being. Let's work on the individuals. Let's work on the community, culture and environment that schools are, that our society is well, this and nurture a new generation that actually sees a free and secure America as being one that's open and tolerant and caring for one another. So, I mean, that is what's what what we've done in the past clearly isn't working. And it really frustrating thing is is that. Is that is is as depressing as it is hearing about school shooting over and over and over again. The the the I don't know what the total number of middle schools in high schools that were open and closed on that day that didn't experience that. And it's an overwhelmingly large number. The kids that are going to school today. Are fearful and I could not shake that out of in that room. I just couldn't I couldn't imagine it wasn't something that I went through in high school. It never occurred to me that we needed to have a school resource officer and metal detectors. And I went to school in Colorado, but there were two members of that board that had experienced gun violence in Colorado high schools. And so it's a thing that is affecting them. And until we we we we do the heavy lifting ourselves, nothing's going to get done. And until these guys get in charge. And thankfully for us, that's in my lifetime. And I'm looking forward to it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Councilwoman PANITCH.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. There's little I can add to the.
Speaker 1: Eloquent words of.
Speaker 7: The sponsor of this, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: But where there's a gap, I like to kind of jump in.
Speaker 1: Which is I think it's really.
Speaker 7: Important to focus on the school shootings because they have been such a.
Speaker 4: Visible symptom of the disease.
Speaker 7: Of guns in our country. But they aren't the only place where moms are losing kids. And I just I have to acknowledge the moms in our city who lose kids every day in individual shootings, in homicides, and many, many women in our city lose their lives at the hands of their intimate partners at the other end of a gun.
Speaker 1: And so I worry a little bit.
Speaker 7: That too much of the gun debate has moved to this realm of mass shooting and in some ways has has changed the.
Speaker 4: Debate.
Speaker 7: Where we're often talking about mental illness. And I.
Speaker 1: Think, you know, it is important to bring.
Speaker 7: More attention to mental illness and treatment.
Speaker 4: But if we did our.
Speaker 7: Raising of hands of who here has a mental illness or someone in their close family who suffers from one, I think many of our hands would go up. And so I think that I'm not comfortable with the way the national debate has taken the focus away from guns and tried to put it on mental illness as if , you know, that is the lethal element here. It's certainly an element where we miss warning signs, where we miss opportunities to intervene. Every piece of those systems should be fixed, but that does not replace the need to regulate guns in commonsense ways to save lives, and not just for mass shootings, but for the many individuals, more more individuals than Councilman Cashman read more mothers and more lost kids who lose lose their lives in other types of gun violence. So I think it's just important that those families and those folks be recognized. I don't have a list of their names, but I mourn for them as well and for them to. We need to keep this debate focused on the regulatory side. Again, mental health is important. We need to talk about it.
Speaker 4: But not as a.
Speaker 7: Substitute for controlling the lethality of guns. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have much to add except one Councilman Cashman. That was a very, very well written proclamation, and your comments were right on point. When I think of when you were. Speaking. I was just thinking of a conversation I had with my daughter, who is ten years old. Goes to school in DPS. And I was just reflecting on how we were talking about tornado safety and. You know, if a tornado hit, you go to a hallway and you do your drills. Those are the drills that I had when I was in elementary school. She taught me something completely different. And she says, Well, we do the shelter in place, lockdown drills and all the lockdown drills. She says, Well. We have to stay away from the windows and we got to go hide and we got to be quiet. And I have a special job. And there was a job, me. And she says, I have to make sure that the closet I have to I'm the one that has to go run and make sure that the closet door is open so that the classroom door does not open. She was the real close together, and it locks. So nobody can come in bumper. I think to myself, man. Just one of those drills with skills. It scared the hell out of me as a kid. Imagine. I mean, I just imagined myself as an elementary school in her same elementary school, by the way. And just being scared for my life. I mean, tornado drills are bad as it is and hiding under the under the desks. You know, for some for some folks that are on the West Coast. That's scary enough as it is. Imagine those drills for lockdowns and. And imagine their reality. 20 years from now. Their deep sensitivity. The PTSD is just doing that and how that it would affect our future, our kids, our society. So I think about that then. Then I saw an update on CNN and it was a number that said there have.
Speaker 9: Been 2288.
Speaker 0: School shootings since 2009, which was 57 times more than the other six G7 countries combined. It's going to take a heck of a lot more. And it's becoming cliche than. Just passing the buck to hopes and prayers and everybody asking for action. It's going to take a culture change, a shift in our culture when we go to the flea market. Although there are four boys to play with and they market it right to the boys are the little plastic guns, the little M-16s, not even cowboy shooters, man. These are M-16s that they at their market. You go into any one of these malls in the area. And you can buy guns. And it's not necessarily the the ones that real bullets but they have their airsoft. And here there are replicas. Right. So you just think about that and think about our culture. There's so many different ways that we can change and make these shifts, encourage us, encourage other people to make these shifts. And, you know, there are these cultural psyches that that we create for our society. And it's it's something that we can do. You don't have to wait on Congress to do it or we don't have to wait on government, whether it be local or state to do it. Right. We can encourage them with our dollars. And if I might just add something. I think about growing up in the nineties. In having guns pointed out you are being threatened with weapons because you had a different color on. I those of us who grew up in the nineties just knew how tough that was. It was not uncommon to have a weapon in somebody's locker or to have shootings outside. I mean, we got chased around by the CVS outside of West High School with guns. That culture has to shift. And we can't wait for it to be a school shooting. And we can't just talk about it in school shootings as an everyday thing that we have to change. So and. I don't know. Maybe this is something that we can look into. I never thought I would come to this point or even say this publicly, but. I think it's time to start looking at the metal detectors in our schools, if that's if it means saving people's lives. I folks. My friends that are all the way all across the country, they look at me weird because my high school didn't have a metal detector and. So there are small steps I wish we didn't have to cross, but I think we've passed that threshold a long time ago. So thank you, Councilman Cashman, for for bringing this topic up again. I'm glad that we're not just kind of like a one and done council or, you know, we just have one proclamation or one action and we forget about it. I'm glad that you brought this forward again. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Councilman Lopez. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for bringing this for a lot to think about here. It has been moved in second. Madam Secretary, Raquel Cashman.
Speaker 1: I can each Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Susman. Black Clerk Espinoza. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Pluto's wondering in the results.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes, 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 594 has been adopted. Councilman Castro. And is there anybody you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to bring up Jose Brady representing the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence.
Speaker 8: Today, I gratefully accept the proclamation from Councilman Cashman on behalf of the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence. When I was 13 months old, Columbine happened. 13 people lost their lives that day. When I was nine years old, I was at City Park Jazz and I fled for my life when my friends and I had to run as a shooting broke out between two rival gang members. Five years later, Officers Officer Selina Hollis was killed at that same event.
Speaker 3: Seven weeks after she was killed.
Speaker 8: The Aurora theater shooting happened where 12 lives were taken. The next year I was sent home early from I attended East High School and I was sent home early. Classes were canceled that day because there were threats against our school. That shooting would happen. And just a few weeks ago, I was working with my friends at Regis University where I now attend, and we were working out homework in a classroom. And we learned that two shooters ran on to our campus from 50th and federal, and we had to barricade the doors with our legs and we didn't know what to do. Let's just say I didn't get my homework done that night. What do these all have in common? Well, these are things that have happened in my life, but I'm not alone. I have not felt safe in my schools, in my parks, at my movie theaters, or in my neighborhood. Fear has consumed me and many others in my generation across the country. As of five days ago, 943 young people under the age of 18 have been killed due to gun violence in 2018. That's under the age of 18, not even my age group. That number does not include the people that have been killed for many years, ever since 1970, when the Arkansas shooting happened. This number includes those 17 year old Ty Martinez who was shot and killed in March at West Colfax in law. I initially took this fear and turned it into action. I started a group at East High School to bring in young people to start talking about the issue and what to do about it. I got involved on the national level with Generation Progress to organize young people across the country. And as four years have passed, our leaders have done things. But it's not been enough. We have seen how young people are fed up. The parents like the moms and dads here today, which I would like everyone, if you are here working on this issue currently, if you could please stand and recognize you. The March for Our Lives was just the beginning. The walkouts were just the beginning. This proclamation is the next step. Next, we need solutions to reduce the disproportionate gun violence deaths of young people, and especially young people of color that are not recognized. We should all feel safe in our neighborhoods and our schools. And thank you to Councilman Cashman and to the city council today for sponsoring for you for sponsoring this proclamation, for everyone. Voting yes on this. This population is not the end, though. We all have to keep showing up and working to reduce gun violence. We have to. We have to. For everyone who has lost their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, friends and family members and countless others. Enough is enough.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks again, Councilman Cashman, for bringing that forward. Our last proclamation this evening. Councilman assessment, will you please read Proclamation 595 happily.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring June 1st as National Gun Violence Awareness Day and June as Gun Violence Awareness Month.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05212018_18-0595
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks again, Councilman Cashman, for bringing that forward. Our last proclamation this evening. Councilman assessment, will you please read Proclamation 595 happily.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, this is designating May 20th or 20 May 26 as public works week in Denver, whereas in celebrating the American Public Works Association 2018 theme of the Power of Public Works, we recognize that Denver Public Works through its 1300 employees is a dynamic force in our community, delivering safe, high quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, the services provided by Denver Public Works are an integral part of our residents everyday lives, with programs that include street sweeping, recycling, composting, trash collection, street paving, snow removal and pothole repair. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works is proud to deliver services that enhance the quality of life in our street, in our city, by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including streets, alleys on street parking, drainage ways, sanitary sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings and signage, as well as contracting, procurement, cash sharing and permitting programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works will continue to deliver projects that align with Mayor Hancock's Mobility Action Plan to provide people with more transportation choices and make biking, walking and taking transit easier and more convenient. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works will strive to create safe streets for everyone with improved pedestrian crossings, bike facilities and roadways, ample crossing times and improved sidewalk network networks to achieve zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030, as outlined in Denver's Vision Zero Action Plan. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works Vision is to be the ideal public works department in the country and will meet expectations by coming together as a team, investing in our people, operating with discipline, using data to drive decisions and delivering results. And. Whereas, City Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2017 on their achievements. And I'd like, if they are in the audience, to stand when I call your name. These are the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year. LA Nice Garden. Andy Stewart. I don't know if they're here tonight. Okay. Nick Arvydas, Angel Torres. Ruben Urbina, Brendan Marin, Ashley Grace. Marc Abeyta. Scott Smith. Steven Rehaut. Steve Aragon. Saul Martinez. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, that Section one the City Council designates the week of May 20th through May 26, 2018 as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2017 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contribution contributions to the Department and the city in 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 a copy be delivered to Denver Public Works and the 12 employees listed above.
Speaker 0: Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Q Mr. President, I move that proclamation 0595 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in, seconded your comments.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm always very delighted to bring this once a year to honor our public works employees. This is the stuff that where the rubber meets the road, if I might say so. It's the kind of face to face. City work that's done about our streets are our walkways, our snow shoveling, the things that people will call our offices about and we'll call the city about probably more than anything else. And I have always been so grateful for the kind of responses that I get from the public works department. And and some of you even become good friends. And man, I know I call you. And I always worry, Oh, it's that Sussman again. But I but I am so grateful for everything you do for the people of Denver and just keeping our city moving and keeping our city in good shape. Really appreciate what you're doing for us.
Speaker 0: Awesome. Thank you, Councilwoman. And thank you for bringing this forward, seeing no other comments. You know, the real reason city council brings this forward to public works. And I want to let you guys know this, is that when we send you those emails about those potholes that need to get fixed in those alleys and I'm just joking . We love y'all. We thank you so much for your hard work. And I really you know, I think councilwoman really underscored it. But I want to say it. I mean, I don't think that the folks of Denver really know how hard you all work. I don't think they really know that Denver moves. This city works because of you. And so thank you so much for your hard work and know that all the complaints and the yelling and the emails that you read, it does not go unappreciated. We appreciate how you guys endure all of this and thank you. So, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: SUSSMAN Black high clerk All right. Espinosa Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I, percussion. I can eat. LOPEZ All right. New Ortega Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please swallowing announce the results.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Proclamation. 595 passes. Councilwoman? Yes? Is there anyone you would like to bring up?
Speaker 4: Oh, I think so. I'd like to invite Mr. U.S. likely to the podium our new director of public. Executive Director of Public Works.
Speaker 9: Well, good. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you very much for taking the time out this evening.
Speaker 0: To recognize over 1300 employees. I work hard every day. Thank you, city council for for adopting and approving a proclamation this evening. I've only been.
Speaker 9: Here for for going on five months.
Speaker 0: And I've been so impressed with the staff that exists with our current department structure. I'm impressed with the passion, the dedication, the intelligence, the hard work. These are truly, truly public servants. And the customer base are the people that live and work in the city county of Denver. So I couldn't be prouder to be in my specific role as leader of this outstanding and dynamic department. And I really appreciate the.
Speaker 9: Opportunity to have.
Speaker 0: The staff behind me be recognized for all of their hard work. I know we had a couple of folks that weren't here, but we do have additional staff that did come out in support of Public Works Appreciation Week. So if you guys can just.
Speaker 9: Raise your hand.
Speaker 0: And so we're in full force tonight because we do really appreciate the recognition and very grateful for working on behalf of the city. So thank you. Thank you. You just glad to see you met Sekou there. He's a he's a regular.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 20th through May 26th as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department’s twelve employees of the year for 2017
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05212018_18-0412
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one abstention. Three. No one has been adopted. Okay, um, let's see. Councilwoman Sussman, do you want to go head on and make your.
Speaker 4: I think Councilman Kasserine is going to put it on the floor. Yes. Order!
Speaker 0: Yeah. Councilman Cashman, we do have to take this out of order. Can you please put 412 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I'm glad to. I move the council bill 18, dash 041 to be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: I think we have to do it on this one before I make my.
Speaker 0: Okay. Go ahead. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: Raquel Sussman. High Black. Clark Espinosa Flynn Hi. Gilmore Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Mr. President, I. 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. It has been taken out of order. Okay. And Councilwoman.
Speaker 4: Yes, I move. That final consideration of Council Bill eight does show 412 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 18th, 2018.
Speaker 0: And we'll be ordered published. Okay. In. Madam Secretary, we just need to put this back up for a vote.
Speaker 1: Yes, it needs to be moved and seconded.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Roll call.
Speaker 1: SUSSMAN. Hi, Black. Clark, I. Espinosa, i. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. Hi, new. Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. This was very nice. Results.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. 12 Eyes. Counsel for 12 new public hearing date is now June 18th and will be ordered published. All right. This concludes all.
Speaker 1: The need to order it published.
Speaker 0: We do need to order and publish. Okay. Can I get an order? Yes.
Speaker 5: What would you like to order, Mr. President?
Speaker 0: You know. You know, right now I'm really hungry. So that in and out burger would be great. Okay. Please order this.
Speaker 5: Publish it. I move the notice of Council Bill 18 041 to a new public hearing date. Be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in. Second it secretary.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN I'm.
Speaker 1: Black. CLARK All right, Espinosa. Flynn I kill more cash than I can eat. Lopez I knew. Ortega, I. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Please. Please close it. ANNOUNCER Results.
Speaker 1: 12 Ice.
Speaker 0: 12 Ice. All right. New poll say just 18 minutes. It's now officially order published. Anything else, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 1: Nothing, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. All right, we're moving on. All of the bills are order published. We're now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills and funding consideration. Council members. Remember, this is a consent or block vote. You'll need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, will you please, for the resolution for adoption in the bills and final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President, I move that the following resolutions be adopted and bills be placed upon final consideration and do pass. 18 Dash 048 118 Dash 037 418 Dash 042 918 0437. Pardon me, Mr. President. 18 2043 818. DASH 043 918 days zero four 4018 days 044 118 days 040 218 days zero four or five 418 days 045 518 Dash 047 218 days 04738048 418 days 035 118 Dash 03908047 518 047 718 042 518. Dash 0436.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved a second and roll call.
Speaker 1: Black tie, Clark. All right, Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 1: 1212.
Speaker 0: As resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight, there will be a required public hearing on as amended Council Bill 323, which amends is only coupled with multiple, sustained, substantive clarification and usability amendments in response to customer and community feedback, which is so nice, and also industry changes and other
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4400 North Fox Street in Globeville.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4400 North Fox Street from I-B, UO-2 (industrial) to C-MX-12, UO-2, C-RX-12, UO-2, C-RX-8, UO-2 (urban center, residential mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-1-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05212018_18-0323
|
Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must director comments to council members and refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual personal attacks. All right, Councilman Cashman, when you put Council Bill 323 on the floor.
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President, I move the council bill 18, dash 323, be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, in a public hearing for three June 233 23 is now open. May we have the staff report? Sara.
Speaker 8: Good evening. I'm Sara White with CPD here to present the staff report for the 2018 Text Amendment Bundle. So as you may be familiar with our bundles of the past, the text amendment bundle is part of our effort to keep these zoning code modern, clear, user friendly and updated, and for us to be able to respond to requests for changes to the zoning code. So city staff periodically reviews the code and prioritizes updates in response to customer and community feedback, industry changes and other factors. And we we try to do these bundles of tax amendments roughly annually. So the most previous bundle was adopted last spring, in April of 2017. So the bundle is intended to implement several of the comprehensive 2000 plan goals to ensure that the zoning code is flexible and accommodates the current future land use needs. It encourages quality infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, establishes development standards that encourage positive change and diversity while protecting character and identifying community design and development issues and target specific concerns with appropriate controls and incentives. So the bundle allows us to respond to these types of requests as we as we get them, and try to keep the zoning code updated in an annual fashion. So the process so far, we started the scoping of this text amendment last summer and really research and drafted throughout the summer and fall and then started some targeted stakeholder outreach in late 2017, early 2018. So even before a public review draft was available, we did want to start the conversation with stakeholders who may be impacted by some of the changes so that we could have the conversation, get the feedback, make any changes that were necessary as a result of that conversation. We also presented to the Agency Zoning and Planning Committee for an info item in late January, and then on February 12th was when we released the full public red line and included the full text of the changes and a summary in more plain English. Since these bundles tend to be a little difficult to wrap your heads around, this one in particular includes over 80 items that was on our text amendment list. And then when that was released, there was also notice sent to all RINO's and council members. As well. We did offer text amendment briefings to all council members during this time. On February 21st, we had an info item at planning board and then we also had an info item at Luti on March 6th. And then March 16th, we had our planning board hearing. So for planning board and for city council, we have six letters of comment for the bundle. One was in support of our mis informed changes that are proposed as part of the mixed use two storey districts. One was in opposition to those same changes, saying that they were inappropriate to restrict commercial properties. One was asking for restrictions on the location of many storage facilities, particularly close to downtown, which is a topic that this bundle is addressing. One was commenting on the proposed step back that is part of the two and a half story building forms with low sloped roofs. This was a comment planning board as well. Generally, some concerns with the number we were proposing to step back to be addressed at one with generally various comments about all of the changes and then an additional letter that was submitted at Planning Board from the Vision Zero Coalition in support of the proposed drive thru restrictions. At Planning Board. Planning board voted 7 to 1 to recommend approval with the following conditions. The first condition was that the draft continue to be edited for clarity, and then the next the conditions two and three, where staff recommended conditions. So number two was that we clarify the applicability of some of the lighting standard changes and to remove changes to the maximum height for all fixtures. So these were some things that were in the early drafts as part of the lighting changes that as we talked more through them with our internal departments, particularly development services, some concerns were brought about about how we might implement some of those and in terms of inspections and that sort of thing. So we clarified the applicability of what types of projects would be subject to these new changes. Number three was that staff removes changes to the side interior setbacks for the max aims to ax districts adjacent to protected districts. So those of you who are moody and had individual briefings may remember that one of the changes we're proposing is to increase the rear setback for our Amex to ex districts. And as part of that, we also made a slight change to the side interior setback and we realized that that was actually inconsistent with the intent of what we were proposing to do. So we are leaving the side interior setback as is in the code currently, but still proposing the increased rear setback. And then number four was a condition that planning board added, and it was a result of a lot of conversation about the comments, whether the step back for the two and a half storey districts was appropriate to be applied at 25 feet or if there was a different number. So Planning Board added the condition that staff further examine and consider in future changes regarding possible unintended consequences of urban house ten foot step back about 25 feet, and possible unintended consequences of low sloped roof definition and complexity of compounded slopes. So the one vote of opposition from planning board was due to the fact that the Planning Board member did not agree with adding the fourth condition. It was not that he disagreed with the content of the bundle. So we had three speakers at Planning Board, two internally from the city, one from Denver Environmental Health and one from the Vision Zero Coalition, both speaking in support of the drive through restrictions and how they relate to pedestrian safety and actually asking for them to be expanded in the future. And then the member that also wrote the letter that's included in your packet spoke about the concerns with the loss of roof definition and the if the step back was proposed at the correct number. And as you see in your packet, he wrote a follow up letter after planning board that conceded that the 25 foot was was an appropriate number to apply the step back at. After Planning Board. A City Council had the Luti committee on April 10th, which was a consent agenda item. First reading was the 19th and we are at our public hearing tonight. Just a reminder that the bundle is proposed to have a roughly six month grace period for projects that have been submitted before the effective date to align with the end of the slot home's grace period. Which is why I say roughly six months since that Holmes was adopted about two weeks ago, and we wanted to align the end of the grace period with their grace period so that our development services staff didn't have to juggle multiple deadlines. And the reason for the grace period is similar to Slot Holmes in that there would be some pretty significant impacts to projects that have already put a lot of time and effort and investment into submittals. And we wanted to give them some time to finish up. So because of the process that we've had so far and the fact that we had individual council briefings and we did have an info item for the committee, I'm not going to go into the details of all 80 items that are proposed as part of the bundle . Those were detailed in your packet. But what I am going to do tonight is I'm going to go through some of the changes that have occurred since you would have heard about it at a briefing or luti. So we continued to correct any errors and translations, continue to improve graphics, cross-references, clarifications, all of those things that the bundle is great for related to the many storage and drive through restrictions in SMEs and downtown zone districts and near rail station. So this is not something that has changed. So we did decide to continue to propose that mini storage be not allowed within a quarter mile of rail unless you're in an industrial zone district and four drive thrus within a quarter mile of rail to not be allowed unless you're in a suburban zone district with some additional restrictions. I just wanted to highlight this because this topic by far has gotten the most conversation out of anything in the bundle. And we've heard a lot of this is great. It should go further. We should apply it to more areas of the city. But we've also heard some this might be a little bit of an overstep. We want to make sure that we're supporting our density and our small units and giving them places to store their stuff. So we really think that the proposal, as is in the bundle, is a really good first step for treating these. We have heard a lot that we'd like that there are people who would like to see this potentially expanded to transit corridors or all corridors or all mixed use zoning, which is a really large impact on the city transit corridors. The reason that we didn't include them as part of this is because there's there's a lot less policy surrounding our transit corridors right now. There's a lot of planning going on, particularly with the Denver Moves plan. So as as that infrastructure fills in and as planning and policy kind of is solidified around those areas, I think there's definitely room to consider something further. But for now we are remaining with the rail station, quarter mile buffer and the downtown zone district changes. As I mentioned earlier, we are still proposing to increase the rear setback in our EMS and IMAX to ex districts when they're adjacent to protected districts. And a reminder, the reason for this is because these zone districts are intended to be embedded in residential areas, surrounded by urban houses and duplexes, that they really should reflect that character that they're intended to be placed in and not be allowed to build to the zero line and have a really large, hulking structure. And so, as I said, there was just a minor change that was proposed in addition to the rear setback for the side interior setback, we had proposed to increase that. But then we when we looked at it again, we realized that that was actually inconsistent with the urban House standards, which is what we were basing it off of. So we decided to keep that that standard at five feet. And then some more of the little shifts that we've done. We are still adding some standards to parking lot lighting. We're adding maximum illumination levels for certain uses, we're adding uniformity ratios for safety. Some of the things that we have changed a little bit since we talked with you earlier was some additional clarification on what projects would be applicable to these changes. So basically that projects that are submitted from here on out will be required to comply with these and not necessarily projects that are already built because that would be really difficult for our inspections to enforce. And then we had also proposed a mounting height limitation for fixtures. There is already mounting height limitation for freestanding lights in the zoning code, and we were proposing to apply that to all lights. But we realize that that could have some unintended consequences. It would prevent someone from having a patio light on their third floor apartment, that sort of thing. So that's something that we'd like to look at a little further. This is an additional topic that we've had a lot of conversation about through this bundle process. And again, this is kind of a first step for some lighting changes to our code. Our code doesn't have a lot of lighting standards right now. So we want to kind of start with the worst of it and continue to evaluate that through feature bundle changes and such. And then for the two and a half story forms of the low sloped roof, we are proposing a ten foot step back above 25 feet to essentially break up the mass of a building from the street. So you probably are aware that our two and a half story building form can result in something that really appears to be three stories, which is really out of context with a lot of what's built in the neighborhoods. So this step back above 25 feet is intended to make the building appear to be more consistent with generally the two stories that it's it's built around. This is what Planning Board had a lot of discussion about, based on Mr. Farley's comment, asking whether the 25 feet was the right standard and if there are other things that we hadn't considered as part of this. So we did study that number more, and we did come to the conclusion that 25 feet is the appropriate height to apply to step back at. And we also got the follow up letter from Mr. Farley agreeing, but we did actually use the unintended consequences portion of the Planning Board recommendation to consider and add the addition of an administrative adjustment for historic structures for this step back. So in our code, we already have allowed administrative adjustments for bulk and height for historic structures. And since this is a bulk related item, it was brought to our attention by the Curtis Park neighborhood that this could have some pretty large effects on the historic character by requiring the step back. So because in historic districts, there is an additional level of review, there's the design standards, there's L.D. Derby or LPC that has to make these decisions. We were comfortable adding an administrative adjustment that would allow, with the approval of the Landmark Commission, to get out of the step back in historic districts or historic structures. So moving on to the criteria that we use to address text amendments. The first is consistency with the city's adopted plans and policies. The first is comprehensive plan 2000, which I went over a little earlier, how the reason the bundle is consistent with adopt a plan, including requiring infill development to be consistent. We've done a lot in this bundle about consistent infill and bulk and mass. And then blueprint Denver. We have language in there that says amendments are recommended to implement adopted plans and improve compatibility with existing plans, as well as revise standards to make existing zone districts more compatible, which is what a lot of these mass and form changes are doing. It furthers the public health, safety and general welfare by providing clarity and predictability, facilitating planned and desired private enterprise and redevelopment. And it continues to implement adopted plans through regulatory changes. And it results in regulations that are uniform. The amendments regulations are uniform in their application to buildings and land uses within each zone district citywide, and it improves greater consistency in zoning regulations and removes conflicting provisions, which improves our ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. So with that I o staff does recommend that the City Council approve the text mama 2018 bundle. I'm happy to answer any questions and talk about any of the topics in the bundle, especially since we didn't go into the details in the staff report. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you, Sarah. All right. We have three speakers this evening and asked them to come to the front. We have John Noble, Jesse Paris and chairman say COO. Joe, your first 3 minutes. Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street. First, I just want to say these these bundles are one of my favorite things as a zoning geek, because I get exposed to so many of the the things that end up needing tweaked, whether I hear about it through neighborhood organizations or comes through planning board or hear about something go through going through the board of adjustment for zoning appeals that it's always great when it's some time later, it takes a little bit of time. You see a fixed proposal that's been studied and carefully considered and you say, Oh, that's great. I knew that didn't work right. I was carrying that around with me and now I know it's getting solved. John Haden, president of Curtis Park Neighbors, sent a letter to council copying CPD last week, thanking CPD for the work on one piece here, which is the change to the administrative adjustment table. And he asked that I speak on on behalf of Curtis Park neighbors tonight as an advisory board member just conveying our thanks Curtis Park and perhaps other historic neighborhoods from the same era tend to be tend to have houses that are narrow and tall. And this new upper storey step back for low sloped roofs like Italianate structures would require them would actually prevent them from being as tall as they normally are. When we have infill in our neighborhood, that infill should fit in. If if a house is built strictly to the zoning code, it would look quite small compared to the historic context. Today we depend entirely on administrative adjustment, which is a great little escape clause in the zoning code that says the zoning administrator may, within certain limits, allow some dimensions to be exceeded or modified in order to fit the context better. If it's beyond that limited allowance, it needs to go for variance but within within bounds. And that works very, very well. We go through a landmark review because it is a landmark district and then whatever administrative adjustments are needed have never been denied. This new measurement was not available for administrative adjustment, so that that meant that any infill housing in Curtis Park that is as tall as our normal housing is or is our context would have to go all the way for a variance, which is an expensive, lengthy and uncertain process. And when we made that case to CPD, they knew exactly what we were talking about. They never react quickly. They want to always want to go away. Study came back within a few days and said, okay, this narrow allowance on the administrative adjustment table where you're in a landmark district and Landmark has reviewed it is the minimum necessary to to meet your concerns. And in fact, it is. So thank you to Sarah and thank you to Kyle Dalton and Jennifer Capito. We're thrilled to see this go forward. All right. Thank you, Mr. Noble. Jesse Pierce, you're up 3 minutes. Good evening, members of the Council. When I was in Paris, my 2842 Josephine Street and Brookes, District nine. My question is I'm neither for I'm neither for nor against this. I just need clarification on what is a protected district. Is that the same thing as a historical district? What is urban house standards? And is this in any way going to increase the already gentrification that is going on in the Curtis Park neighborhood? It seems like you guys have just given leeway to gentrification in historically black and brown communities. I just need clarification that this building bundle is not going to. Facilitate that further. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Chairman Seiko, 6 minutes.
Speaker 6: Okay. Here we go. My San Francisco to organize a black star action movement. Social change agency. Voice for the poor. Working poor. Homeless senior citizens and youth. This bundle. To. Pull all of these seemingly minor pieces. There are connected to each other. Is a. Good idea. Answers. Anytime you can find common ground with 80 different minor entities. And combined into one big thing. Is part of administration. And of course, a lot of talk about means and explanations that we don't have to go through here in this body today because the work has been done by planning. But now let's look at pulling the layers back. Of The Onion to get to the core about what is really driving this. And what are the values behind this theme that allows us to miss the first four trees? I mean, we got trees. It. And it's a big thing. But what's really driving this thing? What's really driving? And that becomes a question for the people, because when you do this bundling thing, when you combine all of these things that you do early in the meetings into one vote and in that one vote, there are hundreds of millions of dollars down taxpayers money. And they're watching this on television because it means you organize at a time where a rush hour traffic, Jack, they can't come down it. So they get it after the fact. And so one of the things we do with this process is to allow it to become a educational process for the people who can be at the meeting for further review. Understanding that there's a time frame that folks got 30, 60 days, whatever that is, to actually implement a change. Now for vulnerable communities. That's not possible because the people are caught up, especially the folks that I represent, and to day to day survival. How am I going to pay my rent? What am I going to do about my kids going to school hungry? How am I going to deal with this thing when the food bank is gone and ain't nothing to eat? Transportation crazy. I don't have that amount of money to ride bus, so I got to figure out skills I can walk to where I got to go. So caught up in that minutia. So that we don't have the time to look at the overview of the map. What are they planning for you now that's going to impact your future? And an outreach doesn't include the future for education processes and to gain them into a better position of being great citizens in a great city. You had no outreach. Two high school's student council. Great way to educate them about what we can really do to you. So the outreach has to be expanded into student government zones and universities and colleges who are preparing themselves to be a part of this, not in it, because using it to our nose and to do, but the people of the future, the youth are not included in the outreach, so why not invite them to the meeting or had the meeting at a high school where they're at? How about a meeting, too, on a college campus where they're at C? And now we're talking about expanding democracy and getting more folks involved in the participation of the future because it's the students then the youth, which are the future right now and their voices need to be done right now. So they understand what is like an industrial. See as you blow past it on the leak there. But none of that. And changing from this to that, they don't even have don't even know what this is right now. But we missed a golden opportunity to prepare the future leadership through our outreach that can be expanded. See. Also, the youth has to be included in this statement because they're the ones who are going to be sent up here. Because at one point you always used. Yeah, but you learn about this in your daughter. How about if she knew this now? What kind of adult citizens would that be? Outstanding. So in this process of having to work to make the dream work, the dream is about now and it's about the future. And it's about the children. It's about increasing this empty chamber full of kids who want to come down here and learn how to do this thing. On the taxpayers dollars because they are the taxpayers that are going to be paying for the future. Things that are happening at least we can do is educate them now in the state.
Speaker 0: So thank you, Mr. Cobb. Thank you. This concludes our three speakers for this evening. Are there any questions by members of council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a question about the two and a half stories step back. And what I'm trying to understand is if that is only applicable to the residential zones. Is it specific to historic districts or is it how just help me understand how broadly that is applied. Sure.
Speaker 8: So it is applicable to all of our two and a half story residential building forms. Generally in our mixed use districts, we don't have the two and a half story building forms because the height limits are higher. So it's going to be your urban house, your duplex, your two and a half story row house across board.
Speaker 3: Okay. So where the code? Formerly allowed like half of a third story. Does this remove that? Help me understand. What that. Sure.
Speaker 8: So I'll clarify what the half story is, because it's not really a half story. Essentially what it is, is it's a third story that's allowed to be no greater than 75% of the floor below it. And what that was intended to do, I may have slide here. So this slide, this image on this slide on the top is from the zoning code. And it was really what the half storey was intended to do. When you have the traditional house with the sloped roof and it's two stories, you have that space under the sloped roof that's technically would be considered a third story and we wanted to allow it to be used as livable space. So we called about a half story when it's really 75% of the floor below. It's a third story. And you can see this is a photo example of infill that has used that and you can see it's generally pretty in scale what's surrounding. But essentially what's been happening is people take that allowance and when you use a flat roof form or as we're redefining in the bundle, low slope and you push it to the front of the building, it really looks like a full three stories and you can see it towering over the surrounding infill development. So what this is intended to do is to push back that third story. We haven't made any changes to the allowance of how much of it, but it's possible that there will be less allow for a allowed floor area if they can't get that full 75% after having to step it back ten feet from the front of the building.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Do you want to take a stab at explaining what a protected district is?
Speaker 8: Sure. So a protected district is essentially in practice, a low scale residential district. We have a definition in the code. It's got a list of all of our zone districts that are considered protected districts. It's all of our single unit districts, all of our two unit districts. I think all of our House districts and one multi-unit district, EMU, two and a half. And what that means is when you have a mixed use zone district adjacent to something that's considered a protected district, things that are built on that lot have to comply with additional standards. Usually it's additional setbacks or additional bulk plan, that sort of thing, to protect the character of the low scale residential that it's adjacent to.
Speaker 7: But the disk we're only talking about the mapped district, the physical map district. It doesn't it's it doesn't matter whether or not the building is a low scale residential building.
Speaker 8: That's correct.
Speaker 7: All right. Hope that helps. Thanks. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, this concludes the public hearing of 323 comments by members of council. That assessment.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank the CPD and the planning board for the work that you did on this bundle. It well, it is a lot of things. It really dives into things that we have had some concerns about that we hear about at committee, that we hear about from neighbors who are worried about construction going on next door. Thanks for the explanation of the 2.5 because I too was thinking it's really 75% of the top. But if they can't get the ten foot setback, it may not be 75% of the top of it. Right. Okay. And also four in, you know, increasing the setbacks. But but especially for the storage units, mini storage. And I think I have to thank my fellow councilwoman, Kendra Black, who also brought this forward, said this is a very good move, I think, to help us with getting activation around areas of transit and Main Street. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: I want to thank Sara. You were really great with the Todd. Limiting the storage and the drive thrus. I wanted.
Speaker 3: To go a little further, but I acknowledge it's a good first.
Speaker 4: Step. And I appreciate you reaching out to the Storage Unit Association. We met with them and they were okay with it and the drive thru people never got back to us, so I really appreciate it. My district has five light rail stations and a.
Speaker 3: Lot of storage.
Speaker 4: Facilities and we don't want to have any more near a light rail station. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Black Espinosa. Councilman.
Speaker 7: Is there a drive through association? I also want to thank you again, Sarah, and staff for another text amendment. It's always nice to see these changes. I don't think I geek out as much as Joel does, but it is fun to see incremental change to our zoning code. The one thing that I you made it very clear that you're you're cognizant that there might be unintended consequences and you're sort of recognizing that there's still the ability for things you haven't considered to come about. And I think in an earlier presentation that sort of opined where I saw sort of something breaking down the so I'm going to go back to something I said I think two or three meetings ago, which is, is if staff is is seeing that speak up and let the zoning administrator know that there is this repeated incidents happening that may not warrant a meeting, may rise to an occasion where you're not following the usual text amendment, but then bringing it to Brad Buchanan and having him move forward with a quick change. It'll still be a public process. We will still have the ability to discuss it, but let's not wait for a repeated sort of habitual pattern to form and and get so deliberative in. If we're already recognizing that one change we've made has unintended consequences, that could be addressed maybe by coupling some form standard with a use exception or something like that, you know. So that's all. Just wanted to make sure that I'm probably going to keep hitting that point. Time and time again now, because it's sort of my one thing is how do we more rapidly address things that go south when when we know better? So that's it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, CPD, for for putting this forward. You know, I think you guys are starting to adjust to the many issues that we're seeing all over the city and really appreciate that everyone does love speed and we want this to be faster. But at the same time and I don't want to say but we want it faster, we want more speed. Let's just leave the period there. I will also say that I recognized the macro changes that were happening about this. The city and these unintended consequences have happened in my district. They've happened in other districts. And and I understand those are sometimes irreversible. And so I appreciate it. But as long as we can figure out how to turn a little faster on some of these things, it will be very helpful. The folks you see up here are on the front lines of dealing with a lot of our land use issues. And and we're getting we have a lot of ideas and so we want to see those things move. But thank you for your hard work and know it's very deliberative and we appreciate it. With that. Madam Secretary, it's been moved to a roll call.
Speaker 1: Black clerk. All right. ESPINOSA Hi.
Speaker 9: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 1: Cashman I can eat. LOPEZ All right. Ortega I. SUSMAN Mr. President, I promise.
Speaker 0: What?
Speaker 1: No, we're good.
Speaker 0: Okay. Please close the voting. US results.
Speaker 1: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Ten Eyes Proclamation 323 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Excuse me. Excuse me. On Monday, June 18, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 365. Change the zoning classification of 3880 Holly Street in Northeast Park Hill Erekat Public Hearing of Council Bill for 22 Changing the zoning classification of 421 West Fourth Avenue and Baker and
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code.
Amends the Zoning Code with multiple substantive, clarification, and usability amendments in response to customer and community feedback, industry changes, and other factors. Amended 5-14-18 to fix a misprint in the bill by including the Code Effective Date in Section 3 as similarly cited throughout the remainder of the bill. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-10-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05142018_18-0572
|
Speaker 0: All right. That brings us to our third proclamation. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 572?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 572 Series of 2018 recognizing May 19th as hepatitis testing day and July 28 as World Hepatitis Day. Whereas May 19th is National Hepatitis Testing Day, and July 28th is World Hepatitis C Oversight World Hepatitis Day. Hepatitis C is recognized as the most common blood borne viral infection in the United States, whereas mortality due to hep C is increasing in Colorado, particularly among people born between 1945 and 1965 and over 19,000, hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis B accounts for almost 2000 annual deaths in the United States, there are currently about 15,436 people living in Colorado with chronic unresolved hepatitis B infection, and fewer than one third of people with chronic hepatitis B are aware of their infection. And. Whereas, Hepatitis B and C cause an estimated 61% of liver cancer. Hepatocellular carcinoma HCC in the U.S. and. WHEREAS, the opioid opioid epidemic is fueling an increase in HPV h. Sorry. HB In HCV positive cases. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis C has infected an estimated 73,935 Coloradans, as many as 5.2 million American residents, and more than 130 million people worldwide. And is a leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants in the U.S.. And. WHEREAS, Hepatitis C can be prevented. Testing can identify existing infections and early diagnosis and treatment can save lives, money and resources. And. WHEREAS, A Liver Health connection is available as a statewide resource for education testing, linkage to care, patient navigation helpline and other support services. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one of the Denver City Council agrees that preventing and treating viral hepatitis as an important public health initiative that will improve the quality of life for Denver residents affected by the virus. Section two The Denver City Council proclaims May 19th as hepatitis testing day and recognizes July 28th as World Hepatitis C, Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Nancy Steinfurth, executive director of Liver Health Connection.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 572 series of 2018 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I carry this proclamation every year. One, because I think it's absolutely critical and important that, you know, that this information be out there. And second, because this is something that that's near and dear to my heart. I lost my grandfather in the year 2000. To complications from Hep C, which he was which he got when he was in the Army, and he was hurt in Germany and he had a blood transfusion. And that's where I mean, they didn't test for it, the screen for it. And that's where he was infected. He passed away almost a year and two weeks ago. Oh, not a year. 18 years. Two weeks ago due to complications from that. From cirrhosis and liver cancer. Now have had we had had the medical advances 18 years ago. My grandfather probably still be with me. It's just kind of one of my colleagues was the person that's supposed to carry this at the time. Garcia. And he did. And I said, Well. Would you like to carry on? First thing I thought about was my grandfather said, absolutely. If you can spend more information about this far and wide in our communities, especially boomer baby boomer age. And it is, folks, just to have general awareness I think is absolutely critical. Folks didn't shy away from testing. As a matter of fact, it can save lives. So I wanted to highlight that. I know Nancy will come up and talk a little bit more about the details of some of the activities and the events that's going to happen on May 19. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega, I. Black.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I. Herndon.
Speaker 2: Cashen.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. Nine Ice nine ICE Proclamation. 572 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, is there someone you'd like to bring up to the podium to.
Speaker 4: Receive the proclamation? I would like to invite Nancy Steinfurth, who is the executive director of Liver Health Connection, formerly the hep-C Connection.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak with you. And I'm really excited that I've been able to get so much support from Denver City Council over many years. So thank you for once again supporting this proclamation. I can't read anything without my glasses. So here we go. We're going to miss Councilman Lopez because he's been such a champion for this cause and for our organization. So I just want to give him a little special recognition because he's been so wonderful and so passionate about the personal effects that this disease has had on him . I know of many, many stories and we could go on for hours, but that is not going to that's that's not going to fly this evening. The nation, Colorado and Denver are in the midst of an opioid crisis. And this crisis is leading to a second epidemic of infectious disease transmission. In fact, it's been called this endemic because hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV are all on the rise as a result of shared syringes among injecting populations. At the same time, as the community is responding to the opioid epidemic, we are still working to find baby boomers with undiagnosed hepatitis C, for example. We also go to the VA center. One of my staff members, RECA goes and tests there, so she's going to bring some dog food and some other goodies for you guys to have for this Saturday. Homeless veterans are one of the really hard to reach populations. And so excuse me, the VA and our organization is working to partner and collaborate with groups to figure out where we can locate those folks and link them to care. These baby boomers have had the disease for a longer time period, and it's now leading to serious consequences like liver failure, transplantation and liver cancer. In 2017, Liver Health Connection was able to provide almost 3000 hepatitis C antibody tests at homeless shelters, community correction programs, methadone clinics, pride fest, and many more events. Every person with a positive test result is provided active navigation through all of the steps in the process so that no one is designed denied access to a cure. I'm happy to say that the Colorado Department of Corrections will begin providing hepatitis treatment to almost 700 offenders per year beginning July one. That was a $16.5 million increase to their appropriation, and it was earmarked only for hepatitis C. So that's a big deal with our state budget. It's pretty tough. We work with over 100 local partners, including Denver Public Health, National and Worldwide Partners, to find the missing hepatitis B and hepatitis C millions. We thank thank you for your commitment to support this important cause and hope you can join us at 10 a.m., May 19th in Confluence Park, where we're going to be testing anyone and everyone for hepatitis C runs from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.. And we would love to have you stop by now. Granted, perhaps someone from the marathon could come over. Swing by. We're going to word have some water. We might have some snacks. It's a beautiful area. I love the park. So that's one reason to come on by as well as testing. And and we're going to we're going to be there for most of the day.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Thanks. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our proclamations. We're moving on to resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05142018_18-0323
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Now, I'll do a recap on the resolutions. No items have been called out under bills for introduction. Those items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. Councilwoman Sussman has called out for a Technical Amendment Council Bill 8.0323, which amends the zoning code. Madam Secretary, can you please put that item up on our screens? And, Councilwoman Blackwell, you put Council Bill 323 on the floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill 18, dash zero 3 to 3 be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: SUSSMAN All right.
Speaker 7: Black I.
Speaker 2: Flynn. I Fillmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 2: Tonight.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes comfortable. 323 may be taken out of order. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to amend.
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 1803 to 3 be amended in the following particulars on page four, line ten strike. Fill in and replace with May 24th, 2018.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Any questions by members of council? All right. Any comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment fixes a misprint in the bill by including the code of effective date in Section three, as similarly cited throughout the remainder of the bill. If the amendment passes, it will not require a delay in the scheduled public hearing.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: Sussman Black eye.
Speaker 2: Flynn, I Gillmor. Herndon. Cashman. Lopez. I knew Ortega, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please cast voting in no results tonight. Tonight's Council Bill 323 has been amended. Final consideration of amended council bill 323, which with its public hearing, will be Monday, May 21st. That concludes the items to be called out. All their bills for introduction are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and that you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item out for a separate vote. All right, Councilwoman Black, will you please, for 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 in the block for the following items. All Series 18 019904040430043104320433043404350389042004110426008703970403. 02820395040004130414. And that's it.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, it looks like we got them all. Do you concur?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Black eye Flynn. I could go more. I turned in Cashman. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment. Hi, Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: I'm secretary. Please. Cause voting in Nassau results tonight. Tonight, 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 325, changing the zoning classification for 2391 South Sherman Street in Rosedale.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance to amend Chapter 59 (Zoning) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to the Denver Zoning Code and to amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code.
Amends the Zoning Code with multiple substantive, clarification, and usability amendments in response to customer and community feedback, industry changes, and other factors. Amended 5-14-18 to fix a misprint in the bill by including the Code Effective Date in Section 3 as similarly cited throughout the remainder of the bill. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-10-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05142018_18-0325
|
Speaker 0: 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 the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 325 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Gladly. Mr. President, I move that council bill zero 3 to 5 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 325 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 2391 South Sherman Street from U.S. Sub one to You Tube. The property is located in Council District six in the Rosedale neighborhood. It's at the corner of Wesley Avenue and Sherman Street, across from Rosedale Park. And the vacant Rosedale Elementary School property is 6250 square feet, and there's currently a single unit house on the property. The request is to rezone from U.S. sub one, which is urban neighborhood context single unit zoning with a 4500 square foot minimum lot size and in one indicates that accessory dwelling units are allowed on the property and the request is to rezone to the YouTubes Zone District, which is still urban neighborhood context to unit zoning with the same 4500 square foot minimum lot size. And the request is to allow for the construction of a duplex on the property. As you can see, the property is surrounded by the same UCB one zoning except for the park across the street, which is OSA. But if you notice, one block to the north and one block to the south are the requested YouTube zoning. You can see in the surrounding area, it's mainly single unit houses, but there are a mix of two unit and multi-unit residential properties immediately around it as well. And then you can see the mixed use development on Broadway, two blocks to the west. The subject property is the top left photo here. Then you can see some of the other surrounding houses and the park and school playground across the street. This went to the planning board on March 21st, where it received a unanimous recommendation of approval. There was one member of the public speaking. I went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on April 3rd, and 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 three adopted plans that apply to this property. First is Comprehensive Plan 2000, as described in the staff report. Staffers found that the proposed rezoning consistent with these four strategies from the plan relating to infill development and providing a variety of housing types in neighborhoods which the proposed YouTubes and districts would be compatible with. Blueprint Denver from 2000 to has this property with a concept land use of urban residential, which calls for a variety of housing types, from single family to townhouses to small or large apartment buildings. Consistent with the proposed two unit zoning, there is also designated as an area of stability, which calls for maintaining the existing character while accommodating new development. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mix of single unit two unit and multi-unit in the area, so the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the existing character. Both Wesley and Sherman Street are designated locals, which are appropriate for the requested zoned district. The Evans stationary plan is from 2009. It also designates the property as residential, which again calls for a mix of housing types, including single family duplexes and row houses, again consistent with the requested zoning of two unit. The plan also calls for an increase in the amount and variety of housing, which the proposed rezoning would do by allowing a duplex on the subject property. So staff finds that the first criterion is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the YouTube Zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating additional housing in the area which is needed. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed and changing conditions in the area. There's been investment along Broadway. The city has invested in new streetscape elements along Broadway, and there's been significant private investment along Broadway and in the larger Avenue Station area that has changed the character of the area and increased the need for additional housing, which justifies the proposed rezoning. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The proposed rezoning would facilitate development consistent with the urban neighborhood context, description and the purpose and intent of the YouTube zoning district. That staff finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you could make your way to this front seat. And first up, we have Will Cryer, followed by Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 4: Everyone.
Speaker 8: We just wanted.
Speaker 4: To come up and kind of.
Speaker 8: Give a little background.
Speaker 0: So could you introduce yourself, say your name for the record. Thank you. Sorry.
Speaker 4: My name is Will Crier. We are. And my wife, Kelsey Crier, where.
Speaker 8: Residents at 2391.
Speaker 4: South Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado. I just wanted to say kind of thank you. We appreciate that this process exists and we had the option to even pursue changing the zoning on our property to kind of pursue something that would help our family. We've I've lived there since 2012 and she's moved in since we got married. And we love the neighborhood that we're in and are hoping to stay there for a long time and think this would kind of enable us to to make that more of a longer to term solution. And one of the things, Scott, in the Planning Department, for all the help from the Pre-Application process all the way through to today, and that was really merit. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 8: My name is Sherman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, focusing on poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and youth. We support this ordinance change and. You know, it's moments like this that I really am encouraged and excited about the process of how we go about doing these changes. This because we sit here and we do the corporate changes for the corporate folks and you know, that's an enduring process because there's a lot more unions involved. And then we have every day for regular folks, working folks that want to improve their property, that will have an effect, that will improve the neighborhood and to help us . Attack this housing shortage thing. Even if it seems small, it's significant. It really is the small ones that when you add them.
Speaker 1: Up are.
Speaker 8: Really more inspiring because they come from.
Speaker 1: The hearts.
Speaker 8: Of the people who not only want to change their property, but they still want to live there. Why they make it open to invite other people to enjoy that space. So we want to thank the leadership of Councilman Cashman, and I'm not going to do it like I did Ben Franklin down there where he has to do a disclaimer. But thank you so much for bringing this forward and leadership for bringing this forward. I just have one question. And that would be for smaller projects, housing projects like that. It seems to be there should be an expedited process that they can go through that ain't.
Speaker 4: As onerous.
Speaker 8: As those of the corporations who are built building bigger units so that we can get this thing on the table, move it forward, and then they can begin the process of having that satisfaction, of seeing the project underway without having to spend a whole lot of money before you even put one shovel of dirt in there to get this thing done. And so I would ask that city council kind of look at that in the subcommittee meeting and see how we can cut some of the red tape for the smaller folks so they can move the project forward. Last but not least. We have a special guest tonight, my cousin Gregory. He's a security guy, so he's came here. This is his second assignment. I forgot to mention he was here with my family and outstanding young man, and he's been helping me to watch the clock. So he's my official clock timer. So I'm going to quit now. And Gregory, thank you so much for being here and get to know these folks because they're outstanding citizens and they are worthy of your protection. Thank you very much, everybody.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I think your microphone might be off.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. So how far does the the radius of the Evans Station plan extend? I believe this property is just inside the boundary. Is that correct? Yes, it is towards the edge of the boundary of the even stationary plane. Okay. Do you have any idea how far does it extend up the hill to to grant? No, I do not believe it does. I think this is basically the edge of it right at Grant, actually. Okay. The other question I have is so this is a corner site, the current residence, while it has the Sherman Street address , has its primary entrance facing. Is it westerly there? Yes. Does it matter to CPD how the units would be situated on this site? No. When they go through the building permit process, they would work with our development services division to meet the code and situate the the building on the property. But I think it could face either Wesley or Sherman. All right. And then there was one once the speaker at the planning board. What was. Yeah, it was a neighbor who lives in the neighborhood. He said he was not necessarily opposed, but was concerned that some other neighbors may be. They have concerns when the 2010 rezoning went through. There was, according to the speaker, pretty significant discussion with the neighborhood about the appropriate zoning. And he was concerned that some members of the neighborhood may feel like the zoning was settled in 2010 and would be concerned about a change at this point. And he said he was not personally concerned and we haven't heard from any of the other neighbors at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 325 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you again, Mr. President. And I do need a disclaimer for our previous speaker that this was no leadership from council. This was brought forward by the applicants themselves. The reason I ask about the the Evans Station plan is for me that was an important part of this for my colleagues. If you.
Speaker 0: Drive.
Speaker 8: Lincoln and Sherman between Evans and Yale, Duplex is not an unusual use at all. There are literally dozens on those blocks, including several on the block that the applicants on which the applicants live. However, I don't take up zoning lightly. And so it was the the fact that this remains in the the Evans Station plan that that tilted it for me. So as I say, there's plan support. It's a common use in the area. I appreciate the fact that it adds additional housing to to our stretched inventory and also. I would just put forward that for those who might be thinking in that neighborhood of extending the duplex use and onto blocks that which it's not a common use, I would think that plan support would be more questionable. So I do plan on supporting this this evening. I appreciate the staff's report. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, I. I'm supportive this I have something very similar in in my district and I can speak to this in 2010 when we did the rezoning, a lot of the angst, a lot of these properties, especially ones like this with this two unit zone district people were very wary because of the time and because of the era that we were in. We were just coming out of a recession, of moving to them, graduating, taking it to a two unit. And so and because also because people didn't know what the form was going to look like, they didn't know if we were going to bounce out of the recession in order to do this. They thought it was going to probably very expensive to do. Tune in. So what they did is they said, well, maybe we should do the ADA use. And I think that B one is the ability to do an EDU in the back and they're nodding. Those ideas are just as expensive as building another unit. And so in a lot of ways, it was a lack of foresight on Nas. But but also because it was new in the conversation. Had this been the case? Now what we know now, if we knew then what we know now, some of these designations, these these B ones, these D ones did end up being ada2 unit because they are, in fact, another unit. It accomplishes the same thing here, except the fact that but the need to you at least the property owner would have to live in one of them or the one or the other. So this allows that this zoned district is absolutely appropriate for that area. I remember seeing the map in that area, Councilwoman, and it's a lot like mine and it's a if I can think of that. BLOCK It's very similar to some of the ones that are in my district where we haven't seen those ideas come to fruition because they're actually pretty expensive to build. You could enter to build, build, say, to say to unit, and it's almost the same cost and you're able to do a lot more with it. So and then it fronts the street. So anyway, I'm supporting for that reason.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Seeing other comments, I'll just add that, you know, I appreciate, Councilman Cashman, you focusing in on the plan support. I think, you know, based on the information presented, this this application does meet the criteria. We're lucky that the Evans stationary plan hits this part, and I don't know the rest of Rosedale because that's not my district. But right across the street in both directions is and there is no neighborhood plan in Plot Park. And the neighborhood plan in Overland is over 20 years old. And I think it really highlights the need for us to continue to put funding and effort towards getting every single neighborhood in our community a neighborhood plan. Because if you're not within that circle of that, there isn't that, you know, low that real low micro planning effort that's happened. And I do think that that could lead to a lot of confusion when there is a plan here and across the street there there isn't. So but again, tonight, I think it's been demonstrated that the criteria been met and we'll be supporting this. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Cashman. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, Herndon. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 2: Nice. Nice.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2391 South Sherman Street in Rosedale.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2391 South Sherman Street from U-SU-B1 to U-TU-B (urban, single-unit to urban, two-unit) in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-3-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05072018_18-0347
|
Speaker 0: I just wanted to call out on Final Consideration Council Bill 347 for a quick question. 347 Madam Secretary. 748 347 348. Can we get those up on the screen? And you just had a question you don't want anybody from public works if there. Yes. Please come up. Just my my quick question is my quick question, because we're renaming a portion of Havana away as MLK Junior Boulevard and Moline Street. What process? I'm curious, what what process was done? What has to be done to rename it? Is it?
Speaker 2: I believe this is in conjunction with the restructuring along MLK Boulevard. The realignment of this two of the streets at this intersection is simply to clarify the travel patterns of MLK, Havana and Moline after the intersection is reconstructed.
Speaker 0: Okay, so technically so it's just so technically. Was it Havana? Where are we eliminating? I'm trying to figure that out. Are we eliminating Havana way officially and making it MLK Jr and then Moline respectively. I got the answer right, right now.
Speaker 2: I do not have notes on that. This is under final consideration. So, Angela, see us, who is previously the public works person is going to fill in for me here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Excuse me, ma'am. I don't need an airplane ticket. I'm sorry. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 2: Came to clarify. So this is part of us. A redevelopment that's happening in this area. Okay. And so this street, Havana, is going to go on and continue as the redevelopment happens. And so they're.
Speaker 1: Renaming either side of the road to clarify.
Speaker 2: Like she said, the direction.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Garcia. As you probably understand why I'm asking about the technicalities about this.
Speaker 2: This wasn't part of any sort of public process.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: Just as part of the redevelopment.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Councilman Espinosa, did you also have a question on this? You know.
Speaker 5: Let's keep you both up here for a second. This is related in since you mentioned the redevelopment of MLK, I know that some some point in the past there was some concern from constituents over there about possible, you know, the level of traffic on MLK reaching levels where Seedat was considering a sound wall. Is that issue put to bed entirely or.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe so.
Speaker 5: We're not doing a sound wall yet.
Speaker 2: I'll have Sarah can follow.
Speaker 1: Up on that. But I know that there they were in the process of making a recommendation, and I'm not sure where it where it went from there.
Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah, it would be great if I could do a follow up. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you both. All right. One more time. Last chance to call an item for a separate vote before we do the block vote. All right, look. Good. So, Councilwoman Sussman, where you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor, please.
Speaker 4: 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. Resolutions 353 373 401. 406. Scrolling through these 407. 0408409 396 399 295 308 392 three 9398 but 4410367. These are bills 368369372347348 and 377.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Did we get them all?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr..
Speaker 0: President. All right. It has been moved. And a second is Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 1: Black Eye Espinosa Flynn I heard in Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I mean, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 times 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 288, changing the zoning classification for 3649 East 40th Avenue and 3600 East 41st Avenue in Illyria.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance renaming a portion of Havana Way as Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
Renames a portion of Havana Way to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard located on Havana Way between Havana Street and Moline Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-17-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05072018_18-0291
|
Speaker 0: 11 Ice 11 are accountable to 88 has passed. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put council bill to 91 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that council bill 291 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Accountable 291 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Yes. Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 4552 South Ulster Street from B8 with waivers you 0102 to s m x 12 properties located in Council District four in the Hampton South neighborhood. It is in the Denver Tech Center, just south of I. 225 on Ulster Street. Property is about an acre and a half. It's currently mostly vacant with a parking lot on a portion of it. And as I said, the request is to rezone from B eight with waivers. You are one, you are to be eight. Is former chapter 59 commercial mixed use zoning. It allows office retail and residential on it and if you are one and you are two, are intended as placeholders to indicate that the B8 allows both adult uses and billboard uses. And if this were to be resound, they may be appropriate here. However, as I mentioned, this property currently has waivers on it and one of those waivers prohibits both adult uses and billboard uses. So those uses are not currently allowed on the property. The other waivers limit the maximum height of the building, limit the maximum square footage of the building, and require a certain amount of open space. And the request is to go to as an x 12, which is suburban neighborhood context, mixed use zoning with a 12 storey maximum height and the request is to rezone in order to facilitate redevelopment. Surrounding zoning is the same zoning to the east and south, and then the requested some x 12 to the north and west. Surrounding uses are mostly office to the east and south with the freeway to the north and there's an electrical substation across Gloucester to the west. You can see the vacant subject property there in the top left photo, some of the surrounding office buildings. Top right is looking towards item 25 and the bottom right is the electrical substation. This went to the planning board on March 7th, where it received unanimous recommendation of approval. There was no public comment. Went to the committee on March 27th and as of the date of the staff report, we have not received any 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 only two adopted plans here. There's not a neighborhood plan here. So the first plan is comprehensive plan 2000, as described in the staff report, satisfied that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these four strategies from Top Plan 2000. These relate to infill development and mixed use development. And there's one strategy specifically related to development in the Denver Tech Center, which calls for continued buildout and a balanced mix of users in the area consistent with the requested as a next 12 zoning. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 22. The concept land use for this property is employment, which calls for office warehousing, light manufacturing and relatively little residential. So I proposed as a next 12 would allow the property to be developed entirely as residential or entirely as commercial or a mix of the two. But the city does not have pure commercial zoning, so there's not a zone district that we could zone this to that really implements this desire for almost entirely commercial. The next 12 is is not the closest we can get. And when looking at the larger tech center area, it is predominantly commercial does fit in with this definition of employment. So even if this property were to develop entirely as residential, the overall area would still be consistent with the concept of land use. The plan designates this as an area of stability, which calls for maintaining character while accommodating some new development consistent with that character which the proposed rezoning would allow. And Foster Street is a mixed use arterial, which calls for more intense mixed use development consistent with the proposed next 12 zoning. So the first criteria and status found is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations as described in the staff report. Staff believes that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the same X12 zoning. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the change conditions in the area. The existing zoning was put in place in 1984 as there's been pretty significant change in the area since that time. Continue to build out of the tech center. Major improvements to the highways as part of the T-Rex program, the addition of the light rail in the area. So those changes justify rezoning to a modern select 12 zone district. And 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 suburban neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the mixed 12 zone district so that staff finds at 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 this evening. First up, Phil Workman.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much. My name's Phil Workman. 130 Rampart Way, Denver, Colorado 80230. Thank you. Scott outlined the prima facie case. We believe this certainly meets the criteria to have this approved and reasoned. This evening, December 12, I will make a few comments. Hopefully you received in your packet a letter of support from the Goldsmith Goldsmith Metropolitan District. This is in the Denver Tech Center, which, of course, Councilwoman Blackwell remind you this is in Denver. And but the Goldsmith Metropolitan District has designed guidelines, and they're in charge of a lot of the development there as far as making sure that it maintains the context of the surrounding area as far as design, and they are in support of this application. Also this the context, this area is currently a 61,000 square foot undeveloped land. It's got an indicated adjacent as a some x 12. This allows us to move from the old Section 59 zoning code with some waivers, some other things, and just have more conformity in and context of the surrounding area. As far as future plans that certainly it could be office, it could be residential. There's a lot of different potential uses with that as some X 12, but we believe that this is the proper zoning for this area and allows the some development at this site at some point soon hopefully. Thank you. Thank you very much. Questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 10: Jesse Paris German homosexual Black Sox more self defense on further consideration. I actually agree with this. So I changed my disagreement with this and I am for this all the way.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker is Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: As chairman of the group Black Star Action Movement, we stand for the recommended approval by planning of this changed ordinance change. Congratulations, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward because it will begin to address some of the issues that we have in terms of people who are in need of housing, especially along these major arteries that are major . Channels toward employment and also traveling in terms of that area. And. Want to add that one of the things that we need to start looking at in terms of these approvals is the impact that these things are going to have on public safety and police protection. And also transit and safety in terms of these areas. You can find on any given day at noon. Major traffic jams that look like we're in New York City now. We got 10,000 people coming to Colorado every month, every month. And with the shortage of housing that we got, we need to see how we can begin to plan and flow the traffic exchanges in this kind of thing and to look at the timing of lights and changing lanes and, you know, making this thing work and also the city encouraging more people to use the train and to use the busses systems so that this thing don't spiral into a bunch of madness for real. Come to this meeting tonight. I had to start out leaving my house at 230 this afternoon just to get through Martin Luther King before the bang happens with the traffic folks getting off from work. Never in my life did it take me an hour to get from 34th and Elm Street downtown or Martin Luther King for real? That's crazy. That's not plan development. And that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to development. I need some planning. And when we come out with all of these plans, we got to plan for the traffic man and inconvenience that keeps people from having to want to deal with any of this unless we're really trying to, like, keep people out. Because I know since you moved from New York City to come here and get caught up in the same traffic jam, I mean, the legal system and this, you know, the rent is more cheaper. So congratulations. And if we could put the kind of thing in there to further the public health and safety and welfare and put a little bit more planning into that as we go about doing the building and whatnot. I think we can figure this thing out where it's.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chairman. So your time's up. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Guzman?
Speaker 5: Espinosa Yeah, it's kind of related to that last comment. I sort of understand if I'm just looking at this parcel. I mean, it's its own lot by itself, but I'm actually looking at it to sort of orient myself in context and. My question is it? I'm looking at it in context because this area has developed obviously different at different points in time with a lot of owners changing hands and a zoning code change that that happened that created this opportunity as well. So when what is the is there any sort of was there any sort of discussion with the bigger picture about urban the urban design in of this area and how how our form based code could and should inform infill development in what was essentially a greenfield greenfield development historically intended to have these sort of open spaces. And now we're we've created this opportunity through the zoning code to do infill in these areas. And how. And the reason why I'm asking that. Is related to this decision in particular. But we have other areas like and I'm asking it because I'm sort of foreign to this context because we don't have this maybe save for Diamond Hill in my district. So I'm not understanding this because I look at this and I see similarities and analogs to say Penn Station and things that decisions we've made there. And I'm going, is this is this how we want? I mean, is this is this sort of logical city building or we just sort of react, you know, reacting? I mean, so is there there's some sort of content mean discussion about this area on this parcel and then the areas surrounding it.
Speaker 12: I mean, not explicitly. As I mentioned, we don't have an area plan or a neighborhood plan for this neighborhood. So we're relying on the citywide plans that look at this. And there are recommendations, as I mentioned explicitly, for the Denver Tech Center in the citywide plans. But we don't have a neighborhood plan giving us that really specific guidance for this. But, you know, we in 2010, when we developed the new zoning code and the suburban neighborhood context and this these kind of mixed 12 zone districts, they were intended for these kind of areas. So, you know, Steph believes that this zone requested zone district is appropriate for this area, consistent with the type of development that we would like to see in the Denver Tech Center.
Speaker 5: Okay. So. And no one can possibly know this. But, you know, I. A block away. You know, this was the infamous JD Edwards campus that became PeopleSoft. And I mean, this is the adjacent parcel to that. And if I'm looking at this aerial, there was an area that was mapped with a sea of surface parking in this suburban in what was originally mapped out as a suburban business campus and a commuter business campus. And yeah, that was the thinking. Back then, JD Edwards lost out big time after a huge rise in what was supposed to be a campus of a bunch of five story buildings with associated parking lots and a 20 story or more tower as the centerpiece is now three storey apartment buildings with a surfeit, a whole bunch of suburban parking lots as well. And and so now we're doing another infill piece like that. That's what is essentially being rezoning for is another infill piece. I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong with that, but I just don't understand. You know what? I would like to know if the city is consciously thinking about, you know, are we about this sort of how forms relate to one another in order to sort of most benefit this study, which is sort of the justifying sort of justify circumstances, changing conditions because the new zoning, the proximity to this rail, you know, I'm comfortable moving forward because of the criteria as we know it. But I'm a little bit you can sense some hesitation and sort of concern because having seen sort of the progression of the tech center from nothing to something and then now something radically different, I'm wondering what's guiding it if we don't have any area plans or anything. And so I don't know, I don't expect you to have the answers, but I do I do raise this concern because we have other development opportunities throughout this city, Greenfield and Brownfield, that might end up in this sort of weird. Physician as well. And I don't know if it's healthy or not from a police fire safety public works because no one's sort of informing me that it worked. This is the proper way to develop because it is something very different than the way we're treating lower downtown or the central Platt Valley or 30th and Lake 41st. And I mean Globeville Island. So thanks. Hi. Sorry, I switch. I forgot to still in.
Speaker 0: That's all right. We're going to move on, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Scott, I have a question for you. Does the city have any criteria for residential developments that are within in close proximity to highways, specifically around the windows? Do we require any particular either thickness or we require double pane windows when we're doing when we're approving developments that are within a close proximity to residential. I mean, two highways.
Speaker 12: Yeah, that's a good question. I do not know the answer to that. That would be handled on the development side. So with as part of the site development plan. Okay. So I don't know if the applicant knows that, but I'm not aware.
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm going to have have to come up in answer a couple of different questions. But if you know the answer to that one, it would be helpful.
Speaker 10: Yeah, unfortunately, I don't know the answer directly to that one. But and I was thinking in terms also of Councilman Espinosa's comments, I will get a copy of those design guidelines for this area.
Speaker 11: Just yeah, I think it would be helpful to know wherever we are approving. I know we had one that came through last week on a parcel that was owned by the city, and I didn't think to ask that question. But we do know that residential that's within 500 feet of a highway generally has greater health impacts on people that live there. So the windows, the outdoor patio, sometimes those things are important to look at how we're how we're addressing those. Do you know what percentage of the development would include residential?
Speaker 10: Yeah, at this point, I'm not sure. There was actually originally when this process got started, a residential developer, multifamily developer that was interested in the property. And during this process, they no longer. Wanted to continue for whatever reason, contractually. So I kind of came in in midterm with this now with the applicant, the property owner saying, you know, to continue to market this property and have it have the same context as the general area. But that was the original thought process. I know of some sort of residential at this property and I think that maybe the highest and best of what the those developers said.
Speaker 11: Do you know what their plans are for the site?
Speaker 10: But to this point, I don't know of any solid plans for the site, nor do I think is anything has been submitted to the city as far as site planning for the site at this point.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing no other questions for the public hearing for council bill 291 is closed. Other comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this. There's really not much to oppose. It's part of the Denver Tech Center. It is a suburban office park. It does have very restrictive guidelines in the Denver Tech Center. And we couldn't reason it downtown and expect to have that kind of density there, because that's not what the Denver Tech Center is. Anyway, I'm in favor of it and it'd be great for housing. It's nice to see housing now going sprinkling in to the Denver Tech Center. It's great for people who work out there. It is not a tod. You can perhaps ride a bike to the Belleview station, but it's not really walkable to the police station. But thank you. I will be supporting it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black's. You know other comments. Madame Secretary Walker.
Speaker 1: Black Eye Espinosa, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn, I.
Speaker 1: Herndon Cashman. Canete Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4552 South Ulster St. in Hampden South.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4552 South Ulster Street from B-8 with waivers UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 (business zoning in the former chapter 57 zoning to suburban, mixed-use) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05072018_18-0306
|
Speaker 1: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 I as accountable to 91 has passed. Councilwoman Stutzman, will you please put Kels Bill 306 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Well, certainly, Mr. President, I move that council bill 306 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 306 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Good evening, members of council. My name is only spoke with CPD here to present the tax amendment to address human development comprehensively throughout the city and county of Denver. So just a quick reminder of what our slot home's it's not specific to one building form nor zone district. So this is really a comprehensive citywide issue that we've had to tackle holistically. But generally speaking, slot homes or any sort of multifamily development that is side by side with the predominant characteristic of being side facing at the street. On the slide you can see a couple of diagrams as well as images illustrating a couple of different common slot home configurations. So at a very high level, the purpose of this project was to develop changes to the Denver zoning code in a way that holistically address home development to better engage the public realm. Consider the neighborhood character to be more in context. Address the human scale minimizes vehicular auto oriented impacts of the existing design while ensuring equity flexibility and predictability. And I'll get a little bit more into each of those items. But first, I want to talk a little bit more about the process that has gotten us here today. In the fall of 2016, CPD announced that we would be taking on this tax amendment. Smaller changes were made to the zoning code in prior years that were some of the quick wins. But understanding that this building form was occurring in a variety of zoned districts and a mix of building forms, we needed to really start holistically looking at it and specifically identify what that problem was. We had heard a lot from the community as well as from council members too, that this is an ugly form. We don't like it. It's not within character of our neighborhood, but we really needed to further identify that. And so the first phase of the project was really existing conditions, analysis of studying the neighborhoods and the zoning standards that were being exploited to create this form and then really creating and crafting with our task force. That problem statement, as we mentioned, we had a task force that was really critical and crucial to guiding this process. And that task force was a diverse representation of developers who were common, who commonly developed this type of building form architects and designers, community advocates and neighborhood representatives as well as council members here. So we really had a great diverse group of people with varying opinions on what the solution should be. But we started that off by getting a solid footing of what that problem is, and then went out to the general public and had a public meeting and Council District one with great attendance. About 80 people came out to really help us craft and refine what the problem is that we were solving for that resulted in the problem ID report. And then we started moving along to evaluate different zoning tool strategies that could be used to effectively address this problem. We also looked at Peer Cities to determine what sort of tools were going to be most effective. Here we had another series of task force meetings, also started doing some additional outreach to registered neighborhood organizations, to the planning board, as well as an informational item to really kind of kick start where we were. The bulk of the work was really in this third phase where we were selecting that strategy. And what I mean by strategy is a set of zoning tools that was going to be used to address lot home development, acknowledging that that strategy was going to vary based off of neighborhood context as well as our zoned districts. So with that, we had five different task force meetings. We had another community open house as well as six R.A. meetings that we went to and then the release of the strategy report as well as an additional planning board info item and LUDI infill item. We also consulted various industry representatives that were not on the task force to give us additional external gut check to really make sure, are we closing all the loopholes that we're intending to? And also, are we still allowing for a buildable product to be completed at the end of the day? So really where we are is a culmination in this final phase and that's the adoption phase. So with that, we had our final task force meeting in which we reviewed that draft redline review of the Text Amendment, which was informed by that strategy report. We also continued to go out to the R.A. and provide additional information and feedback there. And then we also released the public review draft for over 30 days prior to that first planning board public hearing, then went to Lou de Council and are here before you tonight for consideration of that text amendment. As of tonight, we have received eight letters of support from various Arnaud's excuse me, seven letters of support from various R.A. within the city, an additional letter of support from an individual, and then a couple of other comment letters that either express explicit support or not, but rather further refinements. Some of those refinements have been integrated into the draft before you when they were consistent with the overall strategy report and those objectives. So as you can see, that was a very comprehensive process that really started out with crafting this this problem statement. And also at a high level, what we found was the problem was it wasn't engaging in the public realm as you can. See on that top right photo. The pedestrian entry was a fire access control panel, and only the fire department is going through there, not the guests or the residents of the property. There was no window transparency as art and other alternatives are being used. And then you had kind of a predominant dry vial. So you don't have that public realm engagement, nor is it in character with the neighborhood design. The building mass scale, as you can see, is out of proportion to the existing buildings in the area, very clearly oriented with predominant drive veils running through and also interrupting that pedestrian experience along the sidewalk as well as those impacts and neighbors, especially with those rooftop decks in the rear. We also as well as having that problem statement, it was important to craft criteria for successful solutions that we were constantly going back and checking ourselves on the first one really being effective. This text amendment needed to and does effectively address that problem statement for us to arbitrarily proposed changes to the zoning code that would not be in alignment with this effective statement. It was also important that this met the needs of all the stakeholders, which was why it was so critical to have such a diverse and robust task force as well as maintaining housing options. We know that side by side residential is not going anywhere any time soon. So how can we improve side by side residential to still maintain that as an appropriate housing option throughout our city while allowing for flexibility, understanding that market design demands of our market is going to change over time and we need to build in that appropriate flexibility. Contrasting with it, though, but complementary is the important aspect of predictability. It's important for developers to understand what the zoning code means in terms of what their development potential is. It's also important for property owners and neighbors to understand what can happen across the street from them, next to them to their rear. So improving the predictability of is also a key element of this process. So in terms of kind of how this played out, we evaluated that existing slot home, looked at the existing conditions and crafted that problem statement and criteria for successful solutions. And that bulk of phase two, we really evaluated a variety of different zoning tools to really determine which ones are going to be most appropriate and what districts. And then we kind of broke it out into three different solutions or strategies, starting with the mixed use zone districts and mixed use districts are AMC's aims are some districts in that kind of third category. And these are typically our most intensive mixed use. Some districts that not only allow for residential uses, but also commercial office and even light industrial uses in some cases. So what we did is we actually introduced a new building form, the townhouse building form, which I'll speak to a little bit more . Then we also made similar changes into our multi-unit zoned district, which is typically restricted to residential uses and then down to our lowest intensity multi-unit zoned district, the row house zone district. And on a walk through each of these from highest intensity zone districts to lower intensity zone district. So on the screen, here is an example of an existing slot home that could have either been built in the general building form or the shopfront building form. And through the changes proposed in this tax amendment before you, you would no longer be able to use building forms to construct side by side residential dwelling units. Instead, if you're going to be using the shopfront of the general building form, you'll need to be doing either stacked units or a mix of uses or something else that you may not be using these building forms any further for side by side residential configurations. Alternately, though, we're still allowing for you to do side by side residential, but you're going to be using a new building form and that's a townhouse building form. And as you can see, the main tool here is that dwelling units that are located near the street must be oriented to the street. So allowing for additional density to occur in the rear and all the different standards that we're using are really intended to address that problem statement and ensure that we're meeting our criteria for successful solutions. So the biggest one here is creating a new standard that requires units that are located near the street to be oriented towards the street. So it creates more of a row house appearance from the street. We've also increased our primary street setback as well as our side street setbacks previously in the general or the shopfront building form. Those were zero foot setbacks and they didn't allow for the appropriate transition of public to private space, which is more appropriate for a residential development. So we've increased those setbacks, but then also allowed for porches and canopies and other required entry features to encroach into that space and create human scaling elements that are consistent with the neighborhood character. We've also reduced the building height and so we're no longer going to be getting four storey up hearing buildings and three storey zone districts. So better aligning building height and feet with building height and stories as well as requiring entry features such as canopies or porches and increasing that transparency standard of windows required at the street level as well as revising building. New standards to eliminate loopholes and garden walls that weren't creating outcomes as intended for the build, too. So these are kind of the high level elements that are applied to the mix. You. Some districts you can see in the red line review draft of the further details. Multi-unit zoned districts include multi-unit as well as our residential office. Some districts we have two building forms that we were seeing a lot home outcomes, the first of which was in the Garden Corp building form. And as you can see, this is an example of what could have been constructed in the Garden Corp building form and with a required width of only 15 feet for that garden court, it was much more like a slot than a court yard. So you may no longer construct an outcome that might look like this, but ultimately something that looks a little bit more like this. The big items to know is that we increase that courtyard width to a minimum of either 30 feet or 33% of the zone lot with whichever is greater, adding a proportional standard that is more appropriate. We've also required landscaping in the courtyard where none was previously required. We also introduced a transparency standard where none previously existed required entry features and required residential uses to enclose that garden card. So before you could just have your garage as an enclosure, which is not traditional or in alignment with that form, and hence no residential uses need to be enclosing it. We've also limited the off street parking area to the front of the lot, so you can't have dry vales coming along the side and accessing it and creating the outcome and increase the zone lot standards to 75 feet wide or 9000 square feet to ensure that this building form is in alignment with where it could actually be built. The other building form that was problematic in the multi-unit zoned districts was apartment building form. And as you can see, you could build something like this, which is no longer going to be allowed in apartment building form. If you want to use the apartment building form, you'll need to be doing a stacked unit configuration as opposed to a side by side dwelling unit configuration. What we have here is how the new townhouse building form that you would be required to use in the multi-unit zoned district. Once again, all of these standards that we're applying here are intended to address that problem statement and be consistent with the criteria for successful solutions. Once again, we're requiring dwelling units to be oriented to the street. We've also revised the primary street and block sensitive set back in these districts to create a better transition over time. And we've also increased that side interior setback greatly. A big difference between the mixed use and the multi-unit zoned districts is that that side interior setback for dwelling units that are not oriented to the street have been increased to 12 and a half feet while still allowing for some encroachments like canopies to occur in this area. But acknowledging that these are residential zoned districts, those impacts, the neighbors are going to be greater. So that's a significant change there between the two zone districts, as well as reducing building height, requiring entry features and increasing the transparency standard with revisions to the build to standard. Our real house zone districts are our lowest intensity multi-unit zoned districts. And what we had here was existing Garden Corp building forms. Once you can see not really a garden, not really a court. And we looked at exploring and utilizing many of the tools that we use in the multi-unit zoned district. But upon further evaluation and discussion with the task force, the Garden Corp. building form really wasn't going to be an appropriate building form for our lowest intensity, multi-unit zoned districts. So ultimately, we have eliminated that garden court building format as an allowable building form in the row house zone districts as well as townhouse. And instead, if you have a large plot like this, you're going to be doing a side by side townhouse construction where no additional dwelling units are located in the rear. We are also seeing configurations like this occurring within our rowhouse zone districts and this was an exploitation of a standard that required each dwelling unit to have a street facing entrance. And as you can see, there's another set of dwelling units in the rear that are street facing entrances, but they did not create the intended outcome of a row house. So what we've required now is that each dwelling unit must be oriented to the street, and there's more dimensional standards that require each of those dwelling units to be oriented to the street, not allowing for additional dwelling units to be tucked away and located in the rear, as this is our lowest intensity multi-unit zoned district. Also, just want to speak to a couple of overall code changes that go beyond the specific zoned districts in terms of improving predictability. A lot of our intent statements were created in 2010, but our zoning code has kind of evolved and changed over time. So we really wanted to make sure that each of these building forms were adequately captured. And so changes to those intent statements have been made, as well as graphics that more accurately illustrate potential outcomes for those building forms, improving supplemental design standards and rules of measurements to have a more clear, consistent administration occur and then also eliminating loopholes. We are also seeing a lot of loopholes occurring and in smaller building forms. And so those have also been eliminated as well. And then we've also made some some improvements to improve overall flexibility by revising the vehicular dimensional standard. Previously, you needed a 23 foot wide driver, which is the same as what you might need in a parking lot for a Walmart. But realizing that these are smaller developments that's been reduced down to 20 feet. So utilizing more space more effectively, we've also made some revisions to set back encroachments to allow some additional flexibility there for building articulation and canopies and so forth. And then we've also built in flexibility to the new standard such as unit orientation. So allows for slight variations and dogs to occur, understanding that those constraints on certain zone lots might be greater than others. And then we've also introduced a new kind of incentive for building heights with the pitched roof. So now pitched roofs, instead of being measured exactly the same as flat roofs, almost have an incentive as they're offered greater height for pitches. So in terms of this tax amendment, there are three review criteria that staff evaluates us against its consistency with adopted plans, furthering the public health, safety and welfare and results in uniform regulation across zone districts. So with this, I'll be focusing on the two citywide land use plans, the first being comp plan 2000, which is further detailed in the staff report, but really talks about encouraging infill development that's consistent with the character of the surrounding area. And what we were finding was that homes weren't consistent with that. So we are now applying new standards that further reinforce the neighborhood character, as well as ensuring that the new Denver zoning code reinforces the quality of urban design. So by improving standards such as transparency, pedestrian entry unit orientation, these are all in alignment with the comp plan. 2000 Recommendations Blueprint Denver at a high level talks about improving compatibility to the buildings and surrounding areas. Additional tools have been introduced regarding protected districts and so forth. And then I'd even talk specifically about developing standards to regulate building dimensions as well as unit oriented. And so really in alignment with some of those strategies for Blueprint Denver Blueprint, Denver also provides recommendations for areas of stability which are most commonly mapped in mixed use and Main Street areas. And what we're wanting to do is not only maintain the existing character, but also still accommodate for some new development and redevelopment, which this text amendment does still allow for, while improving compatibility and maintaining diversity of housing types and costs by allowing for side by side residential to occur in these areas. Excuse me. And then for areas of change, we have similar types of recommendations, but also really speaks to the importance of pedestrian supportive development standards. So really focusing on enhancing those those zoning standards that are at the street to ensure that we're creating an appropriate transition from public to private space in a way that's compatible with the neighborhood and the zone district, also eliminating auto dominant standards or removing that driver from splitting down the middle of these buildings and maintaining a diversity of housing types so that CPD finds that this maximum is consistent with the city's adopted plans. We also find that it furthers the public health, safety and wellbeing welfare by providing clear, predictable zoning regulations that reinforce the desired character of the neighborhood while implementing the city's adopted plans. And that these regulations will result in uniform application for side by side residential across the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. A lot of information to get through there. I appreciate it. We do have six individuals sign up to speak this evening. So I would ask that if you signed up to speak on this this evening, if you could make your way up to the front bench so that we can get through everybody efficiently . First up, we have Heather Noyes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My name is Heather Noise. I live at 4492 Xavier Street and I was on the task, the slot Home Task Force. And my role on the task force was to represent INC and I was very happy to do that. On March 10th, CPD came to the and presented to the delegates at INC and they voted on a motion. The delegates were presented with a motion and they voted to support this test. The slot Home Amendment 52 in support zero opposed to abstentions. And I asked tonight that you support the the amendment. I think it's fabulous. I want to say big kudos to CPD. Annalise Hawk and Mike Hughes developed, managed and facilitated a just stellar process. It was accessible, transparent, inclusive, very thorough. And but it was not easy. It was super challenging. It was contentious at times. It was tedious, as we discussed and and argued about nomenclature and inches and feet. And this truly is a compromise. I don't want anybody to think that this is a win for the neighborhoods. It is not. I think we left a lot of things on the table, especially in my role as a neighborhood advocate, and it doesn't go far enough. You may hear from developers tonight that says that that will tell you it goes too far. But I really believe that this is a long overdue course correction. And I want to thank CPD for a great job. I have two comments. A vibrant, evolving city is a result of multiple systems functioning simultaneously, and there were many comments raised by the task force, by the public, by residents, the slat homes that pertained to and actually warranted the engagement of other departments, public works, forestry and solid waste. And some of these issues remain unresolved. And I say to you that in 2018, the days of siloed planning processes should be far behind us. The second comment I have is I've had developers tell me that if there's loopholes in our zoning code, they're going to find them. They've said that to me privately. They said it to me at the slot Home Task Force. And so it leads me to believe that this isn't the last time that we're going to see building forms that subvert the intent of the zoned district. And when this happens, CPD staff should have the authority to raise a red flag and put a brake on the replication of any building form that does not meet the intent of the zoned districts. We are spending millions of dollars as a city on visioning and we need the tools. And I'm.
Speaker 0: Sorry I missed noise, but time.
Speaker 1: Itself needs the authority to stop it.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 10: Jesse Paris. Denver. Homeless out loud. Black Star Action Movie for Self-defense. So it's my understanding that there is a moratorium on this lot homes as of right now until November. It looks like these spot homes are not affordable by any means. Like their lowest starts at $220,000 and goes all the way up to $700,000. This is definitely not addressing the affordable housing issue that Colorado and Denver is experiencing right now. Also. These do, I would ask members of council if you do approve this was it seems like you are leaves room for. In amendments. Such as? Am I such as? Is this going to be just for ranchers or is this going to be for ownership? Is it going to be a combination of the two and also north south orientation of the slot homes? So if a developer or owner wanted to put a solar panel up, they could and. Yeah. I'm just not in agreement with this. This is not the answer to the affordable housing crisis that Denver is experiencing right now. So I would ask members of council to actually vote no on this and actually take more in-depth research and observation into the effectiveness of this lot homes. And really, who is going to occupy these slot homes? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, security grant.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of Council. My name is Gertrude Lagarde. Grant and I live at 242 South Lincoln Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a member of an R.A. that goes from Downing to Broadway, Spear to I 25. And we already have several of these slot homes in our neighborhood, one of which was constructed before the zoning code was amended in 2010. And my experience in delivering leaflets or fliers to these slot homes has been very discouraging. It's as though they don't want us to come to their front doors because their front doors are so at least the ones that I've gone to, they never come out. They never go out their front doors because there is no real front door. It's a door down on the ground. The dust, the leaves, everything is blown around. And it's as though they really don't want to be part of the neighborhood. There is no engagement, as they say. I love this term in the public realm. I'm not good at articulating this language, but I'm hopeful that this zoning code amendment, the zoning code amendments, will make it easier for the people that live in those houses to engage with the neighborhood and for the neighborhood to engage with them. So I support the zoning code amendment, and I can't believe Annalise Hawk got through that whole thing so fast. I wondered if she was breathing. It was amazing.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Charlotte Lindenberg.
Speaker 2: Good evening, members of Council. Charlotte Winsberg. I live at 590 South Sherman Street in the West Washington Park Neighborhood Organization, which, as you probably know from the letters we've sent, supports this amendment. As good said, we just have a few of these, but we've seen how much damage they did. And I want to really applaud the task force, especially up there and CPD, for the beautiful work they did on this project. Though these new designs and shapes look as though it would be a place people would want to live, not something that they would take because it was the only thing they could get in their price range or their accessibility. The changes in the setbacks are wonderful. I'm not going to take up more, much more of your time just to say that this is an amendment that really deserves your support and perhaps maybe not only the. Poster child for unintended consequences as we go down the road.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Citigroup.
Speaker 3: Chairman Sekou Black starts a movement. Contrary to. Many popular beliefs. Organization is not opposed to folks that got money. We're not. You're not. And we believe in the freedom that people need to have in terms of movement and selecting the neighborhoods that they choose to live in according to their ability to pay to be in that neighborhood . And so we approved this because of the work that was done by the task force. And considering all of the elements that are involved in terms of making this happen without actually pitting the neighborhood against itself and acrimony where folks don't want to live next door to each other because of zoning changes and building changes and architectures and whatnot. Know me personally. And I know sense and my. Looking at that up there for half million dollars. That's ugly. That's ugly. I, I just. But who am I to tell you? Well, it looks pretty for you. And what neighborhood you want to live in. Ugly house for half a million dollars. Buy it. And congratulations on a real estate broker who can sell it. Outstanding marketing. And. Thanks the folks who participated in this because reading it on the agenda, it was kind of confusing, you know, in terms of you don't want it to be slanted to here. But it was said it was going to be over there 20 feet. And that's not right. Because supposed to be like this only. Really? And then it's like.
Speaker 0: How did that happen?
Speaker 3: Because this is a big change in terms of what was said in the text and what we're now proposing in terms of the orientation of being a primary street versus a side street. And it's like. Okay. So I think planning for catching up and making a change to that because that's what happens down here, that this is not a perfect process, it's not perfect people. And the truth is to make this thing work. And I'm close with this. This is the teamwork that we were talking about that makes the dream of this city work. And we catch it when we catch it, and we're not throwing nobody on the bus for it and we move it on down the road, because for this city, it involves everybody. No matter what your income is, no matter what your tastes are, esthetic values and whatnot. So I'm close with that group.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Last up, Maggie Miller.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Thank you for your service to this city. My name is Maggie Miller. I live at 451 24th Street and I have served on the slot Home Task Force since January of 2017. I am here to speak to the process that led to this day and ask you to please approve amended Council Bill 18 0306. Let's see. I hate slot homes. Hate them. Have you walked down a street with slot Holmes? I know some of us have here. It feels like being in a canyon. Slight. Holmes turned their shoulders to the street. So all you see as you're walking down the street is just a big blank wall. Denver at its best is a city of neighborhoods. DENVER It's at our best. Our good neighbors to each other. Imagine yourself walking along a sidewalk in your neighborhood, or maybe the neighborhood of a friend that doesn't have slot homes. Picture yourself waving to the elderly lady on the porch, chatting with the young couple, tending plants on their front stoop, or just saying hi to the guy sitting in front of his house coming out his front door. None of this can happen with slot homes, so I'm so glad we changed this about the process. It brought different voices into the room. It was very well facilitated and structured and it was informed by really knowledgeable people. The 16 of us were a varied group. We had developers, architects, neighbors like me, city council members and more. We definitely brought her different perspectives to the table. I learned about a lot of things I had never thought about before, and I felt heard. It was incredibly well facilitated. Mike Set It Up, was our facilitator, and he did an amazing job of keeping us moving forward while still making sure that everyone had to say we refined our problem statement criteria. We had a solid foundation for productive conversations. And in one of the slides, I don't know if you noticed, but we were on a field trip and we actually got to visit real slot homes and that was a bonding process. CPD staff and again, a shout out to Annalise Hook was amazingly knowledgeable. My hat's off to them. I'm in awe of them, frankly. So I'll wrap this up by saying that this process brought a variety of people to the table. It was very well facilitated and structured. It was informed by excellent, live, knowledgeable people. And I hope that you will approve this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions for members of council? Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just wondering whether or not any of the city.
Speaker 1: Staff had passed on the kind of list of items that were outside your scope, but pointed to the lack of coordination or even consistency between departments that I.
Speaker 2: Think it was Heather who.
Speaker 1: Referenced in terms of forestry and conflicting requirements. So is there some follow up plan for those types of items that didn't fit this amendment?
Speaker 13: Yeah, absolutely. So this law home tax amendment was really focused solely on addressing side by side residential. And so broader items like tree lawn requirements that apply to any development was something that was a little bit beyond the scope of this project. And we did city staff work to reach out early on, especially in the process with various agency departments, letting them be made aware that this was a process that was going on that we were hearing from our task force members and members of the public that there were comments that were related to them. So they've all been forwarded on and are aware of that in terms of specific projects to move each of these items forward. I can't speak to that as that would be a little bit beyond the role of CPD. But absolutely our intent is to make sure that we're not just siloing and only looking at the impacts of this within the zoning code, but understanding broader development.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman.
Speaker 14: At least can you talk just a little bit to clarify the moratorium and also the November deadline, please?
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 13: Just is going to throw this up. So as Made mentioned before, there's actually been two moratoriums that council has passed related to the sex movement. One is back in 2016, and that was a moratorium on the garden court building form, which primarily addressed the garden court building form and row house. Some districts, but probably more notable is the moratorium that was passed earlier this year in March, on March 10th, I believe that was. But essentially what that created was an earlier deadline. Typically the night of the council hearing is sort of that final deadline for projects to either be submitted or approved, depending on the ordinance language. What that moratorium essentially did was create an earlier cut off date. So any project that wanted to use existing regulations and essentially create a slot home outcome needed to be submitted with a formal site development plan prior to March 14th of this year. Any of those projects have until November 10th of this year to gain approval. If a project were to come into our door today, they would not be able to use old criteria and would be needing to use the new tax amendment review criteria. We have seen people submitting concepts and staff has been reviewing those concepts under the public review draft as well.
Speaker 14: At least that was the compromise of the task force. Right, to give a little extra time to use the old criteria for the developers that were not correct. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: I thank you, Mr. President. And Liz, thank you again for a wonderful presentation and speedy presentation. I have a question about the garden court. Can you bring up the slide of the one that has the garden in front of the buildings that shows the picture? Okay. Thank you. I was walking my neighborhood this weekend and we have some beautiful garden court areas in in my district, built in the thirties and the forties. Single family homes around a very wide garden. When I look at this. I understand that there are still going to be able to build something like that. Right. But it has to be. Is it 30 feet across instead of the 15 feet? Are they going are they going to be required to have transparency up against the. Because I notice that the ones that I have built in the thirties and forties, they don't necessarily have big wide buildings or big wide windows facing the street, although they're lovely. Are they going to be required to have that kind of transparency on the street?
Speaker 13: So these will be required to have a level of transparency. So it's not going to be as high as the townhouse building form or, say, an apartment building form. That transparency will be 30% of the building fronting the street. So it's going to be more than what is required today, which is none. But there will be a transparency requirement, and we're still wanting to engage the street with some some amount of activation.
Speaker 4: You said it would have to be 30% of the of the.
Speaker 5: Of the.
Speaker 4: What is it, the square feet, you said.
Speaker 13: So it's 30% of essentially that linear distance of the street level building that is near the the street.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And let me say I have a question for you as well. On slide number 35. There's a statement that says, eliminate auto oriented standards. Can you just elaborate on what that means? Yeah. I mean, I see the pictures, but that doesn't really tell me what that means.
Speaker 13: And those photos are just really illustrating the areas of change within our city of Denver. Ultimately, by eliminating auto oriented uses, we're wanting to remove those auto oriented uses away from the public realm, away from that public street, and put it to the rear closer to the alley. So we're not having drive sales cutting across where people are walking and, you know, improving overall pedestrian safety, as well as not having parking areas or driveways that are really visible and predominant features from the public right of way.
Speaker 11: That's very clear. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. My question actually is for our attorneys. I'm wondering.
Speaker 6: Does is there anything that would.
Speaker 0: Prohibit vesting power and whether the director of community planning and development to step in when when a.
Speaker 3: Loophole is found.
Speaker 0: And the obvious intent of an ordinance is undermined? Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney. I would just say that the charter vests this body with the zoning powers for the city. So if there were changes, they would have to come back through this body as some sort of action. In other words, we would need to craft an ordinance giving that power to the director of CPD. Potentially. I mean, we would really have to look at what that language looked like. I would just refer that, you know, the charter really gives this.
Speaker 5: Body the power that if.
Speaker 0: There was some sort of loophole, it. You know, the the charter says that it should come back through here for some sort of zoning text amendment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Along that line, Adam, is the ability for the director of part of the director of CPD to initiate text amendments. Is that solely in the zoning in the in the ordinance or is that in charter as well?
Speaker 0: I'm gonna have to look at the zoning codes because I'm not sure the manager doesn't initiate text amendments. I think that is a council process.
Speaker 13: The manager of CBD can initiate text amendments. Can, yes. And in this case, CBD initiated this text amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Oh yes. That's I'm sorry. That's, that's often.
Speaker 5: The reason being is if we played that out, I guess what you, you, the manager would always have that ability to, to recognize and to sort of immediately put forward a text amendment to address, you know, a potential pitfall, sort of what we do with our text amendment process as it is. But it could be sort of closer to real time. You know, they wouldn't necessarily have the ability to stop something per se, but they could make a decision that then gets appealed to the Board of Adjustment. And during that amount of time, it certainly could come before council. It's just saying that's a possibility. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council 306 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Annalise. I've come to other looting meetings for your presentations, and you're incredible. It is so professional. Your presentation. You explained it in a way that everyone can understand. And I think you just did a really incredible job. And I think a lot of people are really happy. This is a big problem in our city. I don't have any of my neighborhood guys and I'm glad I don't because I agree with you. They're really ugly. So thank you and thank you all for serving on that task force. I know that's a big commitment to.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Girl, I should have asked you a question on how many public hearings you've spoken at and how many of these things you've been involved with. Because you you you said on a least was our analysts or I've been saying it wrong all the time is amazing. And she she is. And she was. And the and you also mentioned that CPD staff was. Yeah. It was a great adjective. Something like it wasn't quite as amazing, but it was close. So I just wanted to reiterate those sorts of things. I wish I could remember the word because in the presentation slides 20 about roughly 23 to 29 is really a quick fire going through all the changes when they're sort of stacked stacked graphics that you don't really get into. And what was in there and was evident is not I don't think not necessarily evident to everybody in the room throughout the process. But who did get discussed is sort of the totality of concerns that have been raised and CPD has been tracking and they did get some measure of addressing throughout this process. And so the comprehensiveness of this within the framework of zoning is to me amazing. And I was watching it happen as an as a member of the task force. But a lot of times I was sort of just I was struck at how how the process was working to get to get at as close to the right outcome as possible. And in some cases, a better the outcome than I thought was possible in many cases, actually. And that's a credit to both the facilitator and to an Elise's managing in guiding us through the process and also getting us all up to speed, because there was a very, very vast knowledge gap between the stakeholders that were present. And to get people that generally don't talk about these things comfortable with sharing their ideas and conveying them, and then being understood and getting developers who try and sort of, you know, nuance these things to death to get their outcomes that benefit them and have that discussion. So that we we got to this point was was impressive to observe and and just yeah as long as it did take it was I think some of you guys acknowledged it it was actually pretty quick. In some regards, it's a long time coming. But it was pretty quick in the end. And. And. You know, it's so in the end, I'm just I agree with Heather, your comments and concerns about it not going all the way. But there are certain things that fall outside of zoning that relate more to addressing the sort of final bits of concern. With respect to public realm and design guidelines and standards that I hope and I trust that that that the city is working on, not hopefully in a faster timeline than what we've seen with addressing these big picture things on onslaught homes in general. But as far as what what we what we created in 2010 and how far we could go to compromise. I am really, really impressed with your work on police and your work staff. All you guys and all the people that also you. You're probably about a third to a fourth of the different CPD staff that stepped into that room opined on different things. And I'm sure there are others that never stepped into that room that were part of this process. This was a lot of work, and you guys hit every little touch point that needed to be addressed that that fell within your bailiwick. And I look forward to sort of supporting other conversations within, you know, with respect to public works and solid waste and the city forester trying to address those through other means where we can in a case in a sort of more local based basis. But as far as a citywide effort to address this unintended consequence and the potential outcome, I think will result in sort of better public realm, better civic engagement, at least by those occupants that are on those those those units oriented towards the street and engage the public realm on a regular basis. And it will it will be a way to capture increased density still in a way that is more conducive to our the character of our of our neighborhoods. So. That that is. I don't have enough. I've already said too much. But at the same time, I just. I could go on and I won't. All night. About how well you guys did. And how happy and impressed I am with the work that you guys did. And the way you shepherd, you in particular, shepherded this entire group. And I don't feel like anybody felt like they were left behind or unhurt in this process. And so I just really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: And thank you, councilman.
Speaker 14: Councilman do annalisa i guess everybody is just praising you tonight and i will to you. Great leadership. You provided the team, too. You know, we had just great research on what we were doing and they just provided us with such great information and ideas. And I love the the visits we made. We saw some of the ugliest homes in the world and some of the some that really worked out pretty good. So it was very interesting the way it was all handled in. And I'm sure that with all the praise you're getting and I was watching and ready to give you a raise tomorrow, I'm sure Task Force was incredible. Was absolutely incredible. Yes. From the comments. Yeah. From Heather. Maggie, you can tell how our intelligent our test workers were. They did great for representing our neighborhoods. Great. And developers were very interesting. We had a lot of challenging comments and a lot of great discussion. So I was real pleased and it was is amazing too. That hadn't been mentioned is we came up with unanimous decisions on what we proposed and what we came forward with in terms of timeliness. And and so it was a, a task force that worked well together. And, and council council should be pleased to have in council as well as with their expertize in architecture is really helpful as well. Real pleased with the professional way we things have changed the design now and really feel good about the new criteria and how it's really going to help neighborhood character and support our neighborhoods and and is really going to like have a vision. It's going to bring better intent to the zoning district. We had a real problem trying to figure out where to turn when it did match some of the building forms. And this is a really great way that this being straightened out is so, so. And one interesting thing is our family and my colleagues will appreciate this because I finally met some architects to look at our debate now, Councilman Espinosa, at the task force meeting. So but anyway, it was an incredible job. We were really pleased. We pleased to support this. And it is going to be a great addition to the zoning code. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem, I just wanted to add my appreciation as well. First to my colleagues, Councilman Nu and Councilman Espinosa, who really kind of pushed bringing this issue forward, trying to get CPD to assign staff to to work on this issue in. And Luis, you done an outstanding job along with your colleagues who were in the room today and obviously with the input from the residents and the developers coming to a place where normally this room would be packed with folks on both sides of the issue sharing their opposition or their their favor for this piece of legislation. And the fact that we pretty much had everybody in support of moving this whole thing forward speaks a lot to the process. And the fact that people really, as was stated by my colleagues, felt like they were listened to and input was incorporated into what's been brought forward to the floor of council tonight. And I just want to say thank you to all of you who were involved in making this happen. You can drive through neighborhoods across the city and see some of these sprinkled throughout. You can drive through the Sloan's Lake neighborhood and see them all lined up on certain streets where they basically have wiped out single family homes and are, you know, kind of throughout that neighborhood. And I think these changes will be really great for not just the neighborhoods that these are being placed in, but for the folks who will be living there, who will feel like they are part of the neighborhood as well. So congratulations to all of you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to congratulate a lot of the folks in the community, our staff, CPD staff, but two councilmen over there we knew and Rafael Espinoza. I know this is a this was a growing issue as a lot of head scratching. And, you know, this council has a lot of talent. And it was able to I think, you know, every every council member brings different things to the council. And this is one of those examples of what they bring in and how we were able to work with the community and with staff to create a solution where there was a lot of folks kind of scratching their heads in frustration. I think without a doubt, these slot homes were an abuse of our zoning code, plain and simple. The robbed our neighborhoods of character and the rob residents of community. So I'm glad to see that tonight. At least they'll be one measure in place to, uh, to correct an issue. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Rebecca, I've.
Speaker 5: Forgotten two very important things. I want to thank my colleagues throughout this process, recognizing the importance of this process. Because it was that recognition. Repeated questioning of of things as we went along that lent the support to Councilman New and myself throughout this process. But I also forgot to acknowledge that none of this would have happened without weighing, you know, really initiating the first the moratorium that, you know, needed to happen on garden court and then sort of creating the path, a creating a pathway for us to actually get to this task force by sort of encouraging the use of resources that were always at the ready, but that were very much in need and in so many things in this city. And so thank you, Councilman knew working with CPD director Brad Buchanan in sort of initiating this whole thing and letting it happen. I think it's clear it needed to. And and so. Thank you, councilman. You. And colleagues.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Well, seeing no other comments, I'll just add, you know, this is great because not only does it clearly meet the criteria and it's a feel good in the room with everybody supporting, but it's going to directly lead to better development in our communities, which is really important. And so I want to thank everybody who on the staff side, on the council side, on the community side, who work together to bring this forward, make it happen. I'm excited vote yesterday and I just want to give a shout out to Charlotte and 32 of my district seven residents who spent more of their time and their talent and their expertize and their knowledge advocating for their community than anybody I know. It's inspiring to me to see you out at these things time and again and at every meeting, and just you constantly fighting for our neighborhoods. And so thank you for what you do as well. With that, Madam Secretary, I think we are ready for roll call.
Speaker 1: New Ortega Sussman. Black Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I am Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. Lebanese 11 I as council three or six has passed as amended, seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to modify certain building form standards in response to slot home construction.
Approves Text Amendment #3 to the Denver Zoning Code to create a new Town House building form with revisions to other related building forms to address “slot home” development through new or revised zoning standards for side-by-side residential development. Amended 4-16-18 to make reference to a corrected version of the text amendment filed with the clerk. The previously filed text amendment incorrectly stated in five locations that certain dwelling units located within 20 feet of the Side Street Zone Lot Line shall be oriented to the primary street zone lot line. The language in these five sections should have stated that the dwelling units shall be oriented to the Side Street Zone Lot Line. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04302018_18-0450
|
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Cashman. Looks like we have no other announcements, but we do have one presentation this evening. Tonight we have a presentation from Clear Parker Robinson Dance to highlight the opening of their photo exhibit, the premiere of Carmen. Many of us know her as Mama Cleo on the northeast side of Denver. So you want to come up to the.
Speaker 4: First of all, thank you so much for having a moment. And I just want to thank our wonderful Councilwoman Ortega and, of course, our our chair, who is in our district. And we're so proud. Now, I have an extraordinary weekend, but we have our ambassador of Mexico right with us. And I wanted our Ambassador Rendon to please come and join me because it is rare that we get her with this wonderful exhibit that we will be sharing at first at our theater starting on Friday night, Friday night. It begins the exhibit. And this is an extraordinary exhibit of Amalia Hernandez and her daughter is carrying on that legacy of the national dance company Folklorico de Mexico. And it is really 100 years that we're celebrating and not 100 years of Cleopatra Robinson dance. I've only been doing it for 47 years, but I've been in a building that's almost 100 years. But I would like for you to say a few words, if you would. Thank you very much. And good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, city councilors, for receiving us here this year.
Speaker 5: The consulate of.
Speaker 4: Mexico is celebrating the 125th anniversary that it was first established in Denver by precedent for future years. And we are having some activities along the year. First of all, we are going to start this weekend with a picture for the exhibition of Amalia Mendez, the founder of the ballet Folklorico de México. And she has set the example for all the girls all over the world. So we thank you for hosting this announcement and we need to tell you about it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: With our opening. We have three premieres and they happen in Denver first and then they will travel the country and the world. And that is what we love doing, is sharing the magic of the powerful artists that we have. So our first work is at La Malattia of Cordoba, and I think it's really amazing. A historical work that we will be sharing starting Friday night will play Friday, Saturday and Sunday. So we want to invite the council to be there. We then have another work by Donal McHale, and Donal McHale is one of our American choreographers and he just made his transition one month ago. But he left a legacy of work that Broadway, New York, everywhere around the world knows his name as a choreographer. So we carry his work as a lead, a legacy work. And then my last work is Carmen and I will be performing Carmen. I choreographed it with a bossa nova approach. I did it with the symphony in 1989 or somewhere along there at Bettcher, and we opened it there, but we're doing it at our theater, bringing a sense of jazz, celebrating jazz in this country. And so we want you to join us. One of the things we realized and I wanted to thank Janelle Ayanna for making this connection between our companies in Denver and in Mexico City. She has just done a phenomenal job and of course, our staff, but has said has made material available for you. So let us know if you can join us, because it is a historic moment and we thank you for this time. I say. I say.
Speaker 0: I say. Thank you so much. Madam Ambassador, you are welcome here any time. Thank you so much. And of course, Mama. Cleo, we hope next time you can perform. Because, you know, once, once a month we have a performance for our Vision 2020 Plan for the Arts. So. Thank you. Okay, great. All right, we have. That was our presentation. Madam Secretary, you have any communications?
|
Presentation
|
Cleo Parker Robinson Dance to present the opening of their photo exhibit and premiere of Carmen.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04302018_18-0452
|
Speaker 0: So. Thank you. Okay, great. All right, we have. That was our presentation. Madam Secretary, you have any communications?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. Dear Counsel. President. In keeping with the provisions of section 20, Dash 93 of the revised MySQL code DRC, I'm hereby notifying you the Department of Finance's intent Tissue City and County of Denver General Obligation Bond Series 2018 A through V in a poor amount not to exceed 270 million. The Series 2018 A bonds will fund approximately 193 million of bond projects identified as part of the 2017 General Obligation Bond Authorization approved by Denver voters in November 2017. The series 2018 B bonds in a poor amount up to 77 million will refund the existing Series 2008 justice system bonds to achieve interest cost savings. The bonds will be issued as tax exempt fixed rate obligations with a term not to exceed 15 years. The bonds will be a general obligation of the city, secured by the full faith and credit of the city, and are payable from general ad valorem taxes on all the taxable property within the city. The company Attachment eight contains a more detailed description of the financing as required by Section 20. Dash 93 Perrin B of the DRC. Sincerely, Brendon J. Hanlon, Manager of Finance.
Speaker 0: All right, thank you, Madam Secretary. To those of you listening, you voted overwhelmingly, about 70% for these bonds to pass. The first issuance of these bonds, $193 million of these bonds will be issued this summer. And so that was that whole communication, just in case you got lost in translation.
|
Communication
|
In keeping with the provisions of Section 20-93 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (the “DRMC”), it is the Department of Finance’s intent to issue City and County of Denver General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A-B in a par amount not to exceed $270,000,000.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0415
|
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: How about communications?
Speaker 3: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: We do have three proclamations and I'm going to have cultural black. Please read Proclamation 415.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Recognizing Colorado youth leaders as a champion of youth voice and April 20th through 22nd 2018 is a Global Youth Service Day. Whereas Colorado Young Leaders Si y el is a nonprofit organization dedicated to equipping high school students with essential leadership skills and opening the doors to meaningful service opportunities within their community. And. Whereas, Colorado Youth Leaders was founded in 2013 and is growing into its fifth year of service to youth in the Denver metro area and Colorado Springs. And. WHEREAS, now, in its 30th year, Global Youth Service Day is the largest and longest running youth service event in the world, and the only event dedicated to celebrating the contributions that young people make to their communities year round. And. Whereas, Youth Service America designated Colorado Young Leaders as a 2018 Global Youth Service Day lead agency to mobilize Denver area youth youth to lead volunteer service projects that help meet community needs. Serving as a key leader of Global Youth Service Day, an international event that celebrates the power of young people. And. Whereas, on Global Youth Service Day 2018, in partnership with ten other community based organizations and schools, Colorado young leaders engaged approximately 500 volunteers in high impact, high visibility student led service activities and celebration events addressing community needs , including those in the area of teen mental health, hunger and homelessness, environmental stewardship and animal welfare. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one with the Denver City Council proclaims Colorado leaders I'm sorry, Colorado young leaders as a champion of youth voice and April 20th to 22nd 2018 Global Youth Service Day.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. Number 18, dash 0415 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Council in Black.
Speaker 2: Well, my comments were on my computer. That won't start, so I'm going to wing it. But this is the 30th anniversary of an event that started in 1988 and. It is not a coincidence that it is the same. Weekend is Earth Day because it's all about sustainability. It's also part of the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and it was the largest service event in the world this last weekend. Colorado youth leaders is a partner in it. It's a great organization that is engaging kids in the metro area and in Colorado Springs, and they're doing really great work and creating future leaders among our high school students in Denver. So I was just really pleased to sponsor this.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you for sponsoring it. Councilman Black. Seeing no other comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore Cashman. I can each new Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please Kosovo announce the results.
Speaker 3: So you were missing one.
Speaker 0: Espinosa. Okay, we. Oh, that's your job. Sorry.
Speaker 3: 11.
Speaker 0: 11. Nice proclamation for 15 has been adopted. Congratulations. Kelso Black, is there anybody you want to bring up?
Speaker 2: Yes. Jennifer Landers, who's the executive director of Colorado Young Leaders. Thank you, counselor, for having me and for Councilwoman Black for sponsoring this proclamation. As a resident of Southeast Denver, I appreciate all you do for our community and to make our community more vibrant. Colorado Young Leaders is dedicated to engaging youth in volunteerism and empowering them with leadership skills so they become the next generation of heart led leaders. Now, we had a few hiccups with the weather this weekend. We had a couple of projects canceled and a few rescheduled. But we're still really happy that we had over 200 community members, most of them youth, volunteering across the metro area this weekend. We had projects where we packaged care packages for animals in rescue centers. We cleaned community gardens, we fed community members, we cleaned up open spaces. And we had several projects dedicated to teen mental health, which is something that our students felt they were really passionate about. So we're happy to be able to make this impact on the community and appreciate that you have shared this this proclamation and invited us to speak. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you for your work with our young people and tell them that they are always welcome here.
Speaker 2: If it weren't for that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Anytime. Anytime. Just thank you so much. All right. That takes care of proclamation 415. I will read Proclamation 416. Something I'm super excited about thanking MSU Denver Student Volunteers for their service, and I believe they're in the house tonight.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing Colorado Young Leaders as a champion of youth voice and April 20 - 22, 2018 as Global Youth Service Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0419
|
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. And if we could have, Robert, did you want to say something else? Okay. If we could have all the volunteers stand up and just be recognize. Thank you. And again, you're always welcome here. Not even on the days that we're honoring you, but come on, hang out with us. We appreciate it. Thank you. All right. We have our last proclamation. Councilman Castro want you to go ahead and read Proclamation 419.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. This is Proclamation number 419 series of 2018, declaring Wednesday, April 25th, as Denim Day in support of victims of sexual assault. Whereas every day women, men and children across Colorado suffer the pain and trauma of sexual assault upon survivors and our Colorado communities. And. Whereas, this crime occurs far too frequently, goes unreported far too often, and leaves long lasting physical and emotional scars. And. WHEREAS, during National Sex Assault Awareness Month, we recommit ourselves not only to lifting the veil of secrecy and shame surrounding sexual violence, but also to raising awareness, expanding support for victims, and strengthening our response. And. Whereas, sexual violence affects individuals of all ages, backgrounds and circumstances. And. Whereas, as a nation, we share the responsibility for protecting each other from sexual assault, supporting victims when it does occur, and bringing perpetrators to justice. And. Whereas, at the state level, we must work to provide necessary resources to victims of every circumstance, including medical attention, mental health services, relocation and housing assistance and advocacy during the criminal justice process. And. Whereas, Colorado communities can come together to increase awareness about sexual assault, decrease its frequency, hold offenders accountable, support victims and here heal lives. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, the City Council of the City and County of Denver declares Wednesday, April 25th, to be Denim Day in the city and county of Denver encourages everyone to show their support of the victims of sexual assault by wearing denim and participating in this show of international and statewide support of all the survivors of sexual assault. Section two 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 Laura Richards with the Survivors Task Force of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cash. In your motion to adopt.
Speaker 1: Mr. President, I move that proclamation number 18 0419 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments members of Council Councilman Cash.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Mr. President. And I don't know that there's much more I could say more effectively than the proclamation has detailed. We obviously, as a community, must do everything we can to lend a hand to the victims of sexual assault, to bring their perpetrators to justice and to lend those victims support in their ongoing recovery. I'd like to thank Xi CASA, the Coalition Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault for their ongoing work in this area and for bringing Denham Day to our attention. Folks wanting more information. The idea is not that you just wear your jeans, but that for that privilege you make a donation to the coalition to help with their ongoing efforts . Folks wanting more information and a packet of Denim Day stickers to help publicize this effort can call 63038399999 or visit Colorado Denim Day, Dawg. And, Mr. President, I left off the w w w just for you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. My pleasure. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I think we know what the interweb is. All right. Excellent. Thank you for bringing this for Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to add a few comments and also thank Councilman Cashman for bringing this forward. We had an outstanding presentation last week from our district attorney talking about trafficking. Human trafficking and sexual assault is so much a part of what happens with human trafficking that occurs not just in this city, but across the country. I also had served on a nonprofit organization that worked with. Primarily women who are victims of domestic violence. But again, this was another situation where many of them had been sexually assaulted by their their partners. And it's it's so important to just keep this issue in the forefront. We know that sexual assault sees no boundaries in terms of age, race, gender. And just to keep the awareness and to ensure that we have resources and services for the victims is so important. So, again, Councilman Cashman, thank you for bringing this forward.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Well-stated, councilwoman. All right. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, Roll Call Cashman.
Speaker 3: I can each new Ortega assessment. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Police Fields of learning announced results.
Speaker 3: 11 Ice.
Speaker 0: 11 ice for 19 has been adopted. Tell us when Castro. Is there anybody want to bring up?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I would like to invite to the podium Laura Richards with the Survivors Task Force of the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
Speaker 2: Thank you guys very much for this. My name is Laura Richards. I'm a survivor of sexual assault and a member of the Survivors Task Force. We're a coalition of survivors that go and testify on legislation such as the Human Trafficking Bill, which was one of the legislations I testified on Denim Day, just so you know, came about out of the a travesty of justice. A young 18 year old girl was raped and the judge deemed it not to be rape because her jeans were too tight. And we took.
Speaker 8: That.
Speaker 2: And we turned it into a celebration and a show of support for survivors.
Speaker 9: It's been going on since 2013.
Speaker 2: Here in Colorado. And I'm incredibly grateful that the council has adopted this proclamation and encouraged the support of the city of Denver to participate and show their support. Because we love to see your pictures, because we know each picture that you upload wearing your jeans means you believe in.
Speaker 8: You support us, and hopefully that will.
Speaker 2: Mean there will be one less victim next year.
Speaker 8: So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Can you tell us one more time just for everyone, what day that we need to wear jeans?
Speaker 2: April 25th every year. It's the fourth Wednesday of the month in this month of fourth Wednesday of April. And this month it'll be April 25th. And I encourage everyone to get competitive with your pictures and join us in the celebration and support of survivors throughout the state of Colorado, because one day we won't need to wear our jeans anymore.
Speaker 0: That's awesome. Thank you so much. We appreciate. Okay. Jeans on Wednesday, everyone. Come on. And then upload them on Twitter and whatever platforms you use. This concludes our proclamation. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation declaring Wednesday, April 25, as Denim Day in support of victims of sexual assault.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0350
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: You are welcome, Councilman Cashman. Thank you. All right. Next item, Councilman Flynn, for a question. 350.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Resolution 350 approves our agreement with a new provider for our city wide recycling sorting services. And if you recall, a couple of years ago, when the volatility in the recycling market caused us to amend the waste management contract, and now we've gone out again and we have a whole different structure now for how we will make money on recycling. And so when I read through the contract Exhibit C, which outlines the formula for how we will pay the contractor a certain amount, and then the city may make money back. It was so complicated that I thought it would be useful as Charlotte could spend maybe 3 minutes, Mr. President, explaining that we will pay the contractors $70 per tonne and and depending on the market, we may make money 5050 split on anything above that $70 and but if its bellows, if the market drops below $70, we may end up then paying additionally. So the entire three year contract has a $500,000 revenue estimate. But I wanted the members to know that doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to make that that half million dollars that that is just an estimate based on predictions of the market. Charlotte, could you walk us through that just briefly?
Speaker 9: Yes, of course. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Charlotte Pitt with Solid Waste Management. Councilman Flynn, you're correct. We had made a couple of concessions on our previous contract based on extreme market conditions with waste management, and then ultimately ended up settling that contract and letting them out, which is why we're here with a new contract. We did an extensive amount of research on what the changes in the market and how that impacted recycling contracts. Prior to this contract, we had a flat revenue. We were paid a flat rate for every tonne that we delivered because market prices on an average, sort of what we call a blended ton, which is all the different commodities was reasonably high and the vendors were comfortable with that at the time. The market has been extremely volatile the last two or three years and we realized we were not going to be able to get a flat fee, a flat revenue stream. We needed to ride the market with the vendor. And as you know, we collect multiple commodities with multiple market prices. The way we developed the formula is first we took an extensive look at what actually makes up our recycling stream. We did a full week, sort of multiple tons of recyclables collected from Denver residents to find out what percentage each commodity made up for the stream. So, you know, paper may be 20% pet plastic, maybe one and a half percent. And we created that blend of materials. Each of the recyclables that we recycle actually has a market index price. There are very various market indexes for recyclables in the country. So based on the percentage of the stream and the monthly market index price, we have a very complicated formula which comes out to what we call a blended an average blended ton. And then you are correct, we take the first $70 off the top, which is basically a fee to the contractor for sorting the material and then whatever's left over. After that, we split it 5050. I ran the numbers for March last month, just to give you a sense. And the blended ton average was $76.70, so we would pay $70 from that. And then our split would be $30, $3.35 per ton. The the estimate. It is an estimate, the 500,000. That's my crystal ball looking at what we've historically received and the percentage and what we think is going to happen and basically how much material we bring in each year. So we bring in about 40,000 tons of material each year. So over the three year contract, that would be about 120,000 tons divide the 500,000 by the 120, you get an average tonnage price of about $4.16. My estimate is that we're going to stay between the three and $5 mark on average, right? So that's where that number comes from. I'm fairly confident it's very conservative. I feel comfortable will likely hit the 500,000 over the three years. I don't think we'll exceed it too much more than that.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you very much, Charlotte. And thank you for the intensive work you did on that. When I read through that chart and looked at all the different types of recyclables and thank thank you to whoever it was who went through all their household. And figure it out what percentage of each it was. But the work that you've done in facing a such a volatile market and perhaps losing this valuable service for Denver residents. I just want to thank you for that. And I, I hope that you're right that this is a conservative estimate. And then this that this approach works out.
Speaker 9: We feel very comfortable. We feel very good about our stream in Denver. We have a very clean mix of material. There are some communities that are not generating revenue at the moment. So the fact that we are still seeing revenue is a is a plus for us.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. Breslin. That's all.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Alpine Disposal, Inc. for the sorting and recycling of the materials collected through the City’s Denver Recycles Program.
Approves a revenue contract with Alpine Disposal, Inc. for three years and for an estimated amount of $500,000 to sort and recycle the materials collected through the citywide Denver Recycles residential collection program (201737957). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-14-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-10-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0337
|
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. Breslin. That's all.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Well, let's bring up the next item. 337 Platform Councilwoman Connect.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. This is one of those projects that started early in my first term, and it was a community vision. There's an area of open space that's blighted and is being misused for crime. It's being misused for dumping. And the community says we can do better. And so the city has a hard time with this because it's it's not clean. It's an area that has been capped. We've got six cell towers. It is a tough project, but everybody sticks through it. And seven years later, that's just my clock. The is probably at eight plus seven years later, we see this amazing partnership before us. This bill 337 is a contract between urban drainage and Denver to bring some funding because lo and behold, this area isn't just blighted. It isn't just a place that could be an open space that's an asset to the community. It's also a place we can mitigate flooding. So it brings together city goals of mitigating flood waters in Globeville, which has been a major priority for several of my colleagues on the council as well as the community. But it helps to bring a vision forward of how to do that in a way that creates an open space that community can really love. It's phased. It's got money from all kinds of different private sources that are coming in to supplement these public dollars. So on the northern half of this open space, most of that money has been privately fundraised by Groundwork. Denver So we have, you know, basically, you know, every kind of partnership you can imagine. We have the regional urban drainage of flood control along with the city of Denver. And we've got these community partners and we've got all these dollars from legal settlements and other grant funds. So it's taking everybody to get there. And we haven't broken ground yet, but some day there will be a shovel in the ground and we will see this thing come to fruition. And this is my first real proof. It's a dollar amount on an agenda, so I'm really excited and it's a pretty routine contract other than that. But I just needed to say thank you to all the city team who've here, Parks and Rec. We've had NRDC's support the last couple of years, as well as public works and all the folks in stormwater. We've also gotten, you know, some other help from other folks in public works regarding some of the other infrastructure pieces. So thank you to the staff. And yes, this is in the consent agenda, but I'll be really excited to vote yes on the consent agenda tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good work, Councilwoman. I know you've been working on this with along with the community for a long time, so it's excited to see this come through. That concludes all the items that have been called out. Everything else will be. All of the bills for introduction will be order published. So we are now ready for the block votes on resolutions and bills in front of consideration. Council members remember that this is your this is a considered block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, it's your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put the resolutions for adoption of bills? For final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, President Brooks, 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. 0335033604180344034503490350030034600850086032203200321.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black Eye.
Speaker 3: Clark Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore I. Cashman can eat my new Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I That was an eye.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes are.
Speaker 0: Right. 11 eyes. Resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed for final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be three public hearings. So buckle up. There are be require a public hearing for counts about 2 to 29 changes on a classification of 580 South fourth street in Washington Virginia veil a required public here accountable to
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Amendment to Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District regarding the Platte Farm Open Space Detention Basin.
Amends an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District by adding $500,000 for a new total of $800,000 for the design and construction of drainage and flood control improvements at Platte Farm Open Space at 49th Avenue and Grant Street in Council District 9. No change to agreement duration (201733020). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-14-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-3-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0243
|
Speaker 3: Ten Eyes, one nay.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes, one nay to 29 has passed. Congratulations. All right, Councilwoman Gilmore, were you put to 43 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes. President Brooks, I move that council. 18 Dash 0243 be placed upon final consideration and due pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council bill 243 is open. May we have the staff report? Geoff Hurt. You'll be here for a while.
Speaker 13: We'll put to.
Speaker 7: Public health sort of this. So this is a search effort with community planning and development. So this is a request for rezoning for city owned property in the Reno area to rezone for the purposes of a future city park. It's in Council District nine five in the Five Points neighborhood. And the request areas are the subject properties outlined in yellow. The request area is about three acres. The city has owned these properties for since about 2003, along with the intention of a future city park. The rezoning request would go from IMAX five, which is an industrial mixed use five story and you oh two, which is a billboard overlay to OSA, which is the most common zoned district for a city park. The purpose of the request, it originated from the Parks Department and like I said, city owned land to accommodate a future city park for a rapidly growing area and right now and to implement some some adopted plan. So subject property is annex five. Surrounding properties also IMAX five. And then going up from there and number of stories to eight and 12 stories to kind of reflect how that area is really booming. Existing land use is industrial, surrounding properties are mixed, but mostly industrial. You have two breweries and a dog daycare adjacent. So all you could ever hope for in the Reno area, properties outlined in yellow and these images. So you see it's adjacent to South Platte River corridor. It's actually on the the side of the corridor that has the trails is a great opportunity for kind of a flow into the the river corridor images of the subject property. So you can see the current condition used for Denver Police Department fleet services and other maintenance facilities. And then looking at the surrounding area, you see the mix of industrial and you start to see the boom happening in Reno and some of these images. I'm closer to Brighton Boulevard. And then looking at the surrounding area. So this is looking right across Arkin's courts. You can see the proximity to to the River and the Trail Network there presenting a real opportunity. OSA, the zone district, this being requested is intended for city owned land for future use as Parker open space. And like I said, it's the most common zone district you see for parks, including some nearby parks too. This one, St Charles Place, Globeville Landing. The process of followed our normal rezoning process is starting with an informational notice, and January Planning Board did recommend approval unanimously on February 21st. All the Arnaud's in the screen were notified of the request and no public comments have been received to date. And these are the criteria staff used to evaluate the request. So there's several adopted plans or citywide plans and local plans. But I will go to this pretty quickly because they are all the exception to the citywide plans. They all essentially point to the future use of a parker open space on the site. But in terms of citywide plans, certainly a lot of current plan policies and guidance related to encouraging development of parks in areas with increasing demand , which is clearly is seeing a lot of multifamily going in in this area and not a lot of park space to correspond with that. Blueprint. Denver has most of the site as a park and in an area of change. And then looking at kind of the most focused adopt the plan guidance the 30th and Blake stationery plan from 2009 does call out all these properties as a park and feature open space. And other plans echo that that aren't quite as focused in recent on related to the subject properties but they do call out a park and open space on these properties. So I'm not going to go through each one of these. But in terms of a justifying circumstance, just to highlight that, again, a rapidly growing area with a rapidly increasing demand for four park space that transformation, staff finds, is a justifying circumstance for this particular zoning. So staff does find or does recommend approval based on those criteria, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Great. Thanks for the presentation. We have two speakers this evening, Sloan Nystrom from ADC. Come on up for 3 minutes and Chairman COO, uh, 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Sloan Nystrom. I'm here.
Speaker 9: Representing Parks. And I'm here. Just answer any questions if anybody has.
Speaker 3: Any questions about construction or the park.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Chairman Seiko.
Speaker 6: Yes, Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action. Movement for Self-defense. Oh, we enthusiastically support this. You know, it's rare, very rare on zoning changes that we've agreed on anything. Finally, we reached common ground. This park makes sense for no other sets of reasons stand on its own, meaning all the criteria and whatnot, and also the amenities that it provides for the neighborhood. And the truth is, it looks a whole lot better than the pictures. I just saw them for real. Unless you're talking about wildlife situation, then you know I did that and then let it go. But that was a beautiful addition to that, an increased property values and also make this place, especially in that area , rhino that's more civilized so that it no longer looks like New York City. We ain't got no grass and we've got all these buildings going up and this ain't it. This is Denver. And it needs to keep this character because that's the attraction here. We got green grass, we got trees, we got parks, and we have safe neighborhoods that kids can come and play even when the park closes after dark. So thank you very much for your leadership and bringing this forward and. Look forward to seeing the growth. Thank.
Speaker 0: All right. Time to spare. Okay. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Have a quick question for for you. I was shocked to see you focus on the 2000 938 station area when we just did the 30th in Blake Station area, only because I think we did call out parks in that. So did you not find information in that plan to speak to this.
Speaker 7: In the 38th and Blake Yeah. Plant yeah there's there certainly is. And I was just referencing the map.
Speaker 0: Got it. So some more than this, more just, you know, to your presentation. Why why would you focus on 2009 when we we just worked as a community to consolidate those plans to have the 2006 to supersede those?
Speaker 7: That's a fair that's a fair question. The in looking back on the slides here, this one had at least in terms of the map, this one had the clearest sort of and included all of the boundaries as a park and the other ones carved out chunks as staying sort of industrial, light industrial. So while it's not more recent in dates, you know, it it is more accurate in the sense of the map at least maybe.
Speaker 0: It proved your point harder is more clear. Maybe I should.
Speaker 7: Say. Okay, okay.
Speaker 0: And I'm just asking is that's probably why you. Okay, it's just interesting. Okay, great. Councilman, you.
Speaker 13: Jeff know, snap. You know, I love Parks. I'm a big fan of Parks. But this is the second week in a row where we've given city land, you know, for uses. And this is a good use of parks. But was there any consideration for affordable housing? I mean, this is an enormous 3.2 acres of land. Was there any discussion at all about using this for even a higher level of affordable housing, workforce housing or anything like that?
Speaker 7: I don't know that there was. I mean, these plans, it's really based on these plans and the community conversations that happened, you know, in 2009 and 2015. And so that would have been the place for those conversations. But I'm not aware of any plans unless Sloan knows of any other. Look.
Speaker 0: I think the city purchases specifically for parks.
Speaker 13: When do they purchase?
Speaker 11: It's been said to do.
Speaker 0: Do you have the year that it was purchased?
Speaker 7: I believe it's 2003. There's three parcels and each one was acquired in different periods, I think 23. And then more recent from there, we've acquired all of them.
Speaker 0: So it's a it's a little bit of a different kind of scenario. But this this part of town obviously doesn't have any parks. And so this has been a plan long in the making for this.
Speaker 13: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you. So, having been the previous councilperson person, this district, it's been the bike shop and the repair shop for many, many years. But the plans for it being a park have been part of the discussion over the last ten years, at least as part of all the new development that was going in into the Brighton corridor , knowing that was a new growth area, we're going to see a lot more new housing development coming to the area. The question I have is where is the bike shop in the maintenance facility moving to and what's the timing of that?
Speaker 7: I do not know.
Speaker 8: Do you have that information? Can you come to tell us upfront?
Speaker 9: They're moving to the post building and they're supposed to move out this summer. It's slated for July.
Speaker 8: So when you say the post building, you talk about the Denver Post building downtown.
Speaker 9: Yes.
Speaker 8: So. We're going to have the bikes stored inside the car. I don't have.
Speaker 9: All the information on.
Speaker 8: That. I can get it. Can we get that information? That would be extremely helpful. Would be helpful to know the timing. And where specifically does the bike shop?
Speaker 9: I definitely do know the timing is July.
Speaker 8: Okay. Sure. Thank you. If you can get that, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no questions. Public hearings now. Closed comments, members of council. You know, this this this rezoning is exactly how it is supposed to line up. You heard Councilwoman Ortega when she was a councilperson in this district before me was during my tenure. I know she was working on this before her was Councilman Ortega. This has been something in the works for a long time for this part of the city. And, you know, I think a city growing as fast as we are to have us dedicating park land in space at this moment is is actually profound. And it says a lot about the values of the city. So I'll be supporting this, but I only want to just be supportive because the park but it matches up the criteria matches up with what we are supposed to approve. So excuse me, I hope that my colleagues will support this as well. See no other comments. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black Clarke. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore Cashman. Kenny. New Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police the voting announce results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. 243 has passed. Congratulations, everyone. Okay, we are on to our last council bill of the evening. Councilwoman Gilmore, can you please put 244 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3400 Arkins Court, 3460 Arkins Court and 1930 35th Street in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3400 Arkins Court, 3460 Arkins Court, 1900 35th Street, 1930 35th Street, and 1950 35th Street from I-MX-5/UO-2 to OS-A (industrial, mixed-use to open space) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-13-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0244
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. 243 has passed. Congratulations, everyone. Okay, we are on to our last council bill of the evening. Councilwoman Gilmore, can you please put 244 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 18 dash 0244 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 244 is now open. May we have staff report? Oh, yes, I will. I'm going to do an amendment first before the staff report. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So good. Before the public hearing is open, I have an amendment to modify the rezoning boundaries to exclude four parcels due to the impacts of nearby development and commercial space, which was never the intent of this of this bill. I move the Council bill to 44 be amended in the following particulars on page two, line three, strike two, number block 183, Lot 17 through 31 and replace with block 183 colon lots 17 through 28. I need a second chance. It has been moved. And second it is. If there is any questions by members of council, I'll just make a few more remarks. What happened here is when we drew this, there was a property that was inadvertently added to these boundaries. And these boundaries include some commercial property. That commercial property is actually the rezoning development which just got announced this week. And so this is something that obviously this community in in five points, but the city has been waiting for for 40 years. And so it would be an issue if we downs on this property. So we saw that we caught it and worked with CPD to address the issue. Okay, we are now ready for you. Do we need to vote on this? Yes. Or can we?
Speaker 3: You should go ahead and vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved a second to Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Clark Espinosa i Flynn I Gilmore I Cashin. Carnage knew Ortega I. Susman, i. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Please I was watching this. Results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. 11 eyes. Council Bill 244 has been amended. Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to pass as amended.
Speaker 8: And move that council bill 18 dash 0 to 4 four be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Sorry. One moment. We're not going to. You won't vote on it until the end of the night. Okay. Till after the speakers.
Speaker 0: Excellent. All right. A public hearing for 244 is now open. Now we're ready for you. Sorry about that, Jeff.
Speaker 7: Okay. So Jeff Hurt with speed again. So I'm here to present KP's analysis of this legislative map amendment that's been brought forward by Councilman Brooks. So the request is for the Council District nine. It's actually in the Five Points neighborhood. That's a typo. So the area is about a 12 acre area in five points with a proposal to rezone from GMU three. So general multi-unit three story in you oh three that's a historic structure overlay. There is actually no locally designated historic structures in in this area and then are three. There's a small portion. That's our three. I'll show you the zoning map. The request is to go to your RH 2.5 to align the zoning with the pretty explicit specific recommendations for building height in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. So current zoning, as I said G three and there's a small portion that's are three in the surrounding properties are mixed but along the Welton Street corridor is where you see the most intensity with CMCs eight so mixed use eight stories and then to the east and south is mixed but ranging from Cemex five, you mix three and then some old code zoning as well. And so existing land use is mixed as well, but mostly residential. You see some, uh, nonresidential which is mostly surface parking lots. And there's one church, but it is a mix overall of single to family and multi-family residential in the boundaries and so on to some images. So I want to spend a few minutes on this because it's particularly important. This is what the rezoning request is really about, is the existing kind of built environment and character of this neighborhood, which is pretty clearly articulated in the in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. But looking at images first of properties within the boundaries. So you see along the street these are generally late 1800s, early 1900s structures you see one and a half to two and a half story at most is the predominant sort of pattern. But you do see the introduction of three storey buildings onto this next slide here in the top image and you see some two storey buildings. But for the most part, there really is no buildings over that 2 to 2 and a half storey, um, height within the boundaries. And then more images of some of the new development that's happened in the area and in and around the area. So these images focus on the surrounding area. So properties around the legislative map amendment boundaries and you can see the the rapid redevelopment that's happening, particularly to the to the south and west along the Walton Street corridor , mostly three and up storey residential. But along the Wall Street quarter, you see more mixed use going higher than that. Five, eight stories in more images just showing how this area is really transforming the surrounding area. So the existing zoning is Jimmy three such general multi-unit with a maximum of three stories. So this zone district allows three stories and 30 feet in height in most places. So a lot of it's calibrated based on the width and the size of your lot. Most slots are less than 50 feet wide, so you have this three storey and 30 foot height limitation on most of them. But for lots that are greater, they're 50 feet are greater, wide. There's more allowance for you have three stories, but also you can go up to 40 feet with the row house and apartment building form. So right now it's you three. You can't necessarily achieve three stories all throughout the area, but there is some allowance for it and it does allow for accessory dwelling units in the rear, 35% of these lots. So the propose on district is your 2.5 sets. So that's a two and a half story zone district where you would have the same use allowances in terms of still allowing single family, duplex, multifamily, a range of housing types. But essentially it lowers the building height by a half a story. So year 2.5 allows up to two and a half storeys and 30 feet in height. So similar to Jimmy three in that it's 30 feet in height along in a lot of places throughout the neighborhood. But it would allow up to 35 feet in height and two and a half storeys again, based on the width of your lot, if you have a lot that's 50 feet or wider, which is a very small portion of this area, actually, you could get up to 35 feet in height with two and a half stories. So it's really about reducing the building height by half a story. And you'll see in a second here the plan recommendations that this is calibrated to. And your 2.5 does also allow accessory dwelling units like Jimmy three. There's just limitations on the height and the scale. So the process is there was an extensive community process leading up to the application, even making its way to CPD. This actually is a 20 and 15 case number to show you when it actually started in the in the queue. But in terms of the more recent notification, I'm going back to January of this year was the initial notice. And then, of course, all the other signs in the posting that went along with planning board and city council. And I'm sorry. Plenty more did recommend approval on February 21st unanimously. So the Arnaud's that were reached out to are on the screen. So each one of these in I've got a better summary here. Each one of these were notified of the request. And as of today, there have been 13 comments total on this specific request, ten and support. I think there was nine in your packet, but we got another late one tenant support, including the Curtis Park Neighbors Registered Neighborhood Organization. And in general the support is related to conservation of motion, of conservation of community character relative to building scale. There are two comments and opposition mostly related and certainly in your packet, but mostly related to the concerns over loss of property values. With losing that half story increment and some concerns over our notification process and the public outreach that was done leading to the decision to go with you as 2.5. There's one comment I would classify as neutral that has some concerns, but I don't know that there's actually opposition in there. And so these are the review criteria staff look at. To formulate a recommendation, you have to city wide plans, of course. And then the Northeast Downtowns Neighborhoods Plan is really the sort of the focus of the analysis. So related to comp plan, 2000 staff looked at a number of different policies related to encouraging infill development while at the same time being respectful of neighborhood character. And so there's a number of policies that sort of call out that goal and staff does find the request consistent with that. Relative to the existing character of the neighborhood blueprint, Denver is actually mixed within the boundaries of the rezoning area, so it's mostly area of stability, but some area of change in mostly single family and duplex feature land use in terms of the the staff position a recommendation on this. So in terms of what an area of change policy states and that's kind of paraphrase, it's really about accommodating investment and redevelopment in strategic places. But then you also have an area of stability, goals and policies of promoting maintenance of neighborhood character. So on balance, staff does find that it does require strikes, a balance of the two. So sort of encouraging reinvestment and investment while at the same time being more consistent with neighborhood character relative to building scale. And like I said, Single-Family duplex and urban residential are the blueprint land use classifications, both of which support the idea of a mix of housing types and staffing 02.5 Consistent with that in terms of you still have a wide range of housing types that would be allowed under that zoning. So the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan is really the the the focus of at least three adaptive plan analysis. That plan actually calls out this specific area explicitly has 2.5 stories. And there's a small area to the south of 24th Avenue that's actually called that is three stories. We could talk about the nuance there, but essentially three stories is not possible because of the intersecting streets under any sort of the list of zoned districts that would be feasible here. I'm happy to talk about that. So but the concept building height of 2.5 stories applies to the majority of the rezoning area and STAT finds that consistent with the neighborhoods plan and the future land uses really follow a blueprint in Denver in terms of promoting a range of housing types between single family duplex and urban residential. So staff finds year 2.5 consistent with that. And there's also some other sort of non map based policies in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan related to specifically this area Enterprise Hill as it's kind of called out. And that's about reinforcing existing development scale in about protecting neighborhood fabric, maintaining character. And it even goes so far as to say to make use of upper story setbacks and minimizing massing where appropriate. So staff finds overall that the zone district is consistent with these policies as well. And so since this is a legislative rezoning request, these are the three criteria that are used to evaluate it so you don't have the justifying circumstances and all the additional criteria. But staff did look at these three criteria and found that the request is consistent with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan and other plans, and that it furthers public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans in implementing that vision of maintaining neighborhood character related to height and massing . So staff recommends approval of the request and happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you so much, Jeff. We have eight speakers. I'm sorry. Nine speakers this evening and I'm going to call the first five up to the front bitch, please move that way. John Haydon. Sam Hargraves. Deborah Jacobson. Keith Pryor. Maggie Miller. That's five. John Hayden, you're up first. 3 minutes, sir.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Members of council. My name is John Hayden. I reside at 2418 Champ Street in the Curtis Park Five Points neighborhood. I am the president of Curtis Park Neighbors, and I'm here to let you know that our neighborhood organization had multiple presentations on this rezoning and that our board voted in favor unanimously of the rezoning. And you should have our letter expressing that. And then just from a why why we think this is really important, the area that we're rezoning tonight is and is a collection of of of five points homes of small, medium single family homes that were built in the 1880s, very similar to the homes in Curtis Park. And we want to make sure that those small homes remain a part of our community, that we don't lose all of the the housing stock, that that makes up the character of Five Points and Curtis Park. And so that that is what what this is about to me is maintaining a degree of affordability by maintaining those smaller single family and row homes and not seeing them wholesale demolished in favor of larger luxury homes. And and so that that is what I see coming of this. And I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Hayden. Sam Hargraves.
Speaker 7: Hi. I'm opposed to this on several grounds.
Speaker 0: Can you. Can you say your name for the record? Yeah.
Speaker 7: Samuel Hargraves.
Speaker 4: Good. Okay.
Speaker 7: On a couple of grounds. One is procedural. As you've heard, this has been a multi-year process. I didn't receive any notification and I've spoken to many neighbors who weren't aware of it until they saw the first signs posted on corners a couple of months ago. I spoke to some women who were neighbors.
Speaker 1: A couple of years ago or.
Speaker 7: Several years ago, and they still own their house. They use it as a rental house. Their address of record is current. When I talked to them, contacted them last week, they had no.
Speaker 1: Idea about this and they are reachable because they did receive a.
Speaker 7: Letter regarding the demolition of a house behind them. It seems to me that primarily opposing or non avid supporting voices were not included in this process. I'm not at all surprised that the Curtis Park Neighborhood Association supports this. Curtis Park is a different neighborhood. It's across Welton Street, several blocks over.
Speaker 1: It's a self-defined, historic district.
Speaker 7: People self-select to live in this district. Of course, they're going to support a down zoning.
Speaker 1: Of another place.
Speaker 7: I'm also curious about how many of.
Speaker 1: The homeowners whose houses will be directly.
Speaker 7: Affected by this. Support it and have been directly involved in this discussion. And I think there are a fair number of people who support it whose houses and properties will not be directly impacted. Yeah. And then in terms of the sort of inevitability of this that I've heard from some people regarding Blueprint Denver in the 2011 thing , Susan Barnes Gail said.
Speaker 1: That every town in a blueprint.
Speaker 7: Talked about putting density adjacent to transit and encouraging.
Speaker 1: Of change where directly.
Speaker 7: Adjacent to Welton Street Core Transportation Quarter, which has a light rail.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure why you would.
Speaker 10: Go to a.
Speaker 7: Less dense zoning.
Speaker 1: From GM. You three also believe GM Year three is appropriate.
Speaker 7: As a transitional zoning from CMC's five and eight on Welton to GMU three where we are, and then you step down a couple of blocks over, then you get down to 2.5 across Washington as opposed to going from CMC's five boom straight to 2.5. And I would argue that the character of our neighborhood is.
Speaker 1: Not as as as.
Speaker 7: Posited. These are these this sort of charming character. The character from their neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Is already.
Speaker 7: Substantially a mix of non historic homes of and larger of.
Speaker 6: Non historic homes.
Speaker 1: Including four plex is three story duplexes. We are not blocks of of.
Speaker 7: Quaint single story Victorians. We are not Curtis Park. We don't resemble Curtis Park in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: We are a.
Speaker 6: Different neighborhood.
Speaker 7: And which includes larger a substantial number of larger structures. Some of these supporters live in those structures.
Speaker 1: So it's weird.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Grace. Deborah Jacobson.
Speaker 2: Thank you, counsel. My name is Deborah Jacobson. I, I have lived at 2437 Clumber place since 1997 with my partner who bought the property in 1990. And I would like to briefly review how the zoning that we have now, which is GMU three, came to be when the current zoning for this area was proposed in 2010. Several of myself and several neighbors signed a petition asking for our zoning to match that of of the Curtis Park neighborhood. At that time, our neighborhood was not represented by an R.A. and we we we failed to get the urh2 point five that we were trying to get back then. Just a year later, in May of 2011, the Northeast Denver neighborhood plan was adopted and building height and land use maps, as have been pointed out now support the you are h 2.5 zoning. The momentum to change our zoning started to build a few years ago and a group of neighbors got together and started outreach to the proposed rezoning area. And you will hear from my neighbor, Robbie Hobin, regarding the details of our outreach and my neighbor, Maggie Miller, regarding the outcome of that outreach. We have seen the neighborhood in the surrounding area go through many changes over the last several years, especially the last four, 4 to 5 years. And we are in full support of the increased density we are seeing along the commercial corridors of Welton Street and in Arapahoe Square. But we feel strongly that changing the zoning to reflect what is called for in the Northeast Denver neighborhood plan will help preserve the character of our neighborhood. And, you know, some may say that changing the zoning would negatively impact the monetary value of our properties. But I would argue that replacing historic homes with multi-unit apartment buildings would significantly impact the things that we value most about this neighborhood. And just thank you, counsel, so much and I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Keith Prior.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Keith Pryor. And this is all about, you know, our tools in our toolbox. And so we have the northeast neighborhood area plan that was adopted basically after we had done the major rezoning of the city. And unfortunately, this neighborhood, which was adjacent to Curtis Park, in a sense, has been because of the neighbors, reached out to Curtis Park and have become a part of Curtis Park and really now have the advocacy there. And what we really want to do is basically work with tools in the toolbox to really match what's on the ground with the zoning that's appropriate. There are a lot of single storey homes that are still there and we're constantly seeing these cannibalize through the current zoning into a three storey. So basically they got the house, they keep the first storey walls and then they go up three stories which next to a one storey house looks really odd. And it also then removes that house as a one storey house to being a 600 square foot, very affordable property. It's a great starter home that a lot of people are able to get into. And so as we've seen in other neighborhoods such as Bonnie Brae, Washington Park, when you're zoning doesn't necessarily match what's on the floor, you have this cannibalization. And so what we're finding is as a tool to help maintain the area's character, but yet still allow wildness in the street, which is actually the transit corridor, to have the density of the five storey and the eight storey and really concentrate that on that corridor. But then yet let a mix of income survive that has been there. That has been the cornerstone of this five points area. It is the most diverse economically area in the city. Pretty much started out that way. And if we don't down zone to actually protect the land values, then the land values go up to make the houses no longer affordable. So you're buying the land underneath the house and then that then creates the problem. So when your use and your land use actually matches what's there, those opportunities to have that affordability and to keep the character of the neighborhood there is lost. And so one other tool in the toolbox, landmark preservation, that is one area that, you know, we've obviously looked at in in Curtis Park, we have 11 landmark districts. Is that something maybe something would be supported in the future? Sure. But we have immediate needs. Obviously, there is great change and we really want to make sure that the character of the neighborhood maintains itself, the affordability, the diversity maintains itself. And we just want to make sure that what's on the ground matches what's in the zoning and the plans support that. So please support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Mr. Pryor. Maggie Miller.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Maggie Miller and I live at 451 24th Street. I am here to ask you to approve the Denver Planning Board's unanimous recommendation to rezone our little triangle. I would, since not everybody who supports this is actually going to be speaking. I would like to just take a minute and ask anybody who supports it to stand up whether they're speaking or not. Thank you. In my time tonight, I'm going to focus on how much support this proposal has from our neighbors. We did a very thorough outreach that Robbie will be talking about, and we got a lot of support. I don't know if you can picture our little triangle from the street level. We're basically nestled. There's Curtis Park, there's San Rafael, there's Clements, and we're by the Safeway. So I don't know if you can picture that this neighborhood currently has a mix of housing. As people have said, single family homes, both large and small duplexes, row homes, condos and an apartment building. And not surprisingly, therefore, has a wonderful mix of people. You'll hear you have a detailed letter about our outreach, and Robby will be talking about it. So what I'm going to talk about is the results of the outreach. So here's the math. At the time of our initial outreach, there were about 100 properties in our little triangle, 107. Just over half of those were owner occupied. So you can imagine what it was like to reach the owners. That's why we had to do so much outreach because only they weren't all owner occupied. Despite that, we managed to contact owners of 69 properties. So that's about two thirds of the properties. And it is a minor miracle that we contacted them. Again, Robby is going to talk about all of our efforts to contact. Of the 69 properties, 56 had owners who signed our petition. I'm going to repeat that of the properties we contacted 56. That's 81% had owners that signed our petition. So that's a lot of support for this. And not only did we make contact with those owners, we had thoughtful conversations with them in person, on their front porches, on the phone, over coffee. We learned why they did or didn't want the rezoning. And I don't have time now in my 3 minutes to describe all of their reasons. But my point is that we had substantive conversations with our neighbors that we were able to contact. If you have any questions or concerns about our outreach or level of support, for goodness sakes, please ask. We have the answers. I have we all have copious notes. So in closing, I want to ask you to approve this rezoning request and to thank you again for your attention and for your service to the city.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Miller. Okay, I'm going to call the next five. Robbie Hoban, Joel Noble. James. Two minus. TerraCycle. Come on. Yeah. Terms like know you're not ready yet, but Robin hoping is you. But you can sit on the first front row.
Speaker 11: For the next. For the.
Speaker 0: First time. For the first time in five years. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: Hey. I'm Robbie Hobin. I live at 24th in Glenarm. And I also want to thank you and the city planners for meeting so much with us and for your support and getting through this process that took us two and a half years. I'm going to speak just to the process part. Just to summarize that, I sent you about 30 pages of maps and photographs and letters that we sent out and fliers and the mailings we sent to mailings just to speak to at the very beginning of this, Maggie. And I don't know where she went. We kept telling ourselves, well, this may not work, but at least we're getting to know our neighbors. And we did. We hit every house, hit as in like knocked on at least once, twice, dropping fliers, mailing letters. We created a Facebook group just to stimulate conversation because sometimes people work and it's hard to get a hold of people. We created a fan of five points at gmail.com address, so if you got the flier, you could at least email us. We created it, not we. Maggie The Excel spreadsheet Ninja created this enormous spreadsheet to keep track. We had to look up every address one by one on this Realtor real property website and write down who owned the house and did they? Were they owner occupied? And it was just amazing. We had a scale of 1 to 7 on super supportive or not supportive or you know, Maggie left a message and we think we saw them at some point, you know, at a meeting we held meetings at the Five Points Curtis Park neighborhood. R.A. which is how I got to know everybody in the neighborhood, just about besides the walking and talking. We met at the library and Blair Caldwell Library. Coffee At the point I sound like I'm rambling. There's just so much to tell you. The point is, when it comes to process, we really did want to know what the neighbors thought because we wanted we didn't want to make enemies of the people we were. It would have been pointless. That was not what we wanted to do. And Maggie's number really do speak to this. That of the people we were able to reach, 80% were supportive. And that includes mailing letters out of state to Elsie's and trust funds and that kind of thing. As people use some of these properties as rent, what do you call it, income properties. So for sure it's been a long, sustained effort to get here and I'm so glad to be here. Finally, to ask you respectfully for your vote of yes tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Holbein. All right. John Noble.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Council. President. Council. I'm here to speak in favor of this, but really to speak in favor of the process because this is something I think should and Joel Noble take seven or five, I don't think and that's great, so to speak, in favor of the process, because I think this is something that can work well in every neighborhood. What we have is a recent neighborhood plan and neighborhood plans are fantastic because as supplements to blueprint Denver, they capture the consensus in the community for what the future of over the next 20 years should look like. You can imagine this little triangle going a number of possible ways. It would be very reasonable. I had the pleasure of leading the the community input process to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan for Curtis Park. That that neighborhood plan is quite large. It covers essentially all of five points. But this Curtis Park sub area, as you heard, this little triangle didn't have an R.A. And in the previous couple of years during the zoning code update, they realized, hey, we don't have an R.A. we're not we're not getting input. So they came over across Welton Street and joined our input to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. And through that process of consensus building found the consensus that you see in that plan today, two and a half stories and a range of building types from a single detached house through row house. Having found that consensus. Then it comes to us now after a lot of outreach and making sure people understand the implications after support with our council member to make the zoning match. The planning. In her neighborhood. Cooperation has not taken a position on this, and I wouldn't expect them to take a position on individual rezonings. But I would like to point out that in the ANC zoning and planning platform, not only do they talk about the importance of neighborhood plans, but they also encouraged legislative rezonings, just like we have here in front of us. When the community consensus has been found, then don't don't waste time. Go ahead and legislatively rezone so that the zoning matches the intention of the community. And so we're grateful that Councilman Brooks has brought this forward. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Noble. All right, James Tobias. Did I say that right?
Speaker 12: You did. And thank you. It's it's not an easy one to pronounce. My name is James the Midas. I live on just one of the fringes of this triangle that we're talking about tonight. I want to thank the members of the council for letting us talk. I want to make four brief points, two of them with respect to support of the bill and two of them with respect to the process. I think passage of this bill will allow us to maintain at least some modicum of diversity in this neighborhood, not only with respect to the economics of the people who live there, but also with respect to the cultures of the people who live there. And also with respect to the architecture of the places that are there now. I think we have. Excuse me. I think we've all seen in the various neighborhoods in Denver the kind of the scramble to make as many square feet on a lot as possible, livable and sellable. And that's something that I think we see everywhere. And this is an opportunity and it's a relatively modest request, but it's a request that will allow some livability of the neighborhood to maintain itself. So. So obviously, I support this. I do live in the neighborhood full time. I am not an absentee landlord and I am aware of everything that goes on, even though I'm fairly anti-social in the overall picture. I see all of the activism from everybody here. I am not one of those people. But with respect to the process, Ms.. Miller and her colleagues have always been very forthcoming with all the information associated with this, and I have been privy to it. I've asked for it, I've taken a look at it, and I've been impressed by it. I've been impressed by their efforts on behalf of the community to the same effect. With respect to some of the concerns that were excuse me that were brought up with with regard to the getting in touch with everybody in the neighborhood. I am. I have the dubious distinction of probably being the. Least social, most unacceptable person that I can think of in that neighborhood because I'm always working. And between Maggie Miller and some of the other people that she's been that share her viewpoints on this, they've contacted me no fewer than five times since this thing kicked off . And I'm not very accessible. I'm always working. I always have other things going on. So in some I would support the bill. I would very vigorously support it. And with respect to the process, I think that they've put every effort possible forth to get everybody's feedback, and I think it's been very overwhelmingly positive. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Thomas Turner, stay cool. So we want you on that first bench so you can be closer. And so maybe when he is winding down, you can start just suggestions from the from the president. Go ahead. You're here. 3 minutes of starting.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Terrorist registration movement for self-defense. Oh, yeah. I have to step outside of myself. To actually support this. Because this is the neighborhood that I was gentrified out of, that I was born and raised in for 65 years. And my love for the neighborhood supersedes all actions and events as happened in my personal life because I am connected spiritually to the land. And those little small houses that you saw. With the houses that we black people occupied and lived in as we served the white folks that was in the bigger houses. Those who are quarters. And we lived in those properties. And when movement came, we could move and other folks moved out. We moved into the bigger houses, and those are the biggest houses that we just got gentrified out of. By the folks who are proposing this because they don't even know about the people that were in those houses because they came from here. So I supported it on a moral obligation. To maintain the integrity of the community I grew up in that I could not live in today. Because it's principle and it's not personal. Because of my love. For my community. So that's why I'm supporting this. And that is it. That's it. And so as I can step outside my personal feelings about things and put my community first. I'm seeking a similar behavior from them and from this council and begin a process of repatriation of folks who were moved out of this justification so that you have a diversity of a neighborhood as opposed to a all white community of settlers outside of this neighborhood. Outside the city. So I can do it. I expect us all to do it. Because this is about teamwork that makes it dream work. It's about principle for personality. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I would like to ask city staff if this creates any nonconforming properties with the changes.
Speaker 7: So the only thing it would create would be noncompliant structures. So for example, the the new three storey buildings, newish three storey buildings that were built under Jimmy three would be noncompliant, which is different than non-conforming. You get a little more flexibility to make improvements and maintenance and things like that. You just can't increase the extent of the noncompliance, if that makes sense.
Speaker 8: So the zoning essentially allows them to exist, which, you know, is similar to a nonconforming use, but it gives more flexibility on them being able to do improvements. So that's the basic difference. That's right. In terms of the terminology.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Okay. Do you have any idea how many? None. What's the word? Using non-compliant properties. This this creates.
Speaker 7: I don't have that offhand. It's in the others that know the neighborhood better than me. Okay. Probably. No, I would say. Well, less than ten, maybe even less than five.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'd like to ask one of the speakers who is involved in the.
Speaker 0: Maybe outreach.
Speaker 8: Process.
Speaker 0: I don't know if anyone has that information in front of them. I can assure you no one has that information. I mean, we can get it back to you. That's a that's an analysis that needs to be done very specific.
Speaker 13: It could be.
Speaker 7: The number of stories. It could be the setback. You know, there's a number of things that could could get at this noncompliant issue.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I guess I was looking mostly at the height issue than anything so that that would be helpful to know that information. Anybody in the audience have the answer to that question. If you could raise your hand. If not, Joe, I figured you would.
Speaker 0: If he has a precise number right now, we can switch places.
Speaker 13: Councilman Brooks is correct, of course, that nobody nobody did the analysis measuring every every building. I think it depends how strictly you look at it. With these older neighborhoods, 1880s through 1910. The two storey buildings tended to be quite tall and quite narrow and. A lot of them, I would say most of them don't fully comply with every piece of both the new zoning and the old zoning, because there's some way in which just just think about the side setbacks. The houses in this neighborhood were built very close together. And to build a new house today, to be fully conforming with the zoning code, you need to have a five foot or a three foot side setback, and generally they don't. So if you looked at every provision in the zoning code and say, are they conforming in every regard? None of them in this area are. And that's true with the current zoning is true with the proposed zoning. So in this area, we depend very heavily on tools in the zoning code like administrative adjustment. When you're looking to do something, there's a way in the zoning code to have some flexibility on some measurements like height, like bulk plane, depending on the character of what's on the block. And that's basically how we get by.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Councilman Ortega, councilman connection.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I would love to talk to city staff as well. So I want to follow up on Councilman Ortega's question first, which is just about non-conforming or non-compliant buildings that are apartment buildings or multi-unit. And I want to dig in to this question about what's the difference between density versus size, because I don't think they're the same thing and they're kind of being used interchangeably by some of the speakers. So are there apartment buildings for Plex's, whatever you wanted to call them, that would would not be able to continue in this zoned district that exists now?
Speaker 7: Not that I'm aware of it. This is really about the the massing of the building itself and the envelope of the building itself. It doesn't really get at uses meaning number of units. So those two things remain the same between Jimmy three and George 2.5. So I don't I'm not aware of any I don't see any issue with current units being able to continue in perpetuity. It's more about the building scale and placement and size in the case.
Speaker 9: You said something really quickly in there, so I'm going to slow you down. Is a big building more dense than a small building if the same number of people or households live in it. I mean, what is the definition of the word density?
Speaker 13: Oh, boy.
Speaker 7: Well, it's not something that we as a city actually regulate that closely. So the whole idea of our sort of form based code and post 2010 was to get away from that, in a sense, regulating number of dwelling units. We regulate it based on parking and things like that. But for the most part, you know, multi-unit is still allowed. It's allowed under current zoning and it would be allowed under future zoning. It's just a matter of the number of units you can put into this new footprint. And so I don't know if that we don't have density is just not something that.
Speaker 9: My my definition of density is the number of people per acre and the number of people who live in an area. So if you have one building and it's 25 feet tall and it has one household in it, and you have one building and it's 35 feet tall or 45 feet tall, and it has one household in it. They have the same density. It's one dwelling unit on that, you know, so. So I just it sounds like you guys don't go down that road, but. So you said something really slowly and I just want to go back there again. So to folks who say this is near transit and we should have density. Is there anything in here that's reducing the number of dwelling units can be in this neighborhood? You said you said it in the middle there. But I just want to go through that again, that if you're going from three stories to two and a half stories, that's not the difference between two dwelling units and one dwelling.
Speaker 7: No, not at all. It's just about the scale of the building. The only difference is, is the building itself obviously could have an impact on the number. It depends on the type of dwelling units, the size, the orientation and all that. But it's not about this change is not about changing anything. Relative number of dwelling units. No.
Speaker 9: And I just want to clarify, because we did have one we had one one opponent who said this is not going to reduce density near transit. And I don't see it as that. I see it as a character. And then we had one proponent who said, you know, it's about apartment buildings, but I'm not hearing anything in the zoning that's changing the ability to have apartment buildings. This is really just about height set back character. That's what I'm hearing. That's right. Well, they both kind of had a misstatement, so we're clarifying that.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Multi multi-unit is still allowed under 2.5.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: On that line of questioning. Is the apartment form allowed in the RH?
Speaker 7: No, it.
Speaker 5: Is not so. I want to clarify what was just transpired, because that is a in fact, on an adequate zone lot size. That form would afford you potentially more units than a row house. Well, what would now be an urban townhouse for? Is that correct?
Speaker 7: It allows you more building massing, but not necessarily. It doesn't explicitly allow.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So let's get back out of the density conversation because that's. That's true. Like, you could, you could put a bunch of little mike very narrow row houses and be conforming. But you can't, you couldn't stack them because you would be in an apartment for. So you couldn't do horizontal vertically stacked in in. And so inherently that limits the amount of density that is is potentially accommodated in the same mass. So we're not changing the massing, but we are changing the density. The density potential. I mean, eliminating the apartment for.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I really do think it comes back to massing. I mean, you could do the duplex form, for example, in your 2.5 and I believe have the ability to still stack. You have limitations on the massing.
Speaker 5: Obviously we got out of that business, remember, because that was something we adopted last year, which was we had some seven unit duplexes and things like that. Now duplexes, two units and we did get into the units per unit in the density conversation there. And now with that townhouse forum, we're getting into side by side units by definition, which also would be limited by the size of the zone lot.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I'd have to look at it again. I believe in the duplex form, even with the slot home amendments being proposed, which, you know, kind of may in fact give you 3.5, I believe you still have the ability to stack in the duplex form in the RS 2.5. It's the real house form or you're required to do side by side. But the duplex form at least I don't think that stipulation is in there.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I guess the simple, you know, maybe you can answer it this way if I have a 50 foot a 6000 square foot lot. Interior. 6000 square foot lot in the gym. You three with only 50 feet? No. With with only with less than 50 feet of frontage. Well, let's give it a specific number with only 40 feet of frontage. Let's say that. Would you would the row house zone district would limit the number of. You know, I guess you could make every row house the width of a door and an insurance. But let's say you'd be limited to eight units. But on an apartment form, you could. Well, now you need 6000 square feet. You could build a substantially denser apartment building on that.
Speaker 7: If you have a 50 foot wide lot currently and 6000 square feet, which for which there's a limited number in this area, I think there's only maybe 12 or something of the. 60. I forget how many persons there are. Then you could do the apartment form currently. But again, it gets back to the massing. So that allows you three stories or 40 feet and that allows you to stack. Um, and so, um, yeah, that, that, um, that would no longer be allowed in yours 2.5 But it's only allowed in a limited area.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa, I know you had some other question and it sounds like we're getting down into the yeah, you know, the detail of this. And this is a good conversation because it gets more to maybe the higher conversation of are we not allowing density already allowing density, but I'm afraid we're gonna go down a rabbit hole here that well.
Speaker 5: Let me go with my three questions. And believe it or not, this is not related, but it's sort of related. Is it possible to remove the apartment form with an overlay?
Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: Would it be possible to remove the apartment form with an overlay?
Speaker 7: I mean, I think that that you could say that's possible. Yeah, but I mean, that's not something that has been considered.
Speaker 5: At least that answers the second question, which of course an overlay we're moving apartment form ever considered. So the last question is. He says. A typical zone lot for single. Do you have any sense about what the typical zone lot existing condition but the existing the typical zone lot for these single family and duplex houses are in the area right now.
Speaker 7: Dimensions wise or area wise. Let's see. I'm terrible at math. I know that 35 feet wide is very common by 125 foot depth. So if ever that comes to be less than 6000 square feet. But um, so that is a common dimension I will say. Um, so what does that.
Speaker 5: That's 4000 375. Okay. And that's fairly typical because I'm trying to understand because I was looking at the granularity of the of the existing housing and there was a lot of conversation about the desire to maintain that character and massing. And I wanted to make sure that we were in fact mapping something that was consistent with those lots. Okay, that's it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. When what I as I see you over there, Councilman, New.
Speaker 13: Jersey, every time I see garden court, my ears perk up. And I just want to make sure that this applies to after the moratorium ends. Right. The use of this garden court feeling for me will be with the new design criteria if it's approved.
Speaker 7: I am not sure about that. I'm not sure when that moratorium expires so soon. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 13: Well, in May.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I. I am not sure about that.
Speaker 13: Okay. Well, now, as I understand it, that that building forum will be changing. You know, the criteria design criteria will be not not drastically, but it will be. And and.
Speaker 0: Councilman A, that's one unit, right? One unit decreased from the typical.
Speaker 13: Well, that's the smart homes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 13: That's a brand new building form. They'll come into play, but the guard car still stay there. But the design criteria, the height and the width of the garden court, the landscaping, it'll change. And so just just knowing what they know. Yeah, that's.
Speaker 7: Good. I think the garden court isn't allowed form in the yards 2.5. Um, actually so.
Speaker 13: When you go to list is.
Speaker 7: Okay, I'm sorry, that's a typo then. I'm sorry.
Speaker 13: That's the reason I brought it up. Okay.
Speaker 7: Okay. Sorry about that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, you. All right. See no other questions. Public hearing is now closed for 244. Thank you all for showing up as legislative sponsor. I'll open this up for comments. I got to tell you, you know, many folks have heard me say this in this city. I believe that revitalization and preservation can coexist. And this is a a perfect example of this. And if you have not been to the five points, if you have not been to the historic Walton corridor, you need to come and see it because it's construction is everywhere and it's kind of exploding. And there are some buildings that are eight stories. You go four blocks downtown, there's some buildings, some 15, 16 stories, and then you have this little neighborhood right next to it. And so it's quite interesting when people talk about density, because that's the last thing I'm thinking about for this neighborhood. This is a neighborhood who has been working on this. There have been individuals in this neighborhood who have been working on this for a long time, and it's so exciting to see it come to fruition. The the the deal that, you know, I think folks talked about just a little bit was when the late Carlo Madison was in office, didn't get a chance to sit down with the neighborhood and advocate for this specific zone district. If she would have been in office and there could have been a more robust campaign in this neighborhood, that they would have had this zoning. And so I do not see it as a sort of a downside. I see it as a right fixturing towards our plan of the north, the downtown, the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. And so I'm excited to support this this this group right here is serious and doesn't play around. And really, you know, every person who had a question about this rezoning, I would immediately say. Hey, Maggie, do you know this person? Yeah. We met about, you know, a year ago. We talked and, you know, like this entire group had specific individuals. And so hats off to this neighborhood. And I hope that this neighborhood is an inspiration for the rest of the city to say we're okay with density. We just want some protections for our single family neighborhoods. And and that's why I'm so supportive. And I know not everybody's on board. And I appreciate I appreciate opposing views. And in conversations, I think this is what a city is about. It's about having these conversations and agreeing to disagree and trying to move forward together. And so that's what we're doing here. I'm excited to to support 12 acres of this legislative rezoning, to preserve a community in the midst of revitalization. And I think it's actually a perfect mix. So good work to everybody who did so such a good job. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Seeing this. You know, it's one of those things that if you know me, you know, I would be super excited to see this sort of this sort of zone change because I look at this area and go, it's a minor miracle that it has not radically transformed, like Jefferson Park and Sloan's like the other areas that have this, what I consider atrocious zoning of GM you three. But that's fortunately there's an effort to change that which would truly benefit this this because it will apply if, if those changes are approved to the RH 2.5. So for naught, you know, for a lot of reasons, I'm excited about this proposal. But there is one question that I had, but I forgot to answer it because I got a little sidetracked, you know, but it's because I still have the same sort of concerns that have impacted similar communities in my district negatively or I mean , that transformed character. And again, we are working the zoning zone district as is intended, goes to address the character concerns. Change plan changes would also go to address character concerns. And if there are any lingering ones, I'm sure we'll work on those as well. My outstanding concern is that it's clear that the existing context is largely single family detached homes, and there was even conversation in the public testimony, I mean, comment about that and I wish we were actually the proposal was USA, ESA, A2 or something that was actually about that character because you still are going to a multifamily zone district to that whole question about density, you know, the only way you can capture more density is through multifamily where you once had single units. And so you still will have pressure to see this now as row houses larger, more substantial row houses rather than this existing. So I mean, we almost needed to go the full Curtis Park with a conservation overlay or something like that. So I mean, we can only weigh what's before us and I can't telegraph how I would support or not support something like that in the future. But you could probably know my own sympathies in general. But it is a concern that, well, you will get different outcomes than a GM, you three that are more positive, positive, more community sort of public realm focused. There will still be pressure on this area to radically transform, despite the smallness of the parcels and despite the limitations , which aren't that many because and that's the other thing that was struck me as odd is the GM you three, and this is why I asked about the overlay to remove the apartment form because it's the apartment form that created the slot home. It's not the GMA three by itself, it's the form. And this is the fundamental problem with our form based code is that actually the GM, you three without the apartment form is more consistent with this underlying fabric because it has a smaller zone, lot requirement for a duplex. You know, you actually need a bigger zone lot in the new zoning than you did before. And it's just it's the problem of this form base code which captures. Urban town. Urban home. Duplex. Tandem house. In the case of what we're going to row house in both of them. You know, it could be all those things and some of those things are great and consistent, but then that apartment form creates this this anomaly. So I applaud you guys for what you've done, the outreach that you've done, the, the, the, the, you know, but I still pray for this community to some degree on the future and its outcomes because you're still the zoning code still doesn't get to a lot of the character concerns and you can get some redevelopment that is is incompatible with that character that this community has gotten accustomed to. And so the other thing there is that. Yeah. I lost my train of thought. But it is a. Yeah. It slipped my mind. But you get the gist because there are legitimate concerns that still need to be addressed. And I hope that you're involved in the Denver Rite Process encouraging more guidelines and standards that are more granular to communities so that new development is in a way that sort of is compatible and that we can preserve general character of areas like this. Well, encouraging what you were talking about high density redevelopment in areas that are in fact closer still to transit. We can have both and we sort of need both as relief. So, you know, this does meet the criteria and I'll have no problem supporting it. And I and I applaud the work that Councilmember President Brooks and his community have done to sort of make sure that this could happen. Thanks.
Speaker 0: And thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Appreciate that, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I was thinking about this almost in the reverse, because one of the things one of the key criteria is that there's plan support. And when you think about the plan is so clear about what this area needs to be in terms of two and a half. And, you know, if you were to imagine that this area had different zoning and someone came in and said, can we put in you three? There would not be support for the zoning that is there now. And so I think that is like the most compelling criteria meeting ever, which is that there's no plan support for the existing zoning. So, so that I just want to lay out there in terms of the criteria. The second thing, and you know, I do not want to invite my colleague into a big tit for tat. I think it's okay for us to see this differently. But the map actually doesn't show that this is all single family residential. The map is pretty clear that there's a lot of multi-unit, and I think that that's key. And so I want to say thank you to the community for not trying to erase that density that's there. Those are affordable units, whether they're being rented or whether they're being owned. You know, that is density. And so I, I commend your restraint in saying we have multi-unit properties throughout this neighborhood now and we should continue to have them. I would I would have had a challenge if it had been a try to push out and reduce. So I just I reject the language that this is a down zoning. In my mind, density is not the right to a big house. Density is about fitting people into an area. You know, more and more people are more households into an area. It's not about having huge footprints or huge ceilings even. We've got two and a half storeys here. So you you can't even tell me you get fewer bedrooms. You just frankly won't have nine foot ceilings. You know, there'll be a, you know, a different shape. So I feel strongly that this is about character. I feel that it was community led and so so it already met the criteria. But it's also great to be able to say thank you for the thoughtfulness with which you pursued that and for the community leadership. So thank you. And kudos to Councilman Brooks for for trying to find that way to to both incorporate multi family units and character together.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Kennedy, you're right. It isn't about zoning. You know, I've been trying this. What's the right it's almost like a right sizing to the original plans and guidelines from 2011. And I'm excited that folks kept pushing. So. Way to go. Way to go. You guys are going to be giving clinics all over the city of of how to right size to neighborhood plan. So well done. And again again, I just want to point out again, you know, I think there's so much division over this city about development. It's it's it's really it's painful what's going on in the city. And I think this neighborhood is a great example of saying, I may not like all of what's going on, but I'm going to do something for my contacts in front of me. I'm going to make this right. And so I think that's a great example for the rest of the city. Madam Secretary. This has been moved and secured. It's amended as amended. Please do a roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. Clark. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez knew Ortega. I assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Plusieurs voting in US results.
Speaker 3: One vote is missing.
Speaker 0: Somebody saying in fire.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right, there it is, 11 eyes. COUNSEL About 244 has passed. Congratulations. All right. Please hold your applause. And I'm sure on Monday, May 21st, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 323 series of 2018, amending the zoning code with multiple substance of clarification and usability amendments.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 25th Street and Glenarm Place in Five Points.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at and around 25th Street and Glenarm Place from G-MU-3/UO-3 and R-3/UO-3 to U-RH-2.5/UO-3 (general urban, multi-unit to urban, row-house) in Council District 9. Amended 4-23-18 to modify the rezoning boundaries to exclude four parcels due to the impacts on nearby redevelopment. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-13-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0380
|
Speaker 0: Chauncey Billups. So it's going to be an incredible time, and I just wanted to share that because it's been a long time coming. All right. Presentations tonight, we have a presentation from Stephen Jones of The Hive Industries to present a social impact project out in Council District nine. So. All right. Go right ahead, Stephen.
Speaker 6: Well, first off.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Councilman Brooks, for inviting us. My name is Steven Jones as my partner Tim Arquilla. And we're here representing Hive Industries. This is a nonprofit event, space and resource center that we've developed over the last four years. Now finding it's home at 725 West 39th and the Fox. Fox, what is it, Fox Island near here. But so our concept is based off social capitalism. We think social capitalism is a real thing. And we've created an ecosystem where every entertainment dollar that comes into our building, a portion of that goes to supporting nonprofits and community organizations. So as well as artists and musicians. So as a five points Denver native, a product of Denver public schools. The. Sorry my heart is pounding. First time public speaking exactly. A product of Denver. Denver School of the Arts. You know, we wanted to create an ecosystem and a organization that supported artists and young community organizations. So that's what the hive industry is. The event center is called the Fox Street Compound. We offer nonprofit consulting program, Incubation Resource Exchange, all in this four acre event field, the old power rental building. So but one of the wonderful things that we've created is called Give Back Tickets that sits on top of our nonprofit resource space. It's a social impact platform. It sells tickets, but just like it says, give back tickets, a portion of those service fees go to community benefactors, which is really cool because, you know, obviously everybody pays service fees with tickets, but how can we yeah, how can we help organizations? See what else we got here. We have office space, so currently we house five nonprofits, all very young nonprofits. One is Plant the Seed, a project that we'll be producing this summer is the ugly food farmer's market at our event center. So every Wednesday we'll have a farmer's market of basically that ugly food, food that doesn't make it to the store shelves of King Soopers and everybody else. So uptake I think growers organic plant the seed and the factory compound. We'll be providing that service within our community, servicing the Swansea Globeville district and the Sunnyside area there. We also have a community garden space up on 38th and Sheridan that we've had for about four years and have fostered many great programs with, you know, developing youth and and growing. So we're just here to share our vision and say hello, basically.
Speaker 0: Great. And see what can you show us at one site that shows how many thousands of people come to this site?
Speaker 8: Yeah. So our biggest fundraiser brings 25,000 people to the site over a two day period. It's called the Denver Taco Festival and.
Speaker 6: Tacos, right? Yeah.
Speaker 8: Yeah. And so that event itself started in the Reno district and has moved from the 32nd and Larimer block over to this area. And over the four years that it's been running, we've raised over $300,000 for nonprofit organizations, and we have a handful of other events coming to great.
Speaker 0: And I wanted you know, this council sees many rezonings in this Fox Island area, but few people really know what's actually going on in the existing infrastructure and how that existing infrastructure is being used. And so I thought it was important that folks here on council in the city understands that there are folks who are making the existing infrastructure work for the community, for folks who are there right now. So that's great.
Speaker 8: Well, thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you again. I appreciate it. All right. All right. Madam Secretary, do you have any communications.
|
Presentation
|
Stephen Jones of Hive Industries to present a Social Impact Project in Council District 9.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0259
|
Speaker 11: 12,694,000 some dollars and for just 150 days. And so I've asked the airport to try to come up with, you know, how that happened, to escape attention. But when they give us descriptions of contracts, it be very helpful if they can be very scrupulous about getting the amounts correct. The contract itself does have the correct amount. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for pointing out that detail. Okay. Can you please bring up Council Bill 259? And Councilman Herndon, we please put that on floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 0 to 5 nine be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second, it comes from the council. Councilman. No, go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. This bill has been really difficult issue for me. You know, the we're we're selling this property, and half of it is going to be going toward expanding our affordable housing fund. You know, several years ago, when we approved the Affordable Housing Fund for $15 million a year, several of us thought it was enough money. And and now we're saying, yes, that's correct. It's not enough money. And we've and finance has come up with an excellent proposal we heard this morning about expanding the affordable housing fund from 15 to $30 million a year and doubling the unit production over the next five years, which is really great news. The issue I have with is, is this piece of property is a vacant piece of property the city owns is basically, you know, we're going to sell this property. You know, he's basically valued at nothing, dollar a square foot. And we're going to sell it for about $400 a square foot to a good developer. But the main thing is especially free land. When we talked about this affordable housing expansion, the Denver Housing Authority, a wonderful organization, is helping us provide, you know, affordable housing and for low income citizens, is going to talk about expanding to 25 projects, about 2 to 3 acres per project. That's about 50 to 75 acres of land. This land, they're going to have to buy that land. Part of the affordable housing fund will be that $50 million that they're going to do with a bond issue to buy land. And they're saying that land will be back 45 to $50 per acre that they're going to try to buy. And here we have a piece of property that's basically free and a dollar per square foot, you know, that we could be using for a start up for affordable housing. But no, we're going to sell it for first can be done for commercial development, which I you know, I appreciate commercial development. Nothing wrong with that. But the main thing is we just need to make sure we understand how we're using our city owned properties. In the past, we've asked for an inventory of city owned properties or I believe we have and and if we haven't, I'm asking for it now of what city properties we own so we can make a decision of how we use those properties, especially when we have such a need for affordable housing. This is going to be for this affordable housing expansion, be from 0 to 30 AMAYA The low income. But we've got workforce housing, we've got all kinds of housing issues around the city. And so I'm just really troubled. I won't have this money from the proceeds. The sale will go to help fund the the affordable housing. But I'm just convinced with a $1.5 billion, you know, general fund budget that we have this year, we could have found seven and a half million dollars from our general fund and use this plan to to jump start affordable housing development. So that's the dilemma. I mean, and and but I don't want to take away from the excellent plan that they put together this morning. I'm so happy that we're going to go from 15 to $30 million a year for affordable housing and expand our production. And I definitely want to finish by saying I want to thank the All in Denver organization. They're the catalysts that really encouraged us to expand this affordable housing fund and that community citizen driven effort really did a wonderful job. So I'm going to vote against this tonight. I know it'll probably it'll pass, but I'm going to vote against it tonight because I think we should you should be using this land for affordable housing development. And I think we could take the seven and a half million dollars that we need for affordable housing out of the general fund. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Yu, for raising some questions about this property. I just want to share, I guess, for transparency sake, some of the conversations that I had. And I believe Councilwoman Ortega was also involved in these conversations. We in the city, you know, there's an executive order that helps to guide how the city disposes of additional land. And it's, you know, signed by the mayor. It's not subject to council approval. And I think that what we learned as we, you know, kind of dug into that a few years ago is that it does not require the use of excess land for affordable housing. It at the time when this parcel first came up, I think it basically said, like, we'll check with OED. It was very, very light requirement and it might not have even been housing people who actually looked in, determined whether land could be used. And so through the process of asking questions and pushing the administration, thinking about whether we could or should do an ordinance, the charter was a barrier to having us legislate higher standards on this. We certainly can look at that again. But but the administration did change the executive order to at least create a much clearer process of how land would be evaluated for affordable housing. So we took a step in the right direction, but it simply just doesn't require land that could be used for housing to be used for affordability. And I will I just want to, you know, share your concern that many cities do say that San Francisco, many others say if this land can be used for housing at all, then it should be used for housing and it should be used for affordable housing and or for homeless housing. So so it is possible and other cities do have stronger requirements. We do not. I will say I spent a lot of time learning about the projects and I'm not sure there were a number of parking requirements that we placed on this property. I we the size of the property shrank throughout the process. And so as I shared with the media, I can't be 100% sure that it would have been appropriate for affordable housing at the end. I don't know that, but I certainly agree that we should have had and in can have and the mayor has the power to do an executive order that says flat out we won't do this kind of sale if we can do affordable housing and we'll do that first and only if we can't do that, then do we move on to commercial or other uses. So so I think it's an important conversation to raise. I thank you for raising it, but because I can't necessarily guarantee the ins and outs of how this would have turned out and because I do believe that the resources are being dedicated appropriately, not just to affordable housing, but the other another portion of these funds are going to go back to some some funds that provide homeless emergency services. To me, I feel like this is a project worth going ahead and approving at this point. But with the important caveat that we could have a stronger policy and the executive order could be strengthened even further. We may or may not be able to legislate that, but it's certainly an option opportunity and many cities have much stronger standards than we have. So with that, I will be voting for it today, but with, you know, appreciation for the important issues being raised.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Seeing no other comments for this body, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: New York.
Speaker 1: ORTEGA Minus a reluctant eye.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN Eye.
Speaker 5: Black eye.
Speaker 4: Clark, I. Flynn i Gilmore I Herndon I Cashman.
Speaker 6: Know.
Speaker 1: Can each.
Speaker 6: Lopez, I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I believe so is voting and thus results.
Speaker 4: That's right. Tonight's tune is.
Speaker 0: Tonight's two nays to 59 passes. All right. We have one other. Please bring up three or six. Madam Secretary, Councilman Herndon, will you please make a motion to take counsel about three or six out of order?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Nichols Partnership Inc. for the sale of 1701 Platte Street.
Approves a $13.5 million purchase and sale agreement with The Nichols Partnership Inc. to sell property located at 1701 Platte Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0306
|
Speaker 0: Tonight's two nays to 59 passes. All right. We have one other. Please bring up three or six. Madam Secretary, Councilman Herndon, will you please make a motion to take counsel about three or six out of order?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I move the council bill 18 days 306 to be taken out of order.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and second in this motion is non debatable and will require an affirmative majority vote. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Herndon. I Katherine Kinney. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. My black eye. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn i. Gillmor, i. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: All right, we have to. Sorry, Madam Secretary, do you want to tell us we have total votes?
Speaker 4: Total vice.
Speaker 0: All right. We have 12 ICE Council Bill. Three of six is now taken out of order. Councilman Herndon, will you put Councilman three or six on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President, I move council bill three or six be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and second it. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to amend.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that on page one. Line 27, strike the number 2018, dash 0130 and replace with 218 0130-001 on page one line 28 Strike the date April 4th, 2018 and replace with April 11th, 2018.
Speaker 0: All right. Question. Questions by members of council. Columnist, member of the Council, Council on assessment.
Speaker 9: Yes, the purpose of this amendment is to make reference to a corrected version of the text amendment filed with the clerk. The previously filed text amendment incorrectly stated in five locations that certain dwelling units located within 20 feet of the side street zone light line shall be oriented to the primary street zone light line. The language in these five sections should have stated that the dwelling units shall be oriented to the side street zone lot line.
Speaker 0: All right. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 1: Susman I.
Speaker 4: Black Clerk Espinosa Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman, High Carnage Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Plus Kosovo police. Kosovo bringing us.
Speaker 4: Results. 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Constable through a six has been amended. Final consideration of the meant the amended council bill were bill 306 with this public hearing will be on May 7th. All right. This concludes all the other items and needs to be called out. All of the bills for introduction of order published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. You'll need a vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call it a separate item for a vote, because we heard it. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption of bills on final consideration? Final passage on the floor.
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that the resolution to be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed on final situation and do pass in the block for the following items. All Series 2018 unless noted. 333 334 286 311 329 328 to 96 324 326 three 3355 303 zero nine.
Speaker 0: All right. Well done, Councilman Herndon. Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. Hi, clerk. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Guy Sussman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please cause voting in US results 1212. 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 18 Dash 0169 Cheese Zoning Classification four 3122 Marion Street in Whittier and required public hearing for Council Bill 18 Dash 0171 Changes on classification four 4401 Just Fine Street in Elyria, Swansea and a required public hearing for Council Bill 18 Dash 017 to change zoning classification for 301303 and 327 South Harrison Street in Bel Caro. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker's clerk to fill them out and return to
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to modify certain building form standards in response to slot home construction.
Approves Text Amendment #3 to the Denver Zoning Code to create a new Town House building form with revisions to other related building forms to address “slot home” development through new or revised zoning standards for side-by-side residential development. Amended 4-16-18 to make reference to a corrected version of the text amendment filed with the clerk. The previously filed text amendment incorrectly stated in five locations that certain dwelling units located within 20 feet of the Side Street Zone Lot Line shall be oriented to the primary street zone lot line. The language in these five sections should have stated that the dwelling units shall be oriented to the Side Street Zone Lot Line. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0169
|
Speaker 6: 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 169 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes. Council Bill 2018 0169 be placed upon final consideration. Andrew passed.
Speaker 6: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 169 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Good evening. I'm Sarah White with CPD here to present the staff report for the rezoning request at 3122 Marion Street. The request is to rezone from USC to B1 to USA A1. The subject property is in District nine in the Whittier neighborhood. As you can see here, it is in the far northwest portion of the Whittier neighborhood. It is on Marion Street between Martin Luther King Boulevard and 31st Avenue. It is one block east of Downing Street. The property is a little over 7300 square feet total and there is a single unit structure on the property and the request is to allow the development of a second single unit house here. So the current zoned district you as you B1 has a minimum zone lot size of 4500 square feet and the request is to rezone to Youssou A-1, which is a single unit district that has a minimum zone that size of 3000 square feet, which would allow the applicant to create two zone lots out of the existing lot here. The surrounding zoning is all U.S. sub one. And further to the north you can see there's some grow three zoning, which is a residential office district, some USA one to the northeast. And then as you would expect along the Downing Street corridor, there is some main street zoning. And I included this slide. This is a slide that shows the previous old code zoning here because it's a little interesting to show kind of the context of how this zoning came into place. So you can see that this a couple block and a half in the northwest portion of Whittier here actually was are for zoning, which was a very high density residential zoned district. And then the rest of the surrounding residential was are two, which allowed for multi-unit. So the translation here from the higher intensity residential, particularly in this two blocks, two and a half blocks that was kind of uniformly brought into U.S. US sub one. It's a little just a little interesting context here. So the site is currently a single family home. The surrounding block is a mix of single unit two unit and multifamily structures. And this is really a reflection of that previous zoning that allowed multi-unit development. And then, as you would expect along the west, to the west, along the Downing Street corridor, there is a mix of residential and retail. Here we have some photos that are just images of the surrounding context. The top image, there is an image of the subject property and you can see it has that large side yard there that would be split off, which would be allowed to be split off with the proposed zoning. The picture to the bottom is an example of the large single family lot across Marion Street. And then these are images of the character, generally of the multi-unit structures that you see in this area. So there's quite a few there, generally low scale kind of garden court or low scale real house type of structures. So what's interesting about this rezoning? Some of you may remember last year as part of last year's text amendment bundle, there was a portion of that bundle that removed the minimum area requirement for rezonings. So previously rezonings like this, you would have had to have had a minimum area to even request the rezoning, whether it was an entire block or an acre. And what we did as part of that bundle was remove that minimum area requirement because we were seeing requests that made sense and were supportable by plans and all of that sort of thing. But applicants couldn't request them because of the minimum area requirements. So this request is really the first one of these kinds of requests that has come through since we removed that provision. So just keep that in mind where we're learning how to evaluate these along with you guys. So this map here is a estimation map of parcel sizes. So, you know, that development in the city of Denver is based on zone lots. And as you as the request is, the the minimum zone lot size is what is part of the zone lot. So USDA has a minimum zone lot size of 3000. U.S. B is a minimum zone, lot size of 4500. However, we don't have zone lots mapped. Denver has this weird thing where we've got zone lots and we've got assessor parcels and a lot of times they are the same, but they don't have to be. And because we don't have zone lots mapped, but we do have assessor parcels mapped. We can use the assessor parcel mapping as a general estimation of what the zone, what's in the area might be. So keep that in mind while while I talk through these examples, they are our best estimate of what the zone sizes in these areas are. So you can see here I've got it's colored based on the minimum zone lot as equivalent zone district. So the green you see here are the zone lots that are upwards of 6000 square feet. So greater than even the current zoning would require. And then these are also the lots that would have enough square footage to split if they were to go to a smaller zone, lot size. The Yellow Zone. Lot sizes are really the the zone lots that are most consistent with the current zoning in place. So the UCB one with the meeting that zone minimum between 4500 square feet and 6000 and then the orange here are the zone lots that would be more consistent with the requested zoning. So the U.S., A-1, the 3000 square foot minimum and then the red lots are zone lots that are substandard that basically wouldn't meet any zoning requirements. And so this is where that kind of complication of the Celsius parcels versus the zone that's comes into play. So you can see, for example, the lot that is just a couple south of the subject property. You can see that looks like row houses, those are split and they're showing up as red because it's the ownership parcel. So, you know, with a row house and with a condo, they split up the ownership of the land. And so it's showing up as very, very, very small ownership parcels, whereas the zone that in that case would be comprising all of those ownership parcels. So that's just an example of where this analysis needs to be taken with a grain of salt when you're comparing it with the zone. What? So the process so far, we saw this matter at planning board on February 7th with a unanimous recommendation of approval. It moved forward through Luti committee on March 6th. All of the appropriate notification has been done. Signs posted. An aunt was notified and one letter of opposition was received from a neighborhood resident. And that's been included in your packet. Aren't you the five criteria? We do have several plans to evaluate here. We have plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver, which are the city wide plans as well as two neighborhood plans, the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan from 2011 and the Whittier Neighborhood Plan from 2000. This. This request is consistent generally with several goals in comprehensive plan 2000, mostly related to promoting infill development, promoting development where services are already in place, and promoting infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Blueprint Denver calls this area a single family residential area of stability. So the proposed zone district is a single unit zone district, which is generally consistent with the intent of a single family residential area to be a area with a single family residential predominant residential type, and then it being an area of stability. We know that that means promoting some reinvestment, but generally conserving the character of an area. And as I'll explain in in a bit, we do find this request is consistent with the character of the area and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the area of areas of stability. The Northeast downtown neighborhood plan from 2011 also calls this area a single family residential and generally has recommendations for low intensity development in these residential areas to maintain the current mix of low skill building forms such as urban house, duplex and row house, and allow new development to replicate existing development patterns, including small lots, shallow setbacks and high building coverage with parking access in the rear of the alley. So again, we do find this request consistent with the goals of this plan as it is still a single unit zone district. And we do think that it allows the existing pattern to be replicated. Finally, the Whittier Neighborhood Plan from 2000 does not have specific land use recommendations for certain areas, but it does identify that the maintenance of a strong, diverse, low density residential neighborhood is the central goal raised by residents. And it also acknowledges that the neighborhood is almost fully developed as is, and that as change occurs, additions to the neighborhood should complement the existing character. And again, because the proposal would allow a zone district that would allow the replication of an existing pattern, we do find it consistent with these goals. The request would result in the uniform application of the USA to a one zone district, and the proposed MAP Amendment furthers the public health, safety and welfare of the city through the implementation of adopted plans. Additionally, it would allow the development of additional housing near downtown, which places people in close proximity to employment and services, which also furthers the public health, safety and welfare. The identified justifying circumstances is that the lander, its surrounding environs has changed or is changing. There is development happening very close nearby, in downtown, as well as at the light rail station and 30 at 30th and Downing. And all of these are catalysts to reset multifamily development. And as such, the proposed rezoning will allow the development of small single family houses, which will help to maintain housing diversity near downtown. And then finally consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. So this is where we take another look at generally the lot pattern in the area. So this map is a little different than the one that was shown earlier. The one that I had earlier on the slide was just all of the lot sizes in the area. What this map is showing is the lot sizes for the single family development only. So basically this is removed, all of those multifamily low scale parcels so that we really can compare like for like we're looking at generally what size zone lots do single unit houses have in this area. And so you can see here there's a significant amount in the surrounding area that is actually more consistent with the proposed usou , a one zone district as well as some additional surrounding that are consistent with the block size. And given that this pattern is in existence here of small, single family zoned lots, we do find that a rezoning request to usou a one is consistent with the neighborhood context in the zone district purpose and intent. So given that all five criteria have been met, would you recommend approval?
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'll call you up and you've come up to the podium for your time. First up, we have Matt Morgan Sky. Matt Moore, Jen Psaki, Denver, Colorado. And three. One, two, two. Marion. I'm available for questions if needed. Great. Thanks. Next up, Jesse Parish.
Speaker 14: Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm a member of Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense and Denver Homeless out loud. I am against this proposal. This is becoming a recurrent theme. You change the zoning of this hood, historically black and brown communities, so you can continue to gentrify these areas. This is not acceptable and we are not going to stand for this anymore. These properties in question. Who is this really going to benefit? He said I should working for an inclusive Denver, but it's really an exclusive Denver. The so-called affordable housing you guys keep talking about is not going to be for those that were in these neighborhoods for generations. This is for these transplants that are moving in because of. The legalization of marijuana and other factors in the past few years. This is not going to benefit those that have lived in these neighborhoods for generations. I myself am one of those people. So I'm definitely against this. It can keep changing the zoning all you guys want. But the fact still remains this is gentrification and there's no way around that. This is not going to benefit people of color, specifically black people and brown people. This is going to gentrify this benefit, gentrification, white folks that are moving into these neighborhoods. So I am once again against this access. You do a further study of these properties in question because. At the end of the day. Got to follow the community. The community is not okay with this. Those that have been in these neighborhoods for generations are not okay with this. You are in the back caucus of these business developers. I understand it has become apparently clear. So I would ask that members of this council look further into this study, these properties and actually come up with. A sensible. The season.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 2: But even council. My name is Chairman Sekou, representing the National Action Movement for Self-defense. Client base of Homeless Youth. Senior citizens. Poor. Working class folks. And the folks that are voiceless, scared to come down here. Because it's intimidating and I have no experience with this. And so we kind of minimize that by coming down and being the voice so that this can be simply explained. So that they are encouraged to know that you guys are human beings. And then you open minded to hear things. And even if the council doesn't agree, at least they can consider poor folks who are voters in this town and tax payers about their concerns about how we do what we do down here. That's it. Anybody mad? Nobody. And we can work it out now. I'm for this. And as you can see, even inside our organization, there are various opinions on this thing. So we don't squash the opinion, we share it and then let you know how we feel. And the constitution of the organization that we represent, because we are down for freedom of speech. So we're down for this. And I'll tell you why. First of all, it fits all the criteria which folks are the considerable work and research and thinking about how are we going to do this thing called residents and how they do and empowered with the land that they pay for to development according to human necessities and needs. Now, my man, he's a preacher. He has a moral standing in the community. He is not the enemy of corporations that come in here and do this. This is a little guy has come to church. He's not a corporation. He's not the enemy. He is not down to just justification. And he needs to have the right to have the flexibility so that he can expand on his property and create the housing that poor people need. Now, of course, this criteria that we do with the LWD dude plans and this and that and other is down board has been voted on it in place. That's it. Now the question becomes your moral obligation us to do the right thing for the right reason. I'm trusting you.
Speaker 6: And I'm with you. Could you please take secure comments towards council?
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. You know, sounds good. So I'm holding him to his code of conduct. You know, I'm sad that somewhere along the way we got to begin to trust one another that you do what you say you're going to do. Now, if he don't do it, I'll be the first one up there in his church asking him what happened. So the pressure is on us to make them do what they say they're going to do. And it's only through the organization or the masses of the people will be able to do this. Is too much work for the few? We need many to get involved.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Time's up. All right. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council bill 169 is closed. Comments from members of Council. All right. No questions. No comments. Um, takes us then, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 4: Sorry, Flynn.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 4: Gillmor Herndon High Cashman can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 1: By.
Speaker 4: Sussman. I Mr. President.
Speaker 6: All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting, announced results.
Speaker 4: Sorry, but I'm going to make sure everyone is in ten eyes. One nay.
Speaker 6: Ten eyes, one nay accountable. 169 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 171 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 2018 0171 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3122 Marion Street in Whittier.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3122 Marion Street from U-SU-B1 to U-SU-A1 (3,000 sf minimum lot size to 4,500 sf minimum lot size) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0171
|
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 2018 0171 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Just looking at the.
Speaker 6: List up here.
Speaker 4: We say.
Speaker 6: Can I get a second on the screen? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 171 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 40 4001 Josephine Street from e t u v to urh3. A property is located in Council District nine in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood. It is at the corner of 44th Avenue and Josephine Street. Property is about 11,000 square feet and is currently vacant. Request is to rezone from A2, which is urban edge neighborhood context to unit zoning with a 4500 square foot minimum lot size to you are h3a which is urban neighborhood context rowhouse zoning with a three storey maximum height and A indicates that additional building forms are allowed, including the small apartment building for on certain corner lots such as this one. The applicant is requesting this rezoning to allow for the construction of such a small apartment building. The surrounding zoning is E2 B to the north, south and east, and then high A to the west, which is late industrial zoning. The surrounding land uses are a mix of single unit two unit and multi-unit residential. Again to the north. South and east. And industrial. To the west. And you can see the subject property is the top left picture. And then some of the surrounding property, the industrial property just to the west is the bottom left and then the variety of of residential types in the other photos. This went to planning board on February 7th. I received a unanimous recommendation of approval. There was no public comment at that meeting. I went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on March 6th, and we received no other public comment on this application. As you know, 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 three plans that apply to this property, the first being comprehensive plan 2000 has described in the staff report. Staff's found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these four strategies from campaign 2000 relating to infill development, brownfield development and providing a variety of housing options. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. From 2000 to Blueprint, Denver designates this property as single family duplex, which calls for a mixture of housing types single family duplex, townhouse and small apartment consistent with what would be allowed under the new RH three zoning. Property is also designated as an area of stability, which calls for maintaining the existing character while accommodating new development, which is consistent with the proposed rezoning. Josephine Street is an industrial arterial. The arterial classification is consistent with the somewhat higher intensity proposed for the site. The properties in this area are not actually industrial, so the industrial designation, that sense does not have that much bearing on it. And 44th Avenue is a non-designated local intended for supplying local access. The third plan is the Elyria and Swansea and Neighborhoods plan from 2015. This plan again designates the property as single family duplex, which, similar to Blueprint. Denver, calls for moderately dense housing areas and a mix of housing types, single family duplex townhouses and small apartment buildings . Again consistent with the proposed you are age three. Zoning property is also designated a traditional residential area which again calls for this mix of housing types, single family duplexes and small apartment buildings. Again, consistent with the proposed zoning, the plan recommends a maximum height of two and a half storeys, which is slightly lower than what the proposed zoning would allow at three stories. However, there's not a zoned district that really meets all of the requirements of the plan. Plan calls for urban neighborhood context, calls for this mix of housing types and a two and a half storey maximum height. There's no zoning district that meets all three of those. So this zoned district, while slightly exceeding the height, the real difference is about three feet, 35 feet for two and a half storeys versus the maximum height of 38 feet for the apartment form. In the proposed you RH three. So staff believes that the proposed request is consistent with the recommendations of the Elyria, Swansea and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan and finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the new RH three zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the redevelopment of a vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed and changing conditions in the area. There's been a significant amount of change still going on in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood with the redevelopment of the the stock show site, the addition of the RTD line and other significant other changes in the area that have increased the need for housing in the area and justified this rezoning to allow additional housing development. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. The proposed rezoning would allow developments consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the new RH three AIDS on district. Therefore, staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval and be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. When I call you up, please come up to the podium. First up, Casino Williams.
Speaker 1: So I'm not seeing a Williams applicant. I live in Denver and I'm available for questions.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 14: Um. Yeah. This should be under further consideration. So I'm down for.
Speaker 6: And I know I know you spoke last time, but could you just say your name for the record for this one?
Speaker 14: Jesse Pierce.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. And our last speaker for this one, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 2: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Explorer Action Movement representing poor, working, poor homeless people and voiceless youth. We are excited. About this approval of this ordinance change. I've been coming down here for almost 12 years and another 12 years. I've seen a sister, a brother from a neighborhood come up here and ask to be a part of this process. And that's a beautiful thing because that's what keeps me coming back, because I got hope for real. And I have faith in this body to make a decision that is unanimous because it fits every criteria for everyone else who have gotten this change. And to deny her that would be straight up racism and class. And that ain't your steady job. It's one of the issues we got going down here as it is. People don't get to know you on the television. I keep telling them, look, come on down here. General Clark, ain't that bad. Ben Franklin, these go with it. And then we got.
Speaker 6: To refer to the council as a whole.
Speaker 2: I'm Cooper poor. I'm taking them no more time. You already know it's already there. And we ain't got to talk about it no more because it's the right thing to do, period.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Kathleen Flynn.
Speaker 11: Thanks, President. Scott, could you the townhouse form allows apartments as well, three up to three stories.
Speaker 10: In the townhouse form. The units have to be side by side. They do and have to each have their own entrance. So it'd be the apartment for them to build an actual apartment building. And the townhouse form is limited to two and a half storeys and 35 feet in the proposal or three.
Speaker 11: But this is a corner lot, right? Correct. And in the in the code, it says a part one. You RH three apartments are allowed up to three stories on certain corner lots, correct?
Speaker 10: Yes. Yes. So an apartment could be built on this property in the apartment building form.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 11: All right. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 6: All right. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none. The public hearing from House Bill 171 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? It's a quiet group this evening. All right, Madam Secretary, call.
Speaker 4: Black eye. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 6: Let's see, 11 up on one. All right. 11 eyes counts. Bill 171 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please vote caliber 172 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4401 Josephine Street in Elyria Swansea.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4401 Josephine Street from E-TU-B to U-RH-3A (urban edge, two-unit to urban row house, three stories) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04162018_18-0172
|
Speaker 6: Let's see, 11 up on one. All right. 11 eyes counts. Bill 171 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please vote caliber 172 on the floor.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I move the Council bill through 2018 017 to be placed upon final consideration and to pass.
Speaker 6: It has been moved to get a second. Thank you very much has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Carlsberg 172 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: To Sally Sara with community planning and development. This is another map amendment. It is for property located at 3013303 and 327 South Harrison Street. The proposal is to rezone from before with waivers. You are one and you are two to urban center mixed use five and urban center mixed use eight. Property is located in City Council District ten in the Belle Carrero neighborhood. It is about 31,000 square feet, a little, almost 32.7 acres. Currently a car wash and vacant property. Again, the proposal is to rezone from an old code zone district b4 with waivers. You are one is the adult use overlay and you go to is the billboard overlay to urban center mixed use five stories and urban center mixed use eight stories. The purpose is to redevelop the property. So again, zoning current site and a lot of the surrounding properties are that before with waivers you will want a new oh two. To the north is GMU five general urban multi-unit five stories South and west. Before with waivers, you were one you own to an east on Colorado Boulevard urban edge mixed use three with the other one and you own two overlays. So again, the land use is a carwash and vacant property to the north, multi-unit to the south, another vacant property, but then a multi-unit structure to the east commercial on Colorado Boulevard to the west, an office building. So this gives you an idea of the scale of the area and the location of the property. It is relatively at the Alameda and Colorado Boulevard intersection, and this gives you an idea of the scale of structures in the area. The center top is the property itself. The property to the north across Alameda is top right. And then the property on Colorado Boulevard is a gas station that's to the east. And then lower left is the apartment building to the south of the property, and then upper left is the office building to the east, to the west of the property. So urban center mixed use is just that mixed use. The commercial and multi-unit residential are generally the use types. They are pedestrian oriented, diverse areas and are meant to be improve the transition between commercial and residential. The process for this one, it came in in October of 2017, an informational notice went out to council and the registered neighborhood organizations. The planning board hearing was held in February of this year and there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. And then we cleared the committee in February of this year, and at last week's city council hearing, this matter was postponed until this evening's public hearing. So the rhinos in the area have not commented on this and nor have we received any other letters on this application. So, you know the criteria. There are three plans that are relevant in this area. Current Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Area Plan from 2012. And staff believes that this application conforms with our current plan in 2000 strategies as detailed in the staff report. This is in on the Blueprint Denver map, an area of change, the areas of the city where we want to channel growth. It is called a regional center as part of the Cherry Creek area, where you want to balance retail, employment and residential and have many uses concentrated in a small area. Street classifications for Harrison Street and other designated local street. East Alameda is a mixed use arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. Those, of course, arterials are our major streets connecting the whole city and the enhanced transit corridors are where we want to concentrate, hopefully transit, supportive uses and policies. Colorado Boulevard is a commercial arterial south of Alameda and a residential arterial north of Alameda and is also an enhanced transit corridor in the Cherry Creek Area plan. There is a framework plan that talks about Cherry Creek in general and basically says that we should acknowledge that to prosper, Cherry Creek needs to grow and change. Cherry Creek Plan Did Update Blueprint Denver. You can see on the maps in front of you that the map on the right is the update and the this property remains in an area of a change. The Cherry Creek Plan also did modify some land use and zoning regulations and design guidelines for the area, hoping to have positive change for the area within the sub areas of the Cherry Creek Plan. This property is called part of the Cherry Creek Triangle. Where there is it is does remain an area of change and where we want to have growth and reinvestment and new development should continue to be a mix of land uses should should respond to surrounding conditions of parkways and greenways and other development, and should transition to the neighborhoods adjacent to Cherry Creek. So in the Cherry Creek area plan this these maps show that it is part of the regional center and the height recommendations out of the Cherry Creek Plan are five and eight stories. So staff believes that this application is consistent with the three plans that govern the area or recommend the area, and that by using standard zoned districts, we are being consistent in our zoned districts. And so there is a uniformity of our district regulations and that by allowing this redevelopment and changing conditions that we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare changed circumstances is of course lots of change happening in Cherry Creek area and staff believes this is consistent with the urban center context, very pedestrian oriented, very mixed in uses both vertically and horizontally. So with that, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. When I call you up, please come up to the podium to make your remarks. First up, Mark Johnson. Mr. President, members of the council, my name is Mark Johnson, a month old post development company, where at 999 18th Street here in Denver. And I'm the applicant and available to answer any questions you may have in our rezoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 14: She has a Paris like star action moment. Under further consideration, I renounce my opposition to this bill. We know that. We know it's the people's champion. So we are for this.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And our last speaker tonight, Chairman CQ.
Speaker 2: German say God bless the Irish and movement for self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor, homeless youth and senior citizens. I take great pride. And this project happening, especially in council the news district. We honor his work that he is done to make sure that folks who are out the loop are included in the loop, especially when it comes to contracting and jobs. He is headed up many subcommittees around this issue. He's got in your support on these things. And so because we know him personally, talk to him any kind of day, he'll pick up the phone, he'll talk to me. And because of that, I can talk to others and tell them honestly. He has never, ever lied to me, even when we disagree. So. We know that this already is the criterion. We know that. Hands down. Nothing special, nothing slick going on here. It's the way they do what they do. And we know that CAZENEUVE Manu's going to hold them according to what has been happening because he makes the extraordinary effort after the zoning changes to be there for us to find out what are you doing, what this is going to do? Are they including us? Are there jobs for people? One, two, three, ABC. We can get that from him. And he's a sterling example of what a city councilman needs to be about, whether it's male or female. People call, make sure they can pick up the phone and talk to a person, not a machine. And that creates the bonding. Because the truth is. It takes teamwork to make the dream work. And you're the only team I got. I'm just going to talk about straight up. You all I got you all the people got. Because we voted for you all to be here and all that opposition and people talking about you about this and that. And we'll do voodoo. Hey, they don't do what you do. They don't have no clue about how this works. So the name of this game is this. This is for the masses of the people and all those folks who got opinion about what you do. No investigation, no right to speak, because you have no data to back it up and you're spreading chaos.
Speaker 6: And Chairman Jim Insecure, can you can you stay on on the topic of this?
Speaker 2: That's all it.
Speaker 6: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council Councilman New.
Speaker 12: Well, first, I want to thank Sharon. Thank you for those kind words. But I didn't hire him as my public relations service. Anyway, thank you. I would like to see Mr. Johnson. Next question, please. Thank you. Thank you for developing this property first thing. Looking forward to it. Could you tell a little bit to council a little bit about the uses which you're going to be developing there?
Speaker 6: Yeah. So what we're proposing as a senior housing project will be mostly independent living and assisted living units 148 total. It'll be eight storeys. We'll have an amenity deck up on the eighth floor to take advantage of the views to the West. There'll also be some activated spaces on the first floor facing Alameda with restaurant and bar area for the residents. We're going to have roughly 67 car parks below grade one level, and we'll have another eight spaces on the first floor level. And the operator is Soltero. There are group out of Phenix, Arizona, but they also operate a facility down in Castlerock. They currently on and manage about 950 units, so they're very seasoned and experienced in this product type. We plan to get started, hopefully this August with construction and we had complete in February, March of 2020.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much. Senior housing is very needed. So appreciate what you're doing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Mark, on the.
Speaker 11: Rezoning application, you are the owner, the representative of the owners of the property. Correct. Which are Shea and Kwame and Joseph Mix-A-Lot put on the suit. I'm sorry, but on the third page where the owners are supposed to verify that you are their representative, you signed as the owner. Also, can you explain due to I'm just trying to make sure that we have the consent of the owners of the property.
Speaker 6: For that one of the owners is here so. Okay and I'm sure he would you would.
Speaker 11: That would be helpful.
Speaker 6: If you're going to be come on up to the podium to answer Councilman Flynn's question.
Speaker 2: My name is Joseph MC Sood. I'm the owner and I totally approve of this project. I think it's excellent. I've been waiting for this for almost 40 years. When I built the car wash. So I think it's time. Mm hmm.
Speaker 11: Okay. You built. You built a car wash instead of a senior living. Okay.
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 6: And is someone here from Shea? Who. Who is Shea? And and and Shea Properties owns a small portion, I think it's about 6000 square feet. The vacant parcel, you know, they're a large honored developer based in California, but they have an office here in Denver. Right. They've been in support of this from day one. So I'm surprised that they're not here.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 11: Just. Teresa, can you. Can you explain, you know, the page I'm looking at where it says if you're the owner's representative, you have to have the owners sign that you do represent them.
Speaker 1: Right. And so further back in the application, there should be letters from the owners authorizing Mr. Johnson to represent them.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 1: In this matter.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I will look for that. I didn't immediately see it. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you, Councilman Quinn. Are there any other questions? All right, Zenon. Public hearing for Council Bill 172 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman New.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We look forward to the development of this property. The senior housing is such an important issue in that whole area around the city as well as especially Cherry Creek. So. So I really appreciate what they're doing with this property and look forward to your starting up this project as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: New Ortega.
Speaker 1: Like.
Speaker 4: Sussman I Black Flynn, I Gilmore, I Herndon, I Cashman can eat Lopez.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 6: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 4: Lebanese two days.
Speaker 6: I think we have.
Speaker 4: To absent.
Speaker 6: Two absence of 11 eyes, zero nays, zero abstentions, two absent councilwoman 72 has passed. On Monday, May 14th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 18 0325 Changing the zoning classification for 2391 South Sherman Street in Rosedale. Any protest against Council Bill 18 0325 must be filed with Council officers no later than Monday, May seven, 2018, saying no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 301, 303 and 327 South Harrison Street in Belcaro.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 301, 303 and 327 South Harrison Street from B-4 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-8 (former Chapter 59 zoning code to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04092018_18-0358
|
Speaker 3: Okay. I see tonight that we have no presentations and there are no communications. I'm not tall enough to see this lecture, but we do have two proclamations this evening. I am going to call on Councilman Ortega. Will you please read Proclamation three, five, eight?
Speaker 1: I would be happy to do this.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Council in proclamation number 358 recognizing Miss Carolyn Bloom for her service in emergency management coordination for the city and county of Denver. Whereas Carolyn Blum, Emergency Management Coordinator for Denver's Office of Emergency Response and Homeland Security, is retiring after 11 years of service to the city and 30 years in emergency management. And. WHEREAS, for over 11 years, Carolyn developed and coordinated what is now called the Denver Ready Program for Emergency Disaster Outreach and Preparedness Training. And. Whereas, Carolyn has encouraged engaged with several Denver commissions and agencies, including the Commission for People with Disabilities in the Commission on Aging. And. WHEREAS, Carolyn conducted over 450 educational seminars, interviews, presentations to help people in Denver and across the country to plan, prepare for, and respond to emergency events. And. Whereas, Carolyn and her team of instructors at Denver Community Emergency Response Training, otherwise known as Sert, taught basic emergency preparedness skills to over 6000 people. And I know at least two of us have gone through that training on this council. And. WHEREAS, Carolyn represented the city and county of Denver at local, state and national conferences to share the success of Denver's emergency preparedness programs. And. WHEREAS, Carolyn received her Master Continuity Practitioner Certification and National Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator certification. And. WHEREAS, Carolyn received numerous honors, including Employee of the Year by the Denver Commission for People with Disabilities Community Preparedness, hero or hero, as some of us call it, from FEMA and champion of change from President Barack Obama. 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 commends Carolyn Blum and thanks her for her years of extraordinary service to Denver, making citizens safer through emergency preparedness and community outreach in 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 Carolyn Glen.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Your motion to.
Speaker 1: Adopt. I move for the adoption of proclamation number 358.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I am honored to bring this forward. I have had the pleasure of getting to know and work with Carolyn, whom I consider to be a friend. I really appreciate all the extraordinary, extraordinary work that you have done in the city. You know, we do the proclamation every year encouraging people, taking advantage of the training and trying to help the public understand the importance of that. And for folks who have done that. When you are in an emergency, you just kind of go into into first gear and you know what to do. And so for people who have never done this training, they're just kind of sitting around waiting for the emergency responders to show up. And, you know, they're over at the epicenter of the incident dealing with the problem. And it's going to be a while before they come to take care of you. So the more you know and the better prepared you are, the better off you and your families are going to be. And and Carolyn has done just an extraordinary job in outreaching to communities. The work with our disabled community has been amazing as well, including all the different organizations in our city and making sure that where we have places, whether it's a group home, setting a nursing home, you know, a day facility, that that facility knows what they need to do in the event of an emergency, whether it's a tornado, a flood, you name it. They are being trained to be prepared to take care of their clients. So, Carolyn, I we're going to miss you. Thank you for your work with the city and the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. And I hope that you will stay in touch. And I just wish you all the best and good luck and good luck and God bless in your retirement.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other comments, Secretary. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.
Speaker 0: Ortega.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn I.
Speaker 0: Gilmore. I Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary. Count the votes.
Speaker 0: Sorry. One is missing. Great. Eight eyes.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes. The proclamation is adopted. Councilwoman, I take it you have somebody you'd like to do.
Speaker 1: Before bringing Carolyn up, I'd like to ask Brian Bratton, who is the director of the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, if you would mind making a few comments.
Speaker 7: Gladly. Thank you very much for this honor. We're going to really miss Carolyn. She has done a phenomenal job outreaching to our community. One of those amazing parts is that she's adapted to the changing demographics within Denver. So well, looking at disabilities and looking at aging and also looking at language as potential barriers for access into that information and has done a phenomenal job creating over 30 programs that reach out to our community in different ways, at different skill levels, at different time. Commitments to ensure that the community is as prepared as they want to be. I will say my part to that is that our success in emergency management depends upon your preparedness as counsel and as residents. At the end of the day, we can offer everything, but we need to encourage people to continue to stay engaged. We will continue and expand these operations as Carolyn departs and we bring in somebody.
Speaker 8: To try to replace her. But it's going to be a long uphill.
Speaker 7: Battle for anybody who comes after. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So as Carolyn is coming forward, yes, whoever comes in will have some big shoes to fill. But I think any of you who saw the news coverage when we had the fire in 18th Street just about two weeks ago, she was one of the very people that was out there helping all of the families who were displaced as a result of that fire. So, Carolyn, thank you again for all your service and the floor is yours. Not quite as tall as Ryan. Thank you, Councilwoman Taylor. And thank you for the council for passing the proclamation for me. There's been a lot of things that have happened over.
Speaker 0: The last.
Speaker 6: 11 years.
Speaker 1: And 12 years ago I made a statement. I need a bigger territory. And God.
Speaker 0: Blessed me.
Speaker 1: With Denver. And it has been.
Speaker 0: A great joy and honor to serve the people of Denver. As I go out on my new journey. But I do want to make sure that in the.
Speaker 1: Proclamation.
Speaker 0: There was mention of my instructors. There's no way that I could have done all that had been done without the volunteers of this great city, to this great city.
Speaker 1: And I want to name them one at a time. If you don't or if.
Speaker 3: You will, just give me indulgence.
Speaker 0: Start with Gary Friedman. He's the one who's.
Speaker 1: Been with me the longest.
Speaker 3: He's also.
Speaker 1: DHS.
Speaker 0: Department of.
Speaker 3: Human.
Speaker 0: Services. He works for.
Speaker 3: The city.
Speaker 1: And county in Denver and donates his time.
Speaker 3: Also back to Denver, Curtis Garrett, who.
Speaker 0: Works for the Department of Parks and Rec. He also was the chairperson for the people with disabilities. I took him to a conference in Washington.
Speaker 1: And emergency management beat him. And now he's one of our.
Speaker 3: Instructors.
Speaker 0: And program.
Speaker 3: Directors.
Speaker 1: We have Lee and Patti, which are I want you guys to stand up.
Speaker 3: And as I.
Speaker 1: Center Lee, Liam, Patti. Lambert if he has stepped in.
Speaker 0: He's a.
Speaker 1: Retired schoolteacher from DHS.
Speaker 0: For over 30 years.
Speaker 1: And he has stepped.
Speaker 3: Up.
Speaker 0: Into the role of the lead for this program in the high school program.
Speaker 3: We have over there.
Speaker 1: In in Bob and Dora. And he is retired from the city public works.
Speaker 0: And if you look at us, we're all boomers. So we're really.
Speaker 1: Pushing into the aging population. So we're keeping everybody busy. And then.
Speaker 0: Over there by.
Speaker 1: Bob. Oh, that's oh. In front of Bob is my husband, who is also one of our instructors. He volunteer. He was. He he will tell you he's volun told he retired three years ago and he's and I said, you got to go help Lee. So he's here. When that's not here is Dave Cook.
Speaker 3: He helped me start.
Speaker 1: This program from the beginning. He is here. Where is he? Oh.
Speaker 3: He's over there. Okay. Dave Cook. He was he was actually.
Speaker 1: The one that when I went into the hospital, stepped up and did not let any of our programs fail for the three months that I was out. I have amazing people around me, and I can't say enough about the folks who are here. And I thank you for the indulgence. But one of the other things that.
Speaker 3: I do have to say.
Speaker 1: Is thank you to my instructors and the people who.
Speaker 3: Participate.
Speaker 1: With us.
Speaker 3: But you guys have.
Speaker 1: Got a winner. One of the best emergency managers in this country is sitting right here in this room.
Speaker 0: You are very blessed to have Ryan and to be your emergency manager here in the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 1: Being around this business for 30 years. You see a lot of characters. Yeah. I can call.
Speaker 0: Ryan a character, but he's one of the.
Speaker 3: Best.
Speaker 1: Characters you'll ever find in this world for emergency management. And Councilman Lopez, thank you for being such a support over the years. Also, he came to a class a night in 2009 and Debbie came in. You know, it's just the.
Speaker 0: Support that this city has given us.
Speaker 1: To grow is second to none. Thank you. Can we also ask the staff who are here from OEM, if you would mind, standing as well? Yeah. Thank you all for what you do. Marilyn, thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing Carolyn Bluhm for her service in emergency management coordination for the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04092018_18-0260
|
Speaker 0: Yes, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Madam Secretary, would you put the first item on our screens? Councilman new, will you put council resolution 260 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 9: Move the council resolution to 60. Be adopted.
Speaker 3: You're waiting for a second. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish. It has been moved and seconded. Questions by Council. Comments. Council. Councilman. New. Comment.
Speaker 9: No, no comment.
Speaker 3: Okay. Comments. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I call this out because I am on the board of a nonprofit that often receives continuum of care funding for services provided at a couple of housing developments owned by this nonprofit. So I will be abstaining from this vote tonight.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Ortega Abstain. Flynn.
Speaker 0: Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Madam President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Seven I's, one abstention.
Speaker 3: Seven I's, one abstention. The Council. The resolution to 60 has been adopted. Okay, Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Flynn, what would you like us to do with Council Resolution 286?
|
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 concerning the "Continuum of Care Projects" and the funding therefor.
Appropriates $2,657,458 for the Combined Housing First Continuum of Care project from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide rental assistance and support services for homeless persons with special needs. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-30-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-13-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04092018_18-0170
|
Speaker 3: 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 Constable 170 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Madam Chair. I move the Council Bill one seven to be placed by final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Okay. We're waiting for a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Councilor Bill 170 is open. May we have the Step five report? Welcome, Scott.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 935 West 11th avenue from you are h 2.5 to U Annex two X property is located in Council District three in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. It's on 11th Avenue between Kalama Street and Santa Fe Drive Properties, about 6500 square feet. And it's currently the home of the scum of the Earth Church. Request is to rezone from U RH 2.5, which has urban neighborhood context rowhouse zoning with a two and a half storey maximum height to you annex two X, which is still urban neighborhood context mixed use zoning with a two storey maximum height and the X indicates that there are additional restrictions in the zoning to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential properties. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to allow for retail uses in the the church. The intend to keep the church there. But also want to add some additional uses. The surrounding zoning to the north and west is the same. You are h 2.5 that stretches along the east side of Kalama street, north to the east along Santa Fe Drive is CMC, which is Main Street eight story zoning north of 11th Avenue and then south of 11th CMC five, which is Main Street five story zoning. Current use, as I mentioned, is a church further north along Kalama Street are single unit residential along Santa Fe Drive, a mix of uses with commercial, retail, office, industrial and residential, and then a variety of residential uses throughout the Lincoln Park neighborhood to the south and across. Ellsworth is a daycare. And then on the other side of the alley is the Colorado Ballet. You can see the existing church building on the top left of that photo there and then some of the surrounding uses in the other photos. This went to planning board on February 7th. They voted 8 to 1 to recommend approval. There were four members of the public that spoke at that meeting, went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on February 27th, and you'll notice in the packet there is a letter of support from the Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association, and we have received no other public comment at this time. In order to approve a resounding, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2000, as described in the staff report. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these five strategies from Top Plan 2000, mostly relating to infill development, mixed use development and creating neighborhood commercial centers, which the proposed rezoning would facilitate. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the concept of land use in Blueprint Denver for this property is urban residential, which calls for higher density, primarily residential, but also a noteworthy number of complementary commercial uses, which is what would be allowed by the UN text to X zoning, either residential or commercial development or the existing civic use. It's also designated an area of stability which the plan recommends maintaining the character of the areas while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. The proposed umx2x would allow development and uses consistent with the existing character. It's currently a nonresidential structure that would remain the case, and there's a mixture of of residential and nonresidential throughout the Lincoln Park neighborhood. 11th Avenue is designated as a mixed use collector, which calls for mixed use development along the streets with slightly higher intensity, which is again consistent with the proposed annexed two X zoning. The third plan is the Lincoln Park neighborhood plan from 2010. The plan designates this as part of the residential character area, which calls for generally stability supported by appropriate zoning. But it also calls for support services such as those that would be provided or could be provided under the new annex to ex zoning. More specifically, this is in the townhouse land use area in the land use map for the plan which calls for rowhouse zoning recommended as an example of the existing you RH 2.5 zoning. But it also encourages a mixture of uses and says other uses may be consistent or appropriate if they are substantially mitigated, which is what the new annexed two X zoning district is intended to do. There are other calls for providing these sort of neighborhood services and buffers from the commercial development along Santa Fe to the neighborhood, which would also be provided by the proposed duplex. Two X zoning also recommends a three storey maximum height. The proposed zoning would have a two storey maximum height, 35 feet, which is the same maximum height as the existing you RH 2.5. So overall staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the recommendations of the Lama Lincoln Park Neighborhood Plan and the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the U.N. text to ex zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and allowing for additional neighborhood serving amenities in the Lincoln Park neighborhood. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances, staff finds. If the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed and changing conditions in the area, there's increased residential density in the area, some redevelopment, particularly the Mariposa District development, just two blocks to the west. But there's also been additional development in the area and along Santa Fe. Notably the Colorado Ballet Building just across to 11th Avenue. These changes have increased residential density, increased commercial activity, increased the demand for a mix of uses to make it appropriate to rezone this property to annex two acts. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would allow development that is consistent with the urban neighborhood context, description and the purpose and intent of the U.N. next to zone district. And therefore, staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval on the answer. Answering Questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Scott. We have three speakers tonight and I'll just call you up. Jesse Holman, William Moore and Sekou Wood. Jesse Harmon, please come to the podium.
Speaker 4: Hello.
Speaker 3: Good evening.
Speaker 8: My name is Jessie Hileman. I live at 3531 Milwaukee Street, so I reside in Councilman Brooks district. And then I am the senior pastor of the Scum of the Earth Church. And so I do quite a bit of investment in Councilman Lopez's district. Yeah. Skipping the what has already been mentioned specifically, what we are intending to do is create a retail shop for roller derby products. There is there was a shop on Broadway is closed down a couple of years ago. And we would like to replace replace that hole in the community of roller derby. We have a lot of overlap with our community, our church community and with our and with the roller derby community. They're both incredibly positive communities, and yet we still have a lot to learn from each other. And there's like a great meshing of that they were hoping for. It's a we already have investment in the neighborhood in other ways. Music. Bicycles for kids in the neighborhood. Things like that. And yet. Roller derby is fairly large, relatively speaking, in Denver. We have one of the top five teams in the world and another top top 30 team here in Denver as well. So it's we have a draw for a roller derby in Denver and we actually pull in. This would be a landmark visit for the state and even surrounding states because there is not much in the way of retail for this.
Speaker 3: So thank you, Mr. Howard. Appreciate it. William Moore.
Speaker 4: Wilmore. I live at 1112 Kalamazoo. I've lived there for 25 years. A lot of my neighbors are multi-generational.
Speaker 2: If this zoning.
Speaker 4: Goes through, will this be opening the whole neighborhood up to be a reason to for multi-use? Am I going to be losing residential in the neighborhood to multi-use? Are we going to, you know, just kick everybody out and. Let them fend for themselves. That's about all I have to say.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Sekou.
Speaker 4: Yes, ma'am. My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, whose client base is poor, working poor students. Retired folks. Pretty much. You're scum of the earth. And we take pride in approving this ordinance because we have a direct relationship with the people who are struggling to be self-supporting and to be an asset to the community. And not only that, but the truth is everything that they talked about conforms exactly to all the plans, regulations and whatnot. So that in and of itself is enough to have a unanimous, unanimous vote on this thing. And when you add on to what is going to be able to happen there, but they're going to be able to plug the gap of services that have disappeared so that they can reappear to enhance the development of what they do. That's our standard. That's outstanding. So I can't see how you would not vote to approve this. And we want to thank Paul for bringing this forward. And we want to thank. I am going to do it. What Paul did. You know, because you're the queen mother, because people don't remember. You just do this all the time. I was here when you did two terms of this. So thank you for being here and your leadership and. My daughter's watching you, Ben Franklin. So thank you very much. And that's all I got.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Sekou. That is it concludes our speakers questions from counsel. And I see no questions.
Speaker 8: It's taken a while.
Speaker 3: It is. Oh. Councilman Lewis.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. If you want to come up to the. To the podium, sir. Mr. Peebles. Right. If you want to talk, I don't just want to just be. So skate shop is just what it sounds like. You sound roller skates, selling equipment, or is it a facility where you're skating it? I just want to make that clear on the record. It will primarily remain a church scum of the Earth Church. But yes, we will have retail hours selling product. But like I said, community is very important to both our church and to roller derby in general. So a lot of community events happening in the building for that purpose. Okay. If I can ask you this question, I mean, I know the area very well, but. On that block. What other uses exist that you're aware of as just residential? There is there's one residential property we have commercial directly to the east. There's the Colorado Ballet, of which my daughter is one of our students, and then a daycare directly to the south. So, yeah, there is there is one residence that borders us, but the rest is retail. Yeah. So it's my mama. A 7-Eleven on the corner. Yeah. 7-Eleven is two doors down to for myself as a magical across the block. Yeah. So there's the. Would you consider that like a mix of residential or just mostly. It's yeah, it seems to be mostly commercial, but. And then but if you go west, it is, it turns into residential. Actually, we consider our church and our mixed use the mixed use zoning and an elegant to transition from the commercial to the residents. Scum of the Earth Church. Are you here to recruit the City Council? Recruiter Oh, we're all scum of the earth. Yes, that's what we consider.
Speaker 3: Is that all your question?
Speaker 8: That's all my question.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Last night.
Speaker 3: Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman had kind of put his hand up before I saw your thing. Do you mind if we let him go ahead or do you want to arm wrestle for it?
Speaker 4: I think I like to arm wrestle and actually.
Speaker 3: But. All right. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: That's because two comes before six. Okay. Scott, could you address Mr. Moore's question as to the impact that the CBD sees as having on the block?
Speaker 7: Yeah. If other properties wanted to request to rezoning, they would have the right to do so and we would evaluate it against the the plans and the criteria. I think this property is a bit unique because it is existing nonresidential use, whereas the rest of that rowhouse on council's side is existing residential and it's directly adjacent to the existing commercial development along Santa Fe. So, you know, without having an application in front of me, I can't tell you what we would recommend on other other applications. But I do think that this property has some characteristics that would set it apart from other residential properties in the area.
Speaker 4: Okay. And thank you. Let me make sure I understand again, Pastor. I'm sorry. Your name again. What will be different in the functioning of the property, or is it still going to be used as a.
Speaker 5: Church for services?
Speaker 8: Yes. Primarily. You're just adding in church. Yeah. Adding that there'll be primarily afternoon, we'll add signage to the outside and that's the only physical change to the outside.
Speaker 4: Okay. Mr. Moore, could I ask you a question? Yes.
Speaker 3: A question. Mr. Moore, would you like to come to.
Speaker 4: Could you mostly. You came up in your testimony and you asked a question. Can I ask you to make a statement, make an affirmative statement as what are your concerns with this rezoning? What what's your concern about it? Well, I'm right next to the right. You are right. Literally on the same side of the aisle. Yeah, at the front three. I have the front half of three lots. They have the back half. Right. And my major concern is it's going to be a roller derby concert venue, which is just destroys my life, you know, my retirement. I, you know, I've spent 25 years really working on that property.
Speaker 2: And I'd like to retire there now. I'd like I like my neighborhood.
Speaker 4: I'd like it to stay residential. I'm really concerned about the roller derby and the concert venue. Okay. Thank you. Pastor, could you address that? What what will be going on in terms of I mean, you're not doing roller derby in the building.
Speaker 8: They were there could be we had, you know, a sanctuary, a fairly large space. So you had probably be some test of the product inside the building. Infrequently, concert venue. We are not technically a concert venue, but our usage is quasi public for religious gathering. We do have worship services.
Speaker 4: We have music there.
Speaker 8: Which have music.
Speaker 4: Okay. Not Gregorian chant, I imagine.
Speaker 8: No, no.
Speaker 4: I'm just curious. I can still read Gregorian chant. Madam President, I defer to Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Pastor, if you don't mind. So. Is there. Or maybe Scotland need to answer this as well. Is there licensing or they could they hold paid concerts or things of that nature at this church?
Speaker 8: Admission for free concert specifically? No, not at this time. I mean, there's some exceptions that would have to be made to the usage, I think for that.
Speaker 5: And the church itself is is not structured. So there would be actual roller derby contests?
Speaker 8: Oh, no, definitely not.
Speaker 5: And how much space do you expect to be devoted to this retail use?
Speaker 8: The retail offerings will actually be movable, so they will be be able to be put away. I mean, a few.
Speaker 5: Hundred square feet.
Speaker 8: At about 4 to 500 square feet.
Speaker 5: Okay. And how large is the building itself?
Speaker 8: Altogether, I think we're at 2100.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Pastor Scott. What was the one no vote at the planning board about?
Speaker 7: Yes. As I recall, the planning board member had concerns about specifically the fourth criterion, the justifying circumstances, and that there wasn't enough change to justify. If this if the church went away and it went entirely retail, that that change would not be appropriate.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other questions? I'll look up and down. All right, Paul, you. Did you have another question? Is it.
Speaker 8: Not? Yeah.
Speaker 3: Is it a it's not. It's not working quite right. Okay. No, no, it just came up. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: Yeah. If you want to come back to the. No, I'm right. Sorry, Steph. So it, it appears that there's a it appears that there's a church now at our church use is allowed in residential. This I mean one of our churches that play music allowed in residential areas.
Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean churches are allowed in pretty much all zone districts are subject to certain restrictions in some cases. I don't know the specific requirements related to playing of music. I think generally that's considered incidental to the church use. But the city attorney's here, they may be able to provide more direction on that. If that doesn't answer your question.
Speaker 8: I just don't I don't think they need to. I just wanted to just based on zoning in that I mean, I don't know if maybe the city attorney wanted to. Do you do you want me do you want to address that question? Is it? One is. I just want to get your expertize in terms of the church that plays music in a neighborhood like this residential zone district allowed in. Is it breaking any laws by doing this?
Speaker 1: No. The church should be allowed to play music associated with their services. They may need some type of permit if they're going to hold a special event or something along those lines. But as far as playing music related to their services, they could do that.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Nick.
Speaker 3: Did you have any other questions, Councilman?
Speaker 8: No, ma'am.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else who has questions? No. That closed the public hearing and asked for comments from council members. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate the the staff report and also the. The request when you go over to for me, when you go over to the site and I've seen this plenty of times I graduated from West High School in. In the late nineties and this was our route back and forth. There was different churches there at different times. If this was a new use, that was a venue that played concerts. I mean, it was not ever in existence as it is. I'd be, you know, and be a little bit more open to hearing and possibly being a little bit concerned, primarily if it was residential. What makes me feel good about this rezoning is on 11th Avenue. It's all commercial, almost. You have a car lot. You got the ballet. You have. You have 7-Eleven, which is busy all the time. And you're only a block off of Santa Fe Drive. And being that close in an existing structure that has been a church before. There's really nothing you can do against that right now. Retail. This is the only reason why, from what I understand, is going to use is because you want to do retail. You actually want to sell, sold things out of the shop. That in and of itself is the question at hand. I don't see anything that would. That would be problematic if it. You know, I know that the Lama Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association wrote a letter in support and they're very particular. When you when you talk about llama Lincoln Park and this and this part of the neighborhood, the existing structures and uses, you know, they're very particular and they're very diligent in sitting down and talking it over and making sure that this is something that does not displace anybody. There's nobody living there right now. So there's nobody is being displaced. It looks like this old church that has been have different iterations over time is just being reoccupied again for the scum of the Earth Church. So having said that, I, I don't see any problem with this. It does conform to the to our requirements. And I. Madam President, I think it's good to go.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments? Just looking up and down. No seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Raquel Lopez.
Speaker 0: I knew Ortega, I.
Speaker 4: Flynn No.
Speaker 1: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 0: Cashman. I can eat. Madam President, I too.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 0: Seven eyes, one nay.
Speaker 3: Seven eyes, one nay. Count for 170 has passed. Okay, now, Councilman Nu, will you please put Council Bill 172 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 935 West 11th Avenue in Lincoln Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 935 West 11th Avenue from U-RH-2.5 to U-MX-2x (urban, row-home to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 3. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 4-9-18. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04092018_18-0172
|
Speaker 3: Seven eyes, one nay. Count for 170 has passed. Okay, now, Councilman Nu, will you please put Council Bill 172 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Madam Chair. I move that the council bill 172 replace from for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman, New Year motion to postpone.
Speaker 9: Yes, I move that. The final consideration of Council Bill 172 with this public hearing be postponed to Monday, April 16th, 2018.
Speaker 3: It has been moved. I'm waiting on a second. Then there is one comments by members of council councilman who.
Speaker 9: Yes, as you know, never had in my district ten and had several of the applicants have come to me and just asked for a postponement. So this is directly coming from the African themselves. And so I encourage my colleagues to vote for the postponement. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 0: New Ortega, I. Flynn I. Gilmore. Cashman, Canete, Lopez.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 0: Madam President. All right.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, close of voting. And now it's the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 301, 303 and 327 South Harrison Street in Belcaro.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 301, 303 and 327 South Harrison Street from B-4 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-8 (former Chapter 59 zoning code to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04092018_18-0173
|
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, close of voting. And now it's the results.
Speaker 0: Eight eyes.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes. Final consideration of council 172 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, April 16th, next Monday. All right, Councilman, will you please put Council Bill 173 on the floor.
Speaker 9: And move the council? Will 173 be placed upon final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 173 is open. We'll start with the staff report. Hello, Miss Lucero.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Theresa Lucero with community planning and development. This is a map amendment. The addresses are 1660, 1682 and 1684 Grove Street and 30, 88 and 3092 West 17th Avenue. The request is to rezone from general urban multi-unit three storey to urban center mixed use five storeys. This is in City Council District three in the West Colfax neighborhood. It is nearly an acre. 36,900 square feet. Existing 21 multi-unit apartment are on the property. And again the request is to rezone from GMU three to cx5. It is a redevelopment of multi-unit to multi-unit structures. Existing zoning is Jehmu three surrounding on the north and south GMU three to the east C-Max five with a couple of overlays, the adult use overlay and the billboard overlay. And then to the West are to a Chapter 59 multi-unit zoned district. So the subject property is affordable housing multi-unit residential to the north across 17th avenue is parking and single unit residential to the south, multi-unit residential to the east commercial along Federal Boulevard and then to the west more affordable multi-unit residential and gives you an idea of the location and its proximity to Mile High Stadium. This gives you an idea of the form and scale of the structures in the area. The center is the structures that are proposed for rezoning. To the right is the parking lot and electric facility across 17th Avenue, some commercial on Federal Boulevard to the right below. And then the new three storey apartment building or condo building that was under construction to the south and then to the west, a more multi-unit, three storey residential. So the CMC's five would be multi-unit residential with mixed use commercial allowed, and it would call for pedestrian scaled in diverse areas and improving the transition between commercial and residential . Informational notice on this application went out in November of 2017. Planning Board Notice was posted 15 days ahead of the Planning Board hearing on February 7th of this year, and by a unanimous vote, the board recommended approval. And we were at Moody Committee on in February of this year. And then, of course, we're here this evening and proper notification has been made of this hearing. The R.A. is in the area. Our West Colfax Association of Neighbors, Sloan's Lake Citizens Group, West Colfax Business Improvement District, Federal Boulevard, Corridor Improvement Partnership and of course, I.N.S.. And to date, staff has no comment letters on this application. So, you know, the criteria I'm going to talk to heavily about those are the plans that apply. We've got four different plans, comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, West Colfax Plan of 2006, and then the Decatur Federal Stationary Plan of 2013. Current plan staff believes that these strategies from current plan are the strategies that this application conforms with and those are detailed in your staff report in Blueprint Denver. This is an area of change where we do want a channel growth that's beneficial. Urban it is an urban residential land use category. So that's calls for higher density, primarily residential, but some complementary commercial uses and a mixture of housing types, including single family townhome, multifamily apartment and some high rise structures. 17th Avenue is a residential collector, Grove Street and on designated local street Federal Boulevard, a residential arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. So. Where of course you want to or on our arterials you have city wide connections and the enhanced transit corridor is focused on transit supportive land uses. So the West Colfax Plan has two different sections. The framework plan calling for gives us guidance on the zoning changes and this property is considered part of the urban town center. And the plan talks about a compact, dense core that. Is connected and walkable and clustered near the intersection of major and major, major arterials. Sorry, and that this compact core filters out to the edges. And so there's a focus on intense development at the core and that you're maximizing development of urban land in this area . The land use recommendations talk about that dense core and walkable development and radiating that dense core to from there to the through the neighborhood and talks about promoting the inclusion of affordable units and supporting infill development and. Focusing both structural and use intensity to these town centers. So this gives you an idea of the town center and the location of the property in that town center from the Colfax Framework Plan. Then the district plans in the West Colfax plan talk about character and scale of areas and this property is within the Cheltenham Heights Town Center in this portion of the plan which talks about new development fitting seamlessly into surrounding neighborhoods, town centers functioning as the heart of the community and focusing the most intense structures and uses in the dense core and ensuring a dynamic mix of uses, focusing the most intense uses east of Julien Street and promoting significant increase in residential densities and improving the permit permeability of the town center . And this picture shows you the in the Heights Town Center as depicted in the plan. One thing you might notice between this and the other town center map was that this town center map extends a block further north than the framework town center map. And then, of course, the Decatur Federal Station Area Plan, which is the most current plan which focused primarily on the Sun Valley neighborhood, but did incorporate and refine some comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver recommendations. But the plan specifically did not change the recommendations of the West Colfax plan. So the development concept from Decatur Federal is a station area connected to downtown and the region. Federal Boulevard and 17th Avenue were called neighborhood activity nodes. Federal Boulevard and 17th Avenue are were key multi-modal connections linking the neighborhood and the region. 17th Avenue's street classification stayed residential collector in the Decatur Federal Plan, but Federal Boulevard was changed from a residential arterial to a mixed use arterial in this plan, emphasizing a variety of travel choices. There were several top recommendations in the federal Decatur federal plan, creating a compact development pattern, creating a diverse, cohesive and walkable community, encouraging both vertical and horizontal mixture of uses, and attracting high quality, mixed income residential communities. And the Blueprint Denver land use concept was not updated in the Decatur federal plan. So the property that we're talking about remains urban residential, as is in the blueprint plan. So recommendations from Decatur Federal for Residential Communities are encourage the development of a variety of high quality and attainable, high priced residential options, encourage the development of new, high quality, affordable housing units. And as you see on the map for this property, the plan recommends five storeys in height. So with that, staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the four different plans that we've discussed. That by using our standards zone districts, we are consistent in the uniform application of our zone districts by encouraging a denser mixed use redevelopment near an enhanced transit corridor and transit station where shopping, jobs and services and transit ridership will increase. We and we are implementing the city's plans and there is, as everyone in the city knows, for a lot of changes happening in the West Colfax neighborhoods. So we believe change circumstance is justifying is a correct justifying circumstance. And we believe that this is consistent with the urban center context, which allows a mixture of land use, is compatible with the area and a moderately skilled mixed use and transit oriented residential development that is characteristic of the area. So with that, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Mr. Sarah. We have three speakers tonight Richard Taft, Bruce O'Donnell and Sekou. Mr. Taft, would you like to start us off?
Speaker 5: Evening, Madame President, and members of council. I'm Dick Taft. I live at 817 17th Street in in Denver. I am the president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Communities, which is a501 C3 nonprofit corporation. We own manage and develop affordable rental housing communities across the state of Colorado. In addition to providing housing at four of our communities, we also provide programs and services for resident families and the families in adjacent neighborhoods. These programs and other types of support provide programs in this sorry step out of bounds there, including but not limited to early childhood education, English as a second language. Gardening plots, food pantries and senior health and wellbeing. English as a second language rent assistance. Mom baby classes. Raising a reader and the list can go on. Of the eight properties we own, three are in Denver. The 300 unit garden court property and at 12th and Syracuse is actually in your district. The Arroyo Village is a joint venture with the Dolores project and is under construction at the Knox Court Station on the west front line in Councilman Lopez's district. And our third community, the town view community, which is what we're here to talk about tonight, is also in Councilman Lopez's district. We're here this evening to request the approval for a rezoning request of a small parcel of the town view community. The entire and the entire town view community is over 50 years old and has only 122 apartments on five acres. The Grove Street parcel in the southeast corner of the site has three buildings with only 12 units and is at the end of its usable life, as actually is the case for most of the other 120 units on the site. We all know about Denver's seemingly unending upward spiral in housing costs. We also know that the current value of the full town view site across from the entry to the stadium to the Broncos stadium is significant, to say the least. However, our mission and vision is not to sell or trade. Our hope and expectation is that we will be able to rezone the balance of this five acre site in the future, in the near future, and be able to create somewhere of around 250 more rental units than we have on site there today. The apartments will be for families across a wide range of income levels, from 30% EMI up to 100% EMI. In addition, we will be providing community space in which we can grow programs and services for the families.
Speaker 3: Your time is.
Speaker 1: Up.
Speaker 3: Okay. I know it goes quickly. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: I only got three words.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell, and I live at 386 Emerson Street in Denver.
Speaker 7: I've had the pleasure of working with.
Speaker 8: Rocky Mountain communities on this Town View Project for almost three.
Speaker 7: Years now. We've tried to sort.
Speaker 2: Our way.
Speaker 8: Through master planning the entire five acre site and.
Speaker 2: As a result of lack of plan, support for the balance of the site. The rezoning before you this.
Speaker 8: Evening is only for this small portion of it for which there is plan support.
Speaker 2: For the five story out of the Decatur Federal Stationary Plan.
Speaker 8: Throughout this process, we've had extensive community outreach and public engagement. We held three meetings each with we can and with this launch like Citizens Group, we had a seventh meeting that was convened by CPD and Councilman Lopez, his office.
Speaker 2: And the result of that, as you can see, is there's very little fanfare this evening. And I think the neighbors.
Speaker 8: Are generally on board with the concept. So consistent with the.
Speaker 7: Staff report.
Speaker 4: And with the planning board recommendation for approval.
Speaker 8: We ask that you approve Council Bill 18, dash 173 tonight and we're available for questions. Should you have any. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 4: Chairman Sekou Blackstar, a movement for self-defense, primarily client based, poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and youth. We support this. Change zoning. So that the area can have the economic development tools to work with to increase the housing base that is not affordable but what we can afford. And when you talk about being below these ranges of income ranges from 30% to 100%, that leaves some possibilities that maybe out of, say, 250 units, we might get by that multinational import, which means the other 400 245 go to folks who can't afford to got the money. Who's moving into this? Who's got money? And now we have replacement of local people, new people coming in who can afford it. And it's a real interesting challenge that we face. Now, we salute Councilman Lopez because out of all of the folks he has fought the hardest and against the most resistant to this income level, stuff that most poor people can afford. No. How did he bring it down? You know, from 80% to 60%, we're talking about 30%. That's outstanding. And no one can claim that in the district that they're doing that, which needs to be more that done. So we have to support this. And at the same time, Paul, we've been working very hard, especially with Councilman Newman, to look at when you're building this stuff. Like Debbie was talking about, how can the people get involved economically so that they can get paid to be on these jobs who are skilled labor that are being overlooked and not being enrolled in one of these processes. I just spent lunch at Sunny Lawson Park talking to folks who are skilled laborers who across the street they were building, but they couldn't get no work because they left. So there seems to be some kind of caveat here that if you say something about black people getting some work done, we're considered the scum of the earth because it means we should join the scum of the Earth Church. And maybe then we can find some employment because no one's willing to say that work. We are down for black people being included, but when everybody else is working in our neighborhood and we're not even working in our own neighborhood, there's. Don't say nothing. Don't rock the boat because we get what we need out of this. And there's a muffle sound. So I'm here to advocate on behalf of those who say that no voice, that we need work. And we need work now. And we need work not only in our neighborhoods, but all throughout the city because it's fair, because everybody throughout the city's working in our neighborhood but us. And so as the story goes, Mr. Stevens, you just put your top.
Speaker 3: Years is.
Speaker 4: Up. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from counsel Councilwoman Ortega?
Speaker 1: I just wanted to ask either Richard or Bruce if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. Just want to ask if the buildings are all vacant right now or what is the phasing look like? Can you just talk about that a little bit?
Speaker 5: Was the question, are the buildings still full now?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Are they vacant? Are they empty?
Speaker 5: Yes. Yes, they are.
Speaker 1: Okay. All of them.
Speaker 5: Well, except for one or two vacancies. But that's just the normal flow of business.
Speaker 1: Okay. And what is that phasing look like? You going from the south to the north? Help me. Understand with the buildings that you have identified as part of this phase.
Speaker 5: So what we're what we're intending to do is on that parcel, that Grove Street parcel, we want to put a senior building on that spot, in that spot. And the way the buildings are configured right now, they are they take up a tremendous amount of ground for no good reason. So what we're trying to do is get up to about 130 units of senior housing. About 40% would be two bedroom I'm sorry, 30% would be two bedrooms and 70% would be one bedrooms. And the other thing we're trying to do is we're trying to start building buildings that have a mix of incomes in those buildings so that we're not constantly piling low income people on low income people.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on Councilwoman Ortega's question about, you know, in terms of how you reach really deeply low income folks, though, because there are folks who are the most vulnerable. And so do you guys accept Section eight vouchers at all your age? So do you have residents who earn? You know who? What's the lowest amount of rent someone might be paying in one of your apartments? And regardless of whether am I level is what's an example of the lowest rent someone might pay if they have a Section eight resident out of or section four out of their pocket?
Speaker 5: Basically, permanent supportive housing is the lowest. We we get vouchers from the HRA for those those individuals.
Speaker 6: Can you just give an example of what they pay in rent out of their own pocket about.
Speaker 5: If they if they get SSI, Social Security. Income. They get, I believe up to $90 a month is their income and they're required to pay, I think, one third of their income as their rent.
Speaker 6: So your your properties generally include some folks who earn very, very little and pay only $100 or a couple hundred dollars in rent. They include that. I think that gets lost sometimes in the AMA level. So thank you for clarifying.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And dig the for the record. Can you please go through the amount of units? How many a certain am I bedrooms? Just so we can be clear on the records. I know a lot of folks pay attention to Channel eight late at night or about 730 right now. I think it's important point.
Speaker 5: You want the for the record, the chronology of this effort.
Speaker 8: No, just just the amount. If the rezoning is approved tonight. How many units are we upgrading and the breakdown of those units?
Speaker 5: This is the best. Yeah, it's tough to say at this point because we've only had one master plan done. And and that was somewhere around that 300 units range. The highest density is the senior building to it, because just on that block they'd have 130 units.
Speaker 8: It's one time.
Speaker 5: So we're we're trying to figure out the balance between community space, open space and the number of units and also the types of units. I think when we when we have talked with you, Councilman, we were talking that we'd seriously try to get as many four bedroom units in as we as we could just because of the fact that there's such a dearth of three and four bedroom units in affordable housing today, so that those four bedroom units would probably bring the count down just because of the size and the fact that they take up bedrooms. So just the ultimate goal is if we can max out the the the property to to the point where we have a mix of income, a serious mix of incomes, and a serious ability to provide community based programs for the residents that live there. That's that's really what we're trying to accomplish. And if I could do 500, I'd try.
Speaker 8: But it was a ballpark number of how many units.
Speaker 5: Right now I'm figuring it's going to be between 250 and 300 to 15.
Speaker 8: 300 aside from. And I really appreciate councilman, can each his line of questioning in terms of some of the vouchers to this day supportive housing. That's important. It's critical because nobody talks about those nobody mentions those. Some property owners willing to. But the army levels. If we were just talking, am I mixed of mixed income? What are the ranges of those 50? What are the ranges of am I oh.
Speaker 5: The ranges of.
Speaker 8: The way am I for those maybe 250 to 300 units depending on the on the on the master plan. Just ballpark.
Speaker 5: You know, probably it could probably go out as as just a standing percentage. We could we could break that between 30%. I up to 100%, Amy, in in 20% ranges and have, you know, five tranches of of of the income ranges. And so we're you know, we're we're also looking at the idea of 100%, Amy, is it we're going to start picking up people who actually have have jobs and are actually having a difficult time finding something that is affordable in in the Denver market. Um, but. Yeah. It's. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 6: Thanks. I'm sorry. I just have to jump in and clarify the record. Something you just said kind of hit me. You said people are 100% of am-I are actually working residents at 50% of. Am I also. Yes. Yeah, that's not I just don't. Can you do you want to clarify the record? Yes, yes.
Speaker 5: Yes. And there are people who are making 30% AMI and 40% alike. Yes. The whole the whole stratum has has people who are working. I apologize.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Do I have any other questions? Seeing none. I'm going to close the public hearing and comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate you coming to the microphone and staff for doing the report. Thank you very much. That is a you know, when I was first approached by. About this application, you know, of course, as council members, we have to be very objective. Right. Especially when it looks at rezoning. I know this area very well and I know that these these units have been subsidized units. I've always wondered who and before you had actually approached me, I've always wondered what's with all the land space around them and they're configured in a way that's just not efficient for the need. Right. And then I think about it and I think of when they were built in the time that they were built. And this is Old Mile High Stadium, right? This is when that does single single family, you know, two storey homes were all that existed in the area when Denver I don't think even you know, there was no eulogies. It was I mean, you started McNichols Arena in the area. I mean, it was a different time. The need always there. But now this is more of a modern way in a modern zone district, especially in this area, especially because if you looked at the prices of homes in this area, if you looked at the build in this area, everything's growing up. Everything's going higher. Higher density, higher prices, home values. The fact that we. We're growing so quickly in that area, it's hard to be able to identify areas that we could actually preserve for affordable housing and to do exactly what you're saying, to hang on to this is a big deal and to take it to the next level is a big deal. And no one really wanted to commend you for the use of mixed use, because it isn't just the affordable housing that we need. It's not just housing that is a crisis in the city. It's also wages and job opportunities. And with that commercial retail space, you have that in some areas you could actually live, work, have like a live work use, especially when it comes to affordable housing. Now it's not too far away from Sun Valley. Sun Valley is also another area that's going to be built that's going to be going higher in terms of stories and density with affordable housing. It's not too far from our Royal Village. It's not too far from other projects that are also slated for affordable housing. However, it's right across the street from probably the biggest. Some of the biggest parking lots that are unoccupied for most of the year in the west side, right in Denver, next to Pepsi Center. And we know and we know because of the announcement that CPD made and some of the intent of the Metropolitan Football District and the stadium district is that those lots are going to be developed. So much is going to be happening on the other side of Federal Boulevard. It's going to be hard for us to be able to keep keep up with the development and also making sure that it's affordable. And we have. And so this kind of this kind of rezoning application, this rezoning that actually takes it to Cemex five is is appropriate because of the density question. We need more. And so with that, I don't see why there would be I know that there's no opposition to this in the neighborhoods. I know there's no opposition to it in the communities. It's it's exactly what's needed in the area. That's why you don't see a lot of folks here. There's one rezoning that we don't have very much opposition to at all, if any. So. Madam President. I'm good with that moving forward.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to thank this team for their commitment to really making a sincere effort on the affordability component. I mean, obviously, the mix of income levels, I think, is important in developments across the city. And when we allow people to buy out their affordable units and put them somewhere else. We're not creating the integrated neighborhoods that we want to have throughout the city, and you guys are doing that. I also want to thank you for the work that you're doing with your project over on Knox Court as well, which is very nearby this development as well. And I wish we had more developers that were more committed to making sure that we had integrated neighborhoods with affordability built in. You know, we're not calling this rent control, but, you know, in New York City, that's that's what they've done. They've made sure that they've got integrated projects with all income levels. And it's what makes me think any great city, you know, the outstanding city they are because it ensures that, you know, everybody in our community interfaces with one another in lots of different ways. And so I just want to say thank you for for your work in doing this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. And seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 0: Lopez.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 0: New Ortega. Flynn, I. Gilmore Cashman. Hi. Can eat. Madam President, I.
Speaker 3: Please close the voting. Announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1660, 1682 & 1684 Grove Street and 3088 & 3092 West 17th Avenue in West Colfax.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 1660, 1682 & 1684 Grove Street and 3088 & 3092 West 17th Avenue from G-MU-3 to C-MX-5 (general urban, multi-unit to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03272018_18-0270
|
Speaker 0: So let's bring up to 70. Madam Secretary, for a comment by Council Woman Ortega. Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. These bills came to committee last week or the week before, and I just want to share my concern about the fact that several of these are for the mezzanine on Concourse B, which previously were done as sort of a master concession. And although there are still two years left on that contract, this particular concessionaire was allowed to select the folks that are coming in, which will have a ten year lease, and the inconsistency of which ones get to get a seven year lease versus which ones get to get a ten year lease is consistently inconsistent and extremely frustrating for me, and I'm sure it is for those concessionaires who aren't always treated equal, you know, so when you have restaurants that some get seven years and some get ten years, that where's that fairness and equity. So I'm not calling these out for a vote tonight. I abstained from the vote in committee because I was waiting for more information. But we've got one concessionaire that has 16 locations. The airport has a 25% cap on concentration of ownership. And I don't know how this particular concessionaire has not met that concentration of ownership. I know that not each one is 100% owned by that concessionaire, but the concern that I have is around our practices that consistently change. We flex the rules. It used to be a 20% concentration of ownership. We changed it because we had a concessionaire that de wanted to keep there. And so that bumped up to 25%, which is what that cap is now. And so I think we need to ensure that we have consistency in the application of the rules so that they don't deviate from one to another depending on who we want in and who we want out of these concession spaces. And that in itself ensures that we don't get sued as a city as we have seen happen in the past. And so I'm just expressing that frustration with the process and, you know, I'm going to let them go forward. But I just think that as an airport, it's something that we need to monitor more carefully and ensure that we've got consistency in how all the rules are being applied to everyone equally. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. This came up in mayor council and we had a chance to have the legal definition and protection of how this happened. And so I feel good with this legally, but I do share your concern around the consistency. And this was a different a different type of negotiation. Negotiation. So I will be supporting this as well. And it was just a comment. So we're going to move on to actually there note no bills have been called out, so we're going to move on to the black votes. All other bills have been ordered published. We're now ready for black votes on resolutions, on bills. And finally, consideration council members. Remember, this is a consent or black vote. You will you'll need to vote I or otherwise it's your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Council Member Take it. Will you please put the resolutions for adoption of the bills on final consideration and funding for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 7: Will do I move that the following resolutions and bills for final consideration be moved forward. Council Bill 261 I'm sorry Resolution Council Resolution 261 to 60 2 to 60 3 to 60 4 to 60 5 to 60 6 to 60 7 to 60 8 to 60 9 to 70 to 71 to 70 2 to 70 3 to 70 4 to 70 5 to 70 6 to 70 7 to 79. 251 to 40 5 to 40 6 to 48. Two 5253. 255. 256. 195. 221 to 35. 238, 249 and 316. And now we're in bills for final. Right? Yep. 222. Number four. 210 232 132 and 228 B all ordered, published and also adopted in final vote.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do you concur, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been seconded by Secretary Raquel Black.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can eat Lopez.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: New Ortega. I assessment, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Pluto's bringing us results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills in place for one final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be required public hearing council bill 10117 2018 correcting the legal description of specifically describing it.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement the City and County of Denver and DEN Breakfast, LLC concerning development, construction, operation, and maintenance of Snooze a.m. Eatery at Denver International Airport.
Approves a concession agreement with DEN Breakfast, LLC for $674,050 annually and for ten years for the development, construction, operation, and maintenance of Snooze a.m. Eatery concession concept on the B Concourse Mezzanine at Denver International Airport (201840472). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-16-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-14-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03272018_18-0117
|
Speaker 0: Meetings, and they feel comfortable doing so their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only your name is called. Come to the podium, state your name, know that you're available for questions from members of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker's year of his or her time with your vote result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor on your right and left, you'll see that time counting down speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your members say to comments to members of council as a whole and please refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 117 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Mr. President, I move that council B117 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved to the second it a public hearing for council bill 117 in Mali is now open. Andrew Webb. Good to see you. May we have a staff report?
Speaker 4: Absolutely. Thank you. Good evening. Andrew Webb from Community Planning and Development. This is a request to change the legal description adopted with a previous rezoning ordinance for 1440 1436 South Irving Street. It's in Council District three in the Marly neighborhood. This is about a just under three acre property at the intersection of Florida. And federal contains apartments, several apartment buildings and one single unit home. And the property owner request here is to correct the legal description associated with ordinance number 2017 0729. You may recall this council adopted zone change in August of 2017 from a PD 182 SMU three for this property. During a subsequent application to community planning and development, the applicant and their surveyor noticed some errors in the legal description that had been provided with the original documentation for the zone change and requested that that be changed in the ordinance. We worked with the City Attorney's Office to determine the appropriate process here and ultimately was referred to the LUDIE Committee per the section of the zoning code that allows for a truncated review and public hearing process for correction of an error. It was approved as part of the Ludie consent agenda on February six. We did post signage and complete all the required all the requirements of the 21 day public notification. And we have not received public comments about this request. As I mentioned, this proposal just corrects an error and a legal description. It does not change the zoning of this property. So the consistency with review criteria for a rezoning can be presumed by the council's findings in the original rezoning case. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Wow. That was quick questions for members of council. Actually, we had Mr. Speaker, we do have one speaker. I'm sorry, Chairman Sekou. We have one speaker tonight. Chairman Sekou, you have 3 minutes. Please come to the podium.
Speaker 4: Good evening and it's good to see you guys. My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. I will see for poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens also. This. Process that we're having a conversation around seems to be something that is is minor, inconsequential. And folks caught this thing. Oh. So they wouldn't have. Later on down the road consequences. And I remember. I don't know. Maybe. Eight, ten years ago. Well, we came to the same thing. Only problem was, Kelly had caught something about the story of a description of a thing, and it was missing a comma instead of a period and that kind of thing. But it had it and it had an impact on the interpretation of what was being said. And so we thanked her for finding that out because it could have substantial implications in the future. And so these things don't seem like they're much, but what it represents is the effort of the city being able to document, cross the I's, do the T's, and then make sure that this thing is found out. There's an error, that it may seem small, but it needs to be fixed. And it needs to be fixed immediately when it's brought to attention. So we want to thank you for for doing that. And we also want to thank counsel and other folks are bringing that to the attention. Now, what this establishes this no excuses for allowing things, no matter how small they are, to become unattended, which means that once we create the habit. Of paying attention to the details, then less will fall through the cracks. And then everybody don't have to run when the light comes off like scattered cockroaches looking for blame when it ain't date. It's just something that was a human error. And we make that all the time because we're human beings. But also we have the responsibility as human beings when we see a mistake to correct the mistake. Otherwise, as my grandfather was there, you have made a big mistake. So thank you very much for the work that you guys do, doing what you do. Thank council for the work that they do to make sure these things don't happen. And if we apply the same habits to the little things and we apply it to the larger scope of things that impact people on a bigger level, then maybe perhaps we can. Have the team work to make the dream work. With the least amount of headaches. I got eight more seconds. Harris.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Nice shot.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions by members of council? Whole bunch of questions here. Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thing. Mr. Briggs, I don't know about a bunch of questions, but I am curious if you could explain a couple of things. Who made the error and was this error contained in the legal description? Back all the way back at the beginning, I think in 1994 or whenever this was first developed. Has that ever been in there? And does that create any problem? Councilmember Flynn, the the new zoning or legal description was created for the 2017 rezoning. And it was, as you are probably aware, when application for rezoning is received, we send it to our Public Works survey staff to ensure that is correct. They look to make sure that the legal description doesn't contain any right of way, that sort of thing. And in the back and forth between our staff and the applicant's agent. There were a couple of grammatical errors that did not get noticed at that time and were called to our attention. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: I just wanted to confirm that in the documents, what we're looking at is just a portion of the legal description. Correct? Not the total legal description and the slides.
Speaker 4: I do have a slide that actually shows the red lined legal description here so you can see what the changes actually are.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So okay, that that tells me. Yes, we were only looking at a portion here and it's. Oh no actually. Yeah. So we're only talking about the little bump out, not the not the balance of the site.
Speaker 4: The this what you're adopting tonight would actually just reestablish the entire legal description for the original adoption ordinance for the rezoning. It's formatted a little bit differently. But it should it should be this entire text you see here.
Speaker 9: All right. You might want to double check that, because that is a much smaller portion than the area that was part of that rezoning. Okay. So that's why I was just trying to confirm that we're just looking at a portion of the total legal description that would have defined that zoning. But okay. Yeah, that is a fraction of of that entire area. So. Okay.
Speaker 4: We did we'll definitely take a look at that. But we did confirm this repeatedly, this time with public works and with a surveyor that that the applicant had actually hired to do a new and updated legal description.
Speaker 9: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. See? No other questions. The public hearing is now closed. Councilman Lopez, this is your district. Would you love to? Comment.
Speaker 8: Yeah. It just seems like, uh, the obvious. Correcting the, uh, the actual title and description. A lot of times you don't pay attention to the actual description. A lot of people think that's just the address, but it's actual.
Speaker 2: Mm.
Speaker 8: Property lines. And that's a big deal when you're trying to either borrow against a and to improve, improve a property or anything else. When you have that kind of problem, you have a problem with the bank. You have a problem with being able to do upgrades, anything like that when it comes to financing, things like that. These these are apartments that I've known for a very long time. My actual my aunt, my uncle, my cousins lived in these apartments for a long time. So I know exactly which ones they are and if. If this, then I'm just assuming. But if it just stands to make a corrections to do upgrades in bad need. So this is affordable housing, folks. This is these are apartments that before was a popular they are actually affordable and that's disappearing quickly. So I'm glad we're able to make this correction.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega says when.
Speaker 6: I black.
Speaker 2: Eye.
Speaker 3: Clark. I Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Flynn, I.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Can each Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close of voting announce the results.
Speaker 3: So just seeing one Lebanese.
Speaker 0: Yeah. 11 Eyes 117 series of 2008 passes translations. Okay. All right. Monday, April 23rd, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill. 229 2018 Changes on classification of 580 South Forest St in Washington, Virginia veil a required public hearing of Council Bill 243 Series of 2018 changes only classification for 3400 Arkansas Court. 34 six The Arkansas Court and 1930 35th Street in five points and a required public hearing on Council Bill 2000 Series 2018 to 44 changes on classification for 25th Street and Glenarm Place and five points any protests against the Council Bill 4 to 29 series of 2018 to 2 44 to 43 2018 and to 44 2019 must be filed with the Council offices no later than Monday, August 16, 2018. I move. We are going to move into executive session here and I move that council, enter into executive executive session for the purposes to receive legal advice that is attorney client privilege.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance correcting the legal description of a specifically described area, generally located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Mar Lee.
Corrects the legal description for the property described in Ordinance No. 20170729, Series of 2017, located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03272018_18-0332
|
Speaker 0: be filed with the Council offices no later than Monday, August 16, 2018. I move. We are going to move into executive session here and I move that council, enter into executive executive session for the purposes to receive legal advice that is attorney client privilege.
Speaker 8: I second the motion.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Clark per section 234, Section eight of the revised municipal code. A two thirds affirmative vote is required to enter into executive session. So we need we need seven. Affirmative. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black High.
Speaker 3: Clerk. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Cashman.
Speaker 5: Can eat.
Speaker 3: Lopez.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: New Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please those voting in US results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. We have 11 eyes will now enter into executive session when council returns on the floor from executive session. Tonight's meeting will be adjourned.
Speaker 2: In the city of Minneapolis. We really have seen just, I think, increasing support for this system as opposed to more divided opinion about did we do the right thing. So that has been the tone in the tenor in the city of Minneapolis. Am I up there? Oh, yeah. Here I am. Sorry about that. Here's a couple of key findings to share from 2017. Again, this is our third time that we've used ranked choice voting, and this was one thing that was just super. We had this big surge. And so you saw the mayor elect in the video at the beginning. He talked about having 45%. Let's see, where do I get this? Oops. So this is just a little graph that shows how much we increased. Normally you would see in a general election, more like in the thirties, low thirties as a turnout in a general just municipal election. I don't know what in Denver it's sort of your general turnouts are in your more general election and then you can see the line down there about the primaries. So A, we had tremendously increased participation in this election, but also regardless of even with the lower participation, it was much different who you were playing to as a candidate if you did not have a primary. And we. Right. That was just. Let's go through that. Okay. So this is the next thing that happened in Minneapolis in our 2017 election. And now we have an example from the mayor's race and we have an example from a candidate's race that I want to share. But we just had tremendous participation in people ranking their ballots. So they didn't just show up and rank their favorite candidate. They ranked at least two and many ranked three candidates. And so here, if you're able to I think this is kind of small, but I will read out in the mayor's race, 87% of voters ranked at least two candidates. 73% of voters ranked at least three candidates. And I will say and again, when we look at the mayors example, you'll see this a little bit more. We had an interesting field in city elections in Minneapolis in 2017 where we probably had, I consider, five of those candidates for mayor to have visible and viable campaigns. And when we look at this election, I'll kind of tell you who raised the most money and who didn't. And you'll see it's kind of surprising, actually, when you look at who won. We had a valid ballot rate of almost 100%. And again, that was explained. This means that people filled out their ballot correctly. And also, we have a system in Minneapolis where you can feed your ballot into the machine and it will kind of spit it out if you haven't filled it out correctly. So we have a mechanism to automatically assist with that. What am I doing here? Let's. We had just a tremendously diverse slate of candidates. Again, I think this goes to this issue of. Who who is who is electing these candidates? So now you are as a candidate, you have won elections. It's more about turnout. It is about reaching as many voters as possible. It's about talking to everyone that you can. Even those who have said someone else is my first choice. And we heard candidates say that they felt more comfortable coming into the race even if they weren't sure how valuable they were in the beginning. So we ended up with, again, just a very diverse slate of candidates. These are people who were elected. The first two transgender council members were elected in the first Somali-American and Latina council members were reelected in this election. And for Minneapolis, this is a big change. And again, this is not fully reflecting the whole slate of candidates who are running. All right. Let's see. I'm going to skip that. Okay. So I wanted to get to this example from the mayor's race. So here we have let's see. One, two, three, four, five. So we have essentially what I talked about where these top five mayoral candidates and then this was other. So again, this was kind of an interesting race. We have an incumbent who was running for reelection and she did not win her race. Two years, four years ago when we had a mayoral election, we had what I think is is had been more traditional than what I had seen, which is that you had like a couple of candidates just sort of rise above the pack and kind of hold on to that. So it felt even though like there were more candidates, it felt like there were two main candidates. That was not the feel in Minneapolis this year. You, sir. I'm going to go through here. So here they first eliminated the other candidates. And we knew who won the mayor's race. We had an inclination of who might win the day of the election, and we had final confirmed results for the mayor's race by the early afternoon of the next day. So those ballots moved voters. Second choices. Round two. Round three. Nicky Levy LB is eliminated. She was the African American woman who was featured in the early video. She was a candidate. I'll just say in the last elections report I saw, she raised only $40,000. So I just want to say this is like an election where someone like that who I will say was someone who had a lot of popular following, was able to come out in the top five candidates in a competitive race. Oh, that's.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: And she had a baby on the campaign trail.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Tom Hook is eliminated. I'll just want to mention him, because he was the candidate who raised the most money. He spent a lot of his own personal fortune. He raised about $750,000 that he spent on the race. So he was gone next. I'll just flip to this because I will say on our elections website, which you can see at vote dot, Minneapolis, Amanda Jovi, they have a very interesting graphic that shows how people's votes went once they were eliminated. And so you might just want to take a look at that. Betsy Hodges is eliminated. She was the incumbent mayor, Herbert. And then we had whips, and then we had a winner with 57% of of counted ballots or continuing ballots. All right. This is one other race just to kind of take a look at, because there's this kind of shorter story to tell here. This was a race between a 20 year incumbent and she had two challengers. This was a race we we do do endorsing of candidates in Minneapolis. Nobody was endorsed in this race by the party, although the challenger, Phillipe Cunningham, was the closest. And what ended up happening here was so there's round one. There were two challengers, Stephanie Garcia and Phillipe Cunningham. And in Brown to Garcia and then another candidate, Hanson, were eliminated. Garcia and Cunningham clearly were aligned candidates. They and they ended up promoting a message towards the end of the campaign where they encouraged the other person's supporters to please rank them as their second choice. So there was an alignment that that happened there. And in the end, even though Barb Johnson was first in the early round, Phillip Cunningham received the lion's share of these other votes. This was a big story. He was a. He was a surprise candidate to win that race. And this is just another graphic of that. But she she was not successful. The incumbent, in attracting enough second choice votes to put her over the edge. And this is the winner. Phillip Cunningham. I think I've taken up quite a bit of time here, but I will just say that I feel sad that we weren't able to have our elections. Our city clerk here, Casey Karl, he had to deal with a recount in one of our races. And he's preparing for, you know, a new mayor and a bunch of new council members. But people should feel free to reach out to Casey Karl in the city of Minneapolis. He has been a great advocate of how to institute this elections method. Well, with integrity, our elections team has won some national awards. And also just to this point of engagement with voters, I feel like our whole elections team has continued just to be creative in how to engage with voters. Just like the work around ranked choice, voting has ushered in a whole new kind of way to do the work of the Elections Department, where they now perceive that part of the work is about continuously educating and engaging with voters, making sure they have good information about how to fill out their ballots and all this kind of thing. So it has ushered in also a lot of policy changes of the city of Minneapolis and how to make things work the best way that they can for voters. So thanks for letting me share a story.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Elizabeth. One more speaker and thanks. Thanks for sticking with us. And a terrific set of information being presented, I hope. I'll say the one part of the Minneapolis story that sort of jumps out to me from like looking at that Merrill result is that if it had been the old system in Minneapolis and those first choices that translate into votes, which you don't know for sure would have happened, but it would have been the two biggest spenders. Two white men would have advanced and been the only general election candidate when turnout was much higher. But they had this sort of richer debate with with with more people, which is analogous to what Denver where you don't have this sort of winnowing election, you have everyone run in the first round and someone can win in the first round, but some of the systems out there wouldn't allow that. And say Paul also use ranked choice voting and they sort of interesting example of it was a big open seat race for mayor. People thought it would have multiple rounds, ten candidates running and a candidate ultimately won 51% of first choices. So sort of drives are pushed forward in a we will be the first African-American mayor of Saint Paul. But part of the coverage of it that I really appreciated just following was that people, you know, felt that all these candidates contributed to the dialog about the city. So even if it sort of looked like a first round result where just it was normal, you had sort of people. Beep, beep, beep, beep. Part of the part of the dialog and part of what he as a successful candidate had to learn how to be people. Second choices. So our last speaker is going to be Connie Schmidt. And one of the great advances for us at FairVote is the rise of the ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, which is run by former election officials, all with some direct experience with ranked choice voting. But who can really get into how to make this work and how it's working and be a resource to communities and states as as they look at ranked choice voting and Connie is an example of what a great asset they have. She was election commissioner for Johnson County, Kansas, for nine years. City clerk for Merriam, Kansas.
Speaker 4: For 20 years.
Speaker 12: Has been doing a lot of consulting, has done some work with the Election Assistance Commission and direct consulting to KC Coral and some work in Minneapolis. So Connie.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Rob, and thank you, Amber, and your group for hosting this event. It's a very nice turnout and we're very happy to be here. As Rob said, my background is totally in local government and service to the public, and the last nine years were spent with the best job on earth, which was managing elections in the large county in Kansas, in the Kansas City metro area. Since then, it's been a lot of my privilege to work around the country with a lot of initiatives in various states and jurisdictions. In 2011, 2013, 2017, in Minneapolis, where I learned for the first time about ranked choice voting the last couple of years, it's been another privilege for me to be associated with the team of people that developed the ranked Choice Voting Resource Center. And I'm really excited about it because it is basically a place where any election administrator, voter, public official, any want candidate. If you have any questions about ranked choice voting, you can go to this website ranked choice voting dot org and you will find all of the information that we have been able to find anywhere across the country. And so the group that I'm working with, as Rob said, are retired and former election administrators. We're very big believers in elections and sharing best practices so that no one has to reinvent the wheel. And so we're very proud of everything that we have there. It's from all the jurisdictions across the country who have implemented ranked choice voting from legislation to any other kind of ideas that are there. Part of the things that it includes is a compilation of really what is ranked choice voting. And so you can click on various tabs on the website if you're a voter or you're a candidate or you're an election administrator and go to various places of information that would help you understand what it is. For example, there's information on how to mark your ballot. And so you if you were a voter or if you were running for office, there's information there from other places across the country, including samples. We have information on single winner, ranked choice voter and multi winner ranked choice voting races. The election tool kit is probably one of my favorite places we have started this year, a webinar series that we've been doing online, and I'll talk a little about that in a moment. We have a lot of reports and presentations that we have done across the country and various reports that I talk about. We've been working with the Center for Civic Design on usability tool kits and education tool kits. So the first thing, the webinar series and those webinars are posted on that website. So if you're interested in any one of them or all of them, you can go on your own and view those. The first one we did was to introduce everybody to really what the ranked choice Voting Resource Center is and how we can help you. And I need to add that our services are provided free of charge to any jurisdiction, including travel. So we are here as a resource and to help in any way we can. One webinar was basically the ABCs of ranked choice voting, and that was kind of a introduction to what is ranked choice voting and what does it mean? Where is it being used? And then we've done one on the history, going back to the beginning when ranked choice voting was first started in the United States and then the usability studies on how to design a ballot voting systems capabilities, including statewide. How do you do this for a whole state? And designing the most important, which is voter education and how to present election results to the voters. We're going to be doing more webinars in 2018. And again, those are all going to be posted on our website as we go along. The tool kit has a variety of reports and presentations that our team has put together. The first one we did, we called it the Ranked Choice Voting compilation. And you can print it out there. It has active hyperlinks throughout the document that will take you to other best practices across the country. But it's basically just that it's where has this been done before? How can I see what was done before? How can I get an example of how someone else that managed elections did this? And so that's where we'll find that. The other report that I think is really good is implementation of ranked choice voting with multiple voting systems. You're fortunate in Colorado, you have all one voting system statewide. Not every state has that convenience. There are many states that have various voting vendors throughout the jurisdictions, and the model RCP implementation plan is one that we've just finished in September and it basically takes it's a road map that we put together for any jurisdiction that was thinking about going to a ranked choice, voting as a model for managing elections from how do you pass legislation? What are some examples of model legislation that you can take a look at and print off to? How do you do voter education all the way through? How do you build the ballot and how do you actually provide election results on election night? So there's a lot of really good information in these reports and presentations. The one thing I wanted to talk about very briefly is the Center for Civic Design. We have several reports on the website that they have done. They've been a wonderful partner to FairVote and the ranked Choice Voting Resource Center. I think you have some handouts on your table on the website. We have the principles and guidelines report that was done by their team. The ballot design testing documents. And I understand they're going to be here in Denver later this month to do some more for you all voter education testing documents. And they did go to Minneapolis and they have tested a lot of this information there. And how do you present election results on election night to your voters and to the candidates? So some of the highlights for their design report and I have to say many of these when I was reading through these preparing this PowerPoint pertained to elections in general. And I think one of my colleagues earlier said the same thing. It's really not any different than just managing the normal election. So many of the guidelines you're going to see for the Center for Civic Design pertain to any election that you're doing. Give voters the information they need to prepare to vote. The only thing is when you're going to ranked choice voting from a normal regular election where they just vote for one person. You have to explain the benefits and the basics of what is ranked choice voting. Be prepared to answer their questions and be able to show voters how their ballot is actually going to be used in counting and tallying election results. And so one way to do that is this is a sample. They may be on your tables. I think I might have seen this one that the Center for Civic Design put together. So basically in very simple language, what is ranked choice voting? Why are we using it with as few words as possible? And you notice their icons and their words at the bottom for why it's being used. Save money, stronger voices, broader participation. And so those simple words can can help a voter and the general public understand more about how to use it. So that's an example that they put together. Another guideline that they presented was all of the information should be in clear and simple language. Any of us that have been in elections for any period of time have this kind of pounded into us. Clear and simple language is very important. Keep the information short and to the point and use it everyday words so that anyone will be able to understand it. In elections, we kind of call it kindergarten words, you know, make it simple for everyone. Use illustrations any time you can and use icons very sparingly to draw attention to different types of information. And I have added the Minneapolis Voter Guide from 2017, and they're really proud of it. They've done a great job in Minneapolis through the years, improving each year on the process. Their mission that we kind of started in 2013 was to be the gold standard for ranked choice voting. And I'm so proud to say that they really are. So this voter guide that they did in 2017 utilized the information from the Center for Civic Design on how to do this best, some other information that was presented. Is the how to do election results on election night. And as Councilwoman Glidden pointed out, the Minneapolis folks really set a high standard in the 2017 election. If you can go to their website and click on the mayor's race, you can see this really marvelous visual of how each round of tabulation moved various results from one candidate to the other candidates. So they did a very, very good job on that. But use a combination of text and graphics to tell your story, use color and shading icons to draw attention to the various pieces. It's important to include the details of where the voters expect them and use labels to remind the voters of the most important information. And probably the most important thing is to use plain language if you're explaining local or state laws and terms. And and just very few words to help people understand. An example is this visual. I think it's on your table that the Center for Civic Design created for us in partnership, and it does show how each person's unique ballot and vote for each round is being tabulated. And so any time you can do any kind of a visual, something like this, it really helps the voters and the general public. And I have to say, the media, too, because we have to educate the media on what is ranked choice voting and how it is secure and how we are going to tabulate the results. And so I want to show you a couple more examples of a way you can present this information so that the public can understand how the votes are being re-allocated to other candidates as the tabulation occurs on election night. Everybody is used to having election results before the 10:00 news, right? Well, sometimes in ranked choice voting, we it takes a little bit longer as the gentleman from Alameda indicated, that they still are counting mail ballots after the election night. So the same thing is going to happen with ranked choice voting. It will take some time to pull all the election results together. Some of the candidates will automatically win on election night if they receive over 51% of the vote. Those that don't will have to go into the rounds of tabulation. This is an example of a grid style ballot. Is there on your left, if you're looking at it on your right is the columns and there are various ways you can design the ballot. Minneapolis allows ranking of up to three voters, 3 to 3 candidates, I'm sorry, other jurisdictions rank up to six and maybe up to ten candidates. That's a decision that you'll have to make, but you'll notice the voter instructions at the top. It's really important to show a little visual for what they how you actually mark the ballot. And it's that that's really important piece of all of it. I wanted to talk a little bit about educating the public. Again, I'm partial to Minneapolis because that's where I worked in ranked choice voting, but they've done a really good job on their website and I have the address, their vote, Minneapolis, myGov and you can go there and just get all kinds of background information for how they implemented it. Starting in 2009. They used social media, I know you all do here in Denver to Twitter, Facebook to keep the public and the voters and the candidates informed and engaged in the entire process, including on election night when we were doing tabulation. The use of Twitter and Facebook was a really good way to keep everybody engaged. They have a video I'm going to show at the end on how tabulation occurs. That's on their website. Also, they do voter outreach handouts in various languages. The one that really helped them the most, I think, is the Voter Information Guide mailing. They mail this to every household in the city of Minneapolis and in ranked choice voting elections, which is once every four years, they include more information about what ranked choice voting is and how it works. And they do a post-election survey they have in 2013, I believe they did it again this year, surveying election workers and voters in various. People, and the Voter Guide was identified as the most effective tool for learning about ranked choice voting. But I have to stop here and again, always say that our most important informant to the voters is our poll workers in the polling places on Election Day. My colleagues in North Carolina who did a ranked choice voting statewide election in a very short period of time. The poll workers in the polling places are the ones that really, really helped inform the voters and be sure they had the right information. How it works, educating the voters. I have this handout available over here. If some of you would like to take that. This is what Minneapolis uses. It tells people how not to do what not to do with the big red circle and the line drawn through it. It also provides information at the bottom about how to count your vote. And it also says that if you've made a mistake on your ballot, you can please ask for another ballot and you can start over so that it's like a poster that's in every voting location, which is also really, really good. I wanted to give you a just a couple of statistical things, because I love statistics. And looking back on Minneapolis, this is from November of 2013. I don't know. They have all of these numbers put together from this past November's election. But I think it's important to note that the overvotes in are very, very less than less than 0.5%, which is probably comparable to any normal election that you have skipped rankings. There was, again, less than 0.5%. They repeated the candidates in a few. And so that was an area they identified by looking at these statistics that they had to do a little better job on voter education. And so that's the benefit of doing some of these post-election statistics and analysis of how the ballots were actually voted. You can see where do you need to continue to engage with the voters to be sure that they understand? The next one relates to how many people voted, how many were choices, how many people were ranked in the mayor's race in 2013, while over 75% of the voters did three choices? They ranked all three choices. Again, there were a lot of candidates for mayor. You'll notice if you can see this, I'm not sure if everyone can. The city council race had only had one candidate, while of course, only 96% of the people ranked more than only Brook, only ranked one candidate because it was only one. But if you look down any any race that had more than three or four candidates, they they chose at least three choices when they were ranking their ballot. And so these are really good statistics to go back and look at post election when you can review everything after you've got the election certified. The last thing I want to show is the video and I must see if I can do this. This is on the city of Minneapolis website, and it's a really nice, little simple, easy to understand visual about how we're going to count the votes on election night. So I'm going to see if this were oops, it didn't work so we can rely on the gentleman to make it go.
Speaker 5: In most elections, you only vote for one candidate for each office. But in some elections, voters can rank three or more candidates for each office. It's called ranked choice voting. Here's an example of how it works. All of the candidates will be listed on the ballot in three columns. Make your first choice. Vote in column one by filling in the oval of the candidate you'd most like to win. Vote for your second choice in column two and make your third choice in column three. That's all there is to it. Now let's see how the votes are counted. Let's say there are four candidates running for mayor Aisha, Zach, Omar and Lucy. Once the polls close, we count all the first choice votes first to be elected mayor. A candidate needs more than half the votes. In this example, Aisha has more than half of the votes, so she's declared the winner. However, if no candidate gets more than half the votes, we start eliminating candidates and counting the next choices of those who voted. In this example, Zac is the candidate with the smallest number of first choice votes. So he is cut. We use the second choice votes on Zack's ballots and count those voters second choices instead. If one of the remaining candidates now has more than half of the total votes, that candidate is declared. The winner, if not the next lowest candidate, Lucy, is eliminated. Her votes are now counted for the next choice on the ballot. Some of Lucy's votes went to Zac, who was already eliminated. So those new votes for Zac instead count for those voters. Third choice candidate. We are now down to two candidates, and Omar clearly has more than half of the votes. That makes him the winner. That's how ranked choice voting works. For more information on Ranked Choice voting, visit our Web site.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you, Connie.
Speaker 12: So I think we're actually going to try to get a hands on experience next. So maybe Amber will introduce us to that opportunity.
Speaker 5: Okay. So we've got a couple of ways that we can test this out. First, you have some paper ballots that should be on your table. We also have the tablets that are in the back of the room against the firewall. And once we collect everything, we will count in that in the tabulation room and bring the results out and show what those look like on the screen. I think what I'll do is I'm going to kick off with one question that I have just given Denver and the jurisdiction that we have here in the city and county of Denver. And the question I have is actually for Dave MacDonald. He being from Oakland is a section two or three county, which means they have multiple languages that they present their ballots in. And so my question really is, given that Denver is also a Section 203 county, we put all of our ballot materials and instructions out in Spanish. I wonder if you could share some information maybe about your experience with multiple languages for voters in in Oakland. Thanks.
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's a real challenge. When I was a registrar, we had three languages English, Spanish and Chinese. And anything you do in English, you have to do in those other two languages. So if you have an English poll worker, you have to have a Spanish speaking poll worker and they have to be bilingual, which is interesting. I got in trouble with DOJ because we had a really hard time finding enough bilingual Chinese poll workers. I could find a poll workers who spoke only Chinese but limited English, even though we had other English speaking poll workers there. That was not good enough for DOJ. And so they doing this pretty hard on even though we had the poll worker there was not bilingual. So it is a challenge finding staff as well that speak those languages. And I think now I think L.A. is up to nine languages. Los Angeles is up to nine different languages. So when you look at your ballot, it gets even more complicated because you can have all the languages on one ballot or you can have separate ballots for each language, which means in in California, our ballots are huge. It's not unusual for us to have five ballot cards. So imagine all the boxes. You have English boxes, Spanish boxes, Chinese, and then so on, whatever the other languages are. And so it is it is a it's tough to do. It is real hard. So I my hat's off to anybody that does multiple languages. Three is is two isn't to balance English and Spanish because we you can have a bilingual ballot with both languages on a single piece of paper, but get passed two, it gets even more complicated. So I don't know if that answers the question.
Speaker 12: When they all had just about about these Bay Area elections in particular, but also just about sort of this general question of of racial and ethnic minorities in a ranked first ballot in the Bay Area. As Dave said, there's a big ballot because they're voting on a lot of things, I think. San Francisco in 2016 had more than 30 city ballot measures. If I'm remembering right and more than ten state ballot measures and voting for president and many other offices and then down to the board of Supervisors using ranked choice voting. So when you're sort of seeing Rachel's voting results, it's in a climate where people are voting on a lot of things, you know, a whole lot of people voting by mail, a whole lot of people voting in person. A whole lot of people, you know, you know, most they are for, you know, voting for president or something. And you are seeing, you know, really pretty effective use of the Rangers ballot across demographics. Now, you'll still see kind of a mirror of the the differences of how low income voters sort of handle ballots than higher income voters. But one thing we've looked at very closely is when you're particularly when you're placing two rounds of election, almost always one of them has lower turnout than than the other. And when it has lower turnout, it's sort of disproportionately lower among those communities. So any differences that you see and how people of color may be handling, say, a ranked choice ballot is is much bigger magnified when it's actually the difference is of a of a turnout that that you see. The last thing I'll mention that is New York City used to have 32 local school board elections using ranked choice voting. Did it, in fact, by 1972, the two to about 2000 and there were nine of them and now 32 of them with nine seats on each one. So a lot of offices. But they were voting by counting by hand. And people like, oh, that's kind of a pain. Why don't we move them to voting on equipment and not use the ranked choice system? And the Department of Justice at that point had to pre-clear changes to the New York City ballots under under Section five of the Voting Rights Act. And that was actually the last time the DOJ denied pre-clearance to a change because they thought it would be an adverse impact on racial minorities to take away the ranked choice ballot because of the effective use that they were making of the ranked choice ballot. So so I think we're just going to people are should line up because I because I think we want to have questions from the microphone. So why don't why don't we do that?
Speaker 2: Hello. Hi.
Speaker 5: Thanks. First of all, I want to say thank you. It was an awesome presentation.
Speaker 2: But this is a policy question for those that really implemented it. In terms of how did you decide on how many choices you were going to give the electorate for each candidate or each race? So I'll just Minneapolis.
Speaker 5: Ours was actually dictated.
Speaker 2: By what our elections equipment could handle. So that's why we had only three choices. Our sister city of Saint Paul has up to six choices because they handled it in a different way. And so they had different policy choices.
Speaker 11: And same thing in Alameda County. We had three choices, really, just because our voting system could only handle three.
Speaker 12: And what we're seeing in the new generation equipment, including, I think, the Dominion system that people just were trying out, that that I believe can do up to ten rankings. So we're going to generally see, I think, in with with that kind of ballot design, an increased number of rankings. I think it's certainly sensible to, you know, when it's five or six or seven candidates to kind of allow people to rank that many just as one thing. And just about what voters want to do is that in the New York of rather sorry, in the in the 2016 presidential cycle, we did a poll with College of William and Mary when the time the Iowa caucuses and the Republican contests or 11 candidates and we invited people to rank accounts. We didn't say please rank them all. We said we invited them to rank cans. These were thousand likely Republican voters from around the country and more than nine out of ten chose to rank everybody. And you really saw a lot of coherence and and meaning in their rankings, including Donald Trump was the plurality first choice leader and the plurality last choice candidate. It's kind of an interesting example of how voters were reacting to his candidacy.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I was just going to say San Francisco, I think the initiative was full ranking, but within the initiative it was written to have the option for through only three, if that's what the voting equipment would only allow. So San Francisco has this elastic thing built into the initiative that they can go to for anything. Hi. My name is Rafi. My question is more so directed to Dave. But please, if anyone has.
Speaker 9: Insights, chime in. You had mentioned.
Speaker 4: Voter education being a priority.
Speaker 9: When Alameda adopted ranked choice.
Speaker 4: What was your process in actually gathering your advisors from the community? Who did you decide to select? Who did you include in the process?
Speaker 11: Yeah, it was pretty, pretty open. The League of Women Voters was a very active participant, and so they had several representatives. And also in each of the cities, there's a you know, Alameda County is a pretty liberal area. We have a lot of activists. You know, we're home to Berkeley. Anybody heard of Berkeley here? So a pretty liberal city. And so there was a very large community of activists. And so I invited some of them to be on the committee. And it was pretty open. I mean, kind of whoever wanted to be on it with as long as they weren't too disruptive and they had to call the sheriff a couple of times. But, you know, so we had a lot of people on the advisory committee because I figured the more input, the better. And I and you know what happens when you have a committee like that, people are all excited at first and then kind of the fringe drop out and the ones who are really interested hang in there through the whole time.
Speaker 12: You were coming on Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You know, I feel like our voter education work has changed each each election. And it's not just about ranked choice voting. We also had some other reforms from the state of Minnesota that I would say sort of layer on to what's happening with ranked choice voting, including we adopted early voting for the state and that is again then just a different layer of of of kind of how the engagement works in the I think in the original year when the when the materials were developed, we had a similar process to what you did where there was sort of an open invite to engaged constituencies, organizations that worked in the community trying to get really community based feedback. And we use that to develop some of the materials, but not just the materials. It was more about then what do we do to resource kind of getting out into the community. And I would say that's sort of like the biggest thing that has continued every election is I swear there's elections workers but also other kind of nonpartisan groups that just cover the city it feels like for a pretty long time during the elections season. So there is just a lot of voter engagement happening, a lot of again, a lot of nonpartisan voter participation kind of work happening around bring choice voting.
Speaker 12: Now said one thing and maybe, Gerard, you can amplify on this. But my my recollection about San Francisco is that, you know, it did a lot of the upfront work, which is you often see like the first election and then they do less going forward. But they did use some of the cost savings that they were getting from going to ranked choice voting to ultimately have more lasting staffers involved in voter education for everything. If I'm correct me if I'm wrong. But but but then that sort of there was sort of a new, you know, so the city's saving money, but it's using a little bit of that to now have staffers who do voter education throughout the time.
Speaker 4: Is that currently it's currently it's the staffers who do the outreach and community. But when ranked choice voting was implemented, a lot of the outreach was contracted out. We had groups like the Gray Panthers, senior citizens groups. They were funded by the Department of Elections to have people from their organization go out and make presentations. So we actually had some community funding, I think the first first two cycles just to do a very blanket outreach.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Celeste Landry and I was happy today to see that there was a two winner race on today's election because there is a councilmember race like that in the Denver ballot. And I want to let people know that I have copies of the Cambridge ballots for this year where they have 26 rankings for city council and 12 for the school committee. And this afternoon, Robert, she and I are going to be giving a talk on multi winner ranked elections at 130 at the Denver Press Club if anybody wants to attend that. And I wanted to ask Elisabeth because Minneapolis also has a multi winner race. So could you talk a little bit about how that works? Some people won't be able to make it this afternoon, so you'll be all they probably hear. Thanks. Sure.
Speaker 2: It this is sort of one of these things, honestly, like the explaining feels a little more complicated than what it is. But we have a park board at large positions three, and they are elected differently. So on your ballot, as you fill out the ballot, you select three and then that will ultimately be selected as your three park board candidate. So it's different then for each park board candidate that you would have three choices who's going to fill spot one versus spot two versus about three? So it's just a different way, a different mechanism. And this was again because of how those seats were set up in our city charter originally kind of dictated how that how that happened. It's sort of one of these races, honestly, where I feel like you can get into the weeds with how the counting works in the end, how you fill out the ballot. And which is I mean, in the end, the critical piece. Are people understanding the system? Are they feeling their ballot out correctly? To me that as someone who's been a candidate and kind of seen how those elections work, I feel like that's a critical piece. There is some ballot design issue to this as well. Sometimes there are some challenges presented by your elections vendor, your SO. So that's another issue.
Speaker 12: And I'll just add that for a multi winner, election systems are different, algorithms are choices one can make. There's sort of ways you can do it where preserves a majority principles or, you know, rancorous voting designed when you're electing one person to uphold the principle of majority rule. And you can do that. So each person has to has to do that or win a multi winner. More common is what they what they do for the park board elections where they do in Cambridge which is a which is to try to have as many people as possible help elect someone. And so when you have more seats, you can actually expand the numbers that are likely to do that. So in Cambridge, you generally have at least 90% of people voting for a winner, but they do that by having each winner not needing 90% to win or 50% to win, but actually needing about a ninth of the vote to win. And that's how that works. But that's that's that's a that's sort of a policy choice for for multi winner races.
Speaker 8: I thank you for doing this. Councilman Paul Lopez, I represent the west side here in Denver. Two questions. So and they kind of have to do with each other. And I think I alluded to them earlier in our private conversation. But one, I'm curious about the interface between this kind of ballot and an all mail ballot election and the the conflict I would see that would present itself and wondering how you would reconcile that or if there's a protocol to do so. If somebody accidentally filled the first choice and fifth choice or for the same person by air in person, you be able to come up say, Hey, I messed up, can I get another ballot printed? How do you reconcile that, that issue when it comes to an all mail ballot and just those dynamics? I just want to know what your thoughts are with that dynamic.
Speaker 11: Well, I can address that in Alameda County, over half of our voters vote by mail and half go to the polling place. So we kind of have that now. So if you're in a polling place and you make a mistake on your ballot, you know, you vote for the same candidate twice and you feed it into the machine. It'll kick it out right then. And the poll worker will give you a fresh ballot and you can correct your mistake if you want to. Now, if you're voting by mail, you don't have that opportunity to correct the mistake. So what we do is we scan all those vote by mail ballots through a high speed scanner. Any ballots that are marked incorrectly will get kicked out. And then we'll have staff go through and look at those and see if we can determine why. So, for instance, sometimes what'll happen? I'll vote for Rob as my choice, and then I'll think about it and I'll scratch it out and vote for somebody else. Well, the machine just sees two votes, but if you look at it, you can tell what the voter intent was. So if we know what the voter intent is, then we'll copy it to a fresh ballot. Does that. I, I hope that answers the question. So we we do our best shot, but we can't catch them all that.
Speaker 8: I mean, knowing what Denver elections does, I mean, it's the same kind of thought process. But I'm just I'm just wondering if there's any policy and protocol on that.
Speaker 2: So just a short conversation before I'll say what happened in Minneapolis and maybe this is kind of how you've ultimately dealt with it is we adopted an.
Speaker 5: Ordinance.
Speaker 2: To ensure that those policy protocols, which are very kind of a elections administrator, kind of driven on what are those protocols and were clear, transparent and people understood how the ballot would be interpreted. Again, with the intention, you're going to give the most benefit of the doubt to the voter so that their votes count.
Speaker 8: Was the name of that ordinance.
Speaker 2: Just so we can find it and we can put it up on the, um, I don't know where you're posting information, but.
Speaker 5: I'll just go to this because this is already addressed actually in most of our laws in Colorado. But, but we do with our dominion system, which is different than what I think any of the systems that are up here, we have what we call adjudication. And so even now with our mail ballot process, if a voter makes a mistake, it goes on screen. And then we have a whole review process, a bipartisan review process where they resolve these discrepancies. And so in a ranked choice model, we have a voter intent guide, it's called. And so you would still be able to resolve those discrepancies and and resolve them so that the ballot was counted appropriately. We also instruct the good thing about mail ballots, and this is kind of one of the things that I know there was a reference to how great that kind of model is. But with ballot delivery, it gives us an ability to to send instructions. So every voter in the city gets the exact same instruction and we're no longer relying on instructions happening verbally at polling places or things like that. So we've really increased the consistency for how we deliver instructions for voting, and we have an ability to design those instructions as we need to within the packet that every voter gets. And so one of the things that's kind of happening in addition to this event is next week the Center for Civic Design is going to test out three different basically ways of designing ballots and three different types of instructions and ask voters for their feedback, and then they'll be able to share all that data with us, which I think is really important because the Center for Civic Design, not only in ranked choice voting, but they've been doing this work kind of with other types of voting. And their research is really guiding the way that we know our designing instructions and certainly the way we've done it in Denver and Stu Club, who's our our staffer, that does a lot of this. He's really tried to adopt the principles of best design so that so that people are getting more visual materials and better instructions. And and you can even see that on some of the ballots that we did. I think Jimi used the Center for Civic Design Principles, which is really helpful for voters. So there's a lot of things in there. And and certainly with our voter intent structure and Colorado's law for for elections, we have those things where we always want to make sure that the the voter's intent is captured regardless.
Speaker 8: Keenly aware and I think Alton did a good job and one of our tours last time was kind of showing that behind the scenes process. Yeah, I'm just wondering if that prevalence of those errors increased compared to your typical ballot before or if they kind of stayed the same? And I think you talked a little bit about it and just kind of our effects, how that would work in our system. So I appreciate that. Ammar.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, I know that you and I showed you kind of showed the percentages for the various mistakes that voters might make. And I do have a chart up here that city of Minneapolis did incorporate into their charter, which is basically their voter intent guide. And it's a nice visual that shows if there is a mistake in the first ranking, that the second ranking then becomes the first choice vote and it shows how the voter's ballot will be counted to the most to the most voter intent can possibly be be made.
Speaker 12: And I think the issues of are very similar for our Civic and on our CV races. Right. You can make a mistake on a non or B race and still have to figure out how to get your ballot. But the one thing that I believe I'm not going to confirm this. I don't know if Dave has the numbers, but but I'm pretty sure that the rates of at least invalidated ballots are not any more with vote by mail than in person, which is quite interesting when you think about it. But they also have more time, right? So there's that's and that's again, just vote by mail versus in person voting for everybody. But they have a lot more time or time to think about the candidates. And, you know, one of the things that's interesting about ranked choice voting is a crisis increases new incentives to find out more about candidates and candidates to tell you more about themselves. And so there's a. Voters tend to learn a little bit more about their voting, whether they're voting in person or about voting by mail. That people. Any more questions and people should come to the microphone if they have one.
Speaker 5: Hi, Elizabeth. Little page, election coordinator for Denver. How did great choice voting change your wait times for voters in light.
Speaker 11: I'll ask you a question. You know, it's. We have such a complicated ballot in California, so many ballot cards that we have to make sure we have enough voting booths in a in a polling place. So I didn't see waiting times because of ranked choice. Voting delayed very much during a very exciting contest such as the presidential election. Yes, there are lines out the door. We do a lot of early voting. So the usually 29 days before the election, you can still come and vote. And we would have lines out the door around the block because people were so excited about voting for the president and that just during the first Obama election, I know I had one woman came in. She was the first time she'd ever voted. She was 105 years old. And there was a huge line of people. And so this is the one time I made the exception. I let her take cuts as she came to the front of the line and as she voted. But really, to answer your question, the archive does not really confuse people that much because it's fairly simple and there aren't that many contests really with our. It's just your your local local races.
Speaker 2: I'll just add that in Minneapolis, I think similar to what you described, we have election judges who are there just to make sure there is someone to explain the ballot if there are last minute questions. Again, that's in addition to kind of all the other things that have happened. And then just again, we still in Minneapolis, we have our municipal elections a year where there are no other elections. And so the 45% was humungous turnout for us. So we do staff to make sure people don't have inappropriate waits. But this is a different turnout kind of election than other elections, presidential year elections.
Speaker 4: Any questions? My name is Ryan and I'm visiting here from Utah, so I really appreciate you holding this event for us. My question revolves one of the virtues that we hear about ranked choice voting an awful lot is that it eliminates plurality in elections, and there are several instances in ranked choice voting where plurality still is an issue. One specific one, maybe Gerard can answer. I'm in 2006 in San Francisco, there were almost 20,000 votes cast in a District four race, and the winner won that election with about 8400 votes cast. So by the time you exhaust some of those votes and things like that, there is still the possibility to end up with kind of a false false majority on that of getting the 50%. I just wonder if you could talk about that just a little bit.
Speaker 12: Well, I'll start. And then others can comment too. So. So in rancorous voting, if you like, in Australia, you may people may know that Australia mandates voting and so not everyone votes, but they can be fined for not voting. They also in that spirit, they mandate ranking, right? So they're really like trying to make you make a choice. Right. And and that's not something that's part of any ranked choice voting election use in the United States or anywhere else that I know of. And so if you don't mandate ranking, then it's possible that you know that your top choices that you've ranked get eliminated and then your ballot's not going to count for someone, right? So that if you compare the first round totals with the last round totals, there are a certain number of drop off like people that have chosen not to. Not to rank in the places where they restrict rankings to three that can there be some people who rank three people who just don't get to the final two if it's where they don't have a restriction on rankings? It's sort of a voluntary abstention. It's a choice to say, you know what, I don't care about any of these other people. You know, I'm indifferent to them. And I guess my belief has always been, well, if I'm indifferent to the people, it's sort of like not voting in the first, but, you know, it's an abstention. So that kind of drop off, which tends, by the way, to be a lot less than in regular runoff elections, like the drop off in regular runoff elections, as I showed in that slide on average is almost 40% right in the congressional runoff primaries, which I know that Utah is debating. They might end up having, you know, congressional primary runoffs would probably drop off to 30, 40%. What you see kind of the drop off you might see in a regular spending election is more in the order of 5 to 10%. You know, so it's people that that that that drop off in in a really fractured race like this one in San Francisco, you might be referring to when no candidate got more than 11% or first races super. You know, it would have been a fractured race under any circumstance. And so a limit of three rankings. There were a lot of ballots that didn't didn't end up counting when it got down to two. But that's a real outlier. The rest are usually in the sort of 5 to 10% drop off. So it's not necessarily a majority in the first round, but it is a majority of the willing in a sense, particularly if there's not a limit on rankings of people that made a choice, they're having a chance to express it. And and so it's a majority of the final round. It might not might not always be a majority of the first round. And if anyone else wants to add on to that.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's a that's a good explanation. I will say to where I and maybe, Rob, you can speak to this, the majority vast majority of races seem to have something that is 50% plus one. There are some, including Minneapolis, where we have had something, again, because of the drop off, where it is less than 50% . But still, the races I have seen have been in the high forties. So maybe you can speak a little bit to when we talk about plurality or you know, what, what does that look like in ranked choice voting?
Speaker 12: Yeah. And it's obviously there's a have a different, different measure also of sort of what voters might be meaning like in the current Minneapolis mayor race that just happened, the winner was ranked. In the top three out of it was ten candidates for mayor, 11 more, something like something, a bunch of candidates. And this person, I think maybe even 15 or something, right. So ranked in the top three by more than half of voters. However, some of those voters ranked his opponent in the final round. As a higher choice. So his two bouts didn't count for him in the final choice because they were counting for someone else. But those voters had made a sort of an expression of interest in support for it, for that candidate. And so if you look at it that way, you almost always get the winners getting expressions of support for more than 50%. And from in a sense, from a from the the the voter perspective, they they in a sense, feel represented by that person to a degree. Right. You know, like like they they made an affirmative decision to rank them. But anyway, that's sort of getting in the weeds. But it is sort of a way that it's a different it's not just sort of a one on one thing. It's a it's how you attract support from a from a community of people. And certainly the candidates see it that way where they need to reach out to as many people as possible. So when the new mayor of Minneapolis, you know, got affirmative expression of support for more than half the voters, and that to me seems important.
Speaker 2: I just want to say something on that because and this is in this isn't expressly answering that question. But just on this point of how candidates look at being ranked, I talked to the the winning candidate in a race that wasn't featured in my presentation, but also was very competitive. There was a socialist candidate. There was a Green Party candidate. There was kind of a business minded DFL candidate and another DFL candidate. And so the the the winner was the DFL candidate who who called himself a kind of a progressive DFL candidate. And he said to me after the race that he looked at the fact that he was ranked by 70 some percent of voters in in in the election. I mean, he was looking at who actually wanted to select him as one of their top three, and that mattered to him because it helped him understand also the spread of where were the voters. It gave him a very clear picture of where were the voters at in the war that he was elected to represent, what was the contours of that? And then where did he fall within that? So I thought it was really interesting, a comment to me by a winning candidate.
Speaker 12: Other questions.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Can anybody say at all, talk at all about what the opposition has been as it is and entities have taken on ranked choice voting? What are the common threads in that opposition and what are some of the strongest points that opposition groups have made.
Speaker 12: Wants to tackle that?
Speaker 11: I can talk a little bit about it. You know, the I guess the opposition is a lack of understanding of what ranked choice voting as it's something different it's new and. It can be confusing once you start diving down into some of the minutia. So we got that a lot. We got opposition because of cost, even though I think if it's done correctly, there's cost savings. But initially, you spend more money if you're going to do a lot of outreach. We had to buy. We had to do all of our outreach. We had to buy software to do our CV. We had the additional poll workers. So there was some initial expense that normally wouldn't be in an election. But then, you know, the software gets amortized over multiple elections and and that kind of goes away. So the other thing I think that that I kind of saw is elected officials and I know we have some in the room, so don't take this personally. But elected officials know how to win a certain kind of contest. And now all of a sudden here is a ranked choice voting contest. And this is different. I've never won that kind of election, so what do I do? And so I think there's been a little bit of a learning curve. There were some unrealistic expectations on candidates parts. I know we had one mayor in one of the cities who was an ardent, ardent supporter of ranked choice voting because it was he thought it was going to save him money and running his campaign. You'd only have to run one campaign rather than two. So he pushed it through the city and got it adopted. Well, of course, you know what happened. He he lost the ranked choice voting contest. And now he is an ardent advocate to eliminate ranked choice voting. And he used to send emails all the time saying, why did I make them do this? So it was it was kind of funny to see that happen. But so I think it's a it's really a lack of understanding sometimes about what it really means to win an election campaign.
Speaker 12: So and I think I'll just add very quickly that the turn of Elizabeth, which but I think is that one of the lessons learned in Minneapolis in some ways has been a good example for for doing this, which is to make sure that all the players in elections, the people most involved, really understand the system, because if they go in misinformed and then lose, like Dave was mentioned earlier, some people go out there and say, Rank me first, second and third thinking that helps and it doesn't help. And and and if they find out later didn't help and they, you know, it just just makes them feel stupid or something, you know, and then they're they're more and more likely to feel like they shouldn't do it. So just making sure that the key players understand it and then understand outcomes, which is one of the things that's interesting about that Minneapolis video, which is showing both winners and losers sort of accepting the outcome. We also had to deal with the situation in these early adoptions of ranked choice voting, that there wasn't a turnkey solution to implementing it. There would be.
Speaker 5: Taking over the world. I think if that was going to happen, it probably already would have with viruses which are basically nature's nanobots. And even though it's cold and flu season, viruses have not actually taken over the world, they are limited by their resources and they compete with each other all the different types that are out there
|
Executive Session
|
Executive Session.
The Council will meet in executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice that is attorney-client privileged.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03192018_18-0191
|
Speaker 0: Pertaining to the intergovernmental agreement with RTD for neighborhood planning along Colfax under bills and finding consideration. We have nothing called out. Under pending. We have nothing called out. Madam Secretary, please pull up the first item. 191. Councilman Flynn, we put resolution one on the floor. When? 91 on the.
Speaker 4: Floor. Sure, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 18 dash 191 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I ask that this be called out for a vote because I wanted to vote no on it. I understand the terms of the lease. It seems that we're paying less per square foot than we did for the last sublease we did with the Denver Post over at 101 West Colfax. But when I reviewed the agenda over the weekend, again, I just couldn't I just couldn't vote yes to pay $9 million plus to to the parent company of The Denver Post after they laid off 30 journalists in this town, one third of their staff. And it's just. Mr. President, just something I couldn't I couldn't do. So I wanted to have it out for a separate vote. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, any other comments by members of Council Councilman Ortega?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So one of the the important things that I have requested is to see an overall. Real estate master plan. And what I learned from our real estate office is that every agency has their own real estate plan. But somebody has to have that comprehensive look in where we go with as a city in looking at future needs. You know, we own a property that was purchased by the city that we ended up not utilizing that could have been used for office space over in southwest Denver. It would be far cheaper to renovate that and utilize that facility than to be utilizing the Denver Post building where we already have two floors of that building. Some of the more expensive real estate. We don't have to have every agency concentrated downtown. We have a variety of agencies that have historically been scattered across the city. You know, we have our Rosslyn office out in northeast Denver. We have our wastewater department in southwest Denver. You know, this is part of how our city has functioned. And I just think it doesn't make sense to be spending this much money for downtown real estate when we own property elsewhere. So I will be voting no tonight on this as well.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilman Flynn. There's some solidarity on that when I'm. I'll be voting.
Speaker 0: No as well, too. Yeah. All right. Any other comments from members of council? Got questions on this or this? Okay. You didn't log in, but Councilman Nu, you got a question for real?
Speaker 2: I think you called me.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Real estate. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Is someone here from Lisa?
Speaker 8: Good evening. Lisa Lemley, Division of Real Estate.
Speaker 0: Lisa, thank you.
Speaker 10: Can you go over some of the.
Speaker 2: Costs associated with this.
Speaker 0: That we've commented on and how.
Speaker 2: Long is.
Speaker 0: This agreement this sublease?
Speaker 8: I am going to apologize because the term I did not bring with me, i believe it goes through 2028, which is consistent with The Denver Post. So these are Subleases from The Denver Post. So we stay within that. It's to give us the expansion and contraction ability right now that we need with the overflow that we have in Webb. I can't address that. Actually, the building that Councilwoman Ortega is mentioning, we have been looking at some other internal city uses that we may be utilizing that building for what has made the Denver Post building a worthwhile one to have the discussion for. Is that it? Especially this ninth floor? We need to be clear. The Denver Post was not on this floor. It was another tenant. And Denver Post had the lease with the other tenant. The tenant was downsizing. We stepped in, which is why the lease rate is also less than the other sublet release that we have in place. And it was just backfilling their space, so we were not moving any Denver Post agency employees out of that floor. But it does allow us to have efficiencies with the agencies that are already in the building, the technology that is already in the building, and the proximity to web not for our employees so much as for other clients or public that comes that needs to go sometimes between a couple of different agencies.
Speaker 2: And what is the cost per square foot for?
Speaker 8: For this one, it's $28.20.
Speaker 0: And for.
Speaker 10: Me and you know, in.
Speaker 0: The DAMION dollars, you know, it's about.
Speaker 10: $350.
Speaker 0: A square foot that we could use to build a facility. Sound like for that kind of money you could you could possibly build a are used to renovate another space would more cheaply or do you think is.
Speaker 8: Well I think time well I don't know that we could do it any that's a hard one to answer because we're comparing different things. What I would say is timing is an issue for us though, as we've had the new fees for the last few years that have continued to increase up around 250 is a year.
Speaker 2: Where we've got about you owed about 13,000.
Speaker 0: Employees.
Speaker 7: Permanent in.
Speaker 2: Temporary.
Speaker 0: Positions. And so I think.
Speaker 10: Councilwoman.
Speaker 2: Ortega brought up a good point. We need to plan out the total real estate.
Speaker 0: I mean, there's this is a very large workforce, a.
Speaker 2: Huge employer base.
Speaker 0: And so it would be nice to know how we're going to be able to manage the office.
Speaker 10: Space and work.
Speaker 8: And we could sit with you. Absolutely. As Councilwoman Ortega referenced, and I believe I mentioned it at one of the a previous city council meeting, we do look, especially for our major agencies, we look at the master planning efforts so that we understand how they are growing, what their business function is, so we can prepare for that . Within that, then we take it and apply it as well as some of the other plans, the overall looking at the overall portfolio of the city. So we are looking down the road at a three and five year plan.
Speaker 10: And if we did not approve this tonight, what would the impact would that be on?
Speaker 8: It would be very significant in terms of some other moves that are there's it's almost a domino effect for us to be able to address some of the other issues that we're trying to find space for within web so that we can bring those and allow those hires to happen. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank very much. Thank you. Yeah, just piggyback on that. Can you name the agency that's to be moved to for.
Speaker 8: The ninth floor? It's Parks.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this would is it fair to say that it would impact our new employee, FTE, that we have hired for 2018?
Speaker 8: It would as it impacts the ones that have not been able to be hired yet. Got it. That's the key.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. So we have 30 to 50 FTE coming to Parks.
Speaker 8: I don't have those numbers in front of me. I'm sorry. I can certainly confirm that for you tomorrow.
Speaker 0: That would just be huge increase over what I know. So that's. That's. That would be worth knowing. The. Yeah. Yeah, no, that was Councilman President Brooks. That was the question I had. So thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Seen? No, Dr. Sussman.
Speaker 5: That reminded me of a question. Thank you, Mr. President. Isn't the plan also to include the number of employees that we may be hiring with the bond project? That we are expecting quite a number of new fees. And and even the council has requested there be even extra employees for things like traffic and transportation.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Yes, this includes when we look at this overall plan again for Webb, for the expansion that would go into the Denver Post, building other locations as well. It takes in the approved of TS. That also includes our Bond team that will be coming on and growing as the projects grow, as well as other consultants . So other agencies, tech services, one also hire consultants that are not in that FTE number that we work for. So this.
Speaker 5: Is part of a planning correct face that you all are doing for the city and for office.
Speaker 8: Use. Yes.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just comments from Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I think at some point I'm going to want to sort of understanding I mean, since for three years we've been asking for that real estate master plan and some sort of long me and wide, wide scope vision of of of real estate and space and and space planning and all this stuff. We keep doing this incremental thing. Bonds are not new weeds. We just got out of the ten year bond. Somehow we did it. We went through a recession and cut down FTE. So without, you know. So I would like to understand how many square footage did we how many square feet did we get rid of when we went through a downturn? And how much of that have we captured and how much more have we gone past that? Because are we now getting too big for our britches and unhealthily sort of large as a as an organization? And I know we approve that budget every year, but that has been a lingering question. And we are going through the budget process right now. Do we have space for any additional FTE? Yes, because if this is always a component to every time we add, because we always talk about the all the sort of wraparound costs associated with FTE, if we don't actually have the space and we're going to end up in other contracts at very high dollar amounts at peak market while we're acquiring acres and acres and acres and square footage out at the Western Center and other places in-we we sit on vacant properties in District three and in District seven, it's just and we sell land in District one. It's just I need some really clear explanation on this. All right. I'm going to just make a couple comments. Number one, I think Councilman Ortega's request is justified. We do not have to think about a master plan of what we're doing for the next 5 to 10 years. It's tough because we're we may be entering into a recession. And I remember in 2011, Web was empty, you know, and and now it's not because we are responding to the demand of the city. I think I stand in solidarity with Kevin Flynn and Councilman Flynn. And I think a lot of folks who are hearing about what's going on with The Denver Post, they hear that, you know, and immediately react. Unfortunately, we have the issue of responding to a budget that we just approved and to constituents who are demanding for more services. And so if we stop those services because of this issue, I think it's going to I think it's going to come back on us. And so I'll be voting in favor of this with all of those issues. But I would ask that we would take a three, five, seven year look and start thinking about our real estate plans around around the city. This is expensive. This is very expensive. But at the same time, we did approve this for our budget. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Ortega. No. Sussman, I black. CLARK All.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 3: Espinosa No.
Speaker 4: Flynn Now.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Herndon.
Speaker 1: High.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Can each on. Lopez. No new. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please call the voting or announce a results.
Speaker 3: You have certainly ten on the board.
Speaker 0: We're missing two dozen.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. Constable, when anyone passes seven five. All right. Please bring up 126. 127. 128. Councilwoman Ortega.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement to Sublease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and DP Media Network LLC for the addition of 27,467 square feet on the 9th floor of 101 W. Colfax Avenue.
Adds $9,629,641.85 to the sublease agreement with DP Media Network LLC for a new total of $31,319,346.69 for an additional 27,467 square feet of office space on the 9th floor of the Denver Post building at 101 West Colfax Avenue for City use (FINAN - 201626030-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-9-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 2-20-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03192018_18-0145
|
Speaker 8: Okay. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you very much. Sure.
Speaker 0: Thanks. All right. All right. That takes care. 126 one 2728. Please bring up resolution 145, the La Raza Services Council. Woman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry, I don't mean to dominate the conversations tonight, but this is a contract that came before city council. I just want to explain why I am voting no tonight. This in no way has any sense. Councilwoman, we need it on the floor.
Speaker 0: We need to put on the floor. I thought you were calling for a question. Councilman Flint, can you please put it on the floor?
Speaker 4: Sure, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that council resolution 18 145 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and secured. And now as you read about that.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: At that.
Speaker 8: So I first wanted to say that. The three organizations who are part of this contract tonight followed our city process. And this in no way has any disparaging. Implications on any of them. I have done work with all three of them and think that they all do important work in our community. But I think it's also important to know that when the city had passed our jail bond issue and moved to construct our justice center, there was a lot of work that went into looking at what kind of programs were being offered within our jail system. And there was a lot of restructuring that was done to ensure that we had a comprehensive approach to how those services were being offered. And it feels like a lot of that work that went into ensuring that we had a very thoughtful and methodical way of delivering those services is is being sort of pushed aside. And I'm not aware of any problems with how the Community Reentry Project was operating in our city. I understand the city has a right to put out any of its contracts to bid. You know, we have one with the Rocky Mountain Human Services that has been in place with the city since its inception. And that goes all the way back to, I want to say, 2003. It may even be before that. And we've never talked about putting that one out to bid. So, you know, we need to be consistent with our practices in this city when we talk about what we're going to do and how we're going to do it . And I just think that this was one that was doing a great job. It went through a very thorough review, both internally with lots of people within our jail system, as well as a lot of external partners who were doing part of that service delivery within our jail that created the program that we had in place. And I had the opportunity to be directly involved with that when I worked at the Denver Department of Human Services with our homeless community, which is a big part of that same population. And I just didn't understand the reason for the need to put it out to bid. So for those reasons, I'm going to be voting no against this tonight. And again, I have great respect for Sid Vicious, for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and Urban League and the work that you all do. I think it's critically important work. Some of you do work within the jail system today, but I just didn't agree with the direction that the city moved to do this. So I'll be voting no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is when this job. It's very difficult. I honor all those folks who raised their hands or their. I know the hard work you put in. I know the work that you do. I know the work that you do for our company that. Has nothing to do with your ability to carry out that work. Has nothing to do. With Servicios de la Raza. It is a great organization. An organization that has been around doing this since before it was popular. Through decades. And we even lost one of our. Executive Directors of service. Just last night. Couple of weeks. Happy Hill. I. I'm not happy. With the way that this contract rolled out. As before. Many people here say this is our jobs, our livelihood. This is a profession what we were doing. Same is true with the current contract with the former now. And they are folks who. Don't look much different from the folks in this room. And serve the same people, our people. Coming out of a facility. Trying to acclimate into society and ready to be given and ready to start a second chance. And sometimes the third chance. And that takes people who understand our community. And I was not convinced in our community meetings. That there were folks in those communities that could not do that. And so I ask myself, why is this contract only a year long? Why are only $550,000? We know that there's plenty of work to be done. We always talk about other doom preventing folks from from being in a facility, the facility, or from being in jail , preventing recidivism. We know that caseloads grow. We know it's difficult work. We know folks who are that are not paid enough that do this kind of work. So why is this only a short term? $500,000 contract. When the need in our city is so much more. Why was it? Put forth to us with a clicking ticking talk clock saying clicking talk. Ticking clock. Ticking clock. Saying If council doesn't do this, services are going to drop. There's going to be a gap in services if we don't move forward. It's very common in our council in the way we do business in our city that you don't bring something last minute expecting it to just pass on a rush. There are very valid questions and in it I didn't like the position that we were put in a city council to say, you either do this or there's going to be a gap in services. I hate playing the card shell game. We're just sitting there like that, asking in a briefing. What's your questions? And you have to guess. What the issues are. I hate that. I want it to be straightforward. These are folks lives. And I think very, very carefully about that. This contract to me is divisive. It is not sensitive of the. The challenges that we have in our community, the politics in the community. The fact that some of these organizations. We're now fighting for this. Just two years ago. Less than a year ago. We're stripped of its workforce dollars. And we went to bat when that happened, saying, you do not privatize those dollars. This organization deserves those dollars. They've been working in the community from day one. And we saw those dollars stripped away. Third party, only to be done terribly worse. And we said, I told you so. The same fight. For the same cause. It did not have to be a contract that said either or. Especially given the times that we're in, i. I made a proposal. It's easy for someone to be a critic. It's easy for someone to say, I'm not going to vote for this and this is my out. This is not easy. There are folks who I respect dearly in this room. I'm here to be a steward of your public dollars and to make sure that the work that we contract for it gets done and is done in a way that that gets more people involved in it. A contract like this should unite our community, not divide it over $550,000 for less than a year now. I'm not here to watch a contract of ours with the intent. Of the people that's supposed to help be thrown at us across the fence and we fight over it. I don't like that in our community. I don't like. The politics involved in it. So why not a proposal that lasts for more than three years? Why not go back and do a budget supplemental? This is what I asked. Let's double it. If we truly wanted to reduce recidivism and we wanted to have all hands on deck and the resources that we truly need. And it really. It's not what we truly need, but. Why don't we make it a million? Why don't we give these organizations the opportunity? To. To do it together. Not fighting over one little piece. But let's get it done. And. This is something that I intend to bring to if this doesn't. This moves forward tonight. You. Mark my word. Come budget season. This is what I'm going to ask for. I do not like seeing our community divided. Especially. When is our contract in the city that's doing it? I don't like that. And I hope you understand why I cast my novel community. It's on principle. Has nothing to do with personalities. Has everything to do. Right here in this house. This is where it needs to be fixed. So, Mr. President, I will not be supporting this contract. It is not a fair contract. And it. It doesn't recognize the bigger picture. This community cannot not be divided anymore.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm nothing but respect for my. Colleagues. Comments. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. This contract process. I have my own questions and concerns for the way it's rolled out and whatnot. For me, it just comes down simply. To. We have inmates every day. Rolling out of our downtown detention center, our county jail, that need services that haven't had them now for going on three months. I will stand with Councilman Lopez if you want to increase the level of service. It's 100% needed. Our jail system, the entire system is woefully underfunded. We don't have the staffing in it now that we need. As has been mentioned at committee, a number of us went out to California to look at the Las Colinas jail and the staffing levels there far surpass what we've got, the the environment that they've got to execute a corrections system that has something real to do about rehabilitation. It far exceeds what we've got here. But we have the system that we have and we have inmates now that need services. I heard it suggested that we could kill this and that the jail staff could just fill in. I don't believe that to be true. I believe that the previous vendor, CERP, was doing important work at the jail. That our understaffed jail staff. Was not able to do. And I believe that work was important. As has been mentioned, I asked our our human resources people what was their. Denver. Denver Human Services. Was there any problem with the previous vendor where they notified of and they weren't doing the job? And I was told no, that was never stated. So I have some issues as to why this was put out to bid when it was put out to bid. But we need services in our jail. Our inmates deserve those services. And I believe that it needs to be done by an organization that is is focused on that as their primary work, not overburdened jail staff. Asked to fill in on overtime or in a different capacity when we don't have the staff we need to adequately supervise are inmates as it is. So with that, Mr. President, I will be. Somewhat hesitantly, but recognizing the need supporting this contract moving forward.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I am. I actually believe this is going to be the finest year in transition services we're ever going to have. Why do I believe that? Because the contractors have almost no choice but to do that right. I've already articulated in committee clearly my concerns about how this contract came about and the situation we find ourselves in. But with a one year contract, we'll be here this time next year with now an embattled mayor. Well, under this question that that that my colleagues are speaking to. And so it sort of compels the providers to not only meet the level of service that we were obtaining before, but to exceed it. I think they've committed to that and I don't I think they're going to try in earnest, but now they're really in that between a rock and a hard place. But I do think that you've got three, three capable entities where you had one. So I think the work is cut out for them, and I think they intend every bit of them intend to deliver on those outcomes. So while I still have those questions that I articulated in committee, you know, I am I'm committed to our inmates, committed to getting this new contract in place and seeing seeing those organizations not only meet, but exceed expectations. And so that we can come back, hopefully in a year's time and wonder what this was all about. So thank you all for for enduring this process. Good luck. And I hope that is the case. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. There are probably many people watching try and maybe if you just came in and you're trying to figure out what's going on here. This is a reentry contract for one year, $550,000. And it's Council Bill 145. Our our call our evaluation here is to look and see if the current proposers can do the work. This is what I'll tell you, the majority of the people in that jail over there. Our African-American Latino. And homeless. What we have before us is a resource de la Raza. Who is just a Stallworth in the community who I can point to people who've been through and gone and gotten their services, both in the African-American and Latino community. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless continues to transform people's lives all throughout District nine and the entire city. An Urban League has been transforming folk's lives. The wind program RTD since I've been in Denver for the last 20 years and even longer than that. And so what we're evaluating is can an organization do the work that is called out in the scope of work in this contract? And I 100% say, yes, I'll be supporting this, you know, and also support. And I'll also support not only talk about a budget amendment, but there's, you know, the Crime Prevention Control Commission, which I sit on, which Councilman Lopez sits on, which Councilman Herndon sits on. We haven't been attending those. And that's actually where the work gets done. And if we want to increase the contract, that's where we increase the contract. And so we're as much to blame as anybody else. And so if we want to go back and tell stories of what's happened, we can. But what's before us today is this contract here. And if we want to have a larger conversation with those members on that commission about increasing this contract, let's do it. Because Lord knows, as Councilman Cashman said, there's more work that needs to be done and I will 100% support increase in this contract, doubling the size of this contract. My request to these three organizations. Southwest Denver, near northeast Denver and far northeast Denver. Need you. Please do the outreach in those communities. That's where folks are going into reentry, right? That's where folks are going back into and even now into Aurora and other folks outside of Denver. And so I just would ask that your outreach, that you would really turn that up so that we can really, really serve our community . Councilman Lopez, I see you back up.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I didn't know that was going to be brought up. That communication was sent to us by the mayor's office in terms of this, the CPS, the Crime Prevention Control Commission. It's not where the contract originates. Those weren't the CPK folks that were in my meeting. Those were other folks that are higher up. In our agencies if this contract was going to be more and would have more juice. And it would. Let's not kid ourselves or sell stuff short. You don't rob Peter to pay Paul and call it progress. You just don't. Progress is when you increase. You raise the bar, not move it from one bean to another. If we really wanted to see progress, we'd raise it. You know, the CPC does serve its role. It has. It continues to. It is exactly what we got because a lot of us didn't want a new jail because we knew if there was going to be a new jail, we'd have to fill the beds. I. My critique is with this contract from before it even came to the P.C.C. There's decision making that happens. It's divisive. I don't like it. I don't like my community being played. That's plain and simple. I hope folks who were at the table thinking about this contract, unaware about what divisions it can create, how it would look in the in the public realm, how it would make normal folks who are doing like work, working together separate. That's the problem. I don't like it and I want folks to know I don't like it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. I like it. So we're about to vote on this. Matt. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Is it time to vote?
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary?
Speaker 3: Raquel Ortega. No. Sussman, my black clerk. Espinoza, Flynn. I.
Speaker 0: Herndon, i.
Speaker 3: Cashman. Cashman. Can each. Lopez.
Speaker 8: No new.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I announce the results.
Speaker 3: Then eyes, two knees.
Speaker 0: Eyes, two nays. Counsel. Bill 145 has passed. All right. Can you put up for council bill four for councilman? Do you have a question on that?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and La Raza Services, Inc., to provide jail to community transition services.
Approves a one-year $550,000 contract with La Raza Services, Inc. through 3-31-19 to implement and operate the Transition from Jail-to-Community program to reduce recidivism through community collaboration, access to services, resources and supportive relationships for persons prior to release from detention or jail, and continued through reentry and transition into the community (SOCSV 2017-38562). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-9-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 3-7-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03192018_18-0130
|
Speaker 0: Council is reconvene the two public hearings this evening. Speakers. We have two public hearings this evening. Speaker should begin the remarks by telling members of council their names and cities of residents 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're available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time. Then the speaker will have a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitors on your right and left. You'll see the time counting down speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to members of Council as a whole. Please refrain from obscene or. Refrain from obscene speech. Sorry about that. An individual and personal attacks. All right. Councilman Flynn, will you please put 130 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18 dash 130 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. A public hearing for Council Bill 130 is now open. May we have staff report? Scott Robinson, welcome.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 680 Sheridan Boulevard from PD number one to E Annex three properties located in Council District three in the Villa Park neighborhood. It's at the northeast corner of Sheridan Boulevard and Sixth Avenue. It's at the west edge of the city. Lakewood is across Sheridan Boulevard to the west. Property is about six acres in size. It's currently a self-storage facility with mostly one story buildings a few two story buildings. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to allow it to redevelop as a new modern mini storage facility. As I mentioned, it's currently zoned PD number one and PD was approved in 1977, limits the uses to mini storage and limits the development on there basically to what exists right now. The proposed zoned district is E Annex three. That's urban edge neighborhood context. Mixed use three storey maximum height. Around the property. The zoning to the north is C Annex five, which is a mixed use. Five storey maximum height to the east and northeast is old code. Residential and multi-unit zoning are two to the south and southeast. Across sixth avenue is single unit zoning and south on Sheraton Boulevard is old code commercial zoning. Across Sheridan Boulevard in Lakewood is a mix of light, industrial and mixed use zoning. They're used to surrounding the property to the north and south, along in our commercial uses to the east. Our residential multi-unit north of Sixth Avenue and single unit south of Sixth Avenue, across shared in Lakewood, is a mix of office and light industrial uses. You can see the storage facility, the main office building there in the center. The Sixth Avenue bridge up above the site there in the bottom right picture. And then some of the surrounding development in the other photos. This went to the planning board on January 17th, got a unanimous recommendation of approval from the board. There was no public comment. We've not received any other public comment on this application. As you know, in order to prove a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property, the first being Comprehensive Plan 2000. As described in the staff report, staff has found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these four strategies from comp plan 2000, mostly relating to infill development and mixed use development. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the concept of land use for this property is single family duplex, which calls for moderately dense areas, primarily residential, but with some small scale commercial uses. So the proposal is to go to Mxr three, which is mixed use zoning at seven acres. This is a fairly large site, larger than we typically see with these small scale commercial uses. But when looking at the local park neighborhood as a whole, it doesn't have a lot of the sort of embedded commercial uses we see in a lot of other neighborhoods in Denver. It's really concentrated on the edges. So staff feels that site of this size going to a mixed use is appropriate in the single family duplex in the Villa Park neighborhood. It's also an area of stability blueprint. Denver calls for rezoning in area of stability to allow redevelopment of a consistent character. Steph believes that the rezoning would do so, and then a certain boulevard is a mixed use arterial and which calls for mixed use at a greater intensity, which is consistent with the Annex three proposed zoning. And then the Sixth Avenue Surface Road is designated local, intended to provide that local access to the site. The third plan is the Villa Park neighborhood plan from 1991. It calls for improving the neighborhood arterials, discouraging higher density development, but allowing development that is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood, supporting more commercial activities and increasing retail activity in the neighborhood. The Annex three would allow development consistent with the character of the surrounding area and with the existing use on the property that it's already a commercial use and allow redevelopment to improve and enhance that commercial activity. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans and the first criterion is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in a uniform application of the Annex three zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the reinvestment in an existing business. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that there are changed conditions in the neighborhood since the previous zoning was put in place, which was 1977. So quite a while ago. There's been significant changes in in the city and in the area and in the site and that with the restrictive PD that the changes justify a rezoning to facilitate facilitate redevelopment of the site. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would allow development consistent with the urban edge, neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the annexed three zone district. So with that, staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay. We have three speakers this evening and I'm going to ask them to come up to the front and sit on this bench area. When I call them up. Tory Green, then to Le. Until. Okay, I was close. Zel Cantrell, Tori Green. You are our first 3 minutes.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Council President. Thank you, council members.
Speaker 5: My name is Tori Green. I'm with Galloway. We're located at 616.
Speaker 0: Excuse me, gentlemen. You can have a seat. Stay a while. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Six one, six two. South Willow Drive and Greenwood Village, Colorado. I'm joined this evening by Zell Cantrell. Also with Galloway and Dan Matua, vice president of real estate development at Public Storage. Thank you, Scott, for your presentation and for helping us navigate this process of the rezone.
Speaker 3: And thank you all for your time.
Speaker 5: Would you like me to go, or would you like them to introduce themselves?
Speaker 0: Oh yeah. I'll, I'll call them up each one by. Okay if you're done.
Speaker 5: But we don't have a formal presentation this evening. We are here to answer any questions that you all might have.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Green. All right, we'll call up Adam. Until then. Good evening, council members. My name is Dan Matula. I'm vice president of development with Public Storage, and I'm.
Speaker 2: At 1730 South Abilene.
Speaker 0: Street in Aurora, Colorado. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Okay, great. Thank you, Miss Mr. Tula. They'll control. Zel Cantrell with Galloway 6162 South Willow Drive in Greenwood Village. I'm here to assist with.
Speaker 2: Questions as well.
Speaker 0: And I just wanted to extend another thank you to Scott and his assistance in working through the process. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cantrell. This concludes our speakers are any questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none. Public hearing on 30 is now closed. Guzman-Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. PD one night. The first PD ever. And I just hope that. It falls victim to earmarks. Three. I you know, I. When before the zoning code update took place in 2010, there was a lot of I mean, it was our nemesis to see so many pwds get re-approved and or created because we wanted to have zoned districts that actually were form based zoning and that actually matched what was on the ground, but also had a vision for the future. Right. And so. I remember this site because all my stuff was in one of these storage lockers. I mean, my parents moved back and forth all over Denver, all over the West Side anyway, and. Almost had a permanent one as a mammal, lived out of one of these things, you know, as the speed's sunsetting riding off into the sunset. Right. So is that kind of like that old storage use, right, where you drive up in a truck and it's right there. It's just there's a big chunk of land. And why go horizontal when you can build up? When it's secure. Right. And when it's. When it's some I mean, it is a use it is a real use in our community and a growing need in our community. And the market's big for something like this.
Speaker 0: And it has.
Speaker 7: Especially in the west side with a lot of folks moving around. This is one of those uses that, you know, is is is fitting for the site. We talked about orientation. We talked about access, things like this. And, you know, and we sat down. We need to find this little puny one and frame it somewhere. It's one of those things that belongs in a museum. So. I'm glad to see this resolved. I'm glad to see this move forward as in the next three. And I know the neighborhood is very supportive of something like this as well, too. So there was that input from the neighborhood as well to the. You know, convince me this is a good thing. Um, with that. I don't see why this would not be approved ever. So. Straightforward.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. See no other comments about members of council. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega Sussman.
Speaker 5: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Clark. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Flynn, I.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I. Can each. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I think we owe a great. Oh, we have a name. Espinosa. Okay, great. I got confused there for just a second. Please close the voting. And as a result.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes, one ni.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one ni. Congratulations. One of three has passed. All right, we have another bill. Councilman Flynn, would you put 215 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 680 Sheridan Blvd. in Villa Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezoning property at 680 Sheridan Boulevard from PUD 1 to E-MX-3 (planned unit development to urban edge-neighborhood) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03192018_18-0215
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one ni. Congratulations. One of three has passed. All right, we have another bill. Councilman Flynn, would you put 215 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council. Bill. I'm sorry. Wrong page. Move the council bill to 15 series of 2018. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 215 is now open. We have the staff report. Karen, how are you? Are you having a good day?
Speaker 5: I am, yeah.
Speaker 0: Good. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Karen with Lane Preservation with Community Planning and Development. And this is for 2145 South Adams, known as Gormley for Landmark Designation Landmark Preservation, was established in 1967 to designate, preserve and protect important historic resources. Currently, there are 336 individual landmarks 53 historic districts, which make up about 4% of the buildings in the city and county of Denver. Landmarks applications can be submitted through a variety of means. This one is submitted by the property owner. Once something is designated as historic, it goes through landmark design review, but it is not required to have to be restored to a particular time or place. However, demolitions are highly discouraged. Landmark Preservation recently in 2014 and then in 2016, recently updated our design guidelines with the intent of providing an objective review process for people who come through the process and are designated as historic districts. If something is or a structure, if something is designated, it will go through design review for a variety of topics like fences or zone light amendments, solar panels, reroofing additions, or things for secondary structures with the intent of preserving the character. Defining features of the structure. But also the design guidelines are intended to allow both applicants and staff to process this with an objective processing. In 2017, about 80% of landmark designation or landmark design review applications were approved by staff. We had about 1600 design review applications of they fall into sort of three different categories. Quick reviews that are typically done in about one business day. Smaller projects that are about 10 to 15 business days. And larger projects that would go before the Landmark Preservation Commission. So depending on any changes that would be proposed to this particular building, it would either be administratively reviewed by staff or go to the commission for their review. If something is designated as a historic property such as this property, it would be eligible for the Colorado Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Tax Credits, which would mean that 20% of any part of the project could be claimed as a tax credit. So that would be of benefit to this particular property owner. The designation process that came in in January, it went before the Landmark Preservation Commission at a public hearing in February of 2018, and then it was passed forward by by Rudy. And first reading was last week. Landmark Preservation sent out owner notification letters notified the registered neighborhood organizations as well as other courtesy notifications, notified City Council and planning board, posted signage and then did a courtesy notification after the Landmark Preservation Commission to the property owner. This particular property is located in Council District six. It's in the University Park neighborhood on Adams between Evans and Warren. It's in an area of stability in Blueprint Denver. And the owner of this property is Rita Hill. She initiated this designation process, but was is unable to be here due to health. She has worked with the R.A. in historic Denver to shepherd this process through and to work on writing the designation application. This designation application is required to do two things per the landmark ordinance. Maintain its historic and physical integrity. Meet at least one criterion in two of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And relate to a historic context or theme. This particular property has excellent integrity. There are minimal alterations to the property. The carriage house was converted into a living space and so the carriage doors were slightly altered and a rear patio has been added in the 1990s. However, overall, it retains a very good integrity and all seven aspects of integrity. This particular property relates to the history, having a direct and substantial association with a person who had influence on society. The property was constructed in 1899 by William Seward Iliffe. He was a prominent Denver businessman. He was involved in railroads, irrigation and a variety of ventures throughout Denver in the state of Colorado. He is also very well known for being a benefactor of you in the I Left School of Theology bears his name. He was important in providing financial backing to the I Left School of Theology NDU and was also in leadership roles in both schools, and he became a developer and booster for the South Denver area. He platted the university addition and then was a developer and buyer and seller to help both support his own business as well as to support the university. He lived in the building from 1890 to 1946 until when he passed. The property also is significant for its architecture. It embodies embodies the distinguishing characteristic of the architectural type of the Denver Square. Constructed in 1890, its early transition from the Victorian era. And the designs that were a little fuzzier with Victorian to a little more stripped down and classical elements on this particular building. It's a very substantial square building. However, it's a there are two buildings and there a little offset on this property. Unlike the more typical Denver squares that you see in an urban environment, which is a smaller or slightly more narrow building. This has the quintessential hipped roof with the central dormer. It has broad over extending eaves, the wider windows, which are typical of a Denver square versus something like a Victorian. And then it has a full width porch that wraps a little bit, which is the full width porches typical of a Denver square, and it has very classical detailing and the dental moldings, the porch columns and the coining on the edges of the building. Landmark staffing. The LPC also found that this property is significant for its geography, for promoting an understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics and rarity, and found that it met it under both. This building is one of the oldest in the area. This particular photo is taken in about 1900 in the property at 2145, South Adams is actually just to the right and outside of the frame of this. But it does show about a year after this was constructed what it looked like in that particular area. And so there this is one of the oldest in the building, the oldest in the area. There are very minimal changes to this building in comparison to the other buildings that exist from this time period. And so it's a very rare building for the area, and it also reflects the distinctive physical characteristics of the time that it was built. It has a very pastoral setting. There are nine lots that go along with this particular designation application. And so it sort of it reflects sort of a residential enclave of when this I mean, this was constructed different from the urban downtown core. And it really right now is differentiated from the smaller lots that are there from later development as well as the recent infill that has occurred. And finally, in order to be a Denver landmark, a property must relate to a historic context or theme. This very strongly relates to the development and growth of South Denver. Specifically, I live platting of University Edition, his work and his family's work developing and selling in that particular area. And then, William, I left a role in the development of due and I left school of theology. Landmark staff in the Landmark Preservation Commission found that it maintained its historic and physical integrity, that it met the criteria under history, architecture and geography and related to a historic context or theme in Denver history. And the LPC voted unanimously to approve this and recommended it going forward. Can answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you, Carol. All right. We have six speakers. All right, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: We have six speakers. I'm going to call the first. I call all six of them. Any Levinsky, Rosemarie Stouffer, Janet Bardwell, Matt Wester, Edward Doty and Joyce Meyers. Please come up and any Levinsky, you're up first.
Speaker 5: All right. Good evening, members of council. I'm Andy Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, located at 1420 Ogden Street. We're a nonprofit organization founded in 1970 and supported by more than 800 current members. And it's our mission to enhance the city's unique identity through education, advocacy and stewardship on behalf of our local heritage and historic places. And we're thrilled to be here tonight in support of the individual landmark designation for 2145 South Adams, also known as the Isle of House or Armley. We have been aware of this property for many years. In fact, it was featured on a historic Denver House tour in the 1980s. But our recent involvement is the result of the dedication and passion of the home's owner, Mrs. Rita Hill. Mrs. Hill and her late husband, Robert, purchased the Iola family home in 1967. They were both Denver natives and had deep roots in the community, and they were seeking a permanent home for their growing family. The Hills raised their eight children on Adams Street, and it's only the second owners of the house. They were great stewards and maintained the home's integrity and special character over the decades. Mrs. Hill reached out to us last year and again over the summer to seek assistance in honoring and protecting her home of more than 50 years . I provided you with a transcription of an oral history interview with Mrs. Hill by email last week, and that interview was done late last summer, and I hope you enjoyed reading it because it's a great story with a lot of really interesting threads about how Denver has grown and changed. But because Mrs. Hill couldn't be here tonight for health reasons. I did want to paraphrase how she explained her desire to have her home designated in this way. Rita said, I have loved living here in University Park in my younger years. I didn't think that I was I don't think I was aware of history and historic designation. But my years of the historical society really opened up my eyes to that. I realized it was a responsibility that we do something with this house. I was worried about it being scraped and I feel a lot of responsibility for it. And it's land. It was really given to us in amazing ways and I would like to give it back in the same condition to ensure its preservation with the blessing of Mrs. Hill and the financial support of the University Park Community Council , our organization hired a consultant to research and write the nomination, and they did a beautiful job documenting the tremendous history of this House and its association, not just as a visual landmark of South Denver, but as a reminder of the Iliff family, a family that left a legacy in Denver through its support of the EU and the idea of school of theology. We are proud to be supporting this with Mrs. Hill and to have shepherded this designation through the landmark process. So on behalf of historic Denver and our Board of Trustees, as well as all of Denver's residents, I want to thank Mrs. Hill and her late husband and her children for this opportunity to hold on to an important piece of Denver history, a place that helps make Denver the Denver we all love. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the application, and I hope you too appreciate the value this designation will bring to our community by voting and support this evening. Thanks for your consideration.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right, Rosemary Stovall.
Speaker 5: My name is Rosemary Stoffel and I live at 2275 South Monroe Street in University Park. I'm thrilled to be here today on behalf of University Park Community Council and myself to support this application under the very best of circumstances. A homeowner who took the steps to initiate the process, the recognition of one of the most important homes and properties in University Park. And finally, some good news for our neighborhood, which has seen an alarming loss of historic homes in recent years. The owner, Rita Hill, contacted neighborhood board members after reading about one of these homes being demolished. She wanted to make sure this wouldn't happen to the Hill family home, which they unoccupied since 1967. Rita's unable to be here tonight, but I know you're watching Rita. Hi, Rita. And hopefully by the end of the evening, you'll finally be getting that official Denver historic landmark plaque on your house. We immediately started working with historic Denver to get the process going, and our neighborhood board agreed to fund the research and completion of the application form. Here is an opportunity to preserve one of the very most recognizable homes in our neighborhood. Built in 1899 by William Seward. I live in Alberta. Blum Iliff. It as noted in the application, it is a familiar anchor in our neighborhood evoking the character of University Park in 1899 as a residential enclave. It sits on 33,000 square feet, which has nine lots pastoral site and is one of the oldest unaltered houses in our neighborhood. The ILA family history is entwined with the university with the development of the University Park. Do you and the city. And one of Rita's goals was to ensure that the Isla family's story is told again. The message I would most like to convey today is to express gratitude to Rita Hill and her family for being wonderful stewards of this home and property and for giving this tremendous gift to our neighborhood and to the city, in Rita's words . I feel a lot of responsibility for this house and land, as Annie has already said. I want to give it back in the same condition to ensure its preservation. I hope you agree and give this application your unanimous support. Before I end, before and I'd like to ask Carolyn here to please raise your hand. Carol is here in support of the application. And she and her husband, Don, have been very long time preservation advocates in our neighborhood and in the city. Their experience has been invaluable to those of us working in the trenches today. Rita's house is included in university walking tours book, which Don Edgar wrote in 1974. If any of you want some really good reading. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Moustafa. All right, Janet Bardwell.
Speaker 5: Hello. I'm Janet Bardwell. I live at 2201 South Harrison Street in University Park. So I grew up in University Park. I live in my childhood home, and my great grandparents came to Denver before the house that is under consideration. So I dearly love this city. And I, over a year ago was riding my bike around the neighborhood and went down Adams Street and saw this house. And I got off my bike and I looked and like, I have never seen this before and I've never seen it in Denver where there's a house that's on its original land and just kind of this. People have used the word pastoral and it is quite a marvel in how it is positioned and still there. And so I went to the next University Park Community Council meeting and said, Do you guys know about this? This is really special. And then as everyone's described before me, the process went, but it is a very special place and our neighborhood has gone through profound transformation. So having this designated would be significant. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Burwell. Matt Wester.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Matt Webster.
Speaker 1: I live at.
Speaker 0: 2174 South Columbine. Thanks for entertaining us here at the end of a long, long day. And of all the decisions that you face, this is an easy one to me. Hit the.
Speaker 1: Pillow.
Speaker 0: Feel good about this? Two reasons.
Speaker 10: Number one, literally, this is an 89 year old woman who's.
Speaker 0: Passing away and this is her dying wish. Let this house stay. Let this history say.
Speaker 1: The second reason why is I think it sends the right message to this neighborhood at the right time regarding the importance of community and.
Speaker 0: Preservation, especially in the University Park area houses. There's a lot of houses. Houses have people. People are a community and community needs things like this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wester. Edward Doty.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President. Good evening. My name is Edward Duty and I'm a University Park resident as well. Live at 2131 South Combine. I would like to thank you in advance for your perspective. Support to designate the only property in our neighborhood as a historic landmark. Gormley is truly a neighborhood gem and deserving of such status. There is still much work to do to help us preserve more of our neighborhood and unique community. In the four years I have lived in University Park, I have witnessed the demolition of many structures of historic and architectural significance, including the 1898 Victorian home that was directly across the street from my house and moved to University Park for its connection to you, for its stately old homes, for its majestic and mature trees, and for the sense of community and shared history in our neighborhood. As an example, the previous owner of my house was Dr. Maurice Schubert, a Du Berkeley professor who lived to be 100 years old in the house. He was an avid, of all things ice skater and head as his ice ice skating partner. Candidly, Condoleezza Rice, when she was at the You Morris, was also one of the founders of the Denver Botanic Gardens, played a pivotal role and in the plans to beautify Buchtel Boulevard on the north edge of University Park in such are the threads of history that we cherish in our neighborhood. Our community currently feels like it's under siege by real estate developers seeking to turn the neighborhood into just another suburb of look alike homes. Among the first casualties are the beautiful tall trees cut down by the dozens, if not the hundreds, to make way for enlarged footprint foundations. As a banker, I understand the need for growth, but there can and should be more balance between development and preserving a great neighborhood such as University Park. My neighbors and I are here tonight to show our support for the formerly landmark designation and to let you know that we are organizing to do more to preserve the community we love. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Lastly, Joyce Meyers.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name's Joyce Meyers. I live at 2180 South Adams Street, and I just wanted to say a few words. I have.
Speaker 5: The honor and privilege.
Speaker 3: Of living across the street from from this beautiful.
Speaker 8: Home. And that is why I bought the house that I live in. Who wouldn't want to live across the street from a park in this beautiful redstone mansion? You know? So I just want to thank.
Speaker 3: You for your consideration of making this a historic landmark. It is significant to the University Park neighborhood and to our community. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Miss Myers. All right. We're done with our public comment and now into questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa, I don't know if anybody can answer this, but hopefully you do, because my decision almost hinges on this. What is the name warmly mean? Where does it come from? What is that all about? I know it was on the house. I get that. But. Who stuck it up there and why.
Speaker 5: I think I can only partially so hopefully will still get your vote. Alberta Bloom Iliff, the first the wife of the first owner of the house, chose it all warmly. But we do not have a detailed explanation of why she chose it.
Speaker 0: Okay. I dare everybody on council to Google the word armley. There is nothing out there and it's so oddball of a name that you can actually still buy. Wormley dot com. It's available. All right. Once you finish those on your comments. Thanks. All right. Any other questions for members of the council? All right. Public order for 215 is now closed. Councilman Cashman, start us off with comments, please.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank landmark staff. Kara, thank you for your good work on this. And I want to thank them this levinsky and historic Denver I really enjoyed. I'm so glad you did that. Oral history. You know, I have not had the pleasure of meeting Miss Hill, but I feel like I have. And I especially like the stories. I don't know how many of my colleagues read the entire history, but apparently her husband, Robert, wasn't crazy about the house and she sold him on it. And it sounds like he fell in love with it equally along the way. It is a great history and I want to thank Rosemary Stafford for her ongoing efforts at guiding historic preservation in the University Park area. I believe it was an article that Rosemary wrote about a property that was lost that stimulated Miss Hill's attention once again to getting this property designated. I also loved the fact that this was not a a grand palace where huge social gatherings were the focus. This was a place where kids lived, where a family was raised. And I mean, virtually one short of a ball team, you know, one short of a baseball team through the years. And I just have wonderful images of what I'm sure were wonderful holidays and lots of good times on that property. Nine lots. Nine lots in one of the. Many lovely neighborhoods in Denver, but I would dare say was still one of the loveliest and most historic. And I hope read I hope you're listening because it was from her. Interview. I want to give it back in the same way. To ensure its preservation that this is a gift to to the community. Unlike many that that I've seen before and I want to extend my personal appreciation for that gift. I mean, those who choose to to designate a historic property benefit from it in any number of ways, be it. The tax credits are available for renovations or maintenance and so on, but this will remain this large parcel in this gorgeous home will remain part of our community in perpetuity. And, you know, we've I know my my friend, Councilman Flynn, in his attention to history, I think it would be awfully hard to find a place that better meets that criteria with the Isle of Family that, you know, I knew of their name attached to to do you and the School of Theology long before I became aware of the existence of this home. I'm just thrilled to death that this has come before council and. Oh, excuse me. I shall spend some time Googling grimly and hope to come with a few more hints of what it what it might mean. But I will wholeheartedly support this and read. I hope you're having a good evening. I hope you're watching. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I'm thinking that it just goes down in Denver law and we may never know. And but now it's there, preserved for future generations to question in the same way and also never know the. I keep telling myself that maybe it was one of my losses in my district that maybe was the trigger. And maybe I'll still. I feel better about having endured that. I just want it. Since you said that Rita was watching Rita. I just want to thank you. It's a wonderful house. You've been an incredible steward because we can tell it's self evident just looking at it. And so with its incredible history and your stewardship, it is here now for this act to make to make this act very easy. So thank you for voluntarily entering into this application and preserving this important piece of your neighborhood for your all generations to follow. So thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Nu. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 10: I look forward to supporting this as well. And what a gorgeous home this is in this beautiful neighborhood. You know, University Park, it's is the thing that just just.
Speaker 0: Amazes me is we don't know the name of the architect. You know, it's such a beautiful, designed home. And, you know, you think of some prominent name would pop up immediately. Maybe you said name that's.
Speaker 7: On the house. We're trying to figure out maybe spelled backwards. Maybe that's his name.
Speaker 0: Or something or something.
Speaker 2: Unusual. Anyway, thank you for bringing this.
Speaker 1: Forward and.
Speaker 7: We look forward to supporting it. All right. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Councilman. New Councilman Cashman, back up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. One one detail. I think one of the people I might have neglected to offer my thanks to the the Hill family, you know, the the the children. A piece of property like this comes up. Apparently, there there were not. While not having been privy to intimate conversations sounds like the the the offspring wholeheartedly wholeheartedly support this as well. And it's a gift from them, hopefully for years to come. They'll be able to drive by the family home and remember many, many good times there as well. We struggle with people with responsibility for pieces of property like this who chose nothing but pure profit over a sense of community responsibility and pride. So thanks again to the entire Hill family. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Anytime, Councilman Cashman. Anytime you want to talk about something in your district.
Speaker 6: Can I go.
Speaker 0: On? Yes, please. We do have Councilman s. Okay. I typed it in wrong. Okay, great. In closing, I'll just say Ms.. Rita Hill, how you doing? Are you watching right now? We so glad that this is getting done. Want to say hi to you? And I want to thank all you all for your advocacy. I appreciate it. And I want to say this because I think we live in such a black, white world of four against. But I do believe that revitalization and preservation can coexist. And this is another splendid area of town that's changing. There's all kinds of stuff, but I love that there's preservation going on in this area as well. And so I'm wholeheartedly supportive. And it's folks like you that make Denver great. So thank you for preserving your community. All right. And with that, Madam Secretary, Brokaw.
Speaker 3: Cashman can eat.
Speaker 0: LOPEZ All right, you.
Speaker 3: Ortega. SUSSMAN Black.
Speaker 5: Eye.
Speaker 3: Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Herndon. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I. Please close the voting. Announce results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 2145 South Adams Street, the Ormleigh House, as a structure for preservation.
Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 2145 South Adams Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-27-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03122018_18-0211
|
Speaker 0: No items have been caught out and under pending. No items have been caught out. Madam Secretary, please bring out Council Resolution 211. Councilwoman, can we put on floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 18 dash 0211 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. Need a second? It has been moved. And second, it comes from members of council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I am on the board of a nonprofit by the name of Del Norte that receives rain funds for the services that are provided. We are not a service provider. We provide housing. But because there are right and right funds that provide the services in some of the buildings that we hold, I will be abstaining from this vote tonight. And Kelly, just for your information, I'm voting as guest because they couldn't get me rebooted under my name for some reason.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Great. Looks like that is easy enough. No other comments from members of council. Madam Secretary Roque Ortega abstained.
Speaker 3: Sussman, I. Clark Espinosa, i Flynn I Gilmore i. Herndon, i cashman. I can each i. Lopez all right. New Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Plexiglass voting in the results.
Speaker 3: 12 zero nis one abstention. 11. I sorry. 11.
Speaker 7: So you showing me as a yes vote up there?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So we're going to do an abstention for Councilman Ortega. Gives us 11 eyes. One abstention. Resolution to 11 has been adopted. This concludes all the items have been called out. All of the items for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the black vote. Some resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote. You'll need to vote, otherwise it's your last chance. Colorado on a separate vote gives one can each where you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All series of 2018 unless noted otherwise. 180 9207204 213 168205209 216 115 183 188 193 139 179.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay, it's been moved. I need a second. I'm Secretary Brokaw.
Speaker 3: Clark. Right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. I. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. I assessment i. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please. Kosovo's announced results please. All very nice results. 1212 ays the resolutions have been adopted. The bills are in place for consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing council bill 2018 94 Changes to zoning classification of 3050 South Colorado Boulevard and require public hearing of Council Bill 2018 1 to 9, placing a moratorium on certain site development plans. Anyone wishing to speak on either matter must see the Council Secretary and receive a speaker's card to fill out. Toward the end of recess of council. Madam Secretary does not look like there is a large line up for these two bills.
|
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 concerning the "Ryan White Part A FY18" program and the funding therefor.
Approves a grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration for $1,643,582 and for one year to provide services to persons living with HIV/AIDS in the Denver Metropolitan Area (ENVHL-201840349). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-2-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 2-28-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03122018_18-0094
|
Speaker 0: Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can each where you please put Council Bill 94 on the floor.
Speaker 1: Yes, I move that council build 18 dash 0094 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right, it has. Give me a second. Yes, it has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council 94 is open. May we have the staff report? Teresa Lucero.
Speaker 7: Good evening.
Speaker 2: As well as a walk by.
Speaker 7: With community planning and development. This is a map amendment located at 3350 South Colorado Boulevard. The request is to rezone from urban edge single unit D to AP D. The PWD is based on the G RH three zone district. This property is located in Council District five in the Hilltop neighborhood. Property is about over. Just a little over an acre. 45,900 square feet. It is a vacant church. I think if this property might be familiar to a lot of people. Again, the request is to rezone from urban edge single unit to poverty g 17 in order to redevelop the property. So existing zoning surrounding on the north and east is ESU. D on the south is always a burns park to the West. RH three and Pudi in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. So again, the subject property is a vacant church to the north is a vacant property to the south. A city park. To the east. Single family residential. To the west. Single unit and multi-unit. Residential. And some commercial. This gives you an idea of the property and its location. The other thing that the property is subject to is a view plane from Cranmer Park, and that would allow buildings up to about 100 feet tall, which doesn't affect the property as with the proposed development redevelopment. So this gives you an idea of the building form and scale in the area lower density, single family homes to the east and across the boulevard, a commercial structure that's just one story tall. The park and the vacant property park to the south, a vacant property to the north, and the church itself, which is about two stories . So, again, this is based on the grade three zoned district, and it is a multi-unit zoned district. That's a pretty much a low scale, low intensity zoned district and mainly residential. So as far as the public process, initial notification of a complete application went out in August of last year and we did have a planning board hearing on January 17th of this year where unanimously they recommended approval. And then we were at Ludie on January 30th where the committee recommended that we move on to the floor of council. So here we are for our public hearing and the proper notification has been made for this hearing. So the registered neighborhood organizations Cherry Creek, East Cranmer Park, Hilltop, Hilltop Heritage, Denver Association of Neighbors and I.N.S.. And we have a letter of support from the Cranmer Park Hilltop Organization and no other letters. So you know our criteria, so I won't read them. There are additional criteria when we are approving, approved. Those are consistency with the beauty, purpose and intent and consistency with the beauty district. Standards and criteria develop that the development is not feasible and enter any other zone district that the development establishes. Permitted use is compatible with adjacent properties and land uses and that the building forms are compatible. So the plans that apply our current plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Boulevard Plan, which is a quite old plan, but it still applies. So plan 2000 staff believes that this conforms with and promoting infill development at sites where services and infrastructure are already in place, encouraging quality infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and where increased density and amenities can be can be accomplished, and identifying areas where increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated and preserving and moderate modernizing our housing stock. So a blueprint. Denver The property is within an area of change. It is single family duplex, which is moderate density, primarily residential. The building forms allowed our single family duplex townhome and small apartments street classifications. Colorado Boulevard is a mixed use arterial and enhanced transit corridor to dale is a residential arterial bayard avenue and designated local. The Boulevard plan again is quite old. It was really written mostly for the commercial uses on Colorado Boulevard but does speak to development on the boulevard. They do talk about no wholesale increase in development but then later on speaks to specific sites might be okay for a development. So it somewhat contradicts itself and basically says it seeks to retain the diversity of the land uses on the corridor on in basing our PD on a standard zoned district, we believe that we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations by sticking with the standards that are consistent with our code, because we're using those code standards and varying just a few things in the PD, and that by implementing our plans and allowing reinvestment in a rundown site, we believe that we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare change or changing conditions. The property itself has been deteriorating for years. Properties on Colorado Boulevard don't address the Boulevard anymore. They turn their back on the boulevard. And we're seeing a lot of change in the Cherry Creek East Area. So staff believes that there are a lot of changed conditions in the area and that this is an appropriate justifying circumstance. And then we talked a little bit about the grade three being that moderately scaled. Standards that that are consistent with the and with the adjacent properties. So we believe that it is consistent with the both the context, sorry, the context and the adjacent single unit standards for height and density. So the additional criteria for PUDs that this site be unique and extraordinary. There is compromised access to this property because of the location on two major arterials and one substandard local street with a private alley in the back. It is very challenging to take access to this property and with the just location between a low density residential neighborhood and a very major arterial in the city, we think that is also a unique and extraordinary circumstance and the public benefit will be some of the things that we are writing into the property. No garden court building form. The entry feature requirement will apply to the only the structures in the on the street. And as long as those structures conform to the entry feature requirement, the rear structures will not have to apply. And it is, as I said before, are compatible in building form and scale. In the low intensity residential uses. There will be a restoration of the parkway with some landscaping and actual sidewalks that are suitable for people to walk on on Colorado Boulevard, which is kind of unheard of in this portion of Colorado Boulevard, and it does conform with our objectives and our plans. So we do think that this property is consistent with the standards and criteria with those changes precluding the garden court, allowing the entry feature requirement to be exempted from those buildings behind and allowing allowing multiple duplexes on the zone lot. Those are unique things to this property that are not available in other any other zoned district. And it is, as I said before, compatible in density and height with the adjacent properties. And so staff believes that the additional criteria are met as well. And with that, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Lucero. We have three speakers this evening. I'm going to call them to the front here. And please give us a little room for these speakers to sit down. Douglas macKinnon. Tom Hart. And Wendy Rehak. Please come to the front. Douglas macKinnon, you were first.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Councilman. Good evening, counsel. My name is Doug McKinnon. Address 730 17th Street, Suite 220 here in Denver, where we were last before this body, on this property. It was about 20 months ago to the day. So we left that evening with a very clear message from all of you. And that was to reach out to the neighborhood and see if we could find agreement. We worked first. We absorbed our our concept thought through what was appropriate in the neighborhood and then began an outreach process. And over the last 20 months, with significant involvement from many community volunteers, which which really should be respected, the the the effort that Hilltop has shown in committing to a dialog with us has not gone unnoticed. And from our partners and myself, we really feel like this is the way logical, reasonable new development can happen in challenging situations. So what we have tonight is a request for a new rezoning. That rezoning reflects the neighborhood agreement that we've reached. That neighborhood agreement has been committed in a covenant that runs with the land. That covenant runs in perpetuity. So as a good faith gesture on our side, we made an agreement with the neighborhood. And it's the neighborhood's request that we actually put those words in writing in a very meaningful way. We've done that in terms of a covenant on the property. The main points which both Tom and Wendy can speak to is an agreement on the total density on the site to no more than 22 units. We waive the garden court form, which was a troublesome shape for many people. So we've we've held two only duplex townhomes, rowhouses or single family homes. We have a concept plan that has 11 buildings. Each of them are duplexes. So 22 units in total. We've limited the heights on the property to no more than 35 feet, which is exactly the height that exists in existing zoning around the neighborhood. We have limited any access off Colorado Boulevard to provide for a safer environment, which would reduce sound transmission into the neighborhood. We've agreed on the private alley to expand and improve the private alley between the properties on arc on our Nicole to make sure that that works in perpetuity. So we have a project that we are very happy to begin to commence with your approval. I think the neighbors also feel satisfied and feel vindicated in their approach and input to us. And we look we request your approval tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. All right, Tom Hart, you're up.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Tom Harkin live at 4530 Cedar Avenue. I am the zoning committee chair for the Park Hilltop Civic Association. And we're here. We were here almost two years ago and we opposed the rezoning. Since then, it's not mentioned. They came to us with a plan that we agree with. It provides for 11 duplex units and we've negotiated the covenants and we're here to support this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Hart. Wendy Rehak.
Speaker 1: Hi, Wendy Rehak. I live at 666 Birch Street, and I am the president of the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association here on behalf of the association to speak in support of the zoning, the rezoning application. Excuse me. After working with the property owner and neighbors near this proposed development and within the community, within the Association, we are supportive of revising the zoning based on the current concept submitted and an agreement to a set of points within the restrictive covenant negotiated between our association and the property owner. Developer. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Rehak. All right. This concludes our speakers. Any questions from members of council? All right. Seeing no questions. This public hearing is now closed. 95 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Dr. Sussman.
Speaker 1: Um. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you all for being here. Do.
Speaker 7: Your speaker's not on.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: For this. Just I just want to thank everybody that showed up tonight. I want to thank the developer for listening to the neighborhood, for going back to the neighborhood, for taking all the things in consideration. And I want to thank the neighborhood folks here who really worked hard on this to try to get something that everybody felt comfortable with. And I know it was not easy. 20 months, my goodness gracious. And thanks to Teresa for the work that she's done with both groups, sort of going back and forth. You'll recall that one of the reasons that I asked you all to not support this last time was because of the very strange character of this particular corner, the Bayard Street. That's not quite a street that leads Stale Street that comes screaming excuse me, screaming down to Colorado Boulevard. And the funny kind of turns there, the access on Ellsworth to the alley. It was a very kind of unsettling kind of arrangement. And I know we don't often do parties. And of course, when that one came through, I called up Theresa right away and go, What are we doing with the party? And certainly, as she explained, much of that, of the uniqueness of the property has to do with its access and its egress and ingress. And where where do you how do you position the buildings? And and so happy that they found that planning found a solution for that to a party that really, you know, after getting the egress and ingress established, it really mimics what the what's happening in the neighborhood behind it. Do you have the same kind of height? You have single family homes, not detached, but attached, and they're not slot homes. I know that I have council council friends who would be happy to hear that because they were making these decisions as that was going through. So I do want to thank everybody for your hard work and for your coming together and making such a good plan. That church was in and is in terrible shape. But it certainly is an example of lots of places in Denver that have churches on corners, on busy corners like this. And I know that blueprint Denver is addressing this situation. We recently found that there were about 60 churches in town that have or have been for sale or were sold. It's a it's a phenomenon of church attendance is declining. And so we do need to think about this, not just for this neighborhood, but for others. The fact that we are. Putting back sidewalks, even though it's a small space on Colorado Boulevard and that we have houses that will face Colorado Boulevard. I don't know if people know this, but Colorado Boulevard actually is a parkway that has setback requirements and all kinds of things like require detached sidewalks and tree lines. But as the years have gone by, the city has sort of let folks take back the right away and put fences, very high fences. I don't know how we're going to be able to fix that, too. So would you look into how we can fix it so that we can begin to have some sort of walkable street? I mean, when they say enhanced transit corridor, I need to ask you what's enhanced about it? Colorado Boulevard is our if you live it around where I live, we don't go there kind of like Quebec. You don't, you know, don't go there. You try and find other ways around. So really, I'm pleased with the way this has turned out and I urge all my council members to please vote yes on this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I. I actually chimed in. Too late for a question, because I. But I hope it didn't take the full 20 months to negotiate these terms, or it shows you how far off we were the last time it came for us. You know, I. I just the. The only thing I wanted to say is that these churches and hopefully Blueprint Denver goes there and hopefully count this council. I mean, I think we've done a good job thus far to sort of recognize and working with CPD that there are unique opportunities and sort of anomalies and wherever they sort of exist because they're usually under zoned for the scale of the, of the, of the structures that are there. But. But without rambling too much. This one is a situation where. You could, you know, the growth. Well, when we try to say the growth problems in Denver right now are in part due to sort of very generous zoning that we've done citywide and very generous base zoning. And part of the conversation with Blueprint Denver is to sort of say, okay, what do we how do we how do we support growth and change it, but do it in a sort of more thoughtful manner? And what sort of recommendations will come about from that that sort of take what we've done, which is a very good step in form based zoning and and and layer on to it other sorts of conditions and constraints and considerations as we go forward, when unfortunately for a long period of time we have done a lot of rezonings to that very base zoning that is of concern. And this represented one situation where it was it didn't comport with underlying plans on unit densities, which we don't address specifically, and conditions, physical conditions that need to be considered. And and yes, they can be considered in the development process, but they also it doesn't mean that every zoned district will by itself automatically address those considerations. And and it is important that we be able to recognize that in real time. I think all the things, Mr. McKinnon, that you brought up that are being addressed are important, crucial, fundamental pieces that we don't know what you're going to build. You have a lot of latitude even now. But it gets to the the the very important aspects that were missing that are important to address the full gamut of the criteria. And and so that's why I'm very comfortable moving forward, because you do address those things, not just because the community wants it, because I've got a lot of communities that want things and want considerations made in. But the zoning largely captures those things, but not every time and not in every situation. And and so thank you for for doing that. Thank you, CPD, for recognizing that we do have the tool and the mechanism where we can steer developers into that situation to address the uniqueness of a particular area. I know we love to have plan uniformity and in create you know just going map to condition mean districts that we already have but there are situations where there are plausible redevelopment schemes that aren't part of our base zoning that can be captured. But where our base zoning doesn't it doesn't necessarily capture all the conditions that need to be addressed. And that's where these ads and dpu ads and waivers and conditions really play an important role to sort of address those things to the degree they can. So I'm sorry it took so long to get here. Sorry that I rambled, but these are important things that I've articulated many times from this dais, particularly because I'm in an area that's largely been impacted by slot homes. And and that was you know, that wasn't a condition here. But there you know, it is important that we get back to this idea that, you know, communities and developers can collaborate and create really wonderful outcomes with just a little bit of conversation and capturing those ideas in a way that respect both ideas, because that's what we're trying to do when we're city building, is being mindful of what we've done and where we're going. And and there are a lot of solutions that there's a lot of capacity for compromise in there. And so thank you for structuring this enduring. And I'm looking forward to whatever comes about here. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no other comments. Thank you, guys. For everyone's hard work community coming together. I do remember 20 months ago it was a very tense conversation, but it's beautiful when this kind of outcome comes together. So thank you for all involved. Congratulations, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Sussman. Clark Espinosa. Flynn. AI Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. All right, new Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting results concerns.
Speaker 3: Making sure. 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right, 12 eyes. 94 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Um, Councilwoman Kinch, will you please put 129 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 30-50 South Colorado Boulevard in Hilltop.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 30-50 South Colorado Boulevard from E-SU-D to PUD G-17 (urban edge to planned unit development) in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-30-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03122018_18-0129
|
Speaker 0: All right, 12 eyes. 94 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Um, Councilwoman Kinch, will you please put 129 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Council President. I move that council bill 18 dash 0129 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second it a public hearing for 1 to 9 is open. We have the staff report council.
Speaker 6: Do I have my presentation?
Speaker 0: Counseling. Counseling?
Speaker 6: Sorry. I'm looking for Amanda. Where is she? There she is. Sorry, guys. We'll get started here in a second. Yeah. Load up.
Speaker 0: You want to do an intro for us?
Speaker 6: This is the slot home moratorium. The Council bill 129. Am I just there? Oh, sorry. I know what I'm supposed to do.
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 6: I was floundering. Okay, let me do this officially the.
Speaker 8: Way I see it.
Speaker 0: You don't have to do that. Council can do it that you can just. Yeah, you can go right into the bill.
Speaker 6: All right. I wanted to just go through the presentation. This is slightly abbreviated for some of you who have been part of Rudy committee. This is going to be a little bit redundant. So before I get started, I just want to acknowledge the importance of Councilman Wayne New, whose building form development is on your desk. Councilman, news efforts on the misuse of the garden court, much like what we were just talking about, resulted in the moratorium that we're about to consider coming forth, because his work and the collective actions of this Council have advanced the creation and work of the slot Home Task Force, which is a group of very capable individuals from all sort of walks of Denver that have tried to tackle the difficulty, difficult challenges that slot home to present. Anyway, the task force has made many recommendations that this Council will consider for adoption later this spring. But is the task force last recommendation that is before you tonight? That recommendation called for a faster end to the use of existing form standards used to create slot homes while a solution is advanced. The slot home moratorium is a means to an end in preparation for potential changes that the task force believes will greatly improve the detrimental aspects of side by side attached dwelling units. The purpose of the proposed bill is to place a moratorium on the approved the approval of site development plans, otherwise called steps for side by side attached dwelling unit projects. Formal SDP applications that are eligible for approval once the moratorium is active have until 4:30 p.m. on November 10th of 2018 to be approved using the existing zoning standards. The moratorium shall expire upon the adoption. Next slide, please. The moratorium shall expire upon the adoption of the slot Home Text Amendment or June 4th, 2018, whichever occurs earlier. As you know, slot homes are derivatives of many different building forms in Denver's form based zoning code. The forms that are used to create smart homes today include Row, House, Townhouse, Apartment General and Shop One Shopfront Building Form Standards. And fortunately, through a combination of previously adopted text amendments and the current garden court moratorium, the use of the duplex and garden court forms to achieve unintended developments have has already been ended. The proposed site Home Moratorium specifically addresses the remaining building form standards so you can go to the next slide. So highlighted in yellow are the remaining building form standards where projects characterize this lot of homes can be built. The building forms that the moratorium addresses specifically are the townhouse row house, apartment general and shopfront building forms. In part due to concerns expressed by this committee during its November or not. This Committee, the committee during its November slot, Home Task Force Braking Briefing. The task force in January reconsidered its implementation recommendations. The task force voted unanimously, unanimously to put forward the following recommendation. The task force chose to keep. And I apologize for the slide. Hopefully the task force chose to keep its prior recommendation that was presented at that ludi meeting for a November 10th approval deadline. Cognizant of the expressed desires to have both additional STP approval time and earlier in an earlier end to the creation of slot homes, the task force agreed to recommend a proposed earlier stop date to the acceptance of the steps at the time in mid-January. It was unclear how soon that could occur, but the intent was as soon as possible. Working with staff, we determined that the moratorium is the appropriate means to achieve the task force recommendation, and that is what's up for consideration tonight. So. So as of right now and as of the last week in January, early first week of February, CPD has and will review and provide comment based on the new on the proposed urban townhouse standards, which is going to be what's used going forward. If sorry. However, completed reviews will not be approved until the urban townhouse form is adopted, which is anticipated in May. The approach of allowing developers to begin reviewing under proposed standards is similar to what we had done for the for 38th in Blake when it was being proposed for the incentive and design overlays currently. So at some projects may be submitted right now and could have for the last month and a half using the new standards even though they're not able to be approved. So during this moratorium, the Slide Home Text Amendment will follow. The normal adoption sequence has shown in normal adoption sequence and schedule mean. Planned for a council hearing as soon as May 7th. It is that May 7th date that then establishes the the end of the. In the end date of November 10th of 2018. On when. Well, actually, you know that that establishes the end date of November 10th on when the approval process. I may have gotten that. Eligible projects mean. Sorry, I'm confused by my own language. The last day for. Uh.
Speaker 2: Scratch that.
Speaker 6: So. So I just. For those that are paying attention. I'm talking about two different things. So the slot home moratorium is effective as soon as it's executed upon to the council tonight and the slot home test text amendment which will result in that urban townhouse standard which you can submit and review under. Won't be available until council for actual approval. Until Council adopted in May.
Speaker 2: Things. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have no speakers signed up for this, so I'm going to go into questions. Members of council, um, and actually councilman new do you want to chime in here as a kind of co-sponsor on this?
Speaker 8: Yeah, it was, it was a very collaborative process, really appreciate and at least the leadership in committees leadership on this and the attorneys recommending the moratorium for us for this two month until the new criteria is developed and finished and approved. So we're we were real pleased. It was it was like Councilman Espinosa said, we had a well-rounded committee and we went through a lot of discussion and it was a very collaborative process. And so it was very interesting to hear all the different perspectives and and through the real deals and after we came up with some actual criteria. So I really appreciate all the work that we did and I think we've got something very good in there will be coming forward in the next cycle. Planning Board should have CRC and Planning Board and so it'll coming up to Louie again and then the approval process coming in May. So we're looking forward to it. I think you'll be pleased when you see the new criteria. Thank you. Mr..
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New members of Council. Question. And I'll just just start off off for the edification of folks who were not able to tune into the committee meeting and ask maybe and a Elise to come up to the podium real quick. And just Councilman, you just talked about the collaboration with CPD on on this effort. Obviously, this is an effort put forth, you know, by the councilman. Just want to make sure from Speedy's perspective, it was unanimous. I heard from my constituent, Maggie Miller, that it was unanimous to move this forward. But from Cbd's perspective, you all are supportive, etc..
Speaker 7: Yeah, and I spoke with Community Planning and Development, senior city planner leading this Home Tax Amendment and evaluation project. Historically, CBD has not taken a position on moratoriums, but we're willing to provide the technical support to ensure that the task force recommendation does move forward with support of the council members.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you're not opposing it?
Speaker 7: That is correct.
Speaker 0: All right. The other question is, you know, there's been a lot of question of who in the pipeline gets to get their project done. And so I know there are several individuals who are in the pipeline. So can you just explain that again? And I know Councilman talked about it just for a second, but if you can explain it, I'd be great.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So what this moratorium aims to do is to allow for projects that were submitted prior to the 14th of this month to continue under the existing regulations. That is what is currently adopted under the Denver zoning code, which does allow for a slight outcome. And those projects will have until November ten to complete and gain approval under those existing regulations. So in that pipeline, there's approximately 30, maybe a little bit more projects we can expect to see be approved in that pipeline project. And kind of that was an important compromise that I think we heard in Ludy as well as from the task force, is that we stopped this as soon as possible. But people who have already made significant investment and invested into the formal process, it was important that they were allowed to continue forward.
Speaker 0: Okay. So these 30 projects that are in that formal step will not be a part of the new design standards and guidelines that will be coming through planning board. When will it become into the planning?
Speaker 7: Yeah. So they'll be going to planning board on May 21st and then becoming the City Council for full consideration on May 7th. They absolutely have the opportunity to adhere to the new standards, but they are not required to do so.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. All right. Seeing no other questions by members of council. We're going to. No. Yep. We're going to close the public hearing 129 and go to comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa, you want to make a comment?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just wanted to explain. Was flustered and I had to look at my own bill to understand it. So I got when the task force made its recommendation in November, we ended up circling around November 10th. That was based on six months from a, you know, projected adoption date. And I, I got confused myself that, yes, it is, in fact, hardcoded in this moratorium that these existing SDP approved steps have to be done by November 10th, even if council doesn't adopt the if even if the urban townhouse text, it means thought home text amendment, urban townhouse form gets at all delayed. So it's a bit of a detailed nuance, but it is hardcoded in this moratorium that the existing city approved steps have until. Um, formal steps not approved. Sorry. I should have looked at Annalise.
Speaker 0: I think we got it.
Speaker 2: She explained it.
Speaker 0: Is that it, Councilman?
Speaker 6: Yeah. I shouldn't play CPD planner on TV. Thanks. Oh, actually, but I do want to comment. I just on Elise's has been you know, she actually wasn't the the leader of the task force at the time it started, but took it over quickly thereafter and has run with it and just done an incredible job leading that group to two solutions and compromises. And we'll talk more about that. You know, as the as the Urban Townhouse Forum comes to council, but even on this thing, this was this was, you know, the conversation that council had at LUDI was an interesting one. And it presented some challenges that she led that discussion and navigated it so well that the developer, a developer from the development side, is the one that actually proposed this idea that we're of this early in date and it won unanimous support in the end, which I don't think was an outcome that anyone would have necessarily predicted when we entered the room. So it's been great. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. Oh, Councilman. No, go.
Speaker 8: Ahead. One last thing. And it also we really emphasized to the developers with these 30 projects, if they could use the new criteria, we should really, really encourage them to do that is it's going to be an excellent improvement to that building form. And we just really want to just encourage them to use the new criteria. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yep. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, Rocco Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Flynn are Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman Canete. Lopez. All right. New Ortega assessment. Hi. Clark. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please the voting announce the results.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Proclamation 129 has passed. Congratulations, everyone.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance placing a moratorium on the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for developments using side-by-side dwelling units with certain building forms in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately two months.
Places a moratorium on certain site development plans. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.